Can this be done?

[Blackflight]

So a debate came up at the table of our last game and I wanted to clarify with you guys if this can be done.

So the idea is that you play an arcane trickster rogue and you take the booming blade cantrip, find familiar (free spell at 3rd level) and you take the mobile feat. You have your familiar assume the shape of a weasel and you let it hide in your cloak, while it takes a ready action (help) that triggers on your command.

Questions:

a) Would the weasel be able to give you advantage on your attacks through the help action? Since it hides in your cloak it would basically move with you all the time, only to pop quickly in and out of your cloak to give advantage whenever you want it.

b) Does booming blade allow you to add your sneak attack damage?

c) Does booming blade allow you to prevent attacks of opportunity on the target you attack, through the mobile feat?


If all of the above are legal, then I can't see anything preventing you from doing an 80 feet movement that ignores difficult terrain (40 feet + 40 feet dash bonus action), cast booming blade with advantage + sneak attack damage and then disengage for free. From what I can tell, you can basically hit and run as you choose, while doing a truckload of damage and forcing the enemy in a precarious situation: stay still or take booming blade damage.

I know that the free disengage from the mobile feat only applies to the target you attack so you obviously can't stroll through the reach of multiple enemies (unless you take the disengage action of course).

[Wildarm]

I love the idea but I believe the weasel would provoke at attack of opportunity if you tried to dash in and out on the target with mobility. No AoA on you but your weasel is fair game since it's not in it's pocket dimension. Also, while not hidden it's going to die to pretty much any AoE attack or spell. Be prepared for it to die(ALOT) if you're using it this way.

If you are really keen on the dash in/out routine then maybe look at shocking grasp. With advantage from the familiar you should be able to land it consistently and that will stop any reactions as you move back out of reach on both you and your familiar.

Other option is to use an owl with flyby. It can move through and provide the help action without provoking AoO. Again, expect it to die often if you abuse things with your familiar. At least that's what I warn my players when they attempt to use a familiar in combat often.

[Zanthy1]

You cannot sneak attack as part of Booming Blade. Sneak attack only triggers on the attack action, whereas Booming Blade has you make an attack as part of your spell action

[nickl_2000]

b) Does booming blade allow you to add your sneak attack damage?

c) Does booming blade allow you to prevent attacks of opportunity on the target you attack, through the mobile feat?



Yes. To be more verbose both the mobile feat preventing AoOs and sneak attack trigger on a melee attack (sneak attack can trigger on a ranged attack as well, but that isn't being applied here). Booming Blade requires that you make a melee attack as part of casting the spell, so those abilities apply. In fact, it is extremely common for a player to play a High Elf Rogue with BB and utilize the disengage bonus action after hitting them with a sneak attack booming blade.

[Naanomi]

The weasel arguably doesn’t provoke an attack if it is carried:

You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy. (PHB 195)


Sneak attack definetly works with Booming Blade... it is an attack (if you have the appropriate weapon and other stuff in place). Get Warcaster, you can even do it in other peopels’ Turn

Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. (PHB 96)

[nickl_2000]

You cannot sneak attack as part of Booming Blade. Sneak attack only triggers on the attack action, whereas Booming Blade has you make an attack as part of your spell action

This is incorrect.

Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon...


You have to hit with an attack. You don't need to hit with an attack action. While it may seem pedantic, it's an important difference in this case.

A tweet from JC about GFB (which is worded the same as BB) agreeing with this https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/659846764967682049

[Blackflight]

I love the idea but I believe the weasel would provoke at attack of opportunity if you tried to dash in and out on the target with mobility. No AoA on you but your weasel is fair game since it's not in it's pocket dimension. Also, while not hidden it's going to die to pretty much any AoE attack or spell. Be prepared for it to die(ALOT) if you're using it this way.

If you are really keen on the dash in/out routine then maybe look at shocking grasp. With advantage from the familiar you should be able to land it consistently and that will stop any reactions as you move back out of reach on both you and your familiar.

Other option is to use an owl with flyby. It can move through and provide the help action without provoking AoO. Again, expect it to die often if you abuse things with your familiar. At least that's what I warn my players when they attempt to use a familiar in combat often.

Good point. I thought about taking the owl, but I guess it would be harder to stow an owl in your pocket than a weasel :) However, from what I can tell, the weasel isn't actually moving away from combat but being carried. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not provoke attacks of opportunity through forced movement right?

[nickl_2000]

Good point. I thought about taking the owl, but I guess it would be harder to stow an owl in your pocket than a weasel :) However, from what I can tell, the weasel isn't actually moving away from combat but being carried. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you do not provoke attacks of opportunity through forced movement right?

You are correct. The only way that someone provokes an AoO is if they are using their own movement. That means a rider on a horse won't provoke when a horse walks away, the horse will. A weasel wouldn't provoke, the PC will.

[Blackflight]

Cool. I suppose this actually makes this build quite valid!

Alright, so another question: it says that you can pick a spell from any school at your 8th level. Can you take dragon's breath, put it on your weasel and have it make a ready action (use breath on the target I attack)?

The weasel would not provide advantage then, but still provide sneak bonus as it is within 5 ft. of the target?

Link for discussion on familiars and dragon's breath: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/110157/can-a-familiar-from-the-find-familiar-spell-use-dragons-breath

[Wildarm]

You are correct. The only way that someone provokes an AoO is if they are using their own movement. That means a rider on a horse won't provoke when a horse walks away, the horse will. A weasel wouldn't provoke, the PC will.

OK, I can see the the logic of that. So yes, the weasel could work like this to provide advantage each turn.

[Wildarm]

Cool. I suppose this actually makes this build quite valid!

Alright, so another question: it says that you can pick a spell from any school at your 8th level. Can you take dragon's breath, put it on your weasel and have it make a ready action (use breath on the target I attack)?

The weasel would not provide advantage then, but still provide sneak bonus as it is within 5 ft. of the target?

Link for discussion on familiars and dragon's breath: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/110157/can-a-familiar-from-the-find-familiar-spell-use-dragons-breath

Up to DMs determination of what is an attack. The rules are not specific enough but I'd rule anything that requires and attack roll, saving throw or does damage is an attack. As a DM I would likely deny it at my table but I keep a pretty tight leash on familiar shenanigans.

Talk to your DM. :)

[SirGraystone]

How can a weasel on your shoulder give "help" in combat? I can understand a flying owl distracting an NPC, now if the weasel pop out and jump on the NPC that,s another thing.

[Malifice]

I love the idea but I believe the weasel would provoke at attack of opportunity if you tried to dash in and out on the target with mobility.

Wrong.

The weasels movement is forced movement (just like a rider on a horse) so it's movement doesnt provoke attack of opportunity. Neither does your movement (thanks to Mobile) so no attacks of opportunity for either of you.


You cannot sneak attack as part of Booming Blade. Sneak attack only triggers on the attack action

Wrong.

Sneak Attack
'Once per turn, you can deal extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon. You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.'

You most certainly can sneak attack with Booming blade cantrip (presuming the other conditions are met i.e. you have advantage or an ally within 5')


Cool. I suppose this actually makes this build quite valid!

In ultra specific conditions (you're only facing a single target, who is exactly 40' away) sort of.

Absolutely nothing stopping the creature from ranged attacks or simply readying to whack you once you get in reach.


Alright, so another question: it says that you can pick a spell from any school at your 8th level. Can you take dragon's breath, put it on your weasel and have it make a ready action (use breath on the target I attack)?

Nope. Dragons breath targets more than one creature (despite saying 'you' the breath itself affects other creatures) so it's not eligible to be shared (ditto with Find steed).

This has been clarified via several tweets.

[Hail Tempus]

This is incorrect.

Sneak Attack
Once per turn, you can deal extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon...


You have to hit with an attack. You don't need to hit with an attack action. While it may seem pedantic, it's an important difference in this case.

A tweet from JC about GFB (which is worded the same as BB) agreeing with this https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/659846764967682049 It's not pedantic at all, to be fair. The wording for sneak attack is well thought out to allow sneak attacks to trigger from bonus actions and reactions. I have to keep reminding DMs and players that an AOO can trigger a sneak attack (which is also why I think the extra action from Haste can only be used to make one extra attack- this encourages Hasting the rogue, rather than a martial, to allow him to ready an action and sneak attack off-turn).

[Blackflight]

Wrong.

Nope. Dragons breath targets more than one creature (despite saying 'you' the breath itself affects other creatures) so it's not eligible to be shared (ditto with Find steed).

This has been clarified via several tweets.

You're possibly still right, but aren't you refering to not being able to twin dragon's breath on yourself and on your familiar as a sorcerer? From what I can tell, dragon's breath on a familiar is valid RAW

HOWEVER, i do get that this is a pretty dubious interpretation of the rules and not something all DMs would allow.

[RipTide]

The only issue I would have with this is how is the weasel accomplishing it help action? It needs to do something to distract your target to actually grant you advantage, if you didn't have a reasonable thing for it to do I personally wouldn't allow it, if you had a good enough description i would have no problems with that.

[Azgeroth]

unless i'm mistaken, the familiar doesn't have to do anything..

if you are within 5ft of your target, and your familiar is on your person (in your space) then it is automatically an ally within 5ft of your target, thus sneak attack is always on.

this is cheesy, but RAW it is legal.

so you can have your familiar in your pocket, or in your bag, and still get sneak attack.

[Blackflight]

How can a weasel on your shoulder give "help" in combat? I can understand a flying owl distracting an NPC, now if the weasel pop out and jump on the NPC that,s another thing.


The only issue I would have with this is how is the weasel accomplishing it help action? It needs to do something to distract your target to actually grant you advantage, if you didn't have a reasonable thing for it to do I personally wouldn't allow it, if you had a good enough description i would have no problems with that.

I suppose it can pop out and make a screeching noise, run around the legs of the opponent or something similar - anything to distract really :)

[iTreeby]

I suppose it can pop out and make a screeching noise, run around the legs of the opponent or something similar - anything to distract really :)

"GO FOR THE EYES BOO, GO FOR THE EYES!"
-Minsc, baldurs gate.

[Bloodcloud]

You cannot sneak attack as part of Booming Blade. Sneak attack only triggers on the attack action, whereas Booming Blade has you make an attack as part of your spell action

False.

From the rules:
"Once per turn, you can deal extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll. The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon."

[Malifice]

"GO FOR THE EYES BOO, GO FOR THE EYES!"
-Minsc, baldurs gate.

Beaten to the punchline. And get outa my head!


You're possibly still right, but aren't you refering to not being able to twin dragon's breath on yourself and on your familiar as a sorcerer? From what I can tell, dragon's breath on a familiar is valid RAW

Ah yes. I thought you were sharing spells with it.

You can cast the spell on it (range touch), and it gets to breath fire.

[Petrocorus]

Questions:

a) Would the weasel be able to give you advantage on your attacks through the help action? Since it hides in your cloak it would basically move with you all the time, only to pop quickly in and out of your cloak to give advantage whenever you want it.

It's seems legal to me. If the ready action has been done correctly.



b) Does booming blade allow you to add your sneak attack damage?
Yes, Sneak Attack requires an attack, not the Attack action.



c) Does booming blade allow you to prevent attacks of opportunity on the target you attack, through the mobile feat?
Yes, the Mobile feat requires an attack, not the Attack action.




If all of the above are legal, then I can't see anything preventing you from doing an 80 feet movement that ignores difficult terrain (40 feet + 40 feet dash bonus action), cast booming blade with advantage + sneak attack damage and then disengage for free.
Yes, you can. If you have movement left. This seems powerful but you have invested: one feat, one spell known, one cantrip known, your action, your bonus action and the action of your familiar. This seems to be a pretty fair return on this kind of investment to my mind.

Now, if you're an elf or half-elf and add Elven Accuracy...

[Warlush]

Every time I've ever used a familiar in combat the DM killed it the next chance they got.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Every time I've ever used a familiar in combat the DM killed it the next chance they got.

And every time my DM has killed my familiar, I've made the monster that did so regret it. I knocked a Stone Giant down a mountain the last time.

More seriously, while it can be done you should always ask the question "Should I do this" and the question should probably be directed at your DM. Reach an agreement on how the Familiar can be used in this way safely and what will be done when it's not safe.

Expect it to be killed a lot, I'd probably keep a few castings worth of incense in your pack.

[SirGraystone]

unless i'm mistaken, the familiar doesn't have to do anything..

if you are within 5ft of your target, and your familiar is on your person (in your space) then it is automatically an ally within 5ft of your target, thus sneak attack is always on.

this is cheesy, but RAW it is legal.

so you can have your familiar in your pocket, or in your bag, and still get sneak attack.

A familiar can't attack, so it can be say that it's not ally in the fight.

[ProsecutorGodot]

A familiar can't attack, so it can be say that it's not ally in the fight.

The only requirement is that your ally not be incapacitated, not that they're able to attack. Since the Familiar is yours and has a turn on initiative where it would normally take other actions, it would count.

[Willie the Duck]

this is cheesy, but RAW it is legal.
so you can have your familiar in your pocket, or in your bag, and still get sneak attack.


More seriously, while it can be done you should always ask the question "Should I do this" and the question should probably be directed at your DM. Reach an agreement on how the Familiar can be used in this way safely and what will be done when it's not safe.

This is it in a nutshell. All the forum-pontificating in the world will not change the fact that every DM will have a different cutoff for when the "well technically..."'s change from valid tactical optimization to eye-rolling, book-throwing, or the old standby 'rock falls, everyone dies.'

[Mad_Saulot]

I'm not sure something you are carrying could actively help you, it could hide on your person until its action but then when it is its turn if it wants to help it has to get off you and occupy its own space.

I know, logic doesnt mean anything in DnD, its up to your DM.

[Naanomi]

Carried familiars get trashed with even the smallest Area of Effect attacks though

[OverLordOcelot]

Every time I've ever used a familiar in combat the DM killed it the next chance they got.

If you could spend 10gp to force an enemy to waste an attack, how often would you use that ability? Even at low levels, that's a pretty good trade, and at high levels 10gp is pocket change. So if I can make an enemy use up an attack to kill a familiar that I later resummon for 10gp, I don't think it's a bad trade. If you are worried you might need the familiar for something more important before you get an hour to resummon it, then don't bring it into combat, but most of the time trading a familiar for an enemy attack is a good deal.

[Reynaert]

AFAIK, you can't ready both a move and an action, so if the familiar is hiding in your cloak, it can not move out of hiding *and* do the help action.

[Man_Over_Game]

Quick summary for those who didn't read the thread:

No, the weasel doesn't RAW provoke an OA from you moving away, because forced movement doesn't provoke OA's.

Yes, you can sneak attack without having to use an action (such as by an Opportunity Attack). Any eligible attack with a weapon grants the sneak attack bonus. Technically, Magic Stone, fired from a Sling, is considered a Ranged Spell Attack that's eligible for Sneak Attack, because it's an attack that uses an eligible weapon.

Yes, you can move away after hitting a creature with Booming Blade with the Mobile feat, because the Mobile feat doesn't state any clause about requiring an Attack Action. Even something like a Monk's Unarmed Strike or Booming Blade are eligible for the disengagement effect of Mobile.



Technically, this works, assuming your DM says that your Weasel is capable of utilizing the Help action for you to attack (and I wouldn't). Understand that while the Help action is something the Weasel can do, the Help action states that it's your DM's discretion to say whether or not the Help action is applicable for any particular scenario.

[Blackflight]

AFAIK, you can't ready both a move and an action, so if the familiar is hiding in your cloak, it can not move out of hiding *and* do the help action.

Its correct that you cannot make a move to a different square as part of a ready (help) action, but the familiar in this case stays in the same square. If you make a ready action (attack) I think it would be reasonable to assume that you move in some way to setup your attack (i.e. you don't remain completely stationary). Likewise, if you were to help, I think it would be reasonable to assume that you move in some way.

[Blackflight]

Technically, this works, assuming your DM says that your Weasel is capable of utilizing the Help action for you to attack (and I wouldn't). Understand that while the Help action is something the Weasel can do, the Help action states that it's your DM's discretion to say whether or not the Help action is applicable for any particular scenario.

Another option would be to take the poisonous snake familiar instead - do you think this would work better? I mean the description of the help action could be a snake jumping out of your cloak to bite the target (in terms of mechanics it would deal no damage, but would at least serve as quite a distraction)

[Blackflight]

If you could spend 10gp to force an enemy to waste an attack, how often would you use that ability? Even at low levels, that's a pretty good trade, and at high levels 10gp is pocket change. So if I can make an enemy use up an attack to kill a familiar that I later resummon for 10gp, I don't think it's a bad trade. If you are worried you might need the familiar for something more important before you get an hour to resummon it, then don't bring it into combat, but most of the time trading a familiar for an enemy attack is a good deal.

I think this raises an interesting question on how an attack against such a familiar would work? Would it be reasonable to assume that the enemy cannot see the familiar and as such has disadvantage? And what about cover? It technically hides in your clothes/armor so would it gain a bonus to its AC? I know all this is something the DM would have to decide with 100% authority, however, Im just interested to hear how you guys would rule this?

Also, I agree that the familiar gets trashed by AOE spells/abilities if was out in the open, but how does this work when its basically hiding in another creature's clothes/armor? Would something like magic missiles be able to hit when the caster cannot see it?

[Contrast]

Another option would be to take the poisonous snake familiar instead - do you think this would work better? I mean the description of the help action could be a snake jumping out of your cloak to bite the target (in terms of mechanics it would deal no damage, but would at least serve as quite a distraction)

I would def let that work but (edit - my ruling would be) if you tried to move away again as part of your move that turn you'd be leaving the snake in combat.

Easier to just take an owl familiar or ask your DM if they're willing to give a similar 'help and run' rule to other familiars to balance them a bit better if you are intending the faff about with familiars in combat.

[kamap]

If the familiar is hidden it gets cover and the attacker gets disadvantage.
Though they could ready an action "When I see the familiar ..."
Magic missiles could potentially hit the familiar if it was visible while the missiles where beeing cast. If it is hidden in your cloak during the casting it wouldn't be a viable target.

Though a fireball or any other AoE spell will also target the familiar since it is in the area of effect even if its hidden.
Thats my take on it.


The familiar doesn't need to do the help action it just needs to be close (as in 5 feet) to your target for sneak attack to trigger.

"You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll."

So if you take a warlock dip for 3 level's and go pact of the chain and get an imp that can turn invisible, you'll have a ready supply of poison for your weapons and can have your imp just stand invisibly next to your target, triggering sneak attack.
You don't even need to get into melee range then, have some ranged weapon or a bunch of daggers you could melee with or throw.

Now they'll first have to find out where the imp is if they know it's around somewhere. Then they might be able to kill it or pepper the whole place with AoE.

[Warlush]

And every time my DM has killed my familiar, I've made the monster that did so regret it. I knocked a Stone Giant down a mountain the last time.

More seriously, while it can be done you should always ask the question "Should I do this" and the question should probably be directed at your DM. Reach an agreement on how the Familiar can be used in this way safely and what will be done when it's not safe.

Expect it to be killed a lot, I'd probably keep a few castings worth of incense in your pack.

It doesn't hurt my feelings as much when it's an owl or a crow. But when it's my entire 3rd level class feature and a sentient being I've come up with a personality for, it really gets my goat. But for the sake of staying on topic, i think the weasle in the robe is a great trick to pull an a new DM or an AL rules lawyer.

[Man_Over_Game]

Balance is always something that needs consideration, because there is more than just you that's playing the game. Making combat inherently easier and simpler sounds like a good thing, but it's the DM's responsibility to provide a challenge, and now that new monsters are balanced to deal with a cheesewizz strategy with better stats and mechanics, the rest of your party feels weaker while you're just now getting a challenge.

Free, easy, advantage is possible...as a level 7 feature (via Arcane Trickster). And with this scenario, it's being provided from the possibly most powerful and robust level 1 spell (possibly the best spell in the game period) with no Bonus Action cost.

Sure, an enemy can ready an action to attack the creature when it gets into range, but that still technically consumes a creature's entire turn to be potentially wasted.

Narratively, to me, they're too small for me to really see them distract someone in a split second and still move away, so they'd need to end their turn adjacent to the creature for it to work in my eyes.

Find Familiar is still one of the best spells in the game, even if you took away the Help action entirely from Familiars. Doesn't that really say something?

[BobZan]

Aid + Insipiring Leader on your familiar for added survivability!

[Ganymede]

Most of this particular strategy is fine: sneak attack, mobile, and booming blade all synergize well without a problem. The only issue is the pants weasel as there are simply no rules that directly handle it.

Probably the best fit for the situation here is the Climb onto a Bigger Creature optional rule in the DMG. It applies to larger opponents, but we can probably apply it here in the same way we can apply the normal grapple rules against our allies.

With that, the weasel can essentially treat the rogue as terrain, but that raises a bunch of questions that the OP seems to be either hand-waving or not noticing. We can probably ignore the initial skill checks required for the weasel to attempt to get into position (undoubtedly, the rogue helped in this endeavor), but there are still other issues. For one, the weasel still needs to treat the rogue as terrain. That means slowed movement, athletics checks, and dealing with the checks, object interactions, and possible actions needed to do things like squeeze into pants, belt pouches, and other hidey-holes on the rogue's person.

There is also the issue of whether the weasel can be seen. Ordinarily, clothes do not make you invisible; a person in a full burka is not unseen in the same way a person in a long sleeve shirt and gloves does not appear to be just a floating head. Additionally, something like the rogue's cloak is billowing about in a fight; weasels have no special feature to hide when only lightly obscured by cloaks (which requires an action anyways), and it might not even good enough concealment to work even as light obscurement in this case.

In short, the pants-weasel strategy offered by the OP is very much subject to DM discretion.

[Willie the Duck]

Most of this particular strategy is fine: sneak attack, mobile, and booming blade all synergize well without a problem. The only issue is the pants weasel as there are simply no rules that directly handle

I suspect this got cut off and you mean that the rules on carried familiars are not clearly defined and inarguable. That is certainly the hardest part to parse for us, given that we do not know how the DM will rule.

[Ganymede]

I suspect this got cut off and you mean that the rules on carried familiars are not clearly defined and inarguable. That is certainly the hardest part to parse for us, given that we do not know how the DM will rule.

Yeah, that's right. The sentence was missing an "it" that referred to the "pants weasel."

[sophontteks]

The weasel cant hide on a bonus action, so the enemy should have no trouble attacking the weasel instead of the player, if they choose to. The worse they would get is disadvantage from concealment AFAIK.

[Man_Over_Game]

The weasel cant hide on a bonus action, so the enemy should have no trouble attacking the weasel instead of the player, if they choose to. The worse they would get is disadvantage from concealment AFAIK.

Hiding doesn't cause dis/advantage to attack, it's just a way of maintaining the Unseen status, and the Unseen status is what grants the Dis/Advantage to hit. If you're already Unseen, Hiding won't keep the enemy from attacking your location.

Or, put in another way, if you are Unseen behind a tree, I can still cast Fire Ball and have it wrap around your hiding place, because I know exactly where you are. You being Hidden or not doesn't change that fact. However, if you're Hidden, I might not notice something you're doing behind the tree (such as if you try to take a potshot at me), or it may allow you to climb up the tree without me knowing your new location.

[OverLordOcelot]

I think this raises an interesting question on how an attack against such a familiar would work? Would it be reasonable to assume that the enemy cannot see the familiar and as such has disadvantage? And what about cover? It technically hides in your clothes/armor so would it gain a bonus to its AC? I know all this is something the DM would have to decide with 100% authority, however, Im just interested to hear how you guys would rule this?

I don't see what's tricky here. I would treat using the help action from hiding the same way as attacking from hiding, so unless it has the skulker feat (it doesn't) it would be revealed by coming out. If it had cunning action then it could help/hide in one turn, but it doesn't have rogue class features. Since you don't get cover when riding a mount, the weasel doesn't get cover from riding the character. It's simple, straightforward, and doesn't require any tricky abjudication to resolve or weird special cases to remember.

I really don't get why anyone would be bothered by this setup; if you don't like familiars helping to attack then just "rule" that they can't do the help action for an attack instead of nitpicking. Having a character do a more unusual and less efficient version of the standard "use an owl familiar, have it zip in, help, and fly away, using flyby to avoid attacks' just isn't something that should raise any blood pressure.


Also, I agree that the familiar gets trashed by AOE spells/abilities if was out in the open, but how does this work when its basically hiding in another creature's clothes/armor? Would something like magic missiles be able to hit when the caster cannot see it?

AOE spells still affect you if you're riding a mount, so they'd affect the familiar riding a character like a mount. The caster would be able to see the weasel either by beating its stealth roll with a perception roll or waiting until it reveals itself.

[OverLordOcelot]

It doesn't hurt my feelings as much when it's an owl or a crow. But when it's my entire 3rd level class feature and a sentient being I've come up with a personality for, it really gets my goat.

Why though? All they did was temporarily disrupt it, you can resummon the same exact same familiar after combat.

[Azgeroth]

i wasn't trying to argue that having a familiar on your person for 24/7 sneak attack was a 'PC' move, but RAW it is legal, definitely a contentious idea.

though if your familiar never shows itself, how would an enemy know to attack it? yeah AOEs are going to cook it quick, but if it is always hidden, there is no way of them knowing its there unless you start talking to your pocket mid combat, and it talks back.

though to be honest, enabling your own class feature isn't something i think should be frowned on, using a single always works solution to a problem isn't great, but then if it works, why fix it??

assuming of course, your rogue only has one attack, and you find yourself toe to toe with an enemy, or several, and no ally to help you, not having sneak attack is going to see you killed fairly quickly.. this little trick doesn't break the game, it is just enabling you to use a feature. your bread and butter feature at that, if as a DM your intentionally setting up scenarios where a rogue isn't able to use sneak attack then shame be upon you!

[Willie the Duck]

assuming of course, your rogue only has one attack, and you find yourself toe to toe with an enemy, or several, and no ally to help you, not having sneak attack is going to see you killed fairly quickly.. this little trick doesn't break the game, it is just enabling you to use a feature. your bread and butter feature at that, if as a DM your intentionally setting up scenarios where a rogue isn't able to use sneak attack then shame be upon you!

I think that's overselling it. As a DM, you should probably recognize that the design goal of a rogue was for them to use SA most rounds in which they attack (as opposed to earlier editions, where it* ranged from a nice perk to something for which to strive). That said, there is also something of an assumption that setting up that SA was something that the rogue would have to work to achieve.
*or its predecessors, such as 'backstab'

For that reason, I'm really never convinced with 'this is just enabling you to use your class-defining feature' as a justification for SA-facilitating features, be the cheezy or uncheezy. If your DM thinks that you should have to work with your front line fighters and the like to set up your SAs, that is also fine (although it will change how you play the game), so long as you know this ahead of time, when making your character build choices.

[Man_Over_Game]

Why though? All they did was temporarily disrupt it, you can resummon the same exact same familiar after combat.

You can only casually resummon it if you sent it away to its pocket dimension. If it dies, you have to go through the ritual of burning 100g worth of incense and herbs to cast the spell again.

So there is some cost to it. Not everyone has 100g worth of basil in their pocket.

[Ganymede]

i wasn't trying to argue that having a familiar on your person for 24/7 sneak attack was a 'PC' move, but RAW it is legal



This is not 100% accurate. The DMG empowers the DM to assign conditions when he or she feels they are appropriate, and a DM could say that someone on the other side of a stone wall (or in a belt pouch, etc.) but also within 5 feet of the target counts as incapacitated for the purpose of enabling a sneak attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

You can only casually resummon it if you sent it away to its pocket dimension. If it dies, you have to go through the ritual of burning 100g worth of incense and herbs to cast the spell again.

So there is some cost to it. Not everyone has 100g worth of basil in their pocket.

For the sake of clarity, I've got to point out that the cost of the materials in Find Familiar are 10g and not 100g. It's still a cost, but not such a staggering one for a low level wizard.

[OverLordOcelot]

You can only casually resummon it if you sent it away to its pocket dimension. If it dies, you have to go through the ritual of burning 100g worth of incense and herbs to cast the spell again.

You don't have to go through the ritual of burning 100gp worth of incense and herbs at all, as the spell only requires 10gp worth of herbs to cast initially or after a familiar death. 10gp is an amount that most characters out of the very low levels can spend casually, as I said in my earlier post I think most people would consider a straight 10gp to make an enemy waste an attack once per fight to be a good deal, at least once they're not scraping for starter money.


So there is some cost to it. Not everyone has 100g worth of basil in their pocket.

If you're an archer who forgets to carry arrows, the problem is not that archery is weak, but that you didn't think to bring arrows.

[sophontteks]

Hiding doesn't cause dis/advantage to attack, it's just a way of maintaining the Unseen status, and the Unseen status is what grants the Dis/Advantage to hit. If you're already Unseen, Hiding won't keep the enemy from attacking your location.

Or, put in another way, if you are Unseen behind a tree, I can still cast Fire Ball and have it wrap around your hiding place, because I know exactly where you are. You being Hidden or not doesn't change that fact. However, if you're Hidden, I might not notice something you're doing behind the tree (such as if you try to take a potshot at me), or it may allow you to climb up the tree without me knowing your new location.
Yes, but let me clarify the little critters position.

The weasel can't hide, but it is concealed. Because it can't hide the attacker knows where it is (inside the PCs coat) and can strike the weasel with disadvantage instead of striking the PC.

So, the weasel can do what the OP said, but the weasel is not immune to retribution.

[Man_Over_Game]

You don't have to go through the ritual of burning 100gp worth of incense and herbs at all, as the spell only requires 10gp worth of herbs to cast initially or after a familiar death. 10gp is an amount that most characters out of the very low levels can spend casually, as I said in my earlier post I think most people would consider a straight 10gp to make an enemy waste an attack once per fight to be a good deal, at least once they're not scraping for starter money.



If you're an archer who forgets to carry arrows, the problem is not that archery is weak, but that you didn't think to bring arrows.

That was a doof on my part, 10g, not 100.

[JackPhoenix]

I suspect this got cut off and you mean that the rules on carried familiars are not clearly defined and inarguable. That is certainly the hardest part to parse for us, given that we do not know how the DM will rule.

There kinda are. You can't willingly end your movement in another creature's space, which means you can't actually "carry" the familiar with you per RAW (either the familiar would end moving into your space space to be carried, or you would end your movement in its space any time you move). The familiar may be able to use you as a mount, but in that case, it won't get any cover from you, as you technically aren't between it and the attacker, because you're sharing the same space. You can grapple it and drag it with you, but again, not in your space. It would occupy your hand, make the familiar an obvious target, and look pretty stupid.

[kamap]

I don't see what's tricky here. I would treat using the help action from hiding the same way as attacking from hiding, so unless it has the skulker feat (it doesn't) it would be revealed by coming out. If it had cunning action then it could help/hide in one turn, but it doesn't have rogue class features. Since you don't get cover when riding a mount, the weasel doesn't get cover from riding the character. It's simple, straightforward, and doesn't require any tricky abjudication to resolve or weird special cases to remember.

I really don't get why anyone would be bothered by this setup; if you don't like familiars helping to attack then just "rule" that they can't do the help action for an attack instead of nitpicking. Having a character do a more unusual and less efficient version of the standard "use an owl familiar, have it zip in, help, and fly away, using flyby to avoid attacks' just isn't something that should raise any blood pressure.

The familiar doesn't even need to use the help action it just needs to be within 5 feet of it.
So if you get an invisible familiar via pact of the chain warlock dip you can have it stand next to an enemy and get sneak attack from ranged.

"You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll."

[Edenbeast]

The familiar doesn't even need to use the help action it just needs to be within 5 feet of it.
So if you get an invisible familiar via pact of the chain warlock dip you can have it stand next to an enemy and get sneak attack from ranged.

"You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll."

Yes, it doesn't need to take the help action, but if it would just be passively hiding in your robes or standing there being invisible, then it's not participating in the fight. The target will not be aware of its (the familiar) presence and not be distracted by it, and will therefore not consider the familiar an enemy (because there's no indication it's there). The familiar will therefor not provide advantage for sneak attack.

[kamap]

Where does it say that it has to participate in the fight?
Why does the target need to be distracted?
Why does he have to consider the familiar an enemy? The familiar can be his enemy without him considering the familiar to be an enemy or even knowing it's there.

The familiar doesn't have to provide advantage for sneak attack, he just needs to be within 5 feet of the target, you are attacking.

"SNEAK ATTACK
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to strike subtly and exploit a foe's distraction.
Once per turn, you can deal an extra 1d6 damage to one creature you hit with an attack if you have advantage on the attack roll.
The attack must use a finesse or a ranged weapon.
You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the attack roll.
The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels in this class, as shown in the Sneak Attack column of the Rogue table."

[Willie the Duck]

There kinda are. You can't willingly end your movement in another creature's space, which means you can't actually "carry" the familiar with you per RAW (either the familiar would end moving into your space space to be carried, or you would end your movement in its space any time you move). The familiar may be able to use you as a mount, but in that case, it won't get any cover from you, as you technically aren't between it and the attacker, because you're sharing the same space. You can grapple it and drag it with you, but again, not in your space. It would occupy your hand, make the familiar an obvious target, and look pretty stupid.

If the dominant question over whether or not you can share a space with your familiar hinges upon whether or not the familiar can treat you as a mount, it fits my definition of 'not clearly defined.'

[OverLordOcelot]

The familiar doesn't even need to use the help action it just needs to be within 5 feet of it.
So if you get an invisible familiar via pact of the chain warlock dip you can have it stand next to an enemy and get sneak attack from ranged.

I would not count a creature that cannot attack as an enemy in this context at all, and in my experience most people would rule it that way.

[kamap]

I would not count a creature that cannot attack as an enemy in this context at all, and in my experience most people would rule it that way.

It can attack, the familiar (or it's master) chooses not to attack.

An enemy is something very broad. You can sit at a table and have a nice friendly chat with your enemy and there doesn't need to be any violence involved.

[Hail Tempus]

It can attack, the familiar (or it's master) chooses not to attack.

An enemy is something very broad. You can sit at a table and have a nice friendly chat with your enemy and there doesn't need to be any violence involved. I agree that, RAW, the "enemy within 5 feet" doesn't need to be able to attack or even be visible to the target of the sneak attack. I'd guess maybe half of DMs would let a rogue use a non-combatant like a weasel as the "enemy within 5 feet". On the other hand, I predict very few DMs would let the weasel count for sneak attack purposes if it was hiding in the PC's pocket (or if the familiar was an invisible Imp that the enemy wasn't aware of).

The intent of the sneak attack wording heavily implies that the target needs to be aware of the "enemy within 5 feet". Thematically, the idea is that the target of the sneak attack is distracted by another enemy, preventing him from effectively defending himself from the rogue.

[CorporateSlave]

It can attack, the familiar (or it's master) chooses not to attack.

A familiar cannot attack, it isn't actually the small creature it appears to be. Per the spell description it is a spirit that takes the form of an animal and which (presumably for some magical reason) cannot attack, even though it may be in the form of a creature with a stat block that does have the ability to attack.

However, it is still a hostile creature so I would say it fits that qualification for Sneak Attack. It is also a hostile creature with an AC usually around 10 or 11 and 1 hp, that needs to be posted up within melee range of an enemy for the Sneak Attack mechanic to kick in from its mere presence, so good luck with that on subsequent rounds.

Now the OP's original scenario - using the Ready action to perform a readied Help on command while carried - I would certainly rule as perfectly legal and allowable with the caveat that the Ready action will only allow the Help action, and not any movement from or into the concealment of the cloak, so it would have to be held or riding in plain view. With its AC of 10-11 and 1 hp. Of course it will be 40' away by the time the enemy turn rolls around, but unless that enemy has an INT of 6 I would have it hold its Action to attack the familiar specifically when the rogue closes back to melee range for a second attack or target it with a ranged attack or yell for another enemy to shoot it. Of course, the familiar may go before that enemy in which case it could Move and/or Hide...but then it is not going to be able to Ready the Help action for next round...so it would mostly work, but not every round with impunity.*

I don't have any problem with a creature that can't Attack use Help to distract and grant advantage to an allied Attack. I weasel familiar could conceivably start madly chittering, tug at the opponent's sleeve, heck throw a small pebble for that matter (it's not really a weasel). I would certainly say that Sneak Attack only requires the briefest of distractions in order to work. When the enemy breaks eye contact for a split second to glance at the noisy animal on the rogue's shoulder, that's when the rogue is trained to strike...

I've never had a DM who had trouble with a player "abusing" a familiar's abilities...precisely because they are so small and squishy. The OP's trick might work once in a while, but if tried every round with flawless success I would blame the DM for not doing anything reasonable about it rather than a player "abusing" the rules. (Look at it this way people...if an enemy rouge pulled those shenanigans on your PC, would you let that exposed familiar live another round, or take it out ASAP?)

*and if your DM rules that this WOULD work as the OP proposed, I would be very scared unless your DM has an INT of like 6...because you know you'll be running into enemy after enemy pulling this trick on you from now on...

[kamap]

Right my bad a normal familiar can't but a warlock familiar can attack.

I agree that it would be silly of the DM to let a PC use it willy nilly and should put a stop to it once in a while but it's still possible to do within RAW.
It is indeed implied that the sneak attack uses a distraction to attack more efficient but nowhere in the rules is that stated.
An invisible imp could just stand there and the condition for an enemy within 5 feet would be met and the sneak attack dmg would trigger.
The invisible imp could do a help action, making a noise or throwing something and he wouldn't be revealed.

An owl could do a flyby help action with it's 60 feet flying speed it could potentially get to a save spot, one of the mooks should then hold its action to attack the owl.
Might not be RAI and it does seem silly but that seems to be how it works to me.

[langal]

So if my rogue keeps his pet ant, Marcus, in his pocket...he gets auto sneak attack?

Everyone hates ants and steps on them when they see one so they are an enemy.

[Hail Tempus]

So if my rogue keeps his pet ant, Marcus, in his pocket...he gets auto sneak attack?

Everyone hates ants and steps on them when they see one so they are an enemy. I think every player and DM needs to follow the maxim that you should try to avoid applying the rules in a ridiculous manner.

I mean, do you really want to be the guy who argues that a weasel in your pocket meets the requirements to allow a sneak attack?

[langal]

I think every player and DM needs to follow the maxim that you should try to avoid applying the rules in a ridiculous manner.

I mean, do you really want to be the guy who argues that a weasel in your pocket meets the requirements to allow a sneak attack?

Marcus is one mean and nasty ant. Did I mention he is a red ant? What if I also kept an ill-tempered cricket in my other pocket? Do I get to double my sneak attack dice?

Jk - I totally think the "unseen" and non-threatening "enemy" is pretty cheezy.

[CorporateSlave]

I mean, do you really want to be the guy who argues that a weasel in your pocket meets the requirements to allow a sneak attack?

"Is that a weasel in your pocket or are you just trying to sneak attack me?" :smalltongue:

[Willie the Duck]

Jk - I totally think the "unseen" and non-threatening "enemy" is pretty cheezy.

It's so cheezy, that my assumption is that it exists by raw because the designers didn't think that they had to make clear that this wasn't what they intended (although, to be fair to any theoretical person bleating, "but raw...", they do do a better job of delineating the DM-judgment role there is in the help-another actions).

[Aaedimus]

So I think the technicalities of the mechanics have been pretty well flushed out. I think raw, something like this is very possible. For anyone complaining about the help action, just imagine a snake or weasel coming out of my jacket, climbing up the back of my head, and hissing or feign striking. That could be distracting and provide the advantage, where they can climb back into the jacket with movement.

Unreasonable? As people have stated, attacking the lump with disadvantage, holding an action, or using area of effect damage all being possibilities to kill the familiar, I think it's not an unreasonable/overpowered tactic.

On the GM's side, your job is to ensure everyone has fun and to tell a story, not to beat them or outsmart them. You could throw a terasque at them at level 1, you're God. Reward ingenuity and you'll get more of it. Punish them for trying to have fun and see the game suffer.

I'd say, play it realistic. Let them use the technique in any combat until it's realistic for the enemy to get annoyed at the familiar. Also, attacking my familiar, or wasting a readied action on him instead of me (mobile avoids opportunity attacks but not readied attacks) is honestly, a pretty nice trade.

The tables I've hated most are the ones where the DM was purposely making the abilities I built my character around (portent, spellcasting, familiars, summons etc) useless.

I got a coat of useful items with 2 mastiffs in it once and used that along with my familiar and animate objects in a boss fight (I'd been building up to this concept for weeks and this was supposed to be a heroic surprise) and before any of them had a chance to do anything his boss killed them all with a single swing of a greatsword that was suddenly attached to a chain which wasn't even explained until after the combat other than (
He uses a weapon you've never seen before to hit everything in a 20ft radius. No save) It really pissed me off and broke immersion for the rest of the game.

You can kill the whole player concept easily as a DM but I think it's more responsible to let them have a little fun with it and keep them in check by not letting them go to far with it.

[Ganymede]

It's so cheezy, that my assumption is that it exists by raw because ...

But it isn't.

The DMG says: "Various rules and features in the game are clear abour when they apply a condition to a creature. You can also apply conditions on the fly. They're meant to be intuitive for you to do so."

That RAW empowers the DM to say, "I don't think that ant in your pocket represents a threat to your foe, so I am going to apply the Incapacitated condition to it for the purposes of enabling sneak attack."

Edit: And you don't even need to go that far. "Enemy" is not a term defined in game; its definition is left to the discretion of the DM.

[OverLordOcelot]

It can attack, the familiar (or it's master) chooses not to attack.

No, it literally cannot attack, and making this particular argument is one of the very few rule arguments that would make me want to kick a player from a table. Why? You're making an argument based on "RAW literally says this, you have to do it", but then supporting it with a claim that directly contradicts RAW when it suits you. I can tolerate robot-like adherence to RAW, but the combination of robot-like ignoring of context with directly contradicting clear RAW when it strikes your fancy to do so means you're just making up arguments for advantage, you're not doing either of blindly following the rules or attempting to play a reasonable game.


An enemy is something very broad. You can sit at a table and have a nice friendly chat with your enemy and there doesn't need to be any violence involved.

The context of sneak attack makes it quite clear that what is meant by 'enemy' is someone who is fighting against the creature you're attempting to sneak attack, no some sort of metaphysical mind-reading thing. As others have pointed out, 'enemy' is not actually a piece of game jargon explicitly defined the way the 'incapacitated' condition is, it's an English-language word.

[Aaedimus]

And since your enemy might attack the familiar, and because you can use touch spells through familiars as well as letting them do things like steal keys, activate magic items, gnaw rope, drop vials of alchemist fire on a floor with greases (none of these are controversial) I think a familiar being categarized as an enemy is realistic.

You can't categorize a Shephard Druid guardian spirit as an enemy because these don't apply.

Also, remember a how a Trickery Cleric's image works. I believe using a familiar line this isn't unreasonable when referring to the above examples.

Caviatte is that the player must describe the help action, and the description must be reasonable.

[Ganymede]

Caviatte is that the player must describe the help action, and the description must be reasonable.

Yeah, this is an important point and the DMG is clear on it.

"As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players. A player tells the DM what he or she wants to do, and the DM determines whether it is successful or not, in some cases asking the player to make a die roll to determine success. For example, if a player wants his or her character to take a swing at an orc, you say, "Make an attack roll" while looking up the orc's Armor Class."

The PC describes what the familiar intends to do in order to help his owner. The DM is then empowered to say "Ok, you get the benefits of the Help action" or something like "Ok, your familiar does that."

[Aaedimus]

I would also caviatte that for the familiar to be a viable "enemy" for sneak attack without using the help action, it would have to be actively participating somehow, not just "in my pocket" or sitting on my shoulder doing nothing the whole time.

But it doesn't need to be a viable "enemy" if it is using the help action.

Another few examples of using the help action, have it pop out of your pocket and shine the sun in their eyes with a mirror.
Or have it toss some harmless but distracting nicknacks or pebbles into the air in front of the enemy's face, or distract the enemy by over-dramatizing a cheesy death scene, or by holding out some meat to distract a dog, or even by driving the player ratatouille style by pulling his hair (alright, that one's a stretch)

My only point, you're there to have fun and use your imaginations. So have fun and use your imaginations

[vexedart]

Rogues sneak attack only calls for an ally in 5ft of your enemy, a familiar is an ally.

I mean, if your rogue isn’t consistently getting off sneak attack, they’re going to feel like poop, and be poop in combat. Rogue DPR is pretty mediocre without thinking outside the box. And if scrutinized by an unfair DM with home brew rules to make your class more poopy, there is no point in showing up next game, as you are a DPR class, with great skills, that’s kind of the rogue’s thing...

[Ganymede]

Rogues sneak attack only calls for an ally in 5ft of your enemy

This is not correct. Where are you reading this?

[ProsecutorGodot]

This is not correct. Where are you reading this?

Aside from noting that the ally needs to also not be incapacitated, and you cannot have disadvantage on the attack roll it is correct. A Familiar would in most reasonable cases count for gaining sneak attack whether you have it use the help action or not, which is the context we're using in this statement. Your familiar counts as your ally.

I say "most reasonable cases" because you should always talk with your DM on whether keeping your familiar tucked in a pocket is something they find reasonable. On the flip side, I might be a bit upset at a ruling that decides that risking my familiar to flank the target was also not reasonable because it's somehow not an enemy of the target.

Talk with the DM, find what works.

[Ganymede]

Aside from noting that the ally needs to also not be incapacitated, and you cannot have disadvantage on the attack roll it is correct.

It really isn't correct.


"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

It has nothing to do with whether or not the other person is an ally; "ally" doesn't appear anywhere in the text for Sneak Attack.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It really isn't correct.


"You don’t need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn’t incapacitated, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll."

It has nothing to do with whether or not the other person is an ally; "ally" doesn't appear anywhere in the text for Sneak Attack.

if you want to nitpick, that's fine, but "your ally" fits almost every definition of "another enemy of the target". Calling it incorrect is pointlessly specific.

[Willie the Duck]

I mean, if your rogue isn’t consistently getting off sneak attack, they’re going to feel like poop, and be poop in combat. Rogue DPR is pretty mediocre without thinking outside the box. And if scrutinized by an unfair DM with home brew rules to make your class more poopy, there is no point in showing up next game, as you are a DPR class, with great skills, that’s kind of the rogue’s thing...

People keep saying this, but it isn't in and of itself a justification or argument in favor of every potential avenue of gaining SA on your opponent (each of those should be analyzed on their own merits). Yes, a rogue should be getting their SA most of the time when they are bothering to attack. That does not mean that they shouldn't have to work to set up that sneak attack, it just means that they should weigh carefully whether they should bother with attacking (particularly if it leaves them vulnerable) in situations where they don't get their SA.

Honestly speaking, if SA were constrained to rogues having their actual front-lining fellow-PCs within 5' for melee SA, and 5e's amazingly giving hiding rules for ranged SA, they would still be a perfectly fine class and character role (amongst the many, many ways in which a rogue is one of the most fun classes to play, with all sorts of reasons to play them other than their DPR, which is the primary reason that their DPR is mediocre). We are arguing around the edge cases, at best.

The only real thing that I'd call important is that DM and players should be on the same page before anyone starts making character-building decisions. Because, yes, if you came to the game expecting to be able to use invisible weasels curled up in your pocket as your sneak-attacking partner, and your DM thought that was the most abusive thing they'd ever heard of, and everyone was well invested in their positions and character/world-design, well then yes probably both people would walk away finding the others' position rather poopy, as you put it.

[OverLordOcelot]

And if scrutinized by an unfair DM with home brew rules to make your class more poopy, there is no point in showing up next game, as you are a DPR class, with great skills, that’s kind of the rogue’s thing...

I kind of doubt that DMs who interpret the sneak attack such that the "enemy within 5'" has to be an actual combatant are going to alienate enough players that they have a hard time running games. In my personal experience, that's a universal interpretation, and yet there always seem to be players struggling to find a DM and not the other way around.

[Aaedimus]

Yet there always seem to be players struggling to find a DM and not the other way around.

Which is why crappy DMs can last so long and don't have a problem finding players.

[Hail Tempus]

I kind of doubt that DMs who interpret the sneak attack such that the "enemy within 5'" has to be an actual combatant are going to alienate enough players that they have a hard time running games. In my personal experience, that's a universal interpretation, and yet there always seem to be players struggling to find a DM and not the other way around. I think a reasonable middle ground is requiring the familiar to be actively engaged in combat for them to count as an enemy of the sneak attack target. IMO, that means potentially putting themselves in harm's way. A familiar who risks its existence by standing 5' from an ogre is actively engaged in combat, even if they can't make an attack. A weasel hiding in a backpack is not.

Though, I see rogues using their familiars to take the Help action, rather than just standing there, which is why owls are so popular due to their Flyby feature.

DMs should not be stingy in allowing rogues to actually use one of their most important class features. And if a rogue uses archetype resources or a feat to obtain a familiar, I don't see why a DM wouldn't allow them to use that familiar as a combat aid. But, the rogue character has to be reasonable and should avoid stretching the rules.

[Man_Over_Game]

For the sake of balance, I'm gonna crunch some numbers to see how much damage a Rogue should be doing compared to the most consistent class in the game: the Fighter.

I'm going to assume a 100% hit chance, and I'm going to mark down a Rogue with 100% Sneak Atta. No magic items or subclasses, to try and make things a bit simpler. The Fighter will be using a Long Sword, and the Rogue will be using a Short Bow. Both have an attack modifier of +3. The damage shown will be reflecting average damage.




Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


Fighter
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
15
15
15
15
15
15
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
30


Rogue 100%
10
10
13.5
13.5
17
17
20.5
20.5
24
24
27.5
27.5
31
31
34.5
34.5
38
38
41.5
41.5


Rogue 50%
8.25
8.25
10
10
11.75
11.75
13.5
13.5
15.25
15.25
17
17
18.75
18.75
20.5
20.5
22.25
22.25
24
24




For me, this reflects that the Rogue is balanced around having a 50% sneak attack rate at level 1 and a 75% sneak attack rate past level 10. I think this is a natural curve due to the fact that Advantage, multiple units active in combat, or methods for the Rogue to grant itself Advantage inherently become more common as you advance in levels. For example, the Arcane Trickster can grant himself Advantage to attack an enemy within 30 feet at level 13.

Allowing a familiar at low levels to push that SA rate to 100% messes with this curve, devalues a lot of the Rogue Subclass features, and adds extra value to a spell that doesn't really need it.

[Hail Tempus]

For the sake of balance, I'm gonna crunch some numbers to see how much damage a Rogue should be doing compared to the most consistent class in the game: the Fighter.

I'm going to assume a 100% hit chance, and I'm going to mark down a Rogue with 100% Sneak Atta. No magic items or subclasses, to try and make things a bit simpler. The Fighter will be using a Long Sword, and the Rogue will be using a Short Bow. Both have an attack modifier of +3. The damage shown will be reflecting average damage.




Level
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20


Fighter
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
15
15
15
15
15
15
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
22.5
30


Rogue 100%
10
10
13.5
13.5
17
17
20.5
20.5
24
24
27.5
27.5
31
31
34.5
34.5
38
38
41.5
41.5


Rogue 50%
8.25
8.25
10
10
11.75
11.75
13.5
13.5
15.25
15.25
17
17
18.75
18.75
20.5
20.5
22.25
22.25
24
24




For me, this reflects that the Rogue is balanced around having a 50% sneak attack rate at level 1 and a 75% sneak attack rate past level 10. I think this is a natural curve due to the fact that Advantage, multiple units active in combat, or methods for the Rogue to grant itself Advantage inherently become more common as you advance in levels. For example, the Arcane Trickster can grant himself Advantage to attack an enemy within 30 feet at level 13.

Allowing a familiar at low levels to push that SA rate to 100% messes with this curve, devalues a lot of the Rogue Subclass features, and adds extra value to a spell that doesn't really need it.

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/774386982839386112

According to Mike Mearls, rogues are balanced with the assumption that they'll always get sneak attack.

In the standard 4-5 PC party, meeting the requirements for SA is pretty easy, most of the time. Your typical party has a fighter/paladin/barbarian who moves into melee the first chance he gets.

[Aaedimus]

Allowing a familiar at low levels to push that SA rate to 100% messes with this curve, devalues a lot of the Rogue Subclass features, and adds extra value to a spell that doesn't really need it.

Remember it's not gonna be 100% even with a familiar and you're only factoring damage. Having a slightly higher damage is fine for rogues when they're a bit easier to kill.

[Petrocorus]

Allowing a familiar at low levels to push that SA rate to 100% messes with this curve, devalues a lot of the Rogue Subclass features, and adds extra value to a spell that doesn't really need it.

In this combo, this Rogue has invested: one feat, one spell known, one cantrip known, his action, his bonus action and the action of his familiar. Plus the risk to get he familiar killed.

What kind of return would a fighter get with this kind of investment?

[Man_Over_Game]

In this combo, this Rogue has invested: one feat, one spell known, one cantrip known, his action, his bonus action and the action of his familiar. Plus the risk to get he familiar killed.

What kind of return would a fighter get with this kind of investment?

Everything in bold is all the same investment: a feat.

For simplicity, a similar example of a Feat + Action + Bonus Action that's common for a Fighter is the TWF feat. Including the TWF fighting style, we'd be talking about:

2d8 + 6 damage, +1 AC

vs. the Rogue's

1d8 + 1d6 + 1d6 Thunder + Advantage (which I'll just translate into a +30% damage increase).

The Fighter would deal an average of 15 damage.

The Rogue would deal an average of 14.95 damage.

While the numbers are similar, the Rogue can still use the familiar as a scout, replace the familiar if it dies, and still has an extra cantrip. In addition, Sneak Attack scales faster than the Fighter's Extra Attacks, and Booming Blade would be on par, so the Rogue would quickly outdamage the Fighter after level 3 and be noticeably powerful by level 5.

And this is not including the fact that Find Familiar is one of the best spells in the game before considering combat.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Everything in bold is all the same investment: a feat.
Don't forget about the initial example of this thread. It's an Arcane Trickster with the Mobile feat, the spells known aren't associated with a feat. This is the only spell they're allowed at this level outside of the Illusion and Enchantment schools.

[Man_Over_Game]

Don't forget about the initial example of this thread. It's an Arcane Trickster with the Mobile feat, the spells known aren't associated with a feat. This is the only spell they're allowed at this level outside of the Illusion and Enchantment schools.

But in combination with those elements:

The rogue consistently stays 40 feet away after launching a sneak attack + melee cantrip.
Has the option of ranged attacks.
Has a familiar.
Can move up to 120 feet in a turn.


Don't get me wrong, it's a solid build, but let's not pretend the Familiar, Rogue, or Familiar + Rogue really needs a buff.

Making something powerful out of a niche narrative due to creativity is one thing, but this doesn't feel like trying to fit mechanics to a vivid narrative. Rather, this feels like a gamist strategy to increase numbers. And I guess I'm more willing to accept niche power spikes in narrative creativity, not mechanical ones.

And if it doesn't help balance-wise, then it doesn't improve the game.

And if it doesn't help narrative-wise, then it doesn't improve the roleplaying.

And if it doesn't help the Game or the Roleplaying of a Roleplaying Game, then what good is it?

[Willie the Duck]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/774386982839386112

According to Mike Mearls, rogues are balanced with the assumption that they'll always get sneak attack.

In the standard 4-5 PC party, meeting the requirements for SA is pretty easy, most of the time. Your typical party has a fighter/paladin/barbarian who moves into melee the first chance he gets.

I think that was my point, though-- the rogue should not be assumed to get to SA every turn (and thus argument against allowing another method towards this should be met with suspicion), but instead a rogue should only be assumed to be making an attack when they can arrange to get SA (and should otherwise be using their action to set up SA).



Making something powerful out of a niche narrative due to creativity is one thing, but this doesn't feel like trying to fit mechanics to a vivid narrative. Rather, this feels like a gamist strategy to increase numbers. And I guess I'm more willing to accept niche power spikes in narrative creativity, not mechanical ones.

I think that's where I stand. If people started from the perspective of 'I have this familiar and I see them darting about in combat, running up my opponent's trousers, and distracting them,' I'd be more sympathetic than I am to the idea that the rogue needs SA percentage, and this is an avenue towards that.

[langal]

It's so cheezy, that my assumption is that it exists by raw because the designers didn't think that they had to make clear that this wasn't what they intended (although, to be fair to any theoretical person bleating, "but raw...", they do do a better job of delineating the DM-judgment role there is in the help-another actions).

I suppose the next question is - can an ugly t-shirt qualify as an enemy? Shiny sequins could distract someone and "help".

[Petrocorus]

Everything in bold is all the same investment: a feat.

No, it's not. The feat is Mobile. The cantrip and the spell are given by his subclass. I grant you the familiar action and the risk taken are part of the spell.



For simplicity, a similar example of a Feat + Action + Bonus Action that's common for a Fighter is the TWF feat. Including the TWF fighting style, we'd be talking about:

2d8 + 6 damage, +1 AC

Eldritch Knight with GWM and Find Familiar:
2d6 +13 damage -5 to hit + Advantage
Average 20 damage on a hit plus a possibility to attack again without advantage.

Battlemaster with GWM and Feinting Attack
2d6 +1d8 +13 damage -5 to hit +Advantage
Average 24,5 damage on a hit plus a possibility to attack again with or without advantage.



vs. the Rogue's
The Rogue would deal an average of 14.95 damage.

So i'm not disputing this is quite powerful. But given the build resources invested, it is normal that this is powerful and a Fighter or another class can also have powerful combos, probably less complicated, for this kind of investment.

A level 5 Barbarian with Reckless Attack and GWM against CR 1 foes can potentially make 66 damage per turn if is a bit lucky on his attack rolls. Without talking about his subclass features. A Rogue investing build resources to do 31,5 damage per turn is good, but not overpowerful.

[JackPhoenix]

https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/774386982839386112

According to Mike Mearls, rogues are balanced with the assumption that they'll always get sneak attack.

In the standard 4-5 PC party, meeting the requirements for SA is pretty easy, most of the time. Your typical party has a fighter/paladin/barbarian who moves into melee the first chance he gets.

Unfortunately, the guy actually responsible for the rules and the balance disagrees (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2018/11/12/yes-or-no-was-the-rogue-is-balanced-around-getting-sneak-attack-every-round/). Mike Mearls doesn't know how the rules are supposed to work, that's why nothing he says about them on SA matters.