Question, as I cannot seem to find a clear answer.
I have a new campaign starting up, and it is on the open sea. I have a player who has been dying to play a Kobold for a while, and wants to go Warlock. He is being good, and asking before assuming, but I want to get a clear answer. If a Kobold Chain Warlock, uses his familiar to cast the spell, do you consider light sensitivity in this particular case? There is really nothing clearly RAW, but more interpretation.
Some argue online that the pet is technically directing the spell from itself, so it's sight makes sense, especially if cast away from the Warlock. However some say the spell relies on your seeing the target to allow the familiar to use the spell against the seen target.
I really want him to be able to play what he wants, and this campaign will not be forgiving to light sensitivity, and Pack Tactics may not always happen on ship to ship combat.
I took quick glance through the list of warlock spells with "the range of touch" and didnt find one that requires you to see the target, so they wouldn’t be affected by sunlight sensitivity anyway. I would however rule that this particular Kobold doesn’t have sunlight sensitivity, and maybe take away dark vision if you feel like you need to balance it out, unless the player is intruiged with the idea of playing with the handicap.
I took quick glance through the list of warlock spells with "the range of touch" and didnt find one that requires you to see the target, so they wouldn’t be affected by sunlight sensitivity anyway. I would however rule that this particular Kobold doesn’t have sunlight sensitivity, and maybe take away dark vision if you feel like you need to balance it out, unless the player is intruiged with the idea of playing with the handicap.
Question, as I cannot seem to find a clear answer.
I have a new campaign starting up, and it is on the open sea. I have a player who has been dying to play a Kobold for a while, and wants to go Warlock. He is being good, and asking before assuming, but I want to get a clear answer. If a Kobold Chain Warlock, uses his familiar to cast the spell, do you consider light sensitivity in this particular case? There is really nothing clearly RAW, but more interpretation.
Some argue online that the pet is technically directing the spell from itself, so it's sight makes sense, especially if cast away from the Warlock. However some say the spell relies on your seeing the target to allow the familiar to use the spell against the seen target.
I really want him to be able to play what he wants, and this campaign will not be forgiving to light sensitivity, and Pack Tactics may not always happen on ship to ship combat.
Thoughts?
The Familiar touch spells does not require the Kobolds sight. "Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll." Even if the spell requires the casters sight its the Familiars sight not the Kobolds.
Since warlocks can get devil's sight. You could even rule that at level 2 the kobold went blind due to over exposure to sunlight but the patron grants them devil's sight to see again. Though they can still be affected by blinding effects it a matter of magic effecting magic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Question, as I cannot seem to find a clear answer.
I have a new campaign starting up, and it is on the open sea. I have a player who has been dying to play a Kobold for a while, and wants to go Warlock. He is being good, and asking before assuming, but I want to get a clear answer. If a Kobold Chain Warlock, uses his familiar to cast the spell, do you consider light sensitivity in this particular case? There is really nothing clearly RAW, but more interpretation.
Some argue online that the pet is technically directing the spell from itself, so it's sight makes sense, especially if cast away from the Warlock. However some say the spell relies on your seeing the target to allow the familiar to use the spell against the seen target.
I really want him to be able to play what he wants, and this campaign will not be forgiving to light sensitivity, and Pack Tactics may not always happen on ship to ship combat.
Thoughts?
I took quick glance through the list of warlock spells with "the range of touch" and didnt find one that requires you to see the target, so they wouldn’t be affected by sunlight sensitivity anyway. I would however rule that this particular Kobold doesn’t have sunlight sensitivity, and maybe take away dark vision if you feel like you need to balance it out, unless the player is intruiged with the idea of playing with the handicap.
The Familiar touch spells does not require the Kobolds sight. "Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll." Even if the spell requires the casters sight its the Familiars sight not the Kobolds.
Since warlocks can get devil's sight. You could even rule that at level 2 the kobold went blind due to over exposure to sunlight but the patron grants them devil's sight to see again. Though they can still be affected by blinding effects it a matter of magic effecting magic.
The lack of inflection in text means that a reader of any post adds their own inflection as they "verbalize" it in their head. I write long and repetitive in an effort to be clear and avoid my intent from being skewed or inverted. I am also bad at examples. It is common for people to skim my posts pull out the idea they think I mean or want to argue against or focus on my bad example instead of the point I am actually trying to make. I apologies for the confusion my failure to be clear and concise creates.