Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
In page 347 of the 5e monster manual, there is a variant rule that although not meant for a player, the wording does allow for it to be used by a player due to a player character filling the stated requirement, the rule reads "Any spellcaster(such as an archmage or mage) is likely to have a familiar. The familiar can be one of the creatures described in the spell(see Player's Handbook) or some other Tiny monster, such as a crawling claw, imp, pseudodragon, or quasit".
A "spellcaster" is loosely defined(Honestly looking into the rule, it doesn't even specify that the spell has to be cast by a "spellcaster" but humor me for a bit), and I've seen such in "a creature casting or concentrating on a spell" by mage slayer, "a creature with the ability to cast a spell" by the dungeon master's guide(I think, I'd need to look into it more), a character with the spellcasting feature, and the spellcaster sidekick, so it gets a bit iffy there as to what a "spellcaster" is, however "some other tiny monster, such as ..." means any tiny monster with the remaining bit being examples, and a demilich as both tiny and a monster should classify as a valid selection for this rule.
Outside of warlocks(who may not classify as a spellcaster dependent on how you look at it) it can not attack(in the original version of this I stated that it couldn't cast spells, demiliches do not have spells, however other creatures do have spells that are tiny like a flameskull), but you could take 3 levels of warlock to get the ability to do so when playing as a spellcaster. If I am missing anything then please do notify me.
A note, I was correct about certain spells being an attack due to the 2014 phb stating "If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack", however demiliches are not spellcasters
It's a rule for monsters, in the monster book. It's not for players.
Even if it theoretically applied to players, as a variant rule, it exists at the DM's option, and they're not going to let you have a demilich.
Even if it weren't a variant rule, they're still not gonna let you have a demilich.
(Also, warlocks 100% count as spellcasters.)
Since the MM is intended to be used by DMs, and the "Variant: Familiars" rule is only explained for the Mage, I think it's not applicable to players, as you commented.
So I'd say your proposal is DM territory.
EDIT: ups... ninja'd by jl8e!
If players were supposed to have Flameskulls are Demilichs as familiars, the spell would summon any tiny monster, rather than the list. RAI beats questionable RAW here.
a common statement that i have been seeing is that "the rule is intended for monsters", however the rule simply states "when casting Find Familiar" and player characters are monsters per the definition of "monster", seen in the 2014 monster manual(page 4, describing a monster as "a creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed", players fill both criteria), and even if player characters aren't monsters, the rule states nothing about a "monster" casting the spell
fair, also i'd say the same about warlocks but it gets a bit iffy due to them having "pact magic" and not spellcasting
that's what the rule states, the rule is a modification of the spell
recap, the more important part of the rule states "The familiar can be one of the creatures described in the spell(see Player's Handbook) or some other tiny monster, such as a crawling claw, imp, pseudodragon, or a quasit"
this is a somewhat fair argument and i would say that unless the DM wants you to break the game, they likely wouldn't, but due to "such as" being appended to it, it's implying that it's an example of a spellcaster and not the only spellcaster who can do this. The reason why i say it's applicable for a player is that the rule covers casting find familiar as a whole and the rule does not describe it as being limited to npcs(similar to the oversized weapon rules that are likely for creatures like giants but do cover players using big weapons due to the usage of "monster" in the rule)
The definition of "monster" in the Rules Glossary explicitly says it's a creature controlled by the DM, thereby excluding player characters.
pronouns: he/she/they
you linked the 2024 glossary, not the 2014 glossary and this was intended to cover 2014, and an additional note, page 4 of the 2014 monster manual states "a monster is a creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed", of which a player character would classify
Monsters are explicitly called out as different from PCs (and NPCs!) in the 5.14 DMG in the section on proficiency dice.
And again (several times) for Initiative Variants.
In the Creating a Monster section of the DMG, there is no way to read any of that and come away with the idea that PCs are monsters as well. And it's an explicit difference in the Ability Scores and Modifiers step of that section.
Lastly, in the Spell Point Variant section of the DMG, after explaining how it would all work for PCs, it goes on to say that while it can be applied to monsters as well, you shouldn't bother because it's a hassle.
Conclusion: PCs are not monsters in either 5.14 or 5.24.
You might be confusing "monster" with "creature" which PCs certainly are.
monsters in the 2014 dmg are described as "creatures that can be interacted with and potentially fought or killed" and a pc fills all criteria, i think the reason why they make a divide between monsters and pcs for some variant rules and monster creation is due to the character sheet and monster statblock difference, and additionally, i'm pretty sure they have a rule that allows for an npc or monster to use a character sheet instead of a statblock but i may be wrong
That's not in the DMG that I could find. But I just checked the 5.14 MM and that's where that language is. However, if you read the entire thing...
...it is quite clear they are excluding the PCs from this definition.
Your cutting the section short when you quote it, ending the quote before it points mentions player characters, indicating that PCs are not monsters (and vice versa).
Also there's this:
Monsters have stat blocks, PCs have sheets.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
i did mean in the monster manual and not the dmg, also this does get kind of muddy past a certain point because they don't explicitly state that it's not for pcs but it's likely not intended for pcs, so at this point it's mostly just dm interpretation of what a "monster" is
i don't really have a counterargument to this besides "it doesn't explicitly state that pcs aren't monsters" but it does seem to be the intention to make the distinction
No, it doesn't explicitly state this, but everything supports it.
The definitive proof to me would be the section in the 2014 DMG titled Creating a Monster. The steps details don't remotely resemble the steps to make a PC nor are they at all compatible. Monsters clearly are different to player characters.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Additional note i found, there is an official post on the topic and the verdict from jeremy crawford is "it's intended for npcs but a dm can allow players can use them", RAI the answer is if your DM says so
No, that's stating the truism that the DM can change their rules. The quote literally says RAI it's for NPCs, everything after the "but" is an exception to the intent.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here