Warlock Familiars...Which is best?

[badintel]

So in the PHB with Pact of Chain you get a choice of Imp, Pixie, or Quasit. But several folks have touted the use of Pact of Tome to obtain the Find Familiar spell. Regardless of which Pact you take, what would be the best familiar to get and why? :smile:

[Yorrin]

All are good options, but my vote goes to Imp because he has the most immunities and the best alternate forms in addition to invisibility. His sting is also the best attack, for what that's worth.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

They're all utility creatures, so don't think they're going to be able to jump into combat like a Ranger's companion. However, their out of combat utility is great, and they can deliver touch spells if within 100 feet of you.

Imp: Ignores magical darkness, which is really useful if you're using darkness and don't want to bother with the Devil Sight invocation. Sting/bite is lethal to level 1 commoners. Can turn invisible on its own which makes it a great spy, and it can take an animal form to pretend it's a normal familiar.

Pseudodragon: Sleep sting which can also inflict the poisoned debuff. Has advantage on Perception which makes it an alert spy. Has telepathy which allows it to telepathically relay messages covertly to your allies.

Quasit: Claws inflict the poisoned debuff. Has a nonlethal fear ability that can make a level 1 commoner flee. Can turn invisible on its own which makes it a great spy, and it can take an animal form to pretend it's a normal familiar.

Sprite: Has a ranged sleep arrow which can also inflict the poisoned debuff. Can read a creature's alignment and certain creature types, which is very useful if you're a social character. Can turn invisible on its own which makes it a great spy.

So there's really only a few major points which you should consider, and you should pick which ones are most important to you to make the decision:

Do you want your familiar to be able to kill low-level NPCs in a single hit?
Do you want your familiar to be able to nonlethally disable low-level NPCs?
Do you want your familiar to be able to turn invisible?
Do you want your familiar to be able to inflict the poisoned debuff?

[DireSickFish]

I'd avoid the Quasit because they can not fly in this edition. Also getting the variant where your familiar gives you Advantage Verses Spells makes pact of the chain very very useful.

[MustacheFart]

Also worth mentioning, if you're intending to do some multi-classing and possibly go into melee (or even ranged sneak attack), the Imp, Quasit, or Pixie make for a great advantage granter. They can be within 5' of the enemy, sit there invisible, and provide you with advantage or sneak attack. They don't have to be visible to do that.

[badintel]

Imp: Ignores magical darkness, which is really useful if you're using darkness and don't want to bother with the Devil Sight invocation.

If you do want to utilize Devil's Sight, you could cast Darkness on the Imp and have it hover at 10-15 feet (out of melee range from most ground attackers) and then enter the darkness sphere and attack with your opponent only able to guess at where you are and unable to hit the source of the darkness and dispel it.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

If you do want to utilize Devil's Sight, you could cast Darkness on the Imp and have it hover at 10-15 feet (out of melee range from most ground attackers) and then enter the darkness sphere and attack with your opponent only able to guess at where you are and unable to hit the source of the darkness and dispel it.

Works better with Blade Pact Warlock. In that case, just cast it on yourself or your helmet or weapon. For added fun, power attack with Great Weapon Master.

[badintel]

Very true,

I think warlock and rogue mutliclass well together, perhaps this is one of those instances where their individual abilities synergize nicely.

[Shadow]

Also worth mentioning, if you're intending to do some multi-classing and possibly go into melee (or even ranged sneak attack), the Imp, Quasit, or Pixie make for a great advantage granter. They can be within 5' of the enemy, sit there invisible, and provide you with advantage or sneak attack. They don't have to be visible to do that.

By RAW this works, but by common sense it does not.
The intention and reason behind SAs when an ally is within 5' is the fact that your target is actively enganged in trying to defend against more than one attacker, which allows your sneak attack. If the familiar is invisible, that goes out the window.

[badintel]

By RAW this works, but by common sense it does not.
The intention and reason behind SAs when an ally is within 5' is the fact that your target is actively enganged in trying to defend against more than one attacker, which allows your sneak attack. If the familiar is invisible, that goes out the window.

What we've worked out is that the invisible ally/familiar/whatever is doing more than just hovering there, it is whispering nasties in his ear, flying around his head and generally harassing him which makes him divert some of his attention, thus allowing for the sneak attack.

[Shining Wrath]

What we've worked out is that the invisible ally/familiar/whatever is doing more than just hovering there, it is whispering nasties in his ear, flying around his head and generally harassing him which makes him divert some of his attention, thus allowing for the sneak attack.

Effectively, a very large mosquito is buzzing around his head. He can't see it but it's sure distracting.

[MustacheFart]

By RAW this works, but by common sense it does not.
The intention and reason behind SAs when an ally is within 5' is the fact that your target is actively enganged in trying to defend against more than one attacker, which allows your sneak attack. If the familiar is invisible, that goes out the window.

Good thing I don't play by your common sense.

As others have said, the familiar doesn't have to actively attack to distract a foe. It could also be described as the familiar relaying back to you the enemy's weak points.

Considering how easy a rogue can get sneak attack anyway, I hardly think it's game breaking or anything a DM would throw a fit over (except for you).

[Sartharina]

If the familiar's not taking hostile action against the target, it's not an Enemy and thus doesn't trigger Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack requires the target's enemy, not Your Ally.

That said - I'd go for Sprite or Pseudodragon. Imp and Quasit get you lynched in civilized places.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

That said - I'd go for Sprite or Pseudodragon. Imp and Quasit get you lynched in civilized places.

That's why they can shapeshift into innocuous animal forms, nothing more suspicious than a normal familiar.


Effectively, a very large mosquito is buzzing around his head. He can't see it but it's sure distracting.

As a GM, I would allow a smart opponent to turn their back on anyone, PC or familiar, to deny rogue sneak attack bonuses. Of course, doing so grants the character you're ignoring advantage on their attack rolls, which means the rogue is still being extremely useful in combat in most cases. Turn your back on a fighter or barbarian and then next six seconds are going to be extremely painful. Turn your back on a familiar and you're going to get a touch-range cantrip delivered in short order.

[edge2054]

By RAW this works, but by common sense it does not.
The intention and reason behind SAs when an ally is within 5' is the fact that your target is actively enganged in trying to defend against more than one attacker, which allows your sneak attack. If the familiar is invisible, that goes out the window.

I can't remember if it was this forum or the wotc forum but someone pointed out that by RAW you could have a mouse familiar chilling in your pocket Helping you as it's within 5' of the target.

Anyway OP, the Warlock Familiars all look fairly close to me. I would pick one that fits well with your Patron. Sprite or Pseudodragon for Archfey. Imp or Quasit for The Fiend. No idea for GOO.

[MustacheFart]

If the familiar's not taking hostile action against the target, it's not an Enemy and thus doesn't trigger Sneak Attack. Sneak Attack requires the target's enemy, not Your Ally.

That's RAI once again and not RAW.

Find me one thing in the rules that says to constitute being an enemy you must take action. The fact is being considered an enemy doesn't require you to take action. This isn't an MMO. If you've got someone chained up that you're torturing and you decide to let them off the chain for a bit and they do nothing out of fear for you, that doesn't mean they're not still your enemy.

Could a DM rule in against it...sure. I definitely would in the case of the mouse familiar in your pocket. The imp familiar hidden in the thick of combat is a little different. He's taking risk regardless of whether or not he's visible.

People seem to like to concoct justification to transform their RAI opinion into RAW but it just doesn't work that way.

[Shadow]

Considering how easy a rogue can get sneak attack anyway, I hardly think it's game breaking or anything a DM would throw a fit over (except for you).

I'm not throwing a fit about it at all. I'm simply voicing what could possibly be a DM's interpretation and ruling.
An invisible creature that does nothing except sit there and whisper in the midst of combat where a whisper probably wouldn't even be heard, or relaying back to you things that you can see for yourself, wouldn't be very distracting at all.


People seem to like to concoct justification to transform their RAI opinion into RAW but it just doesn't work that way.

But the DM might very well think it works that way, so when you make blanket statements that "this thing works" it may not actually be true, and you should make a note of that when explaining the idea.

[Sartharina]

That's RAI once again and not RAW.
Nobody gives a damn about RAW. RAI is all that matters.

[Shadow]

Nobody gives a damn about RAW. RAI is all that matters.

I've been tryng to explain this to people since day one, but they just aren't getting it.
With the abundance of calls going to DM rulings, the RAI is much more impoortant in 5e, and the RAW are more guidelinies. People need to remember that or they very well may be in for a huge disappointment when the DM shoots something down a few levels later.

[WickerNipple]

Nobody gives a damn about RAW. RAI is all that matters.


I've been tryng to explain this to people since day one, but they just aren't getting it.

Possibly because they give a damn about it?

[Sartharina]

Possibly because they give a damn about it?

But aren't playing the game, as far as I've seen.

[WickerNipple]

But aren't playing the game, as far as I've seen.

Well then hi. I've played the game, and I care about RAW.

[Cambrian]

By RAW this works, but by common sense it does not.
The intention and reason behind SAs when an ally is within 5' is the fact that your target is actively enganged in trying to defend against more than one attacker, which allows your sneak attack. If the familiar is invisible, that goes out the window.I agree that an invisible imp that isn't actively making themselves useful should not grant advantage. But if it was taking steps towards distracting the enemy I could see it working.

I'd rule if the Imp doesn't want to break invisibility it should make an opposed deception check against the insight of the creature. Failure grants the Warlock advantage. This would not be possible if the creature was suitably mindless or unconcerned.

Of course outside of that the Darkness/Witchsight would work, as would a non-invisible Imp looking to threaten a creature.

RAI is all that matters.Very much agree. The game is meant to be rules for co-op story telling. If the rules allow deviation from the intention a DM is free to allow it or deny it.

If it can be made sensible, and isn't disruptive of balance, I allow it. If it is disruptive to balance, or can't be made sensible then I don't. If that's unfair then you're not a good fit for my style of game, no hard feelings.


Well then hi. I've played the game, and I care about RAW.Given what was said about 5e I'm not sure that an expectation of perfect RAW is reasonable.

It's absolutely fine for that to be your preference, but I doubt that 5e will become a game designed to your expectations.

[badintel]

I agree that an invisible imp that isn't actively making themselves useful should not grant advantage.

I agree that an invisible imp should not grant advantage on the attack, but that's not quite along the lines of what myself and Shining Wrath were talking about. We were more discussing the ability of the invisible imp to give the rogue enough distraction that they can conduct a sneak attack.

[Cambrian]

I agree that an invisible imp should not grant advantage on the attack, but that's not quite along the lines of what myself and Shining Wrath were talking about. We were more discussing the ability of the invisible imp to give the rogue enough distraction that they can conduct a sneak attack.I get that, and thats why I proposed a simple check for the effect. There are no rules to enable a creature not in combat to allow a rogue to sneak attack, this is a reasonable extention of it. The creature gets a chance to avoid the SA this way. If it just worked when an invisible creature attempted to distract an opponent then it would be as effective as actually attacking. That doesn't sit right with me. The creature should have to be a successful distraction, hence the check.

[squashmaster]

Sprite if you're going Archfey, Imp otherwise.

[badintel]

The creature should have to be a successful distraction, hence the check.

I can get behind that, makes sense.

[Shining Wrath]

OK, imagine somehow someone has gotten himself a Mind Flayer as a familiar.

And it's just standing there, not participating in the battle, just standing next to you waving its tentacles gently in your direction.

Are you distracted enough to grant Sneak Attack? By Cthulhu, I say you are.

So: the familiar does NOT have to actually make an attack to serve as a distraction. It just has to make the enemy wonder if it is capable of doing so.

[Daehron]

For all the discussion about using a familiar in combat - poison stinger attack, using a Help action, etc. I submit the following:

Owl.

Darkvision 120ft. Sight perception bonus. Flying (60ft). Cool looking, yet innocuous. And Flyby - no AoO when leaving an enemies reach.

If I were to rely on a familiar for tactical advantage, I'd choose the owl.
Poison is nice, but hardly worth doting over.
Magic resistance is nice - but familiar drops to AOE's. One flaming flask of oil and bye bye familiar.


Owl can fly up to 30ft away and still be useful.
Fly into combat (60ft of movement avail)
either deliver a touch attack spell / cantrip, or Help the rogue gain advantage
Fly out of combat / range without provoking attack of opportunity.


If I were to choose a familiar as an extension of my character's persona, I'd choose pseudodragon. Imp, if I were evil. Sprite if I were elven and / or a feylock. Purely for flavor. Familiars are mostly for flavor, <10 hp means the are fragile tools at best. I struggle to see the desirability of the Pact of Chain, aside from providing a familiar to a class that could not have one otherwise. <edit made it readable>

[Theodoxus]

Can Familiars use the Help action? I'm AFB, so can't check. If so, invisible or not, makes the topic moot. If not, I like the Deception v. Insight check.

[badintel]

Can Familiars use the Help action?

I'm not sure about this.

I'm also away from book, but I seem to remember there being a bit of verbiage that discussed the warlock giving up his attack for his familiar to do so. What I don't remember is if the specific verbiage states the warlock must give up his ATTACK to allow his familiar to ATTACK or if the verbiage states that the warlock must give up his ACTION to allow his familiar to take an ACTION...depending on which it is, the owl (if allowed to help) would be ideal.

[Daehron]

Can Familiars use the Help action? I'm AFB, so can't check. If so, invisible or not, makes the topic moot. If not, I like the Deception v. Insight check.

From the Find Familiar spell, p240

"Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always obeys your commands. in combat, it rolls its own initiative, and acts on its own turn. A familiar can't attack, but it can take other actions as normal."

Reads to me that they can indeed use the Help action.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

I'm not sure about this.

I'm also away from book, but I seem to remember there being a bit of verbiage that discussed the warlock giving up his attack for his familiar to do so. What I don't remember is if the specific verbiage states the warlock must give up his ATTACK to allow his familiar to ATTACK or if the verbiage states that the warlock must give up his ACTION to allow his familiar to take an ACTION...depending on which it is, the owl (if allowed to help) would be ideal.

Relevant bits:

Find familiar: "Your familiar acts independently of you, but it always
obeys your commands. In combat, it rolls its own
initiative and acts on its own turn. A familiar can’t
attack, but it can take other actions as normal."

Pact of Chain Warlock: "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can
forgo one o f your own attacks to allow your familiar to
make one attack of its own."

As an aside, is it considered kosher for me to directly quote small passages of the PHB or other copyrighted sources? I don't want to get in trouble with the powers that be.

Edit: Ninja'd!

[MustacheFart]

Nobody gives a damn about RAW. RAI is all that matters.

I'm sigging this. Not because I agree with it but because well...that's obvious.


As for those caring about RAW not actually playing 5th ed you couldn't be more wrong. Hello again! I'm someone who cares about RAW and I am actively playing 5th ed.

The fact is, you can't simply toss aside RAW or RAI. To claim such is just ridiculous and not beneficial to anyone. RAW is the basis or mortar for which the rules, guidelines, etc are built so that DMs can then make their own interpretation (ie. their perception on RAI). I mean what is RAI? It's a completely subjective determination of the intent of something based on perceptions of surrounding data in accordance with how that something is written (RAW). At the very least, RAW is the basis from which people argue the intent (RAI).

You couldn't really have RAI without RAW. If you attempted such you would have a ruleset with pretty much no rules, completely open to interpretation and abuse.

For someone who claims nobody gives a damn about RAW, Sartharina sure has acted very contradictory to that sentiment. I've witnessed posts made reciting the "rules" of certain spells or containing other corrections bases on the rules as in the books. I hate to break this to you but any time you speak about something that breaks a spell, requires this or that, etc. etc. you are speaking of RAW. To say that RAW doesn't matter is just ignorant of an obvious fact that it does matter.

Lastly, it is equally fair to say that you may likely encounter a DM who operates more "by the book" off of RAW more than RAI, just as you can say the opposite, which several people seemed to have reiterated in this thread. In fact, given how new this system is, I would argue that more DMs will be likely follow RAW in most cases until they've become more familiar with the system, it's strengths and weaknesses, and its quirks, fallacies, and holes.


Back on topic. As to being able to thoroughly distract an enemy while stealthed I present this possible scenario. Perhaps your imp is trying to pick the pocket of an enemy. Perhaps he's trying to grab that gold pouch. By the definition of the invisibility spell, only casting a spell or making an attack drops the invisibility. So he is free to try and loot the enemy. Now, if you felt someone trying to steal your wallet...trying to take that hard-earned gold you've spilled blood to get, wouldn't you turn around? Wouldn't you be destracted?

The imp doesn't even need to succeed on the roll for sleight of hand. In fact, he can auto-fail it. To auto-fail such means the person is aware of what you're doing, which is exactly what you want. It doesn't have to be all about whispers. It could be taking his coin purse, unbuckling a strap on his armor, tying his shoes together, etc. etc.

As I've said before, it's hardly a game breaker. Rogues have so many ways to get sneak attack now and even advantage isn't hard to come by. Given the typical party make up (4 players) and standard encounters you've already got people giving each other advantage. In actual play I couldn't see this breaking an encounter or being too powerful except maybe in cases of ambushes but even then...they're ambushes which inherently are meant to be really strong surprise attacks in which a familiar is hardly needed in most cases.

[bblackmoor]

Yes, familiars can use the Help action. So my question to the player whose familiar is invisible and completely unknown to the target is, "How is your familiar helping you attack?"

If the player gives a plausible answer, then sure: the familiar is, in fact, helping. If not, not.

Hint: whispering encouragement safely from the attacker's pocket is not good enough. Not for me, anyway.

[Arcangel4774]

It depends heavily if your dm allows for the quasit and pseudodragon to grant magic resistance to the owner as their variants in the monster manual suggest.

[Potato_Priest]

Can Familiars use the Help action? I'm AFB, so can't check. If so, invisible or not, makes the topic moot. If not, I like the Deception v. Insight check.

They can take the help action.

Edit: Got Ninja'd.

There are many ways that an invisible familiar could distract an enemy plausibly. There are few ways in which a mouse in your trouser pocket could do so. (the ways that do exist tend to be highly amusing however)

Now, I am going to bring up another controversial question: Could you have an imp cling onto your head while you use its senses, thereby allowing the player to benefit from its dark vision while not being blinded?

[KorvinStarmast]

It depends heavily if your dm allows for the quasit and pseudodragon to grant magic resistance to the owner as their variants in the monster manual suggest.
This explains the distinctions pretty well. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/101243/22566)
They way I've seen it ruled is that the MM variant familiar is an NPC run by the DM, but by exception. It's a monster that for (reasons) serves the Warlock/Wizard (etc) but who was not actually summoned by the spell. For most mundane tasks, have the player call out what he wants the familiar to do. In certain sticky or exceptional situations the DM may now and again provide a little NPC push back "dude, you have no idea how bad this idea is, that giant lizard I see is a freakin' green dragon, no, I am not getting any closer! "


The ones summoned by the spell are, by default, "a spirit in the form of x."

[Temperjoke]

This was thread necromancy that brought this back from 2 years ago.


But, maybe with the additions of the various campaigns and Volo's Guide, it's worth taking another look at. After all, options have expanded to include things like cranium rats and tressym as familiar options.

[Millstone85]

This was thread necromancy that brought this back from 2 years ago.Yeah, that was some high level necromancy.


But, maybe with the additions of the various campaigns and Volo's Guide, it's worth taking another look at. After all, options have expanded to include things like cranium rats and tressym as familiar options.Pact of the Chain remains limited to the form of an imp, pseudodragon, quasit or sprite. NPCs have all the fun.

But I hope Xanathar's Guide will change that.

[Temperjoke]

Yeah, that was some high level necromancy.

Pact of the Chain remains limited to the form of an imp, pseudodragon, quasit or sprite. NPCs have all the fun.

But I hope Xanathar's Guide will change that.

See, I read it as Pact of the Chain offers the imp, pseudodragon, quasit or sprite in addition to the regular options of the Find Familiar spell. Volo's mentions a variant for Find Familiar which lists more options like cranium rats, but I guess that does imply more for NPCs rather than players. Tressym which are introduced in Storm King's Thunder, on the other hand, have a paragraph that says "With the DM's permission, a person who casts the find familiar spell can choose to conjure a tressym instead of a normal cat" (STK pg. 243). Which is just about the same limitation on any other creature option for Find Familiar, when you get down to it.

Tressym have detect invisibility as an ability, can detect poison via smell, taste, or touch (so you're safe as long as the enemy hasn't built up an immunity to iocaine powder and poisoned both goblets), and has advantage on Wisdom checks based on smell.

[Arcangel4774]

This explains the distinctions pretty well. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/101243/22566)
They way I've seen it ruled is that the MM variant familiar is an NPC run by the DM, but by exception. It's a monster that for (reasons) serves the Warlock/Wizard (etc) but who was not actually summoned by the spell. For most mundane tasks, have the player call out what he wants the familiar to do. In certain sticky or exceptional situations the DM may now and again provide a little NPC push back "dude, you have no idea how bad this idea is, that giant lizard I see is a freakin' green dragon, no, I am not getting any closer! "


The ones summoned by the spell are, by default, "a spirit in the form of x."

That's how I see it too, but again that's why it's dm dependent.

[Millstone85]

See, I read it as Pact of the Chain offers the imp, pseudodragon, quasit or sprite in addition to the regular options of the Find Familiar spell.It does. That was just me not bothering with "in addition to blah blah blah", although I should have.


Volo's mentions a variant for Find Familiar which lists more options like cranium rats, but I guess that does imply more for NPCs rather than players.That rule is in the MM too, page 347. Any monster of Tiny size can be made into Find Familiar material.

But care should be taken in applying that rule to PCs, because it is a big buff to Find Familiar and consequently a big nerf to Pact of the Chain. A tomelock could have an imp familiar, as could a wizard.


Tressym which are introduced in Storm King's Thunder, on the other hand, have a paragraph that says "With the DM's permission, a person who casts the find familiar spell can choose to conjure a tressym instead of a normal cat" (STK pg. 243).I didn't know that. Interesting.

[Temperjoke]

It does. That was just me not bothering with "in addition to blah blah blah", although I should have.

That rule is in the MM too, page 347. Any monster of Tiny size can be made into Find Familiar material.

But care should be taken in applying that rule to PCs, because it is a big buff to Find Familiar and consequently a big nerf to Pact of the Chain. A tomelock could have an imp familiar, as could a wizard.

I didn't know that. Interesting.

Well, it is and it isn't a nerf to Pact of the Chain, since selecting Pact of the Chain offers invocation choices that regular Find Familiar spellcasters don't have available to them.

[Belac, LoTH]

Can Familiars use the Help action? I'm AFB, so can't check. If so, invisible or not, makes the topic moot. If not, I like the Deception v. Insight check.

Thank you! Just looking through this, I was waiting to see if this would pop up before I posted.

Yes, A familiar can take the help action. therefore, the entire argument is moot. that even ties into earlier comments about a familiar pointing out weaknesses, meaning a RAI or Flavor obsessive DM has an explanation of "How" the Familiar helps me. (I have a DM like that right now, where he needs a full explanation for how someone does anything. At first it's fine, but it begins to grate after a while...)

[KorvinStarmast]

So in the PHB with Pact of Chain you get a choice of Imp, Pixie, or Quasit. But several folks have touted the use of Pact of Tome to obtain the Find Familiar spell. Regardless of which Pact you take, what would be the best familiar to get and why? :smile: Sprite, not Pixie. (And why did you leave off pseudodragon?)