Warlock - How Useful is Pact of the Chain?

[Dr. Cliché]

Basically the title - how useful do you find Pact of the Chain to be? Is it as good as the utility offered by Pact of the Tome?

Also, are either of the Chain-specific Invocations worth taking?

[Naanomi]

I like it myself... Good expendable scout, Help on nearly every action in your life, some limited combat flexibility options. Doubly true if your party already has a wizard and thus most of the good rituals.

I don't care for the chain invocations, but in some ways that is good: if you have other invocations you want you don't feel like you have a 'tax' to pay for your other features to stay strong

[Dr. Cliché]

Am I right in thinking that familiars can't really help in combat?

[Segev]

Am I right in thinking that familiars can't really help in combat?

All familiars can deliver touch cantrips for you as their reaction.

Pact of the Chain familiars can actually attack, and some of them have some nasty ones.

[Gastronomie]

Am I right in thinking that familiars can't really help in combat?Within my understand they can. More like, if your DM rules they can't, it's really weird. Not to mention it also makes Chainlock a bad choice in that game.

[Bolares]

Am I right in thinking that familiars can't really help in combat?

As per twitter responses they can.

[Markoff Chainey]

We have a houserule saying that familiars that cannot attack themselves (and summoned undead) cannot take the help action.

This houserule has proven to be very good and makes the pact of chain really stand out.

Besides that, on lower levels the attack of an invisible imp is really nasty and on higher levels the help action (especially from an invisible helper) awesome.

[kaoskonfety]

Standard "Find Familiars" from the spell cannot attack as per the spell - that doesn't mean that cannot help, just that they cannot make the 'attack action'.

Chain Warlock familiars do not have this restriction.

[Dr. Cliché]

All familiars can deliver touch cantrips for you as their reaction.

All one of them. :smalltongue:


Pact of the Chain familiars can actually attack, and some of them have some nasty ones.

Really? All I see is attacks with pitiful damage and pathetic DCs.


Within my understand they can. More like, if your DM rules they can't, it's really weird.

Isn't it clear that they can't though.

p175 - "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."

Familiars can't attack alone, hence they can't help anyone else attack.


As per twitter responses they can.

Hmm?


We have a houserule saying that familiars that cannot attack themselves (and summoned undead) cannot take the help action.

This houserule has proven to be very good and makes the pact of chain really stand out.

So, Pact of the Chain familiars being virtually worthless in combat makes Pact of the Chain stand out? :smallconfused:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Isn't it clear that they can't though.

p175 - "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."

Familiars can't attack alone, hence they can't help anyone else attack.
...
So, Pact of the Chain familiars being virtually worthless in combat makes Pact of the Chain stand out? :smallconfused:
Pact familiars can attack, albeit at the cost of your action.

[Dr. Cliché]

Pact familiars can attack, albeit at the cost of your action.

Yes, but they need to be able to attack alone, which they can't do because they're completely reliant on you to enable them to attack.

[EvilAnagram]

Chain familiar can attack. Therefore, they can help an ally attack with advantage. This is a great ability for a caster who relies on attack cantrips.

[RickAllison]

Pseudodragon is a good form for dipping rogues or others who would like poison. It doesn't have great odds of success, but you have a nigh-unlimited supply and one failure can be devastating.

[Dr. Cliché]

Chain familiar can attack.

Again, the requirement is that it must be able to perform the action *ALONE*. If it can only attack when its master is not only there but giving up his own action, then it's not attacking alone.

Chain Familiars cannot attack *ALONE* ergo they cannot help anyone else attack.

[Segev]

I think - though I could be wrong - that we're confusing "something they can theoretically do alone" with "allowed mechanical actions in combat." Because let's face it: the familiar's inability to take the attack action is one of the more game-y restrictions out there, since a non-familiar creature of the same type absolutely could attack. Thus, a familiar can help with an attack because nothing actually prevents it from being physically capable of such actions; it is just metaphysically barred from actually taking the action.

[KorvinStarmast]

Again, the requirement is that it must be able to perform the action *ALONE*. If it can only attack when its master is not only there but giving up his own action, then it's not attacking alone.

Chain Familiars cannot attack *ALONE* ergo they cannot help anyone else attack. The Dev's don't agree with you.

Example. Fey Pack of the Chain. Sprite. Warlock is asleep, Sprite is awake. Sprite has a bow attack. (See MM). Sprite can stay awake. Sprite can detect enemies approaching (with a perception check). Sprite can wake the warlock up, or, since the warlock isn't attacking, she's asleep, sprite can attack. (Whether or not that's the best idea is debatable).

A familiar can indeed attack alone.

[kaoskonfety]

I'm kinda than up in the air on suggesting the Chain Invocations.

Voice of the Chain Master is quite nice but most useful for Rule of Cool reasons - it offers limited mechanical benefit. I'd take it in a heartbeat, but I can see the arguments against it (in favour of more crunchy tricks).

Chains of Carceri is quite a high level for entry and only targets a small selections of beasties - its a NASTY selection of beasties, but for something that comes online at level 15 - It would need to be a game where I was reasonably assured to be dealing with fiends, elementals, and celestials with at least reasonable frequency (maybe something set in the Abyss)

[Dr. Cliché]

The Dev's don't agree with you.

Example. Fey Pack of the Chain. Sprite. Warlock is asleep, Sprite is awake. Sprite has a bow attack. (See MM). Sprite can stay awake. Sprite can detect enemies approaching (with a perception check). Sprite can wake the warlock up, or, since the warlock isn't attacking, she's asleep, sprite can attack. (Whether or not that's the best idea is debatable).

A familiar can indeed attack alone.

Where's this from?

Because that action is breaking the rules of the Find Familiar spell.


I think - though I could be wrong - that we're confusing "something they can theoretically do alone" with "allowed mechanical actions in combat." Because let's face it: the familiar's inability to take the attack action is one of the more game-y restrictions out there

You can't just ignore rules you don't like. You can house rule them, but that doesn't make them RAW.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Yes, but they need to be able to attack alone, which they can't do because they're completely reliant on you to enable them to attack.
Counter-pedantry: the Warlock text says that you "allow your familiar to make one attack of its own." But yeah, if you take that interpretation (and according to Bolares, the developers said otherwise), it's a lot less combat-useful.

It's also worth noting that Quasits and Pseudodragons arguably grant you magic resistance.

Even without that, I think Chain comes out alright compared to Tome (Blade is harder to compare). You get a few less cantrips in exchange for a variety of totally disposable magical critters, all fantastic scouts. Spites can detect alignment, and pseudodragons have telepathy. You can't be a ritual caster, but you can send your minion halfway across the world to look around for you. It's a solid choice.

[Segev]

If you're reasonably sure you're not getting to level 20, a warlock 3/illusionist 9 could have fun with voice of the chain master allowing him to work Malleable Illusions through his familiar's sight from a long distance away.

[KorvinStarmast]

You can't be a ritual caster, but you can send your minion halfway across the world to look around for you. It's a solid choice.That's one of the neater features, once that invocation is available.

#Dr Cliché:

Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own with its reaction. The Dev tweet supports this, your parsing of "RAW" appears to be deliberately negative. (Not sure why).

[Dr. Cliché]

Counter-pedantry: the Warlock text says that you "allow your familiar to make one attack of its own."

I'm not seeing the argument. It's making one of its own attacks, sure. But, since it literally can't attack unless you use your action to order it to (or remind it how its claws work, or whatever nonsense the designers had in mind), you really can't say it's attacking alone.

It's like saying the thief can climb a wall alone... so long as the fighter is there to give him a leg-up. :smalltongue:

[EvilAnagram]

Again, the requirement is that it must be able to perform the action *ALONE*. If it can only attack when its master is not only there but giving up his own action, then it's not attacking alone.

Chain Familiars cannot attack *ALONE* ergo they cannot help anyone else attack.

"Using your action" does not meam, "needs specific assistance in order to perform this action." Beast Master companions can help with an attack, but still need the player's action to do so.

[Tanarii]

Pact of the chain is the 'scout' boon. Not combat (blade) or casting (tome) focused boon.



Isn't it clear that they can't though.

p175 - "A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."

Familiars can't attack alone, hence they can't help anyone else attack.
That's a rule for making Help checks with skills and tools.

See PHB p192 for Combat Help action. It doesn't carry any restrictions. Creatures that can't attack can use it freely.

[Dr. Cliché]

"Using your action" does not meam, "needs specific assistance in order to perform this action."

Yes it does.

How hard is this to understand? If you can't attack without having a specific person nearby to direct you, then you can't attack alone. Simple as that.


Beast Master companions can help with an attack

Why can they help with an attack?



See PHB p192 for Combat Help action. It doesn't carry any restrictions. Creatures that can't attack can use it freely.

Incorrect. The restriction on p175 clearly applies to the combat Help action as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

They can help with an attack because they have the attack ability.
Check the stat block for Sprite or Pseudo dragon, for instance. They have attacks listed. Any beast you have has attacks listed. Thus they can use the help action to help someone else attack.

Now, let's say your beast is in the paralyzed condition. Beast can't attack in that condition, therefore it can't help with an attack either in that condition.

As to tweets ...

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/652533611938230272

https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/652551042224156672

Michael Hall ‏@MichaelHall8585 · 26 Sep 2015
@JeremyECrawford Find Familiar says Familiar cannot attack. Can familiar Help in combat to grant advantage even if it cannot attack?
Jeremy Crawford
‏@JeremyECrawford
@MichaelHall8585 Yes!

How hard is this to understand? If you can't attack without having a specific person nearby to direct you, then you can't attack alone. Simple as that. Not right. The beast already has the innate ability to attack regardless of there being a ranger, or a warlock, around to work with. The beats alone can attack anything it wants, it therefore has the ability to attack. Likewise a familiar.

The restriction is a piece of action economy management in the rules to force warlock/ranger to make choices. I don't understand why you take this position. It seems counterintuitive.

[Tanarii]

Incorrect. The restriction on p175 clearly applies to the combat Help action as well.

:smallconfused: oh really? How does it clearly do any such thing. It is in the skills section. It gives an example of a tool, which is when it would apply to skills. The combat section doesn't contain the wording at all.

There's nothing clear about your claim at all.

[Dr. Cliché]

They can help with an attack because they have the attack ability.

But they can't *use* that ability without specific authorisation from their master.

Let's say an Imp is alone - his master isn't around or otherwise aware of him. He's jumped by a beast and attacked. That Imp can't lift a finger to defend himself. He has attacks listed on his stat block, but when he's alone it's as if they don't exist because he can't use them.

Hence, he can't attack alone.

Incidentally, as someone who plays 40k, I'm used to designers blatantly ignoring their own rules when answering faqs and such.


:smallconfused: oh really? How does it clearly do any such thing. It is in the skills section. It gives an example of a tool, which is when it would apply to skills. The combat section doesn't contain the wording at all.

There's nothing clear about your claim at all.

"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one
with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by
the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9).

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."

It is abundantly clear that this sentence applies to all help - including help in combat.

[EvilAnagram]

"Chain Warlocks can't help with an attack because they can only take the attack action on turns when their familiar doesn't attack. They basically need their servant's permission to attack."

Sharing an action is not the same as being incapable of the action you want to take.

[Saggo]

:smallconfused: oh really? How does it clearly do any such thing. It is in the skills section. It gives an example of a tool, which is when it would apply to skills. The combat section doesn't contain the wording at all.

There's nothing clear about your claim at all.

Probably because the skills help rule specifically reference the Help Action rules if used in combat, but I agree with you. The only clear link is if you use the Help Action with a skill in combat. Help Action for advantage on an attack is clearly marked as an alternative to the original help rules, not as an addition. Rules governing skills don't automatically apply.

[Dr. Cliché]

"Chain Warlocks can't help with an attack because they can only take the attack action on turns when their familiar doesn't attack. They basically need their servant's permission to attack."

You know what really helps your case?

When you have to rely on insane troll logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic).

[EvilAnagram]

You know what really helps your case?

When you have to rely on insane troll logic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InsaneTrollLogic).

I would say relying on TV tropes is much worse, but to address your complaint, my logic is sound.

If using another character's action to attack means that you are incapable of helping with an attack, then Chain Warlocks and Beast Masters cannot use the help action to aid an attack.

[Dr. Cliché]

I would say relying on TV tropes is much worse, but to address your complaint, my logic is sound.

No it isn't. Not even close.


If using a nothing character's action to attack means that you are incapable of helping with an attack, then Chain Warlocks and Beast Masters cannot use the help action to aid an attack.

What you're ignoring (because it completely kills your argument) is that Warlocks and Beast Masters can attack normally.

A Warlock on his own can attack. A Beast Master on his own can attack. A Familiar on its own can't attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

Let's say an Imp is alone - his master isn't around or otherwise aware of him. He's jumped by a beast and attacked. That Imp can't lift a finger to defend himself. He has attacks listed on his stat block, but when he's alone it's as if they don't exist because he can't use them.
Really? That's a strange way to look at it, given that the imp has, (see stat block) the ability to engage in combat. Furthermore, since the warlock isn't around, there is no obstacle to him fighting to save his own life and since he is alone, there is no Warlock to interfere with the imp fighting.

On the other hand, if you wish, you could rule that since the imp is a spirit in imp form (since that is in the spell description) it could also chose to simply die and go back to where it came from until summoned again. This is "pact of the chain" after all ...

[JumboWheat01]

Voice of the Chain Master is quite nice but most useful for Rule of Cool reasons - it offers limited mechanical benefit. I'd take it in a heartbeat, but I can see the arguments against it (in favour of more crunchy tricks).

I read that as crunchy chicks. I have been playing WAY too much Fable lately...

That's one thing I kind of like when I'm reading about the Pact of the Chain. The Blade pretty much changes you to a gish, and has the tax of needing a pair of invocations. The Book turns you into a full time caster, and if you don't take the invocation that lets you cast all rituals, what the heck did you take the Book for anyway? The Chain pretty much keeps you as you are for Warlock ways, simply giving you an interesting feature that you don't have to improve in any way. If you have the free invocations, take Voice of the Chain Master, it's quite fun. If you don't have a free invocation slot, you're not really hurting your pact at all.

Maybe I should draw up a Warlock now and make him Pact of the Chain. I don't see why not, I draw up several characters anyway.

[Dr. Cliché]

Really? That's a strange way to look at it, given that the imp has, (see stat block) the ability to engage in combat.

He was summoned via Find Familiar, which includes the rule "A familiar can’t attack".

You are given one specific instance that overrides that - which is a Warlock using his action to allow his familiar to attack instead of him. That's it. That is the *only* time your familiar is given permission to attack.


Furthermore, since the warlock isn't around, there is no obstacle to him fighting to save his own life and since he is alone, there is no Warlock to interfere with the imp fighting.

See above. The warlock is literally the only thing that can allow the familiar to attack. When the warlock isn't around, the familiar is completely helpless.



On the other hand, if you wish, you could rule that since the imp is a spirit in imp form (since that is in the spell description) it could also chose to simply die and go back to where it came from until summoned again. This is "pact of the chain" after all ...

[KorvinStarmast]

Your side stated again
I already cited the texts that inform how I see this. Thanks for the discussion.
We will agree to disagree.

[kaoskonfety]

I read that as crunchy chicks. I have been playing WAY too much Fable lately...

d*** it... now I want to play Fable and be a Monster... I'll get over it by the time I get home from work but still...

The familiar attacking while you are not in combat or are incapacitated feels like a DM question. I'd allow it, doubly so if you are conscious and able to provide direction but say, paralyzed.

I'm not seeing a balance concern either way - the attack doesn't scale well past low levels and it will generally just reveal your otherwise near perfect spy. I'm not getting too deep into the "Helping" attack action debate until I've got it at my table and its causing a problem. Whichever way, advantage is easy enough to get otherwise, it's not that nuts, and killing familiars that are affecting combat is fun and easy.

[EvilAnagram]

No it isn't. Not even close.
I disagree. I took your argument to a logical, albeit silly place, and in return you made an ad hominem reply using a poorly moderated wiki. It's quite a bit worse.


What you're ignoring (because it completely kills your argument) is that Warlocks and Beast Masters can attack normally.

A Warlock on his own can attack. A Beast Master on his own can attack. A Familiar on its own can't attack.
I'm not ignoring that. I'm saying that, according to your argument, having to share an attack action renders you unable to use the help action in combat. In order to attack normally, Beast Masters and Chain Warlocks have to use the action the familiar or Beast companion would have been able to use to attack. Sharing an attack action works both ways.

[Dr. Cliché]

I already cited the texts that inform how I see this.

???

If you're referring to your last post, you didn't cite any texts. Just a stat block that the familiar isn't allowed to use. :smallconfused:

[Segev]

???

If you're referring to your last post, you didn't cite any texts. Just a stat block that the familiar isn't allowed to use. :smallconfused:

Er... no. The familiar explicitly does use that stat block. The text that says it cannot attack is nowhere connected to the text that says it uses the stat blocks in question. It is a separate restriction in the spell, unrelated to the part of the spell that says it uses the stat block in question. The only relation is that both are in the same spell. They are not otherwise semantically linked.

[KorvinStarmast]

???

If you're referring to your last post, you didn't cite any texts. Just a stat block that the familiar isn't allowed to use. :smallconfused:
Our discussion has been a bit longer than one post.
Two bits of text are germane:
What was cited in the pact of the chain
What was quoted from Mr Crawford.
(Others cited the Help rules so I didn't bother to repeat their efforts).
I'll take Mr Crawford's unambiguous "Yes!" as a clear case for how it works. From where I sit, his interpretation is substantially superior to yours, but if yours works at your table then no biggee.

Note: the Help action ISN"T an attack, nor an attack action, therefore it isn't constrained by your "mother may I" approach. The Help is what offers advantage.

HelpAlternatively, you can aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature within 5 feet of you. You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally’s attack more effective. If your ally attacks the target before your next turn, the first attack roll is made with advantage. None of that is the familiar attacking.

However, if the tweet doesn't get folded in to Sage Advice as an official ruling (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016), then one can puzzle out how "official" it is unless Mr Crawford was just being polite and not simply pointing to that clearly written rule. (Go to the bottom of the page to see Crawford's points on the relationship between his Tweets and SA published information).

[Dr. Cliché]

Er... no. The familiar explicitly does use that stat block.

Sorry, I meant with regard to its attack stats.

As in, you pointed to the fact that it has stats for an attack, but ignored that it's not allowed to use those stats without specific permission from its master.


I disagree. I took your argument to a logical, albeit silly place, and in return you made an ad hominem reply using a poorly moderated wiki. It's quite a bit worse.

You didn't take my argument to a silly place, you made a straw man argument and then took that to a completely nonsensical place.

Furthermore, at no point did I use an ad hominem argument. Calling your logic crazy is not the same as calling you crazy.


I'm not ignoring that. I'm saying that, according to your argument, having to share an attack action renders you unable to use the help action in combat.

And we're back to the straw man because I never once said that.


In order to attack normally, Beast Masters and Chain Warlocks have to use the action the familiar or Beast companion would have been able to use to attack. Sharing an attack action works both ways.

No, it doesn't.

First off, the Warlocks and Beast Masters choose whether to attack or whether to let their companions attack. Hence, your earlier statement about them requiring permission from their companions was an outright lie.

Second, the whole point is that Warlocks and Beast Masters can attack normally regardless of whether or not their companions are around. Yes, they can choose not to attack. So what? They can choose to use their action for a lot of other things that don't involve them attacking.

The point is that they still *can* attack alone, regardless of whether or not they choose to do so.

In contrast, familiars are completely incapable of attacking alone. They can *only* attack via the sharing action thing.

[GanonBoar]

@Dr Cliche: Did you miss the tweets that KorvinStarmast posted on the first page, or are you deliberately ignoring them because if you don't it'll make you look stupid?

[Dr. Cliché]

@Dr Cliche: Did you miss the tweets that KorvinStarmast posted on the first page, or are you deliberately ignoring them because if you don't it'll make you look stupid?

I already said that I'm used to game designers ignoring their own rules when answering faqs (and hence giving answers that blatantly contradict said rules).

But, you obviously can't read rules either, so I guess reading my posts would have been too much to ask.

[GanonBoar]

I already said that I'm used to game designers ignoring their own rules when answering faqs.

But, you obviously can't read rules either, so I guess reading my posts would have been too much to ask.
Yes, of course. You, a random person with no hand in deciding the rules, know exactly how the rules work, in fact so well that you know more than the PEOPLE WHO DESIGNED THE GAME.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Regardless of the combat aspect, your familiar can certainly Help with all your skill checks, as the special options are more than smart enough for that kind of thing. So that's a nice plus right there. It's the skillmonkey pact-- pairs extra-well with half-elf or starting as a Rogue.

[KorvinStarmast]

Regardless of the combat aspect, your familiar can certainly Help with all your skill checks, as the special options are more than smart enough for that kind of thing. So that's a nice plus right there. Heck yeah! Perception checks alone are a very nice bonus to have advantage with. So too all of my investigation checks, etc ... my Warlock is pleased to have gone pact of the chain.

We don't have a Ranger.
We don't have a Rogue.
We don't have a Monk.
But we do have a scout: my invisible familiar.

If there was going to be a rogue in our group, I was very tempted to go Pact of the Blade.

[JumboWheat01]

Regardless of the combat aspect, your familiar can certainly Help with all your skill checks, as the special options are more than smart enough for that kind of thing. So that's a nice plus right there. It's the skillmonkey pact-- pairs extra-well with half-elf or starting as a Rogue.


Heck yeah! Perception checks alone are a very nice bonus to have advantage with. So too all of my investigation checks, etc ... my Warlock is pleased to have gone pact of the chain.

We don't have a Ranger.
We don't have a Rogue.
We don't have a Monk.
But we do have a scout: my invisible familiar.

If there was going to be a rogue in our group, I was very tempted to go Pact of the Blade.

Now I'm picturing a loyal little imp familiar trying to help me with an Animal Handling check and scaring the crap out of the poor animal. It is a fiend after all.

...This could be fun to work with. Trying to get a little fiend to help me with a Religion check. Or a Persuasion check with a goodie-goodie paladin.

Must make a note to actually try this thing out. Could lead to good laughs.

[GraakosGraakos]

I already said that I'm used to game designers ignoring their own rules when answering faqs (and hence giving answers that blatantly contradict said rules).

But, you obviously can't read rules either, so I guess reading my posts would have been too much to ask.

"These game designers don't have the respect for the purity of the rules that I do. If only they were as logical and intelligent as I, the only true DM in this wasteland of idiots"

I gotta be real; as soon as I saw someone arguing with EvilAnagram I knew they were probably wrong.

The game designer gave a direct answer. You can make the argument that it's just a tweet, but since the case is at least ambiguous and he is the person that decides what the game is, I'm gonna say the OP should take his word for it.

As an aside, and an unrepetant ad hominem attack, it sounds like your table would be miserable to play at.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Now I'm picturing a loyal little imp familiar trying to help me with an Animal Handling check and scaring the crap out of the poor animal. It is a fiend after all.

...This could be fun to work with. Trying to get a little fiend to help me with a Religion check. Or a Persuasion check with a goodie-goodie paladin.

Must make a note to actually try this thing out. Could lead to good laughs.
Don't forget that they can shapeshift! Let's see you say no to an adorable talking bird.

[JumboWheat01]

Don't forget that they can shapeshift! Let's see you say no to an adorable talking bird.

I did forget about the shape-shifting! Ooh, that opens up a lot of other possibilities as well, especially in the scouting department. After all, nothing like an inconspicuous creature in an area for scouting purposes. They'd never get suspicious. Plus I'd have a familiar that could take the shape of any other familiar. Just throw on some robes and go incognito with the wizards.

Though I must say, you've clearly never had a parrot. After a while, you want to strangle the "adorable" talking bird.

[JeenLeen]

Can Pact of the Chain familiars get opportunity attacks?

If yes, can they do so without using up any of their master's actions (action, bonus, reaction)?

[JumboWheat01]

I'd say no, they can't take an opportunity attack. You need to explicitly use your Action in order to have them use their attack, and you can't take an Action on someone else's turn, only a Reaction.

[EvilAnagram]

You didn't take my argument to a silly place, you made a straw man argument and then took that to a completely nonsensical place.

...

And we're back to the straw man because I never once said that.
I'm going to set aside the semantic discussion of whether or not accusing me of insane troll logic is the same as equating me to an insane troll. I don't see that argument going anywhere productive.

With regards to the straw man accusation, I said:

"Using your action" does not meam, "needs specific assistance in order to perform this action."

You said:

Yes it does.

So, you did in fact say that sharing an action renders the familiar incapable of helping attack in combat.



First off, the Warlocks and Beast Masters choose whether to attack or whether to let their companions attack. Hence, your earlier statement about them requiring permission from their companions was an outright lie.
No, the player - who controls both creatures - does that. I was simply applying a different perspective to that situation.

And with this, I'm dusting off my sandals. You don't seem terribly interested in a genuine discussion, and life is short. The creator and every poster thus far completely disagree with your assessment. Take that as you will.

[GlenSmash!]

I think we have RAI from the Devs. Familiars are supposed to be able to help with attacks. Some may argue that the RAW is different than this. Cliche clearly is arguing this. So this boils down to a bigger question. Does RAW matter? I contend that it does not.

The way I see it, the rules exist for a purpose and are nothing in and of themselves. That purpose is to inform how players play the game. So now we have the creators of the rules saying they were meant to work a certain way. If the rules themselves are not correctly serving this purpose you have a bad rule.

The Devs think that it is not a bad rule it's just being misinterpreted by some. But for the sake of argument let's just say it's a bad rule. So what do we do about it? Play using the known bad rule and hope that errata comes out to fix it? That's a long wait for a train that may not come.

And ultimately, what purpose does it serve? Are you and your players having more fun by abiding by a known bad rule? If so more power to you. At my table we would not be having more fun.

So rather than play using a rule that does not serve it's purpose, we would change that rule. Call it a houserule if you want, call it RAI if you want. I would just call it more fun.

To make an over exaggerating analogy: If a law was meant to prohibit murder but was written is such a way that one could argue that it permitted murder would society be ok with people committing murder? Some people might, because the law is the law. Some would argue that interpreting the law to allow murder is unreasonable given the intent of the law. Some would argue that such a law is clearly not serving it's purpose and should be changed ASAP, and in the mean time people should not murder each other.

[vostyg]

Here is a snippet from Sage Advice dated 12/21/2015:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/53827513/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-20%20at%201.33.51%20PM.png

[Eriol]

Here is a snippet from Sage Advice dated 12/21/2015:
I agree with the linked Sage Advice, but I also agreed with that before seeing it.

Using pure OGL here, on page 79, talking about using skills, you have to be able to do it to help with it. But on page 93, it gives another method of "helping" in combat:

You feint, distract the target, or in some other way team up to make your ally's attack more effective.
Which I would argue (and it appears Sage Advice agrees) is something a familiar can absolutely do.

Regardless, back to the OP's question, IMO the benefits of Pact of the Chain are usually not worth it versus Pact of the Book given that Book can allow you to get the Find Familiar Ritual, which gives you the VAST majority of the functionality of Chain, plus all the other rituals, expanded cantrips, etc, that the Book can give you on top of that. I'm not saying that there's NO benefit to Chain, just that the Spell Resistance (from the unique familiars) and very few other features of Chain are usually not enough on their own to outweigh the extreme utility of Book IMO.

So on the balance, Book > Chain in most circumstances. But if you know you're going to get cast on a LOT, and you have another (probably a wizard) in the party for the ritual utility, maybe the Spell Resistance from the enhanced familiar is worth it. But I'd say that's niche.

[Mavrik]

I already said that I'm used to game designers ignoring their own rules when answering faqs (and hence giving answers that blatantly contradict said rules).

But, you obviously can't read rules either, so I guess reading my posts would have been too much to ask.

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/21/can-a-familiar-use-the-help-action/

You are wrong. Stop posting in this thread. He created the Player's Handbook and literally makes all 5E rules.

The end.

[KorvinStarmast]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/12/21/can-a-familiar-use-the-help-action/

You are wrong. Stop posting in this thread. He created the Player's Handbook and literally makes all 5E rules.The doctor may not be right, but as the person who initiated the thread, maybe suggesting a departure is a bit much?

[p_johnston]

So on the original topic of Chain pact I really like the familiar.
-Invisible Flying scout (usually with Darkvision). Why not rouge it up better then the actual rouge?
-Free extra spot checks? can anyone say free extra spot checks.
-When in desperate need of sleep why not delegate guard duty to your slaveImean Familiar?
-Why not ask you little sprite friend where he gets his poison? Maybe if your nice he'll share with you. (and by if your nice I mean your DM allows it).
-Same goes for the other three familiars who just produce poison.
-Want to know how Evil the Blatantly evil bad guy is? (or if he is a secret vampire lord of the abyss who is also for some reason a celestial) have your sprite use heart sight on him.
-Hell have your sprite use heart sight on everybody. Repeatedly. Always. Seriously he's like six inches tall and can turn invisible, no one will notice.

In a more serious tone The chain pact is a great out of combat utility feature, but an almost useless in combat one. That being said In combat you can just blast people to death so I actually prefer the utility more then other two pacts.

[mrumsey]

Can I ask why it is seen as the Warlock is allowing the familiar to attack and not that the Warlock is prohibiting the attack?

Mechanically it would be the same, but in the first case, the Familiar would (if you took this logic) be unable to attack without permission. The latter case would imply that the Familiar CAN attack normally, but requires the Warlock to remove the prohibition.

[Jarlhen]

The warlock familiars is one of the single most powerful things you can have in the game. It's completely unbalanced and will break whatever your DM has set up. Find familiar on its own is probably one of the most powerful spell in the game outside of direct combat spells. In fact it probably rivals a few direct combat spells too. Familiars are incredibly good. Here's a runthrough of all the amazing stuff you can use a familiar for https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bJ7sEa2X-mTcXJ2fDQRDGx3dgoRgY7VOJZtsIMv0ppM/edit

[TheFlyingCleric]

He was summoned via Find Familiar, which includes the rule "A familiar can’t attack".

You are given one specific instance that overrides that - which is a Warlock using his action to allow his familiar to attack instead of him. That's it. That is the *only* time your familiar is given permission to attack.



See above. The warlock is literally the only thing that can allow the familiar to attack. When the warlock isn't around, the familiar is completely helpless.
Emphasis mine

I've learned to be wary of short quotes, as it's too easy to leave out very important pieces of information.
Let's look at the rest of the paragraph

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.
Emphasis mine

None of this is contradicted elsewhere in find familiar, nor in the warlock class feature (which does provide an exception to the can't attack part of it)

In Essence: RAW states that familiars can take the help action in combat. And this doesn't cost you your action.


But really, as a DM, why would you nerf find familiar in this way, when you could instead just kill the familiar when it starts annoying (i.e. 'helping' you attack) the monsters? They're not really known for their tankiness, and players would quickly learn that 'find familiar' does not equal 'always have advantage on my attacks'.
While a familiar is dead, it can't be used to do the many wonderful things others have suggested in this thread, such as scouting, until you get the components and a spare HOUR to cast it again.

[kaoskonfety]

Actually my DM vetoed the familiar granting advantage where I'd probably allow it. And I see no reason to fight him on it.

This is a difference in style.

He doesn't like the idea on me sending my bound celestial into the fray to 'die' for my fleeting tactical advantage, it not what familiars are FOR. The fact that it *somehow* grants me advantage on my attack when it is not itself a threat was what tipped it though. The easy advantage annoys him as well, but is a lesser concern.

I, on the other hand, am fine with the player wasting their resources and hours of time for fleeting tactical advantage and their familiar getting progressively jumpier and less pliant as your prior slaves (or if its the same being being reformed with your magics...) meet their fate in fireballs and on the end of swords. I see RP material in there I'd like to dig into. Like what does the devotion Paladin think of your slaughter of celestials (binding fiends and fey is probably already a Please Don't). Does the Warlocks Fae patron express displeasure at the waste? The fiendish patron one day saying "you own me a soul for each familiar whom you have lost, payable in a year and a day - as outlined in the fine print of our deal". Good times.

[Tanarii]

Does anyone enforce role-playing for Evil creature Familiars with non-evil characters? For the creature itself. But more importantly, for those that encounter a caster with one. Obviously a Warlock already potentially faces prejudice, especially for Infernal Pact, if that becomes known. But an Imp or Quasit familiar might make things far worse.


The warlock familiars is one of the single most powerful things you can have in the game. It's completely unbalanced and will break whatever your DM has set up. Find familiar on its own is probably one of the most powerful spell in the game outside of direct combat spells. In fact it probably rivals a few direct combat spells too. Familiars are incredibly good. Here's a runthrough of all the amazing stuff you can use a familiar for https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bJ7sEa2X-mTcXJ2fDQRDGx3dgoRgY7VOJZtsIMv0ppM/edit

Not surprising you think it's powerful. You've got a lot of house rules and variant rules in there. Shared magic resistance. Activating magic items. Counting as a second concentration slot for magic items. Attuning to magic items. Storing things in their pocket space where they are dismissed to. Applying poison to others' weapons.

One that I find interesting is sacrificing it to a trap. Obviously a familiar does what you say, but I'd think a spirit creature that was repeatedly summoned to be intentionally sacrificed would build up some resentments ... :smallamused:

[Jarlhen]

One thing I think is important is that a familiar with invisibility can grant advantage without breaking invisibility. What's happening is that they can swish past the enemy or make dust fall from the ceiling or other annoyance to help unbalance the enemy. By RAW invisibility ends only when casting a spell or attacking, granting help is neither. They are, for all intents and purposes, never seen by anyone unless they attack or cast a spell. They can open doors, throw harmless rocks at the enemy to distract them, whatever.

Also, a familiar isn't a threat per se. This is very much a DM interpretation but if I was the DM I'd not attack the annoying owl. They are, after all, just being annoying. Sure that annoyance is unbalancing me but it's the guy with the GIANT ****ING GREATSWORD HACKING AT MY FACE that's the real danger. I don't have time to waste my actions on chasing after an owl, this ******* is trying to kill me!!

My DM has outlawed familiars, they're just so darn good. And quite frankly I don't blame him. A PC who focuses on his familiar has a massive advantage in almost all situations assuming the DM doesn't constantly whip up weird anti-familiar mechanics. Like they'd change all the encounters and dungeons and stuff just to counter the familiar, which I think would be weird as hell and kind of defeat the purpose. But so much depends on what your DM thinks.

[RickAllison]

Not surprising you think it's powerful. You've got a lot of house rules and variant rules in there. Shared magic resistance. Activating magic items. Counting as a second concentration slot for magic items. Attuning to magic items. Storing things in their pocket space where they are dismissed to. Applying poison to others' weapons.

The shared magic resistance I will concede, it is based on a blurb from the DMG I think should be retained for finding and befriending actual familiars rather than a conjured one. How are the others a house-rule? The storing in the pocket dimension is also questionable, but what is the problem with the rest?

Why do you think a familiar can't activate magic items, attune to them, or poison weapons? Those seem absolutely fine so long as the familiar format make an attack (and can actually manipulate the required items).

[Jarlhen]

Does anyone enforce role-playing for Evil creature Familiars with non-evil characters? For the creature itself. But more importantly, for those that encounter a caster with one. Obviously a Warlock already potentially faces prejudice, especially for Infernal Pact, if that becomes known. But an Imp or Quasit familiar might make things far worse.



Not surprising you think it's powerful. You've got a lot of house rules and variant rules in there. Shared magic resistance. Activating magic items. Counting as a second concentration slot for magic items. Attuning to magic items. Storing things in their pocket space where they are dismissed to. Applying poison to others' weapons.

One that I find interesting is sacrificing it to a trap. Obviously a familiar does what you say, but I'd think a spirit creature that was repeatedly summoned to be intentionally sacrificed would build up some resentments ... :smallamused:

I think 2 or 3 of these are variant rules. The remainder work according to the rules and it's equally homebrew-y to forbid them as it is to allow them, in other ways they work but it's going to be up to you same as every single rule in the books. The point of what I posted, which isn't mine btw I didn't make it, was to show that there's a hell of a lot of flexibility with a familiar. Even if you ignore some of these things you have an invisible scout that can help with a number of actions including combat, some have shapeshifting meaning they can get in where you can't. It's an immensely powerful thing to have and if you can't see how I think you're putting limitations on it that simply aren't there.

[Tanarii]

The point of what I posted, which isn't mine btw I didn't make it, was to show that there's a hell of a lot of flexibility with a familiar. Even if you ignore some of these things you have an invisible scout that can help with a number of actions including combat, some have shapeshifting meaning they can get in where you can't. It's an immensely powerful thing to have and if you can't see how I think you're putting limitations on it that simply aren't there.I agree, even without trying to apply MM/DMG NPC rules to PCs, Imps and Quasits are very powerful. Only Chain Warlocks can get them by the PHB. But they make Pact of the Chain a very powerful boon. Much more so than it appears at first glance.

And as I pointed out above, Imps/Quasits potentially come with RP issues. IMO that can be a good thing or a bad thing, but either way it'll probably be a fun thing. :smallamused:

[Jarlhen]

I agree, even without trying to apply MM/DMG NPC rules to PCs, Imps and Quasits are very powerful. Only Chain Warlocks can get them by the PHB. But they make Pact of the Chain a very powerful boon. Much more so than it appears at first glance.

And as I pointed out above, Imps/Quasits potentially come with RP issues. IMO that can be a good thing or a bad thing, but either way it'll probably be a fun thing. :smallamused:

Yeah, I think that would be one of the "downsides" with using the variant rules from the DMG. It's described as writing a contract which the familiar can break (or some variation of that phrasing). So if you convince a familiar to be your buddy you have to actually treat it well and stuff. Like if you're evil and the familiar is good, or vice versa, it won't be your familiar for long. For the warlock I don't think that's the case, I would argue the familiar has no choice. As per the spell you're summoning a spirit which is highly expendable. While not mindless by any means, I'd argue it's really more of a extension of you. And wit Pact of the Chain I'd say it's straight up enslavement. The variant rule is quite specific in that neither of these is the case, so I think what you're suggesting (by RAW) is more fitting to the variant rule. But of course it's up to the DM at the end of the day. Our second DM allows for familiars and he's quite strict in how it's not an expendable tool but an actual being, and that's his ruling!

[Tanarii]

For the warlock I don't think that's the case, I would argue the familiar has no choice. As per the spell you're summoning a spirit which is highly expendable. While not mindless by any means, I'd argue it's really more of a extension of you. And wit Pact of the Chain I'd say it's straight up enslavement. The variant rule is quite specific in that neither of these is the case, so I think what you're suggesting (by RAW) is more fitting to the variant rule. But of course it's up to the DM at the end of the day. Our second DM allows for familiars and he's quite strict in how it's not an expendable tool but an actual being, and that's his ruling!
I agree Chain Warlock's Familiars don't have complete freedom to be Evil on their own, or screw up the Warlock's plans, or subvert orders. Although I think there'd potentially be some issues there, at least when not giving the Familiar explicit orders. My point was more than NPCs are likely to react very negatively to a Chain Warlock with an Imp or Quasit familiar. Even PCs might. Above and beyond what a Warlock in general might face.

[Segev]

I agree Chain Warlock's Familiars don't have complete freedom to be Evil on their own, or screw up the Warlock's plans, or subvert orders. Although I think there'd potentially be some issues there, at least when not giving the Familiar explicit orders. My point was more than NPCs are likely to react very negatively to a Chain Warlock with an Imp or Quasit familiar. Even PCs might. Above and beyond what a Warlock in general might face.

The funny thing, to me, is that, per the rules of find familiar, a Chain warlock's Quasit could be a Fey or (unless the Pact of the Chain limits the type) even a Celestial.

[kaoskonfety]

The funny thing, to me, is that, per the rules of find familiar, a Chain warlock's Quasit could be a Fey or (unless the Pact of the Chain limits the type) even a Celestial.

Our GOOlock went with the bug faeries from Pans Labyrinth with their "sprite" familiar - its some unnameable *thing* from the outer planes that looks like a pixie... if you don't look TOO hard.

Treating the stat block for familiars as anything but numbers you can put a skin on is a bit much on the restrictive end. If changing the type and appearance has no noteworthy impact numbers wise: just do it. Celestials with poison attacks might get vetoed, or not... but the tiny angels may ask WHY you keep giving them poison attacks with your fel and terrible magics.

[Tanarii]

Our GOOlock went with the bug faeries from Pans Labyrinth with their "sprite" familiar - its some unnameable *thing* from the outer planes that looks like a pixie... if you don't look TOO hard.Ha. Stealing that one for a Chain Warlock, except it'll be a 'fey' Imp. :)


Treating the stat block for familiars as anything but numbers you can put a skin on is a bit much on the restrictive end.Treating archetype flavor as a source for RP isn't "restrictive". It's enabling.

[Segev]

Our GOOlock went with the bug faeries from Pans Labyrinth with their "sprite" familiar - its some unnameable *thing* from the outer planes that looks like a pixie... if you don't look TOO hard.

Treating the stat block for familiars as anything but numbers you can put a skin on is a bit much on the restrictive end. If changing the type and appearance has no noteworthy impact numbers wise: just do it. Celestials with poison attacks might get vetoed, or not... but the tiny angels may ask WHY you keep giving them poison attacks with your fel and terrible magics.

That's cool. I was more pointing out that the spirit probably IS NOT the kind of thing it resembles, because its nature can be entirely different than that of the base statblock. So I am not disagreeing with you.

[kaoskonfety]

Treating archetype flavor as a source for RP isn't "restrictive". It's enabling.

I suppose I more mean "If the player comes at me with a neat idea but what they want ins't in the book, re-skin something and move on."

[Grod_The_Giant]

Treating archetype flavor as a source for RP isn't "restrictive". It's enabling.
So long as the written flavor matches your vision of the character. If you want to refluff things, that should also be allowed--I believe that's what was meant by "restrictive."

Right now, for instance , I'm imagining a Warforged Warlock whose familiars are little bits of his own body, detached and flying around in little helicopter rotors.

[Tanarii]

Right now, for instance , I'm imagining a Warforged Warlock whose familiars are little bits of his own body, detached and flying around in little helicopter rotors.That works for some campaigns. For others, extensive refluffing can cause a lack of consistency with the campaign setting. For example, in AL player freedom to refluff is very high, especially as it's set in FR, which setting intentionally tries fit every possibility into it. If a DM has an existing campaign with a long established "reality" of how flavor works, refluffing may be more limited.

Even in a default generic D&D campaign, options may be more reasonably limited, to keep it feeling like D&D. Strong D&D archetypes with associated flavor exist for a reason, and maintain the feel of the game. They provide a shared basis for RP. For example, the 'default' is that Warlocks made a faustian-style bargain for power. That sets default RP expectations for both the player and the DM. Similarly, having an Imp or Quasit as a Familiar could easily set default RP expectations. Now the DM and player have something work from, and they both have the same set of expectations. That's enabling, not restrictive.

Not to mention mechanical questions extensive refluffing often raises. Using your particular example, if someone hurts your familiar, do you take the hit point damage?

[Grod_The_Giant]

That works for some campaigns. For others, extensive refluffing can cause a lack of consistency with the campaign setting.
Eh, that's fair. Gotta keep power sources and lore and the like consistent.


Strong D&D archetypes with associated flavor exist for a reason, and maintain the feel of the game. They provide a shared basis for RP. For example, the 'default' is that Warlocks made a faustian-style bargain for power. That sets default RP expectations for both the player and the DM. Similarly, having an Imp or Quasit as a Familiar could easily set default RP expectations. Now the DM and player have something work from, and they both have the same set of expectations. That's enabling, not restrictive.
Ehh... not so much. Good flavor of any sort offers plot hooks and roleplaying potential aplenty; sticking to the existing fluff only adds convenience. Which is no bad thing, but if you've have a couple Warlocks (or, I dunno, Dragon Sorcerers, or Oath of the ____ Paladins) in the group over the years, having to reiterate the same sort of stories can get a bit stale.


Not to mention mechanical questions extensive refluffing often raises. Using your particular example, if someone hurts your familiar, do you take the hit point damage?
No, it's not a vital system. The "summoning" ritual is actually me (re)building the thing. Or you houserule--you either fit the fluff to the mechanics or the mechanics to the fluff; either way works.

[TheFlyingCleric]

The funny thing, to me, is that, per the rules of find familiar, a Chain warlock's Quasit could be a Fey or (unless the Pact of the Chain limits the type) even a Celestial.
You only get to choose the type if the form it takes is that of a beast. So fiends will stay fiends.

As for the forms granted to the wizard though...

[points at cat] "That's my familiar. Just between you and me, he's a fiend from hell."


Perhaps I was wrong to describe a familiars help action as 'annoying'. When something is distracting you in a life-or-death situation, it becomes a bit more than annoying; more like a threat that needs to be eliminated before it gets you killed. When a maddened ball of feathers and talons (owl) screeches past your face, it tends to interrupt what people were doing at the time. At least the first time it happens; I'm sure the novelty of being menaced by a bird wears off quickly.

[Citan]

I agree with the linked Sage Advice, but I also agreed with that before seeing it.

Using pure OGL here, on page 79, talking about using skills, you have to be able to do it to help with it. But on page 93, it gives another method of "helping" in combat:

Which I would argue (and it appears Sage Advice agrees) is something a familiar can absolutely do.

Regardless, back to the OP's question, IMO the benefits of Pact of the Chain are usually not worth it versus Pact of the Book given that Book can allow you to get the Find Familiar Ritual, which gives you the VAST majority of the functionality of Chain, plus all the other rituals, expanded cantrips, etc, that the Book can give you on top of that. I'm not saying that there's NO benefit to Chain, just that the Spell Resistance (from the unique familiars) and very few other features of Chain are usually not enough on their own to outweigh the extreme utility of Book IMO.

So on the balance, Book > Chain in most circumstances. But if you know you're going to get cast on a LOT, and you have another (probably a wizard) in the party for the ritual utility, maybe the Spell Resistance from the enhanced familiar is worth it. But I'd say that's niche.
Hi ;)

Plz allow me to correct you on this point. :)

First, Find Familiar gives only a beast, while Chain gives you much more interesting creatures that get shapeshifting or insight, in addition to invisibility or magic resistance.

Second, ONLY Pact of the Chain allows you to freely communicate by telepathy with the beast without distance limit and share its senses (in addition to speak through it). With Find Familiar, it's 100 feet limit for telepathy, and you have to use your action to swap your senses for the creature's.

Just these two features help immensely with scouting, strategizing (permanent communication if your party has to split to pursue different objectives) and many other things (stealing things away, getting "Insight" like informations).

Third, Magic Resistance is in itself a redeeming feature: considering how fragile Warlocks can be in hitpoints, halving all damage is a great lifesaver. While Invisibility for the familiar greatly helps it survive, compared to a normal familiar.

Fourth, Pact of the Chain gives you one of the best class ability in the game: FREE Hold Monster. FREE as in TOTALLY FREE to use all day long, as long as you target different creatures. Considering this spell is a 5th level, and how many different creatures can be targeted with this spell, it's a huge asset.

It could go awesome if DM allows you to combine it with Voice of the Chain Master, meaning that you yourself have to be within casting range of the target but you "see" it through your familiar's eyes. For me it works by RAW but other may have counter-arguments.

Soooo...
No, Find Familiar does NOT, by far, provide the "vast majority" of Chain Pact. Reaaaaally not. XD
And depending on the character, it will be of much greater benefit than Tome pact (and it's a Tome pact lover speaking here since I tend to always prefer versatility ;)).

[JumboWheat01]

[points at cat] "That's my familiar. Just between you and me, he's a fiend from hell."

Like someone needs to point that out. That's a DC 0 Knowledge check, we all know that cats are evil and they're just faking any "good" they do.

Could you imagine a celestial imp? Like, for some reason, a Great Old One has a few imps lying around that aren't actually fiends but celestials? Sure, they wouldn't really be imps, imps are by their nature Lawful Evil fiends, but it's the same basic thing of an imp?

[Eriol]

I appreciate engaging with you Citan. Let me provide my reasoning.

First, Find Familiar gives only a beast, while Chain gives you much more interesting creatures that get shapeshifting or insight, in addition to invisibility or magic resistance.

Second, ONLY Pact of the Chain allows you to freely communicate by telepathy with the beast without distance limit and share its senses (in addition to speak through it). With Find Familiar, it's 100 feet limit for telepathy, and you have to use your action to swap your senses for the creature's.

Just these two features help immensely with scouting, strategizing (permanent communication if your party has to split to pursue different objectives) and many other things (stealing things away, getting "Insight" like informations).
But how useful above a regular familiar? Most of the scouting, etc, stuff can be done by "go look at this, and come back and report." It works fairly well. So while the 100ft is a limitation, it's not "beyond 100ft useless" as they can be told to go do things.

Third, Magic Resistance is in itself a redeeming feature: considering how fragile Warlocks can be in hitpoints, halving all damage is a great lifesaver. While Invisibility for the familiar greatly helps it survive, compared to a normal familiar.
Yes more survivability, but how often is the 1hr ritual (thus no slot used) a big deal? Yes more than a short rest, so you can get screwed, but your familiars from Chain pact are still going to die in AEs as well. So not LOTS better. And arguably the invisibility goes away when you start asking them to do stuff.

I agree that sharing Magic Resistance is a definite "feature" of this pact. But IMO the only "this will make a huge difference over Find Familiar" one. So it's a definite LARGE point in favor, but large enough to even make it competitive? I would argue no.

Fourth, Pact of the Chain gives you one of the best class ability in the game: FREE Hold Monster. FREE as in TOTALLY FREE to use all day long, as long as you target different creatures. Considering this spell is a 5th level, and how many different creatures can be targeted with this spell, it's a huge asset.

It could go awesome if DM allows you to combine it with Voice of the Chain Master, meaning that you yourself have to be within casting range of the target but you "see" it through your familiar's eyes. For me it works by RAW but other may have counter-arguments.
Celestial, Fiend, or Elemental only, and only after 15th level. So either awesome if you're fighting those things all day long, or completely useless, depending on the campaign. And VotCM is another invocation. With Book you only need the ToaS. You're saying extra ones you need for this feature, when you only get so many.

Soooo...
No, Find Familiar does NOT, by far, provide the "vast majority" of Chain Pact. Reaaaaally not. XD
And depending on the character, it will be of much greater benefit than Tome pact (and it's a Tome pact lover speaking here since I tend to always prefer versatility ;)).
To me, most of Find Familiar is the scouting, advantage in combat, etc. Hell, it's worth it for advantage on spot checks (Owl, and others) alone. That's a huge feature both get.

Basically, I'm not going to debate the usefulness of Familiars, but only that the "extra" stuff you get from Chain beyond Find Familiar isn't enough over the "extra" stuff you get from being a ritual caster, and the other benefits of Tome. Are the extra benefits of a "better" familiar better than all the rituals in the game? Remember, Book of Ancient Secrets is BETTER than the Ritual Caster feat, in that you have access to ALL CLASSES' rituals, not just 1 (though Wizard has most of course). I argue it isn't better enough to even compete.

[Tanarii]

Third, Magic Resistance is in itself a redeeming feature: considering how fragile Warlocks can be in hitpoints, halving all damage is a great lifesaver.I see Magic Resistance for chain locks referenced frequently, but I've never been able to find this rule. It's not in the DMG. Is it a UA rule?

Regardless, it's important to remember, whatever the source, Magic Resistance for Chain Warlocks isn't the standard rule.

[Saggo]

I see Magic Resistance for chain locks referenced frequently, but I've never been able to find this rule. It's not in the DMG. Is it a UA rule?

Regardless, it's important to remember, whatever the source, Magic Resistance for Chain Warlocks isn't the standard rule.

It's in the MM. The Chain specific familiars all have little blurbs that something to the effect "If he is a familiar, the master gets his magic resistence at a certain range."

[JumboWheat01]

I see Magic Resistance for chain locks referenced frequently, but I've never been able to find this rule. It's not in the DMG. Is it a UA rule?

Regardless, it's important to remember, whatever the source, Magic Resistance for Chain Warlocks isn't the standard rule.

In the Monster Manual, Imps have a side block about being a Familiar, and in there it says they can share their Magic Resistance with their masters.

The main argument here for/against it would be if the Pack of the Chain warlock is actually summoning and binding an Imp to be their familiar or it's like the normal Find Familiar spell and it is in fact a spirit disguised as an Imp and can/cannot share their Magic Resistance like a proper Imp.

[TheFlyingCleric]

Second, ONLY Pact of the Chain allows you to freely communicate by telepathy with the beast without distance limit and share its senses (in addition to speak through it). With Find Familiar, it's 100 feet limit for telepathy, and you have to use your action to swap your senses for the creature's.



Fourth, Pact of the Chain gives you one of the best class ability in the game: FREE Hold Monster. FREE as in TOTALLY FREE to use all day long, as long as you target different creatures. Considering this spell is a 5th level, and how many different creatures can be targeted with this spell, it's a huge asset.


These two abilities each cost an invocation. And the latter is only available after level 15.
Of course you need pact of the chain to be able to get the invocations, but rating pact of the chain based on invocations is misleading; there are so many other useful invocations to choose from.
Furthermore, sharing the familiars senses (and thus speaking through it) takes your action. This can also be done with normal familiars up to 100 feet (without speech of course).

Pact of the tome only costs a single invocation to get its full functionality.

Your first point is right on the money though.

[Citan]

These two abilities each cost an invocation. And the latter is only available after level 15.
Of course you need pact of the chain to be able to get the invocations, but rating pact of the chain based on invocations is misleading; there are so many other useful invocations to choose from.
Furthermore, sharing the familiars senses (and thus speaking through it) takes your action. This can also be done with normal familiars up to 100 feet (without speech of course).

Pact of the tome only costs a single invocation to get its full functionality.

Your first point is right on the money though.
Sorry but you're wrong on two points. :)
First the "free Rituals" with Tome also costs an invocation.
Second, you can feel through the senses of your Chain familiar WITHOUT any action, since it's explicitely told in the block description of the pact feature. Which makes a great difference. :)

[TheFlyingCleric]

I already addressed point one. As I said, you get all its abilities with just a single invocation.

Point 2 can be interpreted either way, but I like your way better. Thank you for the correction.

[KorvinStarmast]

In the Monster Manual, Imps have a side block about being a Familiar, and in there it says they can share their Magic Resistance with their masters.
The MM entry seems to be a different kind of relationship than the summoned spirit in the form of a (example, pseudodragon) chain pact familiar. The distinction seems to be that in the MM case, it is the actual creature who agrees to serve the warlock, but with the pact or spell you summon a spirit in the form of X.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/73736/22566]See this analysis for why. (I think it is a sound argument, but a given DM can rule as you suggest, and not get all worked up about that distinction, subtle or otherwise).

Your approach reminds me of the HP bonus that a familiar gave to a 1e magic user ...

[Dr. Cliché]

The MM entry seems to be a different kind of relationship than the summoned spirit in the form of a (example, pseudodragon) chain pact familiar. The distinction seems to be that in the MM case, it is the actual creature who agrees to serve the warlock, but with the pact or spell you summon a spirit in the form of X.

http://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/73736/22566]See this analysis for why[/URL]. (I think it is a sound argument, but a given DM can rule as you suggest, and not get all worked up about that distinction, subtle or otherwise).

RAW, you're right.

However, the whole familiar thing seems rather bizarre. Why, when Imps, Quasits and Pseudodragons can clearly be familiars, is there no way to actually acquire one as a familiar? You can only get a 'spirit that takes its form', which seems to be code for 'looks the same, but far less interesting and with far fewer RP applications'. I mean, I can understand spirits taking animal forms, but why can't a Warlock serving a demonic lord get an actual Quasit (or Imp, if he's serving a devil)? Just makes no sense to me.

It's like the writers of the PHB and MM were locked in separate closets. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

However, the whole familiar thing seems rather bizarre. Why, when Imps, Quasits and Pseudodragons can clearly be familiars, is there no way to actually acquire one as a familiar?
Apparently you can, but the details are left to the DM/Player to role-play ... charm or beguile or something. (For example, do a favor for a powerful Fey Lord and get a real pseudodragon familiar/servant for X decades ... with the option always open of "if you abuse this servant it's gone")


It's like the writers of the PHB and MM were locked in separate closets. :smalltongue: I will not bet against you there ...

[Dr. Cliché]

Apparently you can, but the details are left to the DM/Player to role-play ... charm or beguile or something. (For example, do a favor for a powerful Fey Lord and get a real pseudodragon familiar/servant for X decades ... with the option always open of "if you abuse this servant it's gone")

But isn't that was exactly what Warlock Pacts (especially with The Fiend) was supposed to represent?

At the very least, I'd have thought there would be something - even a single sentence - alluding to this in the Pact of the Chain rules.

[Arial Black]

For me, the find familiar spell gets you 'a spirit in the form of...'

But if the chainlock wants one of the big four (and why wouldn't he?) then he doesn't get 'a spirit in the form of', he gets an actual imp, quasit, pseudodragon or sprite.

[Dr. Cliché]

For me, the find familiar spell gets you 'a spirit in the form of...'

But if the chainlock wants one of the big four (and why wouldn't he?) then he doesn't get 'a spirit in the form of', he gets an actual imp, quasit, pseudodragon or sprite.

I think that's a good idea. I just wish it was in the actual rules.

[R.Shackleford]

We have a houserule saying that familiars that cannot attack themselves (and summoned undead) cannot take the help action.

This houserule has proven to be very good and makes the pact of chain really stand out.

Besides that, on lower levels the attack of an invisible imp is really nasty and on higher levels the help action (especially from an invisible helper) awesome.

What a horrible houserule, the help action has nothing to do with attacking.

A bird fluttering in the face of an enemy really fast and then flying off would be distracting. A snake that bites its own tail and roll around like a wheel can be very distracting (player did this, I almost died laughing). The snake went into a room first to distract the ogre.

That's like saying that since a Fighter can't take the "cast a spell action", due to not having spells, then their other actions (help, use item, attack) should be arbitrarily limited.

[Dr. Cliché]

What a horrible houserule, the help action has nothing to do with attacking.

It's not a houserule - it's in the rulebook:

"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one
with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9).

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."



A bird fluttering in the face of an enemy really fast and then flying off would be distracting. A snake that bites its own tail and roll around like a wheel can be very distracting (player did this, I almost died laughing). The snake went into a room first to distract the ogre.

That's reasonable, but your ruling is still the houserule. Going by the PHB, if it can't attack alone then it can't help another creature attack.

[Saggo]

It's not a houserule - it's in the rulebook:

"Sometimes two or more characters team up to attempt a task. The character who’s leading the effort—or the one
with the highest ability modifier—can make an ability check with advantage, reflecting the help provided by the other characters. In combat, this requires the Help action (see chapter 9).

A character can only provide help if the task is one that he or she could attempt alone."

P175 mentions the Help Action to limit you from giving someone advantage on an ability check and then using your Action for attacks or what have you. Help Action on p192 has two distinct functions: letting you help with an ability check as detailed on p175 if it is attempted during combat or, specifically mentioned as an alternative, using it to help with an attack roll. The restrictions governing each are separate and there is no linking clause to suggest otherwise, which is why you don't need to be able to attack to help with attack rolls.

[KorvinStarmast]

For me, the find familiar spell gets you 'a spirit in the form of...'

But if the chainlock wants one of the big four (and why wouldn't he?) then he doesn't get 'a spirit in the form of', he gets an actual imp, quasit, pseudodragon or sprite.That ruling makes sense to me. The down side to that is that if/when the familiar dies, the warlock summoning a real one ... might be a little trickier than summoning a spirit in the form of X.

(Thinking through this at the campaign level, a careless warlock might lose a dozen of so sprite familiars, causing the general sprite community somewhere in Fey land to become concerned with all of these missing persons ... )

[Dr. Cliché]

P175 mentions the Help Action to limit you from giving someone advantage on an ability check and then using your Action for attacks or what have you. Help Action on p192 has two distinct functions: letting you help with an ability check as detailed on p175 if it is attempted during combat or, specifically mentioned as an alternative, using it to help with an attack roll. The restrictions governing each are separate and there is no linking clause to suggest otherwise, which is why you don't need to be able to attack to help with attack rolls.

Good point, I hadn't noticed that distinction between the Help actions in combat.


That ruling makes sense to me. The down side to that is that if/when the familiar dies, the warlock summoning a real one ... might be a little trickier than summoning a spirit in the form of X.

(Thinking through this at the campaign level, a careless warlock might lose a dozen of so sprite familiars, causing the general sprite community somewhere in Fey land to become concerned with all of these missing persons ... )

Well, I imagine you could get replacement Imps/Quasits fairly easily (so long your patron isn't displeased with you for other reasons :smallwink:). I think there's a line in the quasit fluff about other demons using them as snacks, meaning they're probably not valued highly.

On the other hand, I imagine sprites and pseudodragons would be harder to replace. I guess it's just another reason to be evil. :smallamused:

[Millstone85]

I described my Great Old One patron as a swarm, with my familiar (a refluffed quasit) being a single unit from it. If the famiiar dies, I can summon an identical one with the same memories.

／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ Pact?