Is using a familiar in combat to grant advantage a common tactic?

[Scott Graves]

YOU MONSTER!

Thank you. I think dem' familiars makes fer tasty eatin.

I love even more to let the players capture some kind of young monster and try to raise it as a sidekick then kill it off with a HUGE amount of damage, then I laugh... A lot. I've trained my players to eat any captured young monsters since it will cause less problems down the line.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes. And this is why I think it is inappropriate in this situation.
Maybe I need to explain it better so you can understand me... I have to work on myself...

The familiar is mentally connected to it's master. Thus, it might be able to help it's master by finding weak spots on the dragon, but it wouldn't be able to help other party members without the mental connection.


I did deliberately get my familiar eaten by a dragon once - it was carrying a bomb.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Maybe the familiar "helps" by pointing out weak spots in the dragon's armour?

That's not the sort of reality which those rules were intended to model. If that was the case, you would be able to do it from further away, and there would be some sort of language requirement.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Yeah, scouting and getting advantage in combat seem to be the main uses of familiars. I do tend to throw in some AOE attacks that'll peg the familiar, if the PC overuses this tactic.

Part of me thinks losing a familiar should be more of a detriment, like the old days, so that PCs would be more cautious about sending a familiar ahead on its own, or spamming the help action in combat.

You want a tough familiar, cast Mage Armour and a 3rd level Aid spell. Aid is also good for shapeshifted druids that scout as ravens.

In previous editions, you lost XP if your familiar died. You protected it because it was your spirit animal and it was tied to your life-force.

In one game, we realized a cat was acting unusual and following us around. We realized it was someone's familiar spying on us. Our wizard cast Feeblemind on it(because in previous editions, familiars were actually smart and had skills).

We kept the cat hostage. Gave it a litter box and waited for the owner to come and beg for his cat back.

In this edition, you just summon it back to you. Familiars are too expendable now and lack much of the flavour they used to have. IMO.

 

[cmad1977]

Yeah. So the familar flies within 5ft on the dreagon and marks the spot of a missing scale. Then flys away. So everyone gets advantage on every sunsequent attack...

I'd rather allow you to take disadvantage on the attack roll to try and give you an automatic critical hit.

Help only allows the 1 helpee 1 instance of advantage on the 1st attack. It’s not that powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Help only allows the 1 helpee 1 instance of advantage on the 1st attack. It’s not that powerful.

Yes. That's the rule. This is why it does not make sense that pointing out a weakness is a use of the help action...

 

[Paul Farquhar]

That's not the sort of reality which those rules were intended to model. If that was the case, you would be able to do it from further away, and there would be some sort of language requirement.

"when your familiar is within 100' of you, you can communicate with it telepathically" PHB p240. Language requirement fulfilled, also explaining why it can also only help it's master this way.

And the help action can be used from further away - not by familiars, but by masterminds whose help has a range of 30'. Ergo there is nothing fundamental requiring help to work a certain way - it is an abstraction, the blanks to be filled in by the players and DM.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

"when your familiar is within 100' of you, you can communicate with it telepathically" PHB p240. Language requirement fulfilled, also explaining why it can also only help it's master this way.

That's the opposite of what I said. If the rules had intended to model pointing out a weakness in such a fashion, then they would have mentioned a language requirement. The fact that they don't mention a language requirement is proof that they aren't trying to model that, and therefore the familiar's ability to communicate is irrelevant.

And the help action can be used from further away - not by familiars, but by masterminds whose help has a range of 30'. Ergo there is nothing fundamental requiring help to work a certain way - it is an abstraction, the blanks to be filled in by the players and DM.

If some obscure splatbook changes the functionality of the actual game rules, then it has no bearing on any game that doesn't implement the obscure splat.

This isn't a game where you can do anything that the rules allow, as long as you can come up with some justification for why it should work. The rules only exist in the form that they do because they are trying to model concrete realities, and trying to apply those rules to a different reality - far from what it's intended to represent - is playing in bad faith. If you want to do something that the existing rules were not intended to model, then you need to come up with new rules which accurately reflect that reality, otherwise the rules won't be an accurate reflection of the reality.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I reject the entire thesis that the rules are trying to "model an objective reality" (whatever that may be). If D&D is trying to model anything, it is a story, and the rules that apply are the rules of dramatic narrative.

I also reject the claim that Xanthar's Guide is an "obscure" splat book. It is pretty much 5e's only official splat book, and every D&D player I know uses it.

 

[Autumn Bask]

If some obscure splatbook changes the functionality of the actual game rules, then it has no bearing on any game that doesn't implement the obscure splat.

I don't even agree with the person you're objecting to (because I think the fact that Mastermind Rogues have a class feature that grants them a ranged help action, actually does more to prove that that doesn't reflect the intent of the non-Mastermind help action, otherwise, you're invalidating that subclass's feature.) But calling Xanathar's Guide to Everything an "obscure splatbook" is very out-of-touch.

This isn't a game where... ...otherwise the rules won't be an accurate reflection of the reality.

Also, this ramble of yours seems completely tangential to the topic at hand, and to me, seemingly comes out of nowhere and doesn't make much sense. I can barely tell what this is trying to communicate.