D&D 5E Pact of the Chain question

[Hopsong]

Concerning this from PHB p. 107: "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own."

Here's what I think, although I'm not sure:

1. Allows the Warlock to give the familiar a second attack in that round.

2. If you have multiple attacks from the Attack action (like with Thirsting Blade or E-Blast at >= 5th level), you lose one multi-attack and the familiar gets an extra attack.

Related question: The Pseudodragon is listed as having both a bite and a sting attack. It might almost make sense that the PoC feature is specifying that kind of familiar can only make a single attack when granted by the Warlock, but I don't think having two attacks means making them both in the same round, right?

I would appreciate any insights out there about how this feature is supposed to work.

 

[flametitan]

Eldritch Blast is a "Cast a Spell" action, not an "Attack" action. Thirsting Blade is Pact of the Blade only. The only thing the wording is compatible with is the Extra Attack feature from multiclassing into a fighter/barbarian/Paladin/Ranger/etc.

It does not technically lift the stipulation that a familiar cannot use their action to attack in the find familiar spell, so they'll only have one attack per round.

The special familiars are however intelligent enough that you could probably convince a DM that your quasit can use that Wand of Magic Missiles you found, as a familiar can take all other actions as normal.

 

[ccs]

It's like the PHB beast master ranger. If you want your familiar to attack, it can. But it uses up one of your own attacks.

And like that PHB beast master ranger rule, the tables I play at/DM for just ignore it. Our familiars act on thier own inititiative, with the full range of actions/attacks (as applicable to the specific familiar).
Guess what? The world hasn't ended. The game didn't break....

 

[Redthistle]

My impression is that the RAI are meant to reduce the ticks o' the clock in combat encounters; every additional action that a player takes on a turn likely increases the length of time it takes to play the encounter.

Time's not a problem if you give your familiar a Wand of Death Stars, although that might create other problems. Like, uh, well, I guess the world would end.

That said, flametitan does a good job of covering the RAW, and ccs gets the nod for RAF.

 

[Mort]

It's like the PHB beast master ranger. If you want your familiar to attack, it can. But it uses up one of your own attacks.

And like that PHB beast master ranger rule, the tables I play at/DM for just ignore it. Our familiars act on thier own inititiative, with the full range of actions/attacks (as applicable to the specific familiar).
Guess what? The world hasn't ended. The game didn't break....

I agree with just letting the familiar act normally, especially with the beast master ranger companion.

When the ranger in my campaign used her companion by RAW it was both cumbersome mecanically and clearly underpowered. I understand the intent, action economy is an important consideration - but they went a bit overboard IMO (looks like they pulled it back a bit in the UA ranger, but I haven't actually seen that played).

 

[Ancalagon]

My impression is that the RAI are meant to reduce the ticks o' the clock in combat encounters; every additional action that a player takes on a turn likely increases the length of time it takes to play the encounter.

Time's not a problem if you give your familiar a Wand of Death Stars, although that might create other problems. Like, uh, well, I guess the world would end.

It *would* make for fast encounters....

 

[ad_hoc]

I agree with just letting the familiar act normally, especially with the beast master ranger companion.

When the ranger in my campaign used her companion by RAW it was both cumbersome mecanically and clearly underpowered. I understand the intent, action economy is an important consideration - but they went a bit overboard IMO (looks like they pulled it back a bit in the UA ranger, but I haven't actually seen that played).

The Beast Master as written is not underpowered. You are just doing it wrong.

 

[Mort]

The Beast Master as written is not underpowered. You are just doing it wrong.

There have been many threads on this board alone that show my experience is far from unique. Also, Wizards received strong enough feedback that the beast master ranger received a significant overhaul.

Also "you're wrong," isn't too helpful. Maybe some examples of how it properly stacks up to the hunter ranger and/or othe options?