Voice of the Chain Master exploit?

[AgentNinkasi]

This came up in a came of mine a couple of days ago and I was wondering if anyone knew the ruling on this:

A warlock in my group is using the Voice of the Chain Master invocation. While he was hiding from a group of enemies he made his familiar wait invisibly outside the combat range(entrance of the cave) while the fight was going on inside the cave, several feet away.

Since this invocation lets you speak through your familiar even in your own voice our warlock insisted that he could cast the verbal part of his spell unnoticed because he was using his familiar to deliver that part. I couldn't really pick the argument apart(also I am not the DM so im generally in favor of anything that helps the PCs) but I was just wondering if this issue has been tackled before.

[CNagy]

I don't know if it has ever come up but I don't think it is legal. The Casting a Spell of Chapter 10 describes the function of the verbal component, and it sounds like removing the verbal component from the source of the material and somatic components would make a spell fail to function. I don't like to mix real world science into D&D, but given the way sound works, changing the source of the sound doesn't seem like it would mix with the precision that is needed to set the threads of magic in motion.

To put this another way: does it make sense to claim that he could cast a spell requiring a specific material component if said component was held by his familiar 50 yards away?

Furthermore, the description of the verbal component says that the caster cannot be gagged or in a zone of silence, making it fairly clear that the verbal component must originate from him.

Edit: That said, the verbal component by itself should not be enough to break his hiding. It's not the same as shouting a warning or knocking over a vase (the examples listed in the PHB about what breaks stealth), it's just part of the noises that the Warlock is attempting to keep below the notice of others. Stealth isn't perfect silence, it is as much knowing how and when to move in order to let other sounds mask the sounds you make.

[Kryx]

Agreed with CNagy - speaking through your familiar is different than supplying the necessary verbal components for a spell.

The argument proposed would essentially ignore all somatic components.

[Daishain]

While this trick is not to my knowledge verboten, it is not explicitly allowed in the rules either. That puts it in the hands of the DM, he needs no special reasoning or reference to simply say either yes or no to that trick.

Fluff wise, it is strongly suggested (if not explicitly spelled out), that the vocal component of spells must at minimum be audible in the area the spell is being cast in.

From a balance point of view, the components are there for a reason, as are the few means by which someone can bypass them. Allowing a player to simply ignore a restriction because of a loophole is not something that should occur without due consideration.




With all of that said, it is an interesting idea, and I think I would consider allowing it so long as the familiar is nearby (perhaps within 15 feet). This leaves out the possibility of just ignoring vocals in stealth, but it does allow for misdirection or for casting when gagged or otherwise unable to speak.

[AgentNinkasi]

His big defenses were:

Using the text of the spell saying you speak "through" your familiar. Its not like your familiars are saying the words its knows you want to say, It is literally you speaking. Just from a different mouth. ex. If you had a spell that granted you telepathy you couldn't say the verbal component in a hostiles head to cast the spell, because your not actually providing a verbal component. In this case you are it is just coming out of someone else mouth, who you are bonded to on a "sense" level.

In similar spells like beast sense and any other sense connecting spell, you smell,see,hear,and feel what your connected to like you yourself are there. If whatever your bonded too gets blinded by light, your blinded too(until you cut the connection) So if you open up this channel and allow speech, its technique as good as you saying it because for purpose of intent, it is you.

I guess it has to be a DM discretion call. I think it sounds really cheesy but I couldn't defeat it myself

[Princess]

It doesn't really make sense with how magic normally works in the game, but given that the point of Pact of the Chain is having an awesome familiar, I might allow it. It's definitely outside of what the rules specifically allow or disallow, though, so it's mostly DM preference.

[Zalabim]

What spell did he want to cast? You can make attacks from hiding, but it normally reveals your location afterwards. The verbal component of a spell certainly should allow a perception check to notice the caster at some range, but I can't find any guideline to how far/difficult that should be.

The big hangup is that I don't think Voice of the Chain Master bypasses the Action activation for using your familiar's senses. Has there been any confirmation on this?

[Markoff Chainey]

The idea of spell conponents is that they all come togethet and with the casting of the mage, they co-create the spell..

I do not see how they come together when he "delivers" the verbal component far out of range.

[Mara]

I wouldn't allow it. The familiar is not the warlock.

[Mellack]

I would say it does not work. I think that the verbal needs to be done together with the somantic and material parts of the spell. If the warlock has a verbal only spell, I would allow that, with the spell being cast from the familiar's position.

[Mavrik]

Voice of the Chain Master only enhances Find Familiar, not completely re-create it. Familiars baseline cannot cast spells, ever, because they are not spell-casters. Familiars may serve as a conduit for Touch spells. You may speak through your familiar, but it is only fluff. Your player's actions are entirely illegal.

[Theodoxus]

As a DM, I'd allow it - with the caveat that the players knew that I'd be using the trick against them too. Warlocks are already a nasty surprise for players - getting hit from 120+ feet away (depending on invocation/feat support), in the dark is really sneaky. Getting hit while the warlock is hidden and the familiar is invisible? That's a potential TPK. I'd describe it exactly that way and then let the table decide if they want to go forward with that ruling. If so? Their deaths are on their heads...