The question is about Pact of the Chain, what creature types are the familairs. Like are they fey, fiend, celestial or is the skeleton for example a undead?
Like i see both sides:
The Find Familiar spell says "instead of beast" and What was a Fey before isn't suddenly not a fey anymore
I would say it's an oversight and it should only be fey, fiend or celestial but RAW indeed is as you say so it would be an undead fey... RAI I would say is it is just a fey that resembles a skeleton.
Since when you cast Find Familiar with Pact of the Chain Invocation and choose one of the special form such as Skeleton it doesn't say the creature type is specifically different like when choosing the normal forms of beast, it should have the one indicated in the familiar’s stat block if Undead, Aberration etc...
It was also the case in 2014 PHB Pact of the Chain choosing Pseudodragon was remaining Dragon type.
They should've been more explicit about this but one way to resolve the inconsistency is ruling that the text "it is a Celestial, Fey, or Fiend (your choice) instead of a Beast" isn't applicable to the special forms that aren't Beasts (all of them except the Venomous Snake.)
To cover any possible exception, the spell should have said the familiar is Celestial, Fey, or Fiend (your choice) instead of the creature type written in the statblock and have any feature simply granting additional creatures to choose from.
The way I understand the rules, Pact of the Chain adds more options, but the creature types still need to be Fey, Celestial, or Fiend.
So, you'd have a Fiend in the form of a Skeleton, for example.
I'm also ruling this way with the 2014 Pact of the Chain, but it's true in that version only the pseudodragon is the anomaly, as @Plaguescarred pointed out.
Frankly it makes the most sense for Chain options to maintain their native type- the point of the options in the core spell is to help establish that what you've got is a magical spirit of some sort, not just an animal. Given that Chain options are already fantastic, there's no need for that part here. Plus, in the UA when they tried to make the Pact a separate thing, the idea was you'd choose from a bunch of different creature types that would have a minor effect on the Familiar, so I think we can infer the RAI is that stuff like Undead and Aberration are supposed to be there for the appropriate Pact Familiar.
Frankly it makes the most sense for Chain options to maintain their native type- the point of the options in the core spell is to help establish that what you've got is a magical spirit of some sort, not just an animal. Given that Chain options are already fantastic, there's no need for that part here. Plus, in the UA when they tried to make the Pact a separate thing, the idea was you'd choose from a bunch of different creature types that would have a minor effect on the Familiar, so I think we can infer the RAI is that stuff like Undead and Aberration are supposed to be there for the appropriate Pact Familiar.
They should've been more explicit about this but one way to resolve the inconsistency is ruling that the text "it is a Celestial, Fey, or Fiend (your choice) instead of a Beast" isn't applicable to the special forms that aren't Beasts (all of them except the Venomous Snake.)
Frankly it makes the most sense for Chain options to maintain their native type- the point of the options in the core spell is to help establish that what you've got is a magical spirit of some sort, not just an animal. Given that Chain options are already fantastic, there's no need for that part here. Plus, in the UA when they tried to make the Pact a separate thing, the idea was you'd choose from a bunch of different creature types that would have a minor effect on the Familiar, so I think we can infer the RAI is that stuff like Undead and Aberration are supposed to be there for the appropriate Pact Familiar.
I agree with these posts. I think the phrasing “instead of a Beast” was an intentional decision on their part. I have previously said of 5e14 that despite the myriad instances of ambiguity in the rules, and despite its being written in plain language as opposed to technical language, it was still the tightest edition of D&D I had ever read in terms of rules verbiage. The degree of specificity they managed to include impressed me, especially since they did eschew technical writing in favor of plain language. One noteworthy example is that they actual made the conscious decision to adhere to using the phrase “you can” when referring to what a character is capable of doing, and the phrase “you may” when granting players permission to do something. (Which is why I find it so irksome when homebrewers and partnered content creators don’t adhere to that same convention.) That being said, 5e24 is even tighter verbally with regards to the written rules. I believe they intentionally wrote find familiar to specifically replace only Beasts but not any other creature type with a Celestial, Fey, or Fiend. I think they did so intentionally keeping Pact of the Chain in mind so that it wouldn’t affect the aberration, dragon, or undead options that chainpact warlocks gain access to.
Yeah, I think the wording of the old find familiar created an unintended consequence with pact of the chain in 5e14 that this version prevents, as Sposta said. I think the designers do not intend for a skeleton to be any creature type other than undead, so they changed this wording.
I think the wording could have been much clearer if the intention is that the type is only changed if it is a beast.
Such as. If the familiar is a beast it instead becomes celestial, fey or fiend (your choice) when summoned.
It'd also make Abyssal Chicken and Tressym far easier to understand how they fit into Find Familiar, given their descriptions say they can be swapped with Raven and Cat for the spell (given DM's permission).
The question is about Pact of the Chain, what creature types are the familairs. Like are they fey, fiend, celestial or is the skeleton for example a undead?
Like i see both sides:
The Find Familiar spell says "instead of beast"
and
What was a Fey before isn't suddenly not a fey anymore
I would say it's an oversight and it should only be fey, fiend or celestial but RAW indeed is as you say so it would be an undead fey... RAI I would say is it is just a fey that resembles a skeleton.
Since when you cast Find Familiar with Pact of the Chain Invocation and choose one of the special form such as Skeleton it doesn't say the creature type is specifically different like when choosing the normal forms of beast, it should have the one indicated in the familiar’s stat block if Undead, Aberration etc...
It was also the case in 2014 PHB Pact of the Chain choosing Pseudodragon was remaining Dragon type.
They should've been more explicit about this but one way to resolve the inconsistency is ruling that the text "it is a Celestial, Fey, or Fiend (your choice) instead of a Beast" isn't applicable to the special forms that aren't Beasts (all of them except the Venomous Snake.)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To cover any possible exception, the spell should have said the familiar is Celestial, Fey, or Fiend (your choice) instead of the creature type written in the statblock and have any feature simply granting additional creatures to choose from.
The way I understand the rules, Pact of the Chain adds more options, but the creature types still need to be Fey, Celestial, or Fiend.
So, you'd have a Fiend in the form of a Skeleton, for example.
I'm also ruling this way with the 2014 Pact of the Chain, but it's true in that version only the pseudodragon is the anomaly, as @Plaguescarred pointed out.
Frankly it makes the most sense for Chain options to maintain their native type- the point of the options in the core spell is to help establish that what you've got is a magical spirit of some sort, not just an animal. Given that Chain options are already fantastic, there's no need for that part here. Plus, in the UA when they tried to make the Pact a separate thing, the idea was you'd choose from a bunch of different creature types that would have a minor effect on the Familiar, so I think we can infer the RAI is that stuff like Undead and Aberration are supposed to be there for the appropriate Pact Familiar.
For those interested, while not official ruling, the Devs have discussed this subject at least once https://www.sageadvice.eu/the-warlock-familiar-has-all-monster-manual-stats/
@xantolorpg the Warlock familiar has all MM stats? (Imp/Quasit CR 1 Pseudodragon/Sprite CR 1/4) They attack with poison and all?
@JeremyECrawford Yes, the creatures listed in the warlock's Pact of the Chain feature have the stats in their stat blocks.
That sounds outstandingly reasonable.
I agree with these posts. I think the phrasing “instead of a Beast” was an intentional decision on their part. I have previously said of 5e14 that despite the myriad instances of ambiguity in the rules, and despite its being written in plain language as opposed to technical language, it was still the tightest edition of D&D I had ever read in terms of rules verbiage. The degree of specificity they managed to include impressed me, especially since they did eschew technical writing in favor of plain language. One noteworthy example is that they actual made the conscious decision to adhere to using the phrase “you can” when referring to what a character is capable of doing, and the phrase “you may” when granting players permission to do something. (Which is why I find it so irksome when homebrewers and partnered content creators don’t adhere to that same convention.) That being said, 5e24 is even tighter verbally with regards to the written rules. I believe they intentionally wrote find familiar to specifically replace only Beasts but not any other creature type with a Celestial, Fey, or Fiend. I think they did so intentionally keeping Pact of the Chain in mind so that it wouldn’t affect the aberration, dragon, or undead options that chainpact warlocks gain access to.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, I think the wording of the old find familiar created an unintended consequence with pact of the chain in 5e14 that this version prevents, as Sposta said. I think the designers do not intend for a skeleton to be any creature type other than undead, so they changed this wording.
I think the wording could have been much clearer if the intention is that the type is only changed if it is a beast.
Such as. If the familiar is a beast it instead becomes celestial, fey or fiend (your choice) when summoned.
It'd also make Abyssal Chicken and Tressym far easier to understand how they fit into Find Familiar, given their descriptions say they can be swapped with Raven and Cat for the spell (given DM's permission).