Familiars and Attacking

[Easy_Lee]

A familiar can't attack, so says the Find Familiar spell text. The only time it can deliver attacks is when you cast a spell involving a touch attack and use the familiar to perform the touch. This is simple enough.

However, what does "can't attack" mean, exactly? Does it refer to the attack action, any offensive action, or only to damaging attacks? This came up in another thread concerning whether familiars can grapple targets, light things on fire, etc.

My opinion is that this refers to the attack action. Hence, a familiar can't attack or grapple, but can activate items which cause harmful effects. If a familiar were to throw a torch into a barrel of oil, causing an explosion, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. I also don't see anything wrong with familiars spreading caltrops and the like.

Thoughts?

[Shaofoo]

Considering that any action can potentially become offensive, I doubt that it is meant the attack action and not anything that could deal damage, otherwise things can get really hokey

Your familiar accidentally knock over a vial, which happens to be alchemist acid, but you take no damage because the familiar was the one that did it.

Your familiar triggers a trap and several dozen darts fly across, your party is hit but you don't take any damage because the familiar was the one that activated the trap.

The enemy straps a bomb to his familiar and instructs it to fly over and detonate it, the familiar does so but no one takes any damage from the blast.

[Jarlhen]

A familiar can't attack, so says the Find Familiar spell text. The only time it can deliver attacks is when you cast a spell involving a touch attack and use the familiar to perform the touch. This is simple enough.

However, what does "can't attack" mean, exactly? Does it refer to the attack action, any offensive action, or only to damaging attacks? This came up in another thread concerning whether familiars can grapple targets, light things on fire, etc.

My opinion is that this refers to the attack action. Hence, a familiar can't attack or grapple, but can activate items which cause harmful effects. If a familiar were to throw a torch into a barrel of oil, causing an explosion, I think that would be perfectly reasonable. I also don't see anything wrong with familiars spreading caltrops and the like.

Thoughts?

I believe your interpretation is correct. A familiar can't take the attack action. There is nothing that I can recall suggesting that it can't drop a torch in some oil, for instance.

[Mr.Moron]

It means it's not functionally like having an "Extra Action" feature in combat. The overall framework of familiars suggests strong intentions that they are for the most part non-combatants. Therefore when looking to define the relatively open-ended definition the standard I would apply is "Would this make them a combatant?" and if the answer is "Yes", said action is probably beyond the what the familiar can do.

To answer your specific examples

"Activate an item Which has harmful effects": If this is a wand, staff or similar item that directly replicates some of kind of attack spell like a Fireball, or somethign that requires an attack roll or imposes a saving throw it's probably beyond what a familiar can do.If it's just like a small vial of choking gas it has to push out your pocket and have drop at your feet? Probably fine.

"Throw a torch into a barrel of oil": If you're say in the middle of an infiltration and it can crawl all sneaky like and drop it in from a ledge that's probably fair game. If you're in the middle of a pitched battle with angry orcs filling the room and swinging axes in the general direction of you and your familiar that's probably too much for the poor lil' guy to cope with.

Similarly spreading caltrops while you're doing general setup? Probably fine. Running behind you while Goblins pepper the group with arrows and you dash for the exit? Not so much.


If a PC spent time going out of there way to run their familiar through combat drills, maybe get involved with some hi-jinks that bring the familiar into focus as a character some expanded utility in combat might be a suitable little upgrade to acknowledge the effort and screen time.

However at the end of the day the familiar is a little utility pet, a small nicety meant to be just a bit above the ribbon level in terms of power. I think having it be any more than that is viable but probably not best to bake into the baseline expectations.

[R.Shackleford]

In all honesty it feels like yet another time Mearles has went all weird.

I feel like every time he has been a part of creating rules... There is a good base but a part of it goes weird. Maybe it isn't him but between 4e and 5e and his twitter responses... Weirdness follows him.

Familiars not attacking on a base level sounds legit. You don't want casters doing a lot of physical damage since that is all martials get. But then you go and make "attack" subjective instead of objective.

Casting fireball isn't attacking a creature. You can burn an entire village,killing hundreds, and when (if) the Paladins who caught you ask "did you attack the village" you can get around the zone of truth by saying "No, I did not attack the town".

So "attack" now have two meanings. The basic English meaning and the game meaning.

This is bad. This is the type of fiddly rules that people tried to get away from when going away from 3e. The lawyering of words (lol, lawyering) and phrases and having to have a new dictionary to play the game.

Bah to that.

[ClintACK]

For context...

The initial proposal was to make a bomb and collapse a monster's lair.

The question was then: can you use your familiar as an expendable teammate -- to light the bomb off and get caught in the collapse?

(You can re-conjure your familiar much more easily than you can dig out the rogue's corpse and get him raised from the dead.)

It's clearly an offensive action. It's not "during combat" when he does it. And a 5e familiar is a spirit, not an actual creature. And it explicitly doesn't permanently die -- when you cast Find Familiar again after a familiar "dies", you get the same familiar back. So no moral issue.


It feels like this should work -- but it does make familiars a really powerful class feature.

[Jarlhen]

It means it's not functionally like having an "Extra Action" feature in combat. The overall framework of familiars suggests strong intentions that they are for the most part non-combatants. Therefore when looking to define the relatively open-ended definition the standard I would apply is "Would this make them a combatant?" and if the answer is "Yes", said action is probably beyond the what the familiar can do.

To answer your specific examples

"Activate an item Which has harmful effects": If this is a wand, staff or similar item that directly replicates some of kind of attack spell like a Fireball, or somethign that requires an attack roll or imposes a saving throw it's probably beyond what a familiar can do.If it's just like a small vial of choking gas it has to push out your pocket and have drop at your feet? Probably fine.

"Throw a torch into a barrel of oil": If you're say in the middle of an infiltration and it can crawl all sneaky like and drop it in from a ledge that's probably fair game. If you're in the middle of a pitched battle with angry orcs filling the room and swinging axes in the general direction of you and your familiar that's probably too much for the poor lil' guy to cope with.

Similarly spreading caltrops while you're doing general setup? Probably fine. Running behind you while Goblins pepper the group with arrows and you dash for the exit? Not so much.


If a PC spent time going out of there way to run their familiar through combat drills, maybe get involved with some hi-jinks that bring the familiar into focus as a character some expanded utility in combat might be a suitable little upgrade to acknowledge the effort and screen time.

However at the end of the day the familiar is a little utility pet, a small nicety meant to be just a bit above the ribbon level in terms of power. I think having it be any more than that is viable but probably not best to bake into the baseline expectations.

I think one thing here is that familiars can still use the help action. They can still help you attacking the bad guy. Throwing sand at it, crawling over it, flapping its wings in its face, and so on and so forth. That's perfectly kosher. So with that in mind it wouldn't make much sense that dropping something in something in the heat of battle would be an issue. I mean it can already get in the face of the orc and help you out. So while I get your point, I don't think the logic behind it works in that sense.

[R.Shackleford]

For context...

The initial proposal was to make a bomb and collapse a monster's lair.

The question was then: can you use your familiar as an expendable teammate -- to light the bomb off and get caught in the collapse?

(You can re-conjure your familiar much more easily than you can dig out the rogue's corpse and get him raised from the dead.)

It's clearly an offensive action. It's not "during combat" when he does it. And a 5e familiar is a spirit, not an actual creature. And it explicitly doesn't permanently die -- when you cast Find Familiar again after a familiar "dies", you get the same familiar back. So no moral issue.


It feels like this should work -- but it does make familiars a really powerful class feature.

The familiar can take actions as normal.

If that action would fall under "use an item" and not "attack" then by RAW they can.



Attack

The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks.

Certain features, such as the Extra Attack feature of the fighter, allow you to make more than one attack with this action.

Making an Attack

Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.

Choose a target: Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers: The GM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack: You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.


****

From the SRD

Of you are replacing your attack with say a grapple then it is still attack (as it is called out as an attack).

Use an object isn't an attack.

The familiar can light the bomb... If it is smart enough and physically able... Since familiars follow your instructions quite specifically I say they are smart enough. Physically able might be a different story.


Edit

The above is about RAW, it does not show my disadain for the "what is an attack" question.

[ClintACK]

The familiar can light the bomb... If it is smart enough and physically able...
That's what I think, too.



If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.


This is really the heart of the question: Can you ever be making an attack without making an attack roll?

The English sentence "If A, then B" can be parsed into either of two logical propositions: "B or not A" or "(B or not A) and (A or not B)". (In other words, the English is ambiguous as to whether or not "If not A then not B".)

So it's true RAW that anything with an attack roll is always an attack. It's grammatically ambiguous whether the lack of an attack roll proves it's not an attack.

(Note that whether something is an attack will also affect Invisibility and Sanctuary and so on. ***)

Examples of offensive actions without an attack roll:

Untie a chandelier, making it fall on an enemy.
Drop a candle into a puddle of oil.
Cast Fireball. Or Magic Missile. Or Feeblemind.
Speak the trigger word for a Glyph of Warding.
Shove someone. **
Grab (grapple) someone. **
Take the Attack action, but use all your "attacks" to do things like reload a crossbow and grant an attack to an ally.
Use a racial ability -- like a dragonborn's breath weapon.
Terminate concentration on a spell -- like a Fly spell someone else, or a Wall of Ice being used as a bridge.
Persuade someone else to attack.
Trigger a Wand of Fireballs.
"Help" an attack -- by feinting or distracting the target.
Pull the release lever on a trebuchet that someone else aimed (presumably the attack roll would be made by the aimer...)


So are we meant to believe that an invisible character can untie a portcullis, causing it to crash down on an enemy monster -- or even breathe fire in someone's face, and remain invisible, because he didn't make an attack roll? Or are we meant to look at "If there’s ever any question..." and say that of course there's no question.

*shrug*

That might actually be true, RAW. There's a reason the game needs a DM to actively keep it from breaking. :)



** Right. Shove and Grapple are specifically called out as "attacks", so they definitely are attacks without attack rolls.

***It's not just a question for familiars.
Invisibility: "... ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell."
Sanctuary: "If the warded creature makes an attack or casts a spell that affects an enemy creature, this spell ends."
and so on.

[Easy_Lee]

That's a good point. Breath weapons and similar abilities, which aren't attacks but deal damage, are an interesting case as far as invisibility and sanctuary are concerned. By plain RAW, they are not the attack action or a spell, but they deal damage.

If breath attacks break invisibility, then does the rule become: any offensive action counts as an attack? If so, one could not untie a chandelier or drop caltrops while invisible, though I believe the intent is that these things are possible while invisible.

I believe breath weapons and similar ought to be reworded to act in the same way as a shove or grapple: "When you take the attack action, you may make a special attack..."

[Slipperychicken]

Quoted directly from the book, PHB 194, "making an attack":

"If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll,you're making an attack."


I think you guys are reading more ambiguity than there should be. If "attacks" included actions that do not involve attack rolls, then that would have been mentioned somewhere in the rules, and there would have been no need for spells like invisibility to specify that they also end on harmful spells.

So I'd be okay with a familiar dropping a torch or reloading a weapon (assuming the creature could actually do that). A familiar could not throw a torch at something because that would take an attack roll to determine if it hit. A breath weapon is not an attack, but I would probably tell the player no because that violates the spirit of the rule.

I think firing a trebuchet is an attack because it makes an attack roll, so it's kind of like pulling the trigger on a really big crossbow. I do not think that loading or aiming the weapon are attacks, however. The attack roll should be made when fired, not when aimed or loaded.

[R.Shackleford]

That's a good point. Breath weapons and similar abilities, which aren't attacks but deal damage, are an interesting case as far as invisibility and sanctuary are concerned. By plain RAW, they are not the attack action or a spell, but they deal damage.

If breath attacks break invisibility, then does the rule become: any offensive action counts as an attack? If so, one could not untie a chandelier or drop caltrops while invisible, though I believe the intent is that these things are possible while invisible.

I believe breath weapons and similar ought to be reworded to act in the same way as a shove or grapple: "When you take the attack action, you may make a special attack..."

Attack: Any action that is directly effecting another creature in a negative way.

Untieing a chandelier in order to hurt a creature is an attack. Just like a breath weapon or Weapon attack.

Untieing a chandelier to get it to fall in the ground to block a passage way is not an attack.

So how can a familier untie a chandelier in one situation and not the other?

Let familiars attack. However they always take disadvantage on attack rolls or creature a have advantage on saves. Familiars are clumsy and aren't meant to attack, they still can, but not as well as their real counterparts. However familiars are smarter so they can do a wider variety of stuff (go to that chandelier and untie it when X happens).

[Easy_Lee]

Attack: Any action that is directly affecting another creature in a negative way.

I dislike this definition, simply because it would either prevent the familiar from or give it disadvantage to performing a wide variety of tasks. Triggering traps, activating bombs, lighting grease, pulling levers which then lower doors on people, and even delivering particularly apt insults would all have to be monitored. It also would mean that doing any of those things would break invisibility / sanctuary.

Edit: please pardon my minor grammatical correction. My hobbies include fiction writing.

[R.Shackleford]

I dislike this definition, simply because it would either prevent the familiar from or give it disadvantage to performing a wide variety of tasks. Triggering traps, activating bombs, lighting grease, pulling levers which then lower doors on people, and even delivering particularly apt insults would all have to be monitored. It also would mean that doing any of those things would break invisibility / sanctuary.

Edit: please pardon my minor grammatical correction. My hobbies include fiction writing.

I'm a scientist, I have no need for the English language!

Familiars should have disadvantage on triggering traps and stuff. You don't want that familiar taking the place of a party member or becoming a expendable body.

Having an easily expendable body mtakes away from a lot of hard answers.

Familiars can still scout and do stuff. You could even lift the disadvantage when casting a Spell from their mage.

Familaira would still be super helpful with the help action too.

Edit

DM: Whoever stay behind to light the fuse will most likely die...
Paladin: I will sacrifice myself for the greater go...
Wizard: Nah, let's Cait Sith this situation and let my familiar do it.
Paladin: ... But...

I never want a situation where a heroic sacrifice is performed by a reknewable resource.

[ClintACK]

I think you guys are reading more ambiguity than there should be. If "attacks" included actions that do not involve attack rolls, then that would have been mentioned somewhere in the rules, and there would have been no need for spells like invisibility to specify that they also end on harmful spells.

You're assuming the rules of a game can be "complete". (in the sense of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem)

No matter how many times you plaster over specific omissions with specific rule additions, there will always be edge cases that are missing. That's why you need a DM and you need to squint at things and see if they pass "the smell test". Like becoming invisible by hiding behind your own tower shield -- the shield RAW is hidden too, because it's held by someone successfully hiding. *facepalm*

Which is why you're exactly right with:

A breath weapon is not an attack, but I would probably tell the player no because that violates the spirit of the rule.



Having an easily expendable body takes away from a lot of hard answers.

If you think that's bad, think what you could do with an invisible, flying, expendable scout in constant telepathic contact with its master anywhere on the same plane of existence -- and the master can speak through it using social skills, make it attack, and in 12 seconds, teleport it back to his side (arguably including anything it's wearing or carrying). Pact of the Chain is potentially much, much more abusable than just Find Familiar.

So is Find Steed.

Besides, there are lots of other ways to get an expendable body -- at least Find Familiar costs 10 gp and an hour of your time. Unseen Servant, cast as a ritual, is faster and free. Rolling a bowling ball down the passage ahead of you is pretty cheap. Or pay the street urchins endemic to fantasy cities to gather you a bag of mice and rats -- then herd them along ahead of you with a lantern and a stern voice. Using a charmed goblin to scout for traps may sound heartless and cruel -- but is it worse than just killing him outright?



DM: Whoever stay behind to light the fuse will most likely die...
Paladin: I will sacrifice myself for the greater go...
Wizard: Nah, let's Cait Sith this situation and let my familiar do it.
Paladin: ... But...

I never want a situation where a heroic sacrifice is performed by a reknewable resource.

I'd never want to take away from a Paladin's noble self-sacrifice... but there really are times when "let's just collapse the bridge" is a better plan than "I'll stay here and die to buy you time."

Cutting down the rope bridge -- or lighting off the bomb with a familiar (or rigging up a time delay with a candle and a pile of gunpowder) -- isn't a heroic sacrifice. But a heroic sacrifice isn't always the right answer.

[JakOfAllTirades]

SlipperyChicken nailed it. If there's no attack roll, it's fair game for a Familiar. If there's an attack roll, a PC should do it instead.

This is a simple, fair, unambiguous rule that everyone should be able to live with. Y'all have a nice argument; as far as I'm concerned, it's settled.

[Slipperychicken]

DM: Whoever stay behind to light the fuse will most likely die...
Paladin: I will sacrifice myself for the greater go...
Wizard: Nah, let's Cait Sith this situation and let my familiar do it.
Paladin: ... But...

I never want a situation where a heroic sacrifice is performed by a reknewable resource.

Paladin should be pretty happy: if the wizard hadn't spoke up, he'd have wasted his life; (and all his years of training, his talent, the feelings of people who cared about him, and the treasure on his body too) for something a 10 gold bird could have done. Now he can keep on fighting the good fight, and maybe do a heroic sacrifice in a way that actually matters. I mean, that is assuming the paladin wasn't suicidal, in which case I figure he can off himself on his own time.

[Flashy]

I have a player who came up with the genius idea of tying a small sack of gunpowder to his hawk familiar, lighting a timed fuse, and using it as a guided grenade delivery system. Shockingly effective, and certainly avoids the whole question of attacking.

[R.Shackleford]

Imagine your favorite story being not about the main character or even side character but about the familiar.

If you want bards singing takes about a 10 gp bird, be my guest, but I rather my character go out a hero than some wuss who ran away when the going got tough. Maybe my character does or maybe I figure a way to survive... Who knows. But it makes for a better story.

[Slipperychicken]

Imagine your favorite story being not about the main character or even side character but about the familiar.

If you want bards singing takes about a 10 gp bird, be my guest, but I rather my character go out a hero than some wuss who ran away when the going got tough. Maybe my character does or maybe I figure a way to survive... Who knows. But it makes for a better story.

Craven the Enchanter sayeth "Hold ye brave sirs, for ye need not die on this day, for my raven shall light the fuse, and he shall be reconstituted on the morrow with mine simple ritual!"

But on hearing these words, brave Sir Sacrifice came to wroth and shouted: "Nay, I shall set the fuse myself, for my death shall bring me the greater glory! And the greatest stories shall be told in my name! Not the name of the silly crow that sits upon thy shoulder and cries out vulgarity!"

"But Sacrifice, you need not-"

"I will have the glorious sacrifice! FOR I AM THE HERO! NOT THEE, DISHONORABLE WIZARD, NOR THY IMPISH BIRD!"

Then he was all in fury and there was no dissuading him, so after a quarrel we all left, and he set that fuse and died in the blast. Little did he suspect amidst his raving, that I (the author of this tale, the minstrel who sang at his side) took note of the vainglorious bluster that formed his final words.

I shall report to you honestly and truthfully, gentle reader, that Sir Sacrifices' death was not the noble and legendry end he sought, but a simple suicide, for he killed himself and wasted his life when there was no need. In the next chapter, I will faithfully recall the many tears shed by his wife when my party told her the news, and how she wrung her hands and tore at her hair, for she was all in grief and mad with sadness that her master had taken his own life in a fit of prideful wrath..

[Easy_Lee]

I will faithfully recall the many tears shed by his wife when my party told her the news, and how she wrung her hands and tore at her hair, for she was all in grief and mad with sadness that her master had taken his own life in a fit of prideful wrath..

Husband is the wife's master...uh oh. Hope Tumblr doesn't catch wind of this.

[Ghost Nappa]

As an aside, recall that Warlocks that select Path of the Chain are explicitly allowed to have familiars that attack.

[R.Shackleford]

I'm just saying that a Mushu shouldn't be the focus of the movie Mulan.

If you are afraid to risk your life why are you an adventurer? Why aren't you a summoner? Why do you wake up and go outside?

This personality types separates the boys from the Josefs of the world. (ff2 reference ftw)

[RickAllison]

I'm just saying that a Mushu shouldn't be the focus of the movie Mulan.

If you are afraid to risk your life why are you an adventurer? Why aren't you a summoner? Why do you wake up and go outside?

This personality types separates the boys from the Josefs of the world. (ff2 reference ftw)

Now that I think about it, Mulan was a minion master. She had the Beastmaster pet in Cricket, her Find Steed in Khan, and her PotC familiar in Mushu.

As for familiars taking the glory, this only works in specific circumstances, and those are generally engineered by the players (setting the bombs, for example). If a paladin wants to sacrifice themselves, there are plenty of opportunities (read: the majority of them) where a familiar simply isn't going to cut it for saving everyone. They can't stop a swarm unless given extra power through spells or explosives, they are not effective enough at damaging to pose a threat that must be dealt with, and a lack of skills and abilities prevent them from making skill checks that could save the party (holding a falling slab, etc.). The paladin should be happy that he can remain alive to sacrifice his life in those situations.

[ClintACK]

It's only a noble sacrifice when you die (or risk your life) to actually achieve a noble goal that required that risk or sacrifice.

It's not a noble goal when you commit seppuku in order to pay the bar tab. Or when you insist that the party use you as a raft, even though you'll drown, rather than just buying that canoe over there.

They don't sing songs to the noble knight who loaded himself into the basket of the trebuchet, rather than allow a stupid rock the glory of smashing in the gates of the citadel. Or at least, if they do, it's the kind of song that men laugh at over their tankards of ale.

[Vogonjeltz]

However, what does "can't attack" mean, exactly? Does it refer to the attack action, any offensive action, or only to damaging attacks? This came up in another thread concerning whether familiars can grapple targets, light things on fire, etc.

I see two possible rulings:

1) No attacks, period (exception given where touch spells can be delivered, and ones with attack rolls are using the casters attack modifier).

2) No Attack Action. This would leave open the realm for Opportunity Attacks.

I'm inclined to say that, based on the wording not using "Attack Action" (which I think is uniformly standard use for the book) it means #1, blanket prohibition that gets a very thinly defined exception of sorts in the use of its reaction to deliver a caster's spell action.

So, I'd say to the quoted question, no, the familiar would be incapable of any of the listed things.


The question was then: can you use your familiar as an expendable teammate -- to light the bomb off and get caught in the collapse?

I wouldn't consider this a violation of the blanket prohibition I've mentioned, it would instead fall under the manipulate an object action to light something on fire with a torch (assuming that something is an unattended object).

That being said, what familiar would even be capable of such a thing? Only the Imp, Quasit, and Sprite are seemingly capable of such a manipulation in the first place. None of them can be chosen with the Find Familiar spell, they require actively recruiting OR the unique Warlock Pact of the Chain. Note: Warlock can also get an invocation to allow for attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

Amending my position. I'm just going to rule out anything that requires the attack action or an attack roll. Perhaps their wording was, just this once, deliberate.

[Millstone85]

Note: Warlock can also get an invocation to allow for attacks.Familiars gained with Pact of the Chain can attack, no invocation required.

[ClintACK]

That being said, what familiar would even be capable of such a thing? Only the Imp, Quasit, and Sprite are seemingly capable of such a manipulation in the first place.

It depends on how you rig up the bomb. (The sneaky rogue is assembling the bomb in situ, then getting out of the cavern.)

If the familiar just needs to knock over a candle onto the pile of gunpowder next to it... nearly anything could do that. (Then a trail of gunpowder from that pile to the bomb itself -- a staple of cartoon violence.)

If the familiar needs to carry a lit candle into the cavern and drop it in a pile of gunpowder... a hawk, raven, rat, or weasel shouldn't have a problem. A cat could do it physically, but it's hard to imagine one being that dog-like. Magic only lets me suspend my disbelief just so far, and no further. :)


Anyway... I think I'd probably let a familiar do pretty much anything that wasn't actually an Attack Action, outside of combat. And rule tighter in combat -- even using the familiar to "Help" an attack in combat, like to get the Rogue advantage for a sneak attack, seems like it's pushing it. (Usually, you can only help someone do something you could also do. The "Help" in combat represents dividing a target's focus between two threats, and the familiar isn't actually a threat. Etc.)

[Giant2005]

Familiars (all NPCs really) don't even take the attack action - they have their own list of actions in their stat blocks. Due to grapples requiring the attack action, familiars can't actually grapple anyway unless one of their actions is a grapple ability.
As for what they can do as a familiar, they can do anything listed in their stat blocks under "actions" that doesn't have a damage component.

[Gwendol]

Familiars can't effectively grapple due to a number of reasons, but anyone can grapple that have the ability to hold on to someone. They don't need the attack action for it.

[Millstone85]

Familiars (all NPCs really) don't even take the attack action - they have their own list of actions in their stat blocks.By that logic, an orc couldn't dodge or hide. It is clear to me that stat blocks do not replace the standard list of actions, but add to it.

[RickAllison]

Familiars (all NPCs really) don't even take the attack action - they have their own list of actions in their stat blocks. Due to grapples requiring the attack action, familiars can't actually grapple anyway unless one of their actions is a grapple ability.
As for what they can do as a familiar, they can do anything listed in their stat blocks under "actions" that doesn't have a damage component.


By that logic, an orc couldn't dodge or hide. It is clear to me that stat blocks do not replace the standard list of actions, but add to it.

Millstone has it. What the action section of NPCs does is show what usual weapons they have (these generally could be used with Extra Attack if they had it) and special actions like Multiattack and Frighthening Presence.

The only reason they cannot grapple with Multiattack is the progression is set. They can grapple, but they give up Multiattack to do it.


Familiars can't effectively grapple due to a number of reasons, but anyone can grapple that have the ability to hold on to someone. They don't need the attack action for it.

You grapple by taking a special attack within the Attack action (or through something like Tavern Brawler).

[ClintACK]

So is there really a story about conquering the world with Dancing Lights?

[TentacleSurpris]

I like to point out that I don't think a familiar can Help on an attack roll. Yes, Sage Advice disagrees but sometimes the designers don't read what they wrote. And that's only advice.

RAW A familiar can't attack on its own. It's right there in the Find Familiar spell. You must take an Action to command it to attack. If you're not there commanding it, if you're unconscious, if you're busy, it can't attack. It can attack but not on it's own.

PHB 175 references the combat Help action and says
"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."

Otherwise an Owl familiar is permanent True-Strike for an Arcane Trickster on all attacks that has Flyby and 60 feet movement to prevent ever getting hurt and can be replaced for only 10g. Game = broken.

[Millstone85]

I like to point out that I don't think a familiar can Help on an attack roll. Yes, Sage Advice disagrees but sometimes the designers don't read what they wrote. And that's only advice.
PHB 175 references the combat Help action and says
"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."As a counterargument to this, look at the wording of the Help action on page 192:
"You can lend your aid to another creature in the completion of a task. / Alternatively, 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."A distinction is made between helping with a task and helping with an attack. And you don't need to be a potential attacker to distract someone.


Otherwise an Owl familiar is permanent True-Strike for an Arcane Trickster on all attacks that has Flyby and 60 feet movement to prevent ever getting hurt and can be replaced for only 10g. Game = broken.A readied melee attack beats Flyby. Ranged weapons beat those 60 feet. And the owl won't be replaced during the fight. The game isn't broken.

[jas61292]

A readied melee attack beats Flyby. Ranged weapons beat those 60 feet. And the owl won't be replaced during the fight. The game isn't broken.

Yeah, exactly. Unless you buff, even a commoner throwing a rock (+0 with disadvantage) has a 25% chance of killing the owl. Its not hard to do.

[RickAllison]

So is there really a story about conquering the world with Dancing Lights?

No, it was a joke about my tendencies to try to take over the world using relatively innocuous spells. The only way I could see to take over the world with Dancing Lights would be with Sorcerer 3 to get extended range or Subtle metamagic for the spell, then directing a platoon/other military grouping to concentrate fire, preferably combined with Swashbuckler 3 for higher initiative, Cunning Action, and Expertise.

Stealth up with great bonuses, Subtle DL to mark targets for the first wave of arrows, then bonus action to mark for the second wave.

[p_johnston]

It may just be my style of being a DM but I'm inclined to stick to familiars can't make attack rolls or use magic items, but other actions are ok (within reason). This has less to do with the exact RAW rules then it does with the fact that I like having my PC's do more then just beat things to death. If a PC want's to use a familiar to get creative and do interesting things I'm loath to stop them. I like for my games to be fun and have interesting stories, and the story of "I had my imp drop a chandelier on him" is a lot more interesting then "I cast eldritch blast again."

[Gwendol]

You grapple by taking a special attack within the Attack action (or through something like Tavern Brawler).

Yes, what I meant is that if a monster has multiattack listed (or other modes of attack) it doesn't exclude grappling, even though the grapple can't be replacing an attack action attack (none listed).

[RickAllison]

Yes, what I meant is that if a monster has multiattack listed (or other modes of attack) it doesn't exclude grappling, even though the grapple can't be replacing an attack action attack (none listed).

I think I'm failing to understand your point. Yes, creatures with Multiattack can still take the Attack action to substitute a grapple or shove for an attack. No, Multiattack attacks cannot be substituted.

[TentacleSurpris]

Yeah, exactly. Unless you buff, even a commoner throwing a rock (+0 with disadvantage) has a 25% chance of killing the owl. Its not hard to do.

A readied melee attack means the enemy never gets to attack. If you watch it carefully, and its turn in the initiative comes and goes and it's looking at the owl, waiting for it to come, then you don't command your owl to fly in that round. The enemy wasted his action taking a Ready for a condition that never arrives. So either the familiar is True Strike or Hold Person. Game = broken again.

[Ace Jackson]

I think I'm failing to understand your point. Yes, creatures with Multiattack can still take the Attack action to substitute a grapple or shove for an attack. No, Multiattack attacks cannot be substituted.

For one example, consider the Quaggoth, in the stat block it has a multiattack action listed, but there is no attack action, it is not defined for monsters. That is the contention being made, however, you and millstone85 are correct, on page ten of the MM it explictly says that PHB defined actions, including the standard attack action, are to be presumed available by default.

[jas61292]

A readied melee attack means the enemy never gets to attack. If you watch it carefully, and its turn in the initiative comes and goes and it's looking at the owl, waiting for it to come, then you don't command your owl to fly in that round. The enemy wasted his action taking a Ready for a condition that never arrives. So either the familiar is True Strike or Hold Person. Game = broken again.

You missed the part where a thrown rock is a ranged attack. No readied action needed. Make it a sling with proficiency, and the commoner kills the owl 55% of the time. And no, an owl cannot both help and be out of range of a ranged attack. If it tries to help, there is a good chance it will die.

[JeffreyGator]

The question was then: can you use your familiar as an expendable teammate -- to light the bomb off and get caught in the collapse?

(You can re-conjure your familiar much more easily than you can dig out the rogue's corpse and get him raised from the dead.)

It's clearly an offensive action. It's not "during combat" when he does it. And a 5e familiar is a spirit, not an actual creature. And it explicitly doesn't permanently die -- when you cast Find Familiar again after a familiar "dies", you get the same familiar back. So no moral issue.


The same spirit comes back - perhaps unhappy. I doubt that you get to use this trick multiple times except in very exceptional circumstances.

Expediency and pragmatism in the short term are often moral issues.


Attack: Any action that is directly effecting another creature in a negative way.

Untieing a chandelier in order to hurt a creature is an attack. Just like a breath weapon or Weapon attack.

Untieing a chandelier to get it to fall in the ground to block a passage way is not an attack.

So how can a familier untie a chandelier in one situation and not the other?

Let familiars attack. However they always take disadvantage on attack rolls or creature a have advantage on saves. Familiars are clumsy and aren't meant to attack, they still can, but not as well as their real counterparts. However familiars are smarter so they can do a wider variety of stuff (go to that chandelier and untie it when X happens).

RAW, I wouldn't let the familiar roll an attack roll to hit with the falling chandelier and therefore it misses. Alternately, you could rule this as a trap and then the creatures about to be squashed have to make a dex check to avoid being under it. Maybe with advantage since they aren't triggering it and might see the familiar.

[Dr. Cliché]

RAW, I wouldn't let the familiar roll an attack roll to hit with the falling chandelier and therefore it misses. Alternately, you could rule this as a trap and then the creatures about to be squashed have to make a dex check to avoid being under it.

I'd definitely go with the latter. Saying it automatically misses just smacks of DM fiat.

[Fighting_Ferret]

NPCs have he exact same action economy (and restrictions) that players have. They get a movement, an action, a reaction, and a bonus action if they have some thing that gives them one.

Just because their stat block has their actions short listed doesn't mean they cannot do something that the PCs could do. Any enemy with multi-attack, would be able to substitute any of the attacks in multi-attack for a shove prone, a grapple, or both. They could also take the disengage, dodge, help, dash, hide, search, or ready actions.

Familiars, ranger companion beasts, and steeds are all restricted to what they can do in combat. Anything used as an enemy (other than familiars, ranger companion beasts, or steeds)behaves just like PCs.