Introducing: the Demonic Goalie! a Chain pact Warlock with a flying shield bearer

[MrBig]

I think you should be able to use a chain-pact imp to provide (nearly) at-will +2 AC to yourself.

Imagine this: a flying, armored imp with an invisible, human-sized shield orbiting around the Warlock, aggressively blocking arrows, swords, and other threats to his master.

Allow me to proudly introduce:

*** THE DEMONIC GOALIE ****

Ok, here goes:

1) Weight

Imp can carry up to 45 lbs.
Human-sized shield is 6 lbs. No problem.

2) Proficiency

"Armor Proficiency: Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a Shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor’s use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or Attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can’t cast Spells."

Ok, the Imp clearly doesn't have shield proficiency. But, that isn't really a problem here.
You don't need him to attack, or cast spells.
Just hold a shield...

3) Cover from ranged attacks

The cover rules say:
"A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend. "

So, 'a creature' can provide cover, and half-cover is +2 AC.
A shield, by itself, is also +2 AC.
Seems pretty reasonable to say that Mr. Imp is going to provide you +2 AC.

As a bonus, you also get +2 to dex savings throws.

4) Melee protection

The cover rules (RAW), don't specifically state that they only apply to ranged attacks.
However, I'd wager that most tables use it that way.
Cover in melee combat doesn't usually come up.
However, there's no reason the cover rules shouldn't apply to melee combat as well.
And in this situation, it certainly seems like it would apply.

5) Invisibility

"Invisibility: ... Any Equipment the imp wears or carries is Invisible with it."
So, imp and shield are invisible.

6) Telepathy

You have telepathic communication with your familiar within 100', so there's no problem with controlling/directing/coordinating with him during combat.

** Limitations **

1) space

The imp is tiny, so takes a 2.5 x 2.5 space.
It may not be able to be in the same 5x5 square as you, depending on how your DM wants to rule, and how strictly you follow grid-combat mechanics.
So, they may need to be in one particular square around you.

Of course, the imp does fly, and is friendly, so there's reason he couldn't fly *above* you, to stay in your square, and then fly down on any side when he sees a threat from that direction...
Anyhow, this probably falls squarely into the 'ask your DM' category.

2) directionality

Cover only protects from threats on the other side of the cover - not omnidirectionally.
So, if you are attacked from behind - no good.

Multiple melee attackers? DM discretion. DM could rule that you only get +2 from one of them, or maybe they would allow protection against both if they were adjacent.

A generous interpretation would allow +2 AC to attacks from any direction. After all, the imp is tiny, and flying, and wouldn't have to leave the square (if DM allows imp to be in your square).

3) imp survivability.

The imp isn't the hardiest of melee combatants, but it does have a few options.

Base stats are:
AC: 13
STR: 6
DEX: 17
HP : 10
Immunities: Poison, fire
Resistances: Cold; Bludgeoning, Piercing, And Slashing From Nonmagical/nonsilver Weapons
Abilities: invisibility at will
Magic Resistance: The imp has advantage on saving throws against Spells and other magical effects.

So, just carrying the shield, they've bumped 13->15 AC. Invisibility means disadvantage to all attackers. Resistances means they will probably take half damage from most melee hits, which makes their _effective_ HP doubled (10 -> 20).

Make some custom studded leather for him and you've got 13 AC + dex 3 + shield 2 = 18 AC.
If you really want to optimize you could move up to custom half-plate for 15 + dex 2 + shield 2= 19 AC.

A DM could even rule that a human-sized shield would be 3/4 cover for the imp, and hence +5 AC (for him, still only +2 AC for you).

Anyhow, at least 18 AC + permanent disadvantage to attackers, and effectively 20 HP for melee ...
Not too shabby.

Of course, all of that imp AC and HP only comes into play if the attacker is actively trying to attack the imp, and not you. If the attacker is focusing on you, then imp is all-up-in-their-face with his shield, giving you some sweet +2 AC. If they get annoyed with the demonic goalie, and start trying to take him out, well.. any swing at the imp is a swing that's not at you.

4) Invisibility

Invisibility is concentration. So, if imp does get hit and takes damage, he'll need a concentration save to keep invisibility going. If he loses it, he will be visible until his next turn when he can apply invisibility again.

5) initiative timing and movement in combat

Flying magic shield is only useful if it's close to you.
So, a lot of movement in combat can make it tricky.

By RAW, familiars get their own initiative.
So, if imp has initiative before you, it's all good - he can just ready an action. "When master moves, I follow master". He follows you around, you keep cover.

If your initiative is first, and you need to move, then you're going to lose cover until the imp's turn comes and he can move to where you are.

Or, you could ready your move action and hold your movement until the imp's turn. e.g. "I ready a movement - when the imp moves to the column, I move with him."

So, it may not be 100% full-time coverage.

If your table uses a simplified "familiars go on your initiative" rule, then this is a non-issue. You both move together.

** Other strategies **

- Inspiring leader would give him some more temp HP to help survivability. Same for any other group buffs.

- Synergizes well with a darkness / Devil's sight combo.
Imp can see in magical darkness, so the +2 AC just provides an extra level of defensive bonus, if you need it. Cast darkness on the shield (or other small token), give to Imp. If you keep imp near you, you get the usual advantage to attack, disadvantage to attackers, plus an extra +2 AC.

- Protect some other squishy. He doesn't have to protect you - send demonic goalie to shield someone else. This could be either just invisible shield for +2 AC, or with darkness bubble to eliminate line of sight for attackers and possibly provide disadvantage. No line of sight means your friend can move without triggering attacks of opportunity, can't be targeted by most spells, etc. Yeah, they will probably be annoyed that they can't see, but it beats getting your skull crushed in...

- Would be great for an eldtrich-blast hexblade! Warlock in half plate (15) + dex (2) + shield (2) = 19 AC, plus an extra +2 from demonic goalie = 21 AC!


Also, I think it gives a nice usability boost to the chain-pact, which I think is the least-loved of the warlock pacts. (Tome is for people that like magic/casting. Blade is for people that like smashing faces in melee. Chain is for people that like ... scouting? pets?)

So, overall, it seems like a very viable option. +2 AC under a reasonable range of conditions, and with enough limitations (directionality, imp durability) to not be too OP.


Anywho... what do you think?

[Elminster298]

Overall, your whole theory is basically RAW. It is most definitely NOT RAI but that is where it does fall under DM discretion. I would say that if you choose to give up the potential "advantage on attacks" that most use a familiar for to gain a +2 a.c. and +2 reflex save, I would allow it as a DM. I would not allow it for melee even though your reasoning is sound. Whether invisible or not, the invisible creature is not taking care to be "undetectable" while doing this so close range I would rule this does not help. +2 ac/+2 reflex for ranged vs advantage on attacks seems a fair trade in my opinion. Othe DMs would obviously rule differently.

[Millstone85]

Watch out for this optional rule.
Hitting Cover
When a ranged attack misses a target that has cover, you can use this optional rule to determine whether the cover was struck by the attack.
First, determine whether the attack roll would have hit the protected target without the cover. If the attack roll falls within a range low enough to miss the target but high enough to strike the target if there had been no cover, the object used for cover is struck. If a creature is providing cover for the missed creature and the attack roll exceeds the AC of the covering creature, the covering creature is hit.

[MrBig]

I would not allow it for melee even though your reasoning is sound. Whether invisible or not, the invisible creature is not taking care to be "undetectable" while doing this so close range I would rule this does not help.

Half-cover and invisibility are two different things.

Even without invisibility, you have a flying shield that's between the warlock and an attacker.
That's half-cover, even in melee.

The invisibility just provides extra survivability for the imp. It doesn't affect the AC calculation for the Warlock.

As for the 'hitting cover' optional rule, I agree that this would come into play if 1) the DM uses that rule and 2) the imp is no more than 1 AC points higher than the Warlock. At warlock +2, any hit that only misses the warlock because of the half-cover +2 would also miss the imp.

e.g. if Warlock is 15 AC, and imp is 17, then a to-hit of 15 or 16 is only missing the Warlock because of the cover, but won't hit the imp.

But even so, a hit on the imp is a hit that's not on you...

[Temperjoke]

My only concern might be regarding the size of the shield, versus the size of the imp. It's not something covered in the rules exactly, but small characters have disadvantage using a heavy weapon because it's sized for a medium character; logically doesn't that mean that an imp, which is tiny-sized, would have some sort of disadvantage trying to use a shield sized for a bigger character to protect someone else? I mean, there isn't a rule against it, but I could see a DM making an argument against it. If nothing else it'd counter one of the things factors granting advantage.

Seems like a lot of work and resource commitment for a gimmick that has limited use.

[MrBig]

... small characters have disadvantage using a heavy weapon because it's sized for a medium character; logically doesn't that mean that an imp, which is tiny-sized, would have some sort of disadvantage trying to use a shield sized for a bigger character to protect someone else?

The 'heavy' property only exists for weapons. There is no equivalent property for armor or shields.
Also, this strategy isn't really specific to having a 'shield', specifically.

It would work just as well using anything similarly-sized that provides half-cover.
A slab of wood, a side table, ... etc.

A shield is just a slab of wood that you can always carry around, and conveniently has handles.

[8wGremlin]

Weird thought:
What if the Imp carried a big white sheet.
Which he interjects between the Attacker and the target.
completely blocking line of sight from the Attacker to the target.
But the sheet is invisible as it is carried by the imp...

A ---- I ---- T


A = Attacker
I = Imp
T = target

So what are the repercussions?

[MrBig]

So what are the repercussions?

Probably nothing. A sheet, invisible or not, isn't going to stop an arrow, or a sword jab.

[Millstone85]

Probably nothing. A sheet, invisible or not, isn't going to stop an arrow, or a sword jab.Spells are where it gets complicated. Say, eldritch blast. What counts as cover against a beam of force that only harms creatures?

[MrBig]

Spells are where it gets complicated. Say, eldritch blast. What counts as cover against a beam of force that only harms creatures?

Only harms creatures?
<starts googling>
Well, what do you know...

Eldritch Blast only affects creatures (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/08/07/eldritch-blast-cant-cast-on-objects-how-do-you-justify-this-with-flavour/)
Didn't know that.

I'd probably rule that if an obstacle would stop an arrow, it would stop EB. But it sounds like DM-interpretation.

[rbstr]

I think I'd only let this work if you kept track of which side of the square the imp was on and it would only change based on the imp's initiative or readied action. It doesn't get to just exist nebulously and give you cover from all directions.

[8wGremlin]

What about in relation to the rule


To target something, you must have a clear path to it, so it can’t be behind total cover.


The sheet blocks the clear path, but the attacker doesn't know that as the sheet is invisible.

[Hrugner]

So we've gone from imp with a shield to imp with a shower curtain on a hula hoop?

It looks like the game assumes that worn or carried equipment is considered part of the creature for most purposes. I would assume that someone accidentally targeting the curtain would hit the imp. Otherwise spells like teleport, which target creatures, wouldn't also teleport their equipment and send the target naked. Same goes with the shield, if the shield is struck it would damage the imp. Following that line, if the imp doesn't cover over half the target's body, they wouldn't grant the target cover at all. We can treat the imp's size as if it were the shield, but unless the shield is actively and directly interposed between the attacker and target, it's unlikely that the cover would be the full size of the shield. I'd assume that during combat movement, the cover would be spotty and too incomplete to provide the +2.

[ATHATH]

Er... By RAW, wouldn't the imp-with-a-shield also give your enemies soft cover against your attacks?

Also, aren't imps devils, not demons? Why is this trick called the "demonic" goalie?

[MrBig]

Er... By RAW, wouldn't the imp-with-a-shield also give your enemies soft cover against your attacks?

Also, aren't imps devils, not demons? Why is this trick called the "demonic" goalie?

Step to the side, shoot, step back.
No different than shooting from behind any other cover. If you are behind a tree, you don’t stand there and shoot into the bark...

Or, telepathically tell your imp to move slightly out of the way. It doesn’t count as ‘movement’ if you stay within your square.

As for devil vs demon, good point. Maybe it should have been ‘devil goalie’. :)

[krugaan]

Your imp can only move twice: once on it's own turn and once as a reaction.

And if the imp interposes on any attack with a flimsy sheet i'd definitely say it might get hit.

If a DM allows this, s/he might reasonably allow unseen servants with shields, too. I don't see that happening.

The reasoning is pretty clever, though.

[MrBig]

Your imp can only move twice: once on it's own turn and once as a reaction.


It’s not ‘movement’ if you stay within your square. You aren’t standing with your feet glued to the ground during combat. You are dodging attacks, etc. That means moving around within your square, and does not count as ‘movement’ (e.g. you base 30’ move).

[MrBig]

If a DM allows this, s/he might reasonably allow unseen servants with shields, too.

Unseen servants are ‘mindless’, can only move 15’, can’t do anything without a command, and can only do simple tasks that a human servant would do, like folding clothes. I agree completely that a maid isn’t going to be a combat shield-beater.

By contrast, an Imp is intelligent, has hands, and can do actions on its own, including attack in combat. Chain pact familiars are unique in that they are the only familiar that can attack independently.

[krugaan]

Unseen servants are ‘mindless’, can only move 15’, can’t do anything without a command, and can only do simple tasks that a human servant would do, like folding clothes. I agree completely that a maid isn’t going to be a combat shield-beater.

Shrug, "hold this shield and always stay in front of my chest."



By contrast, an Imp is intelligent, has hands, and can do actions on its own, including attack in combat. Chain pact familiars are unique in that they are the only familiar that can attack independently.

Wait, they can attack independantly?

edit: PHB 107 "you may forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of it's own with its reaction."

If people are moving around a lot, I'm going to argue that it is harder than you think to interpose yourself between two moving things. You have to know where both things are at all times.

Wielding a shield yourself is different because you always know where *you* are.

[Throne12]

I don't know if anyone has said this but wouldn't the imp have 3/4 cover instead of 1/2 cover. So giving the imp +5 to AC. Or if you forgo using a shield and just have the imp carry a something under 45 pounds but large enough to give it full cover but providing you 1/2 cover. There are no rules about holding up a table or wood, ect.

[jaappleton]

I'm legitimately ashamed of myself that I never thought of this.

[MrBig]

I'm legitimately shames of myself that I never thought of this.

Yay! I’m glad that I’ve corrupted ... er ... *inspired* someone else!

It seems like there ought to be help-action which would give disadvantage to an attacker, but there isn’t.

E.g. the help-action gives a single-target advantage for an attacker. Makes sense - you distract them and give the attacker an opportunity.

Logically, the converse makes sense, too. If you distract an attacker, it would interfere with their ability to attack. But there isn’t any ‘help-action gives disadvantage’ rule. So, providing AC is the only option to implement that concept, mechanically.

[krugaan]

It seems like there ought to be help-action which would give disadvantage to an attacker, but there isn’t.

Logically, the converse makes sense, too. If you distract an attacker, it would interfere with their ability to attack. But there isn’t any ‘help-action gives disadvantage’ rule. So, providing AC is the only option to implement that concept, mechanically.

Fairly certain this wasn't implemented for balance issues. A "distract" type action would break action economy in terms of lopsided fights, ie. in a many vs. one scenario, the distractor is effectively giving dodge to all his teammates for the price of one action. If you flip that around, a horde of kobold attacking the party are imposing disadvantage on all of them for the low price of one kobold's action per turn. Less if there are non-martials around.

[MrBig]

Fairly certain this wasn't implemented for balance issues. A "distract" type action would break action economy in terms of lopsided fights, ie. in a many vs. one scenario, the distractor is effectively giving dodge to all his teammates for the price of one action. If you flip that around, a horde of kobold attacking the party are imposing disadvantage on all of them for the low price of one kobold's action per turn. Less if there are non-martials around.

I wasn’t thinking about disadvantage affecting all attacks for the round, just the next attack.

E.g. like a protection fighter.


When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the Attack roll. You must be wielding a Shield.

But, disadvantage is roughly equal to -5, so maybe that’s too strong, compared to +2 AC from portable half-cover.