War Wizard + Familiar + Dragons Breath = Op?

[Whiskeyjack8044]

I guess it doesn't need to be a War Wizard for this to work, but I was building one when I saw this potential combo.

So you can cast Dragons Breath on your familiar, perch it on your shoulder, and effectively have it cast Buring Hands each turn for you as long as you maintain concentration, up to 10 rounds? Your owl basicly becomes an Archer roasting attack drone. This means I can cast Fireball on my turn, then on my Familiar's adjacent turn, finish them off with Dragon's Breath.

The big down side to the War Wizard is that if I use Arcane Deflection I can only use cantrip's next turn, but if I have a flying Flame Thrower on my shoulder I can still put out a lot of damage.

How would AC work if my now fire breathing Lizard familiar hid in my sleeve until it's turn? Seems like there are a lot of ways to abuse this. What do you guys think?

[Laserlight]

Our sorc twinned DB onto a couple of our front line guys, because you have to close to use it effectively and he was allergic to HP damage and Concentration checks. Worked fine.

[Ventruenox]

I would consider it 1/2 cover, not 3/4 or full cover. Your familiar is using a creature to hide, specifically named in the rules for cover. The Wizard's robes do not provide the same level of protection as a portcullis (3/4 cover). Full cover just seems silly by hiding in robes, though it should provide protection from gaze attacks.

The familiar would get +2 AC and +2 to Dex saving throws.

[noob]

I would consider it 1/2 cover, not 3/4 or full cover. Your familiar is using a creature to hide, specifically named in the rules for cover. The Wizard's robes do not provide the same level of protection as a portcullis (3/4 cover). Full cover just seems silly by hiding in robes, though it should provide protection from gaze attacks.

The familiar would get +2 AC and +2 to Dex saving throws.

So now I want a portcullis robe.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

So now I want a portcullis robe.
I believe that is called Chain Mail :p

[noob]

I believe that is called Chain Mail :p

so would a familiar get 3/4 cover and be able to fire from the chain mail?

[JackPhoenix]

"Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space." So no, no familiar hiding in a sleeve.

[Man_Over_Game]

"Whether a creature is a friend or an enemy, you can’t willingly end your move in its space." So no, no familiar hiding in a sleeve.

On the flipside, there are optional rules for having a creature climb a larger one.

But I probably wouldn't let it fly. The spell is already really good, no need to let your Familiar be able to breathe fire from your pocket at the same time.

[LudicSavant]

Our sorc twinned DB onto a couple of our front line guys, because you have to close to use it effectively and he was allergic to HP damage and Concentration checks. Worked fine.

DB cannot be Twinned, because it can affect multiple targets. There’s a sage advice on it to that effect, too.

[Citadel97501]

DB cannot be Twinned, because it can affect multiple targets. There’s a sage advice on it to that effect, too.

This is heavily argued and often considered a misruling by Sage Advice as the spell doesn't target multiple people, it gives you a different action that you can then use to target multiple people.

[LudicSavant]

This is heavily argued and often considered a misruling by Sage Advice as the spell doesn't target multiple people

It explicitly targets a cone of people as part of the effect.

The action granted is no less a part of the effect than the action granted by Witch Bolt or Sunbeam.

[JackPhoenix]

This is heavily argued and often considered a misruling by Sage Advice as the spell doesn't target multiple people, it gives you a different action that you can then use to target multiple people.

A counterpoint used in that argument is Haste, but that doesn't really compare. If you attack someone with the extra action, you aren't hitting them with the spell's effect, the target is doing what he could already do, the spell will just allow him to do it faster. With Dragon's Breath, the creature you cast it on is delivery system, but the fire (or whatever) still clearly comes from the magic, as it's not something the creature could do before.

[Man_Over_Game]

A counterpoint used in that argument is Haste, but that doesn't really compare. If you attack someone with the extra action, you aren't hitting them with the spell's effect, the target is doing what he could already do, the spell will just allow him to do it faster. With Dragon's Breath, the creature you cast it on is delivery system, but the fire (or whatever) still clearly comes from the magic, as it's not something the creature could do before.

A valid point.

The Dragon's Breath Action does damage to multiple creatures. Does it do magical damage? Why?

[Pharaon]

If you attack someone with the extra action, you aren't hitting them with the spell's effect, the target is doing what he could already do, the spell will just allow him to do it faster.

I honestly don't see the difference. Haste gives an single attack action and dragon's breath gives a breath weapon action.

I usually don't have strong opinions on JC's tweets, but I am militantly against this one. Dragon's breath has the same target as Haste (and other popular Twinning spells): a "willing creature." Twinning either applies to both or neither. Anything else is inconsistent.

[Dualswinger]

I'd personally rule that Dragon's Breath is a buff spell that only targets one creature and is therefore valid for twinning. The actual targeting and resolution of the spell is to touch one willing creature for the spell to take effect, therefore allowing for it to be twinned.

That the spell effect gives a creature the ability to spew out a cone of damage that can damage multiple creatures is irrelevant, since it's not actually part of the spell effect, onlt the effect of the effect.

[LudicSavant]

If you're making a saving throw against a spell DC, you are apparently a target of that spell.

The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure. The DC to resist one of your spells equals 8 +your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers.

"Range" apparently describes the initial targeting, not necessarily all targets of the effect.

Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise.

And the relevant errata:

To be eligible for Twinned Spell, a spell must be incapable of targeting more than one creature at the spell’s current level.

As with many things in 5e, everything here could stand to be worded more clearly than it is, but the devs have been pretty consistent about saying that if something makes you save, you're a target. And this seems to be a defensible reading of the RAW, as well as the dev RAI.

[Pharaon]

That section people are looking at isn't labeled "Targets," it's labeled "Range." The confusion seems to stem from believing these things are synonymous, even though the PHB tells us that they are not.

So we can pop open our PHB and flip over to the section where it defines what the "Range" entry of a spell means. It then tells us that this is the initial range for the effect, not necessarily all targets of the effect. "Once a spell is cast, its effects aren't limited by its range, unless the spell's description says otherwise."

Also noteworthy, if you're making a saving throw against a spell DC, you are a target of that spell.

This reading invalidates practically all currently Twinnable spells. Haste is certainly out (besides being able to use the extra attack on multiple targets over time, one could also Use an Object that affects multiple targets), so is suggestion and first level castings of command or charm person (who knows what the the subject of those could affect).

How far down the path of tracking "effects" do we want to go? Say a wizard doesn't like the aura granted by an enemy paladin and decides to banish the paladin, who fails the save. Those previously benefiting from the paladin's aura no longer are. Are they also the targets of banishment?

I am not looking at "range," I am reading the spell description and seeing who it targets.


Choose a willing creature that you can see within range.



You touch one willing creature...


I'm of the opinion that a spell affecting more than just its one target does not mean it has more than one target.

For example, the Sorcerer casts dragon's breath on the Barbarian. The Barbarian uses an action to breathe fire, hitting multiple goblins. Are those goblins the Barbarian's targets or the Sorcerer's? I would say the Barbarian was the Sorcerer's single target of the casting, and the goblins are the Barbarian's targets.

[OverLordOcelot]

Familiars are creatures with weak AC and HP, using one to deliver dragon's breath like that is a good way to get it killed, either by AOE or someone burning an action to plink it away. It isn't ineffective, but I wouldn't expect a familiar making itself a big target to last long, and a single hit will kill it. Once it's dead, it's gone until you have an hour to resummon it, which you don't always have. If your familiar is acting as a combatant, then I would have it represented by a mini on the battlefield, and treat it like any other combatant. The 'oh, it's a little creature, it just hides in my sleeve' thing doesn't actually work, and I don't know anyone who'd let you make a combat-involved familiar invulnerable that way.

[Pharaon]

As with many things in 5e, everything here could stand to be worded more clearly than it is, but the devs have been pretty consistent about saying that if something makes you save, you're a target. And this seems to be a defensible reading of the RAW, as well as the dev RAI.

I absolutely agree this could be worded better, and that this is clearly RAI (at least for dragon's breath). I also think it is a valid reading of RAW, just one I find to be a bit of a reach.

I agree that something making a save is a target, I just think in this case it is a target of the recipient of the spell, not the caster.

[LudicSavant]

This reading invalidates practically all currently Twinnable spells. Haste is certainly out (besides being able to use the extra attack on multiple targets over time, one could also Use an Object that affects multiple targets), so is suggestion and first level castings of command or charm person (who knows what the the subject of those could affect).

How far down the path of tracking "effects" do we want to go? Say a wizard doesn't like the aura granted by an enemy paladin and decides to banish the paladin, who fails the save. Those previously benefiting from the paladin's aura no longer are. Are they also the targets of banishment?

I am not looking at "range," I am reading the spell description and seeing who it targets.

I don't agree with your interpretation here, that things like Haste are necessarily ruled out. While there is room for interpretation on where exactly a spell's effect begins or ends, I think one can quite safely assume that indirect effects like your Paladin example don't count as the spell's effect or targets.

However, one place there doesn't seem to be a lot of wiggle room on is if you're making a save against the spell's effect, which in the case of Dragon's Breath you are.


I agree that something making a save is a target, I just think in this case it is a target of the recipient of the spell, not the caster.

For Dragon's Breath (and indeed all spells that reference the Saving Throw section of the spell rules), you are a target making a save against the DC of the spell effect, using the caster's stats.

So... it is the spell effect powered by the caster that you're saving against, not an indirect consequence.

Note that whether the "caster of the spell" or the "recipient" is doing the targeting wouldn't matter either. The wording of Twinned Spell is such that the spell effect itself must be incapable of targeting multiple people.

[sophontteks]

JC has a slew of bad rulings for sorcerers. Just ignore them like most people do. DB targets one person. You twin it, and now it targets two. Its very simple and straightforward.

What is complicated is trying to defend his ruling against it. A good sign that the ruling wasn't very good. Sorcerers have a ton of restrictions for their metamagic including a limited spell list. JC rules conservatively to avoid anything that can be abused, but he goes too conservative with sorcerers. They got enough restrictions already with RAW.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Familiars are creatures with weak AC and HP, using one to deliver dragon's breath like that is a good way to get it killed, either by AOE or someone burning an action to plink it away. It isn't ineffective, but I wouldn't expect a familiar making itself a big target to last long, and a single hit will kill it. Once it's dead, it's gone until you have an hour to resummon it, which you don't always have. If your familiar is acting as a combatant, then I would have it represented by a mini on the battlefield, and treat it like any other combatant. The 'oh, it's a little creature, it just hides in my sleeve' thing doesn't actually work, and I don't know anyone who'd let you make a combat-involved familiar invulnerable that way.

Sure, but an owl with 60ft of flight can swoop in, flame, then fly back in to cover pretty easily. I think you could make a good case for the owl to have at least 2/3 cover if not full cover if it's behind my back. It's a tiny creature and I'm a medium creature. Unless the enemy is in melee range I can't imagine how they would hit that owl. Would you rule as a DM that an Archer in front of you can hit a tiny lizard clinging to the small of your back, or even one on the ground behind you?

To be clear I'd never play this way, it would be strong arming the DM and unsportmanly. This is just theory.

[OverLordOcelot]

Sure, but an owl with 60ft of flight can swoop in, flame, then fly back in to cover pretty easily. I think you could make a good case for the owl to have at least 2/3 cover if not full cover if it's behind my back. It's a tiny creature and I'm a medium creature. Unless the enemy is in melee range I can't imagine how they would hit that owl. Would you rule as a DM that an Archer in front of you can hit a tiny lizard clinging to the small of your back, or even one on the ground behind you?

I would rule that an archer can definitely hit the flying fire breathing familiar, yes. It could get an AC bonus from cover but that's not much use when a single hit kills. I'm not sure why you think an owl using its 2-5 foot wingspan to fly around at full speed is going to be immune to hits just because it happens to have part of its flight path behind a person who's moving around to avoid being hit himself; combat is handled in turns for the sake of simplicity, but all of the action is actually occuring at once. In general if a creature like a familiar is going to join combat, then it's going to use it's combat stats, and it's AC even with cover is not that impressive.

Also someone could just ready an action to shoot the familiar when it does it's next pass even if it is ducking into some kind of full cover.

[Whiskeyjack8044]

Also someone could just ready an action to shoot the familiar when it does it's next pass even if it is ducking into some kind of full cover.
This is a great point. I'm still iffy on the other argument though. I completely understand what you are saying about combat happening all at once, but the moment that that Goblin looses an arrow, is the same moment that the owl makes it behind my back. And if hiding behind a barn sized huge Dragon gives a PC 2/3 or full cover then the same should apply to a Tiny bird behind a person.

You are making a good call as a DM, sometimes you have to rule unfairly for the sake of balance and keeping things challenging, but it doesn't make any logical sense. A Player should acquiesce to your ruling, but that doesn't mean they would be wrong.

[Arkhios]

I'd consider the spell for a paladin 13+ if multiclassed with, say, a sorcerer, and using it on Greater Steed (imagine a dire wolf exhaling cold breath — kinda like a dire winter wolf)

Or, alternatively, a Valor Bard with Greater Find Steed and Dragon Breath (because that Extra Attack does warrant more use than just 'being available', imo).

[Guy Lombard-O]

This is a great point. I'm still iffy on the other argument though. I completely understand what you are saying about combat happening all at once, but the moment that that Goblin looses an arrow, is the same moment that the owl makes it behind my back. And if hiding behind a barn sized huge Dragon gives a PC 2/3 or full cover then the same should apply to a Tiny bird behind a person.

You are making a good call as a DM, sometimes you have to rule unfairly for the sake of balance and keeping things challenging, but it doesn't make any logical sense. A Player should acquiesce to your ruling, but that doesn't mean they would be wrong.

Just have the familiar hide (all the way) behind an object instead of a creature, and you won't have to even argue the point with your DM.

Although I have no doubt that one of the enemy will hold action kill the familiar in short order. Which is at least taking up an enemy attack (or more, for multi-attack enemies). So, not too bad a deal, if it gets off a couple of rounds of (not-an-attack) breaths before it dies.

[tieren]

My pseudo dragon was sad for days when I realized DB isn't on the warlock list.

[Vogie]

I don't want my players doing this, but this is definitely something an casting NPC will do...

[OverLordOcelot]

Although I have no doubt that one of the enemy will hold action kill the familiar in short order. Which is at least taking up an enemy attack (or more, for multi-attack enemies). So, not too bad a deal, if it gets off a couple of rounds of (not-an-attack) breaths before it dies.

Depends on the enemy and how your 'day' is going. Familiars are really handy for scouting and for giving you advantage with the help action, especially doing things like landing something with an attack roll that then gives you advantage on later attack rolls (my druid and eldritch knight do this a lot). Once you're involved in an adventure, you're often not going to have time to spend an hour to resummon it, so you can consider it a one-charge item. If what you're fighting is just a 'slow you down' kind of fight, using up the familiar to speed up killing off some archers is probably a waste of it. OTOH, if the fight is an actual struggle, then it's worth spending the familiar for extra damage and to soak an attack or two.

Definitely don't think it's overpowered, the fact that you have to think about when you'd want to use it shows that there are trade offs and it's not just a 'oh yeah, do this every time' option.

[Grod_The_Giant]

On the flipside, there are optional rules for having a creature climb a larger one.

But I probably wouldn't let it fly. The spell is already really good, no need to let your Familiar be able to breathe fire from your pocket at the same time.
At least until someone drops an AoE, save-for-half spell on you. Goodbye, familiar.

[Talionis]

It is a risk reward tactic. No DM worth his salt will let this work every time.

But to add a tactic that I have used is casting Darkness on the target, then hitting it with Dragon's Breath from as many sources as necessary. Your enemy cannot target you back and you don't need to exactly target the enemy. It allows for a good bleed out of tougher enemies. Especially if you can get multiple sources of area of effect repeatable attacks like twinning Dragon's Breath or having Dragon's Breath on your Steed and/or familiar.

Familiars are valuable. Steeds are valuable. They cost spells and time to recast. But often it will work especially if you layer defensive spells like Darkness to protect your familiars and steeds.

[jaappleton]

I’m of firm belief that Dragon’s Breath, according to the requirements of Twinned Metamagic, follows the rules and therefore CAN be Twinned.

I also believe that it’s unintentionally written to be applicable with Metamagic. It was not intended to be Twinnable, and therefore there’s been some backpedaling on it by Crawford.

I think errata’ing the spell to only target Humanoids is a decent fix for what the designers perceive as a problem. Otherwise the Druid summons animals the the Sorcerer twins Breath on a couple of them and then you have hounds with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you.

[malachi]

...and then you have hounds with bees in their mouths, and when they bark they shoot bees at you.

And that's a problem why, exactly?

[LudicSavant]

I also believe that it’s unintentionally written to be applicable with Metamagic. It was not intended to be Twinnable, and therefore there’s been some backpedaling on it by Crawford.

Look, I get it. It feels bad when you think that metamagic effects like Careful, Quicken, or Twin are going to be better than they are, then realize there are hangups in the fine print.

But I'm pretty sure there was no "backpedaling" on it; to my knowledge, the rulings on how these sorts of things work have been consistent from the outset of 5e (and we've certainly had rulings to this effect for similar cases, prior to Dragon's Breath coming out). It's not like the Eldritch Knight or Shield Master rulings where we can go back and point to an earlier version where they said something different.

If you save against a spell effect, you are a target of that spell effect. That step is required for you to make a save against the spell DC in the first place.

The problem is that people read the first line of the "Range" section and skip the rest. Fireball for example doesn't just target a point in space, everything in the AoE are "targets" too. Hence why the spell says...


A target takes 8d6 Fire damage

Spells that do things like initially target a creature or object, but then also have an effect that causes a save later, often refer to the affected creatures as "targets" (for example, Symbol, which initially targets an object with a range of Touch).

Likewise, if you cast Sunbeam to give yourself the ability to spend Actions to make more Sunbeams, those Sunbeams will still get deflected by the Tarrasque's shell since the Tarrasque is a target. It's not just the initial action/targeting that counts as targeting for the spell. It never was.

In the case of Dragon's Breath specifically, the cone is targeting creatures. The cone is created by the spell effect and uses the spell saving throw rules (which say they affect targets of the spell). Therefore the spell is capable of targeting more than 1 creature. This was established before JC even posted to Twitter about Dragon's Breath.

It's the same reason why you can't use Spirit Guardians on your Find Steed.

[skwerl_e]

This is a great point. I'm still iffy on the other argument though. I completely understand what you are saying about combat happening all at once, but the moment that that Goblin looses an arrow, is the same moment that the owl makes it behind my back. And if hiding behind a barn sized huge Dragon gives a PC 2/3 or full cover then the same should apply to a Tiny bird behind a person.
--- .

The Familiar "OWL" doesn't trigger trigger a REACTION. Only a held action could hit the owl mid flight. At the end of it's movement, if it were behind a wall/corner/tree / in a birdhouse or a Backpack , it would have full cover.
A 6ft tall man can hide behind a tree 5 ft wide and 30 feet tall... ((unless he fully extends his arms)).

[skwerl_e]

Twinned Spell
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self...

SYMBOL = NOT TWINNABLE
SANCTUARY = TWINNABLE
ENLARGE = TWINNABLE

{Scrubbed}

[Schwann145]

JC has also said things like: in order for someone taller than 5'0 to use Minor Illusion as a cover/hiding spot they'd have to make themselves prone, flying in the face of the very core and basic rule that a medium sized creature occupies a 5ft space, not a 5ft+ space.

Rule what seems reasonable for you when the SA doesn't. It's that simple.

[sophontteks]

The ruling doesn't work because it contradicts itself.

Dragons breath is a transmutation spell that targets one creature, giving them the ability to breath fire with their action.

You can't empower it because it does no damage.
You can't use careful or shaped spell, because the AOE attack is not a part of the spell.

Yet, simutaniously JC says it can't be twinned???

This ruling is one of the rulings at the heart of the "JC just plains hates sorcerers" complaint. It follows no logic, contradicts itself, and seems to only exist out of a false paranoia that sorcerers would be OP or something.


Twinned Spell
When you Cast a Spell that Targets only one creature and doesn’t have a range of self...

SYMBOL = NOT TWINNABLE
SANCTUARY = TWINNABLE
ENLARGE = TWINNABLE

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
This is right. Symbol is just delaying the spell. Other metamagics can be applied to symbol, such as empowered and careful.

[heavyfuel]

I guess it doesn't need to be a War Wizard for this to work, but I was building one when I saw this potential combo.

So you can cast Dragons Breath on your familiar, perch it on your shoulder, and effectively have it cast Buring Hands each turn for you as long as you maintain concentration, up to 10 rounds? Your owl basicly becomes an Archer roasting attack drone. This means I can cast Fireball on my turn, then on my Familiar's adjacent turn, finish them off with Dragon's Breath.

The big down side to the War Wizard is that if I use Arcane Deflection I can only use cantrip's next turn, but if I have a flying Flame Thrower on my shoulder I can still put out a lot of damage.

How would AC work if my now fire breathing Lizard familiar hid in my sleeve until it's turn? Seems like there are a lot of ways to abuse this. What do you guys think?

Something I haven't seen anyone comment on yet:

This is a great technique, and I've used it on occasion, but you have to be careful as this puts a huge target on your 1 HP Familiar. Use this against enemies with no ranged capability and you'l be fine, though.

[truemane]

Metamagic Mod: Thread Necromancy + Moderator = OP.