D&D 5E Familiars and Identify

[Harzel]

As if I hadn't aggravated my group's Wizard enough about Identify, it turns out that when he went to cast the Identify that sparked my previous thread, he wanted to cast it via his familiar (because there were dangerous creatures somewhat nearby). Sure enough, Find Familiar says that your familiar can deliver any spell that you cast with a range of 'touch' as if it had cast the spell itself as long as it is within 100 ft. of you.

Now most spells are 'unidirectional' - they have an effect on their target (or targeted area) and that's it. I have no problem with a familiar delivering such a spell. But Identify, of course, transmits information back to the caster, and I guess I have always viewed the physical act of touching the object to be identified as integral to that transmission. Still, there is a perfectly sane argument that the familiar is touching the object and can communicate telepathically with the caster, so why should this not work?

But even though I have been, I think, liberal with the telepathic communication business and the "see through your familiar's eyes" feature (not trying to gate information through how the familiar itself would perceive the world), this just felt like toooo much making the familiar a complete robo extension of the Wizard. So I said, sure the familiar can deliver the spell, but you won't get much information back. The ruling was accepted, the Wizard went himself, and everything turned out fine, but I think I have to admit it is a nerf, albeit a niche one.

So, what say you? Does it seem arbitrary? Does it seem unfair? Is it an unnecessary/petty imposition of my sense of how the world works?

 

[jaelis]

As you say, the rule is "your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell." So if your familiar casts identify, your familiar gets the benefit.

Given that standard familiars have a low Int, I would agree with your ruling that they would have trouble communicating what they learned to the caster. The caster can of course share the familiar's senses, but the knowledge from identify doesn't arrive via the senses.

I don't think this is a nerf, I think the low Int of the familiar is simply one of the restrictions of the spell.

 

[guachi]

I had not thought of this before but the interpretation that the familiar, being of low intelligence, can't transmit much information.

A quasit or imp familiar might be able to relay more information, however.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I had not thought of this before but the interpretation that the familiar, being of low intelligence, can't transmit much information.

A quasit or imp familiar might be able to relay more information, however.

And that's the answer to your question, in part. If I'm going to make a ruling like that, then I also like to have a reason why.

Now, in the moment, you have to make a call, and you could have gone either way. Your gut said no. If the player had argued, then I probably would have allowed it. Then I'd have time to consider it between sessions and come up with a permanent answer for our campaign, subject to the table's agreement.

My table knows that whenever there's a judgement call made, that anybody, the DM including, can ask to have it revised between sessions, which means it might have only worked once if we decide that we didn't like the ruling at the last session.

 

[gyor]

As if I hadn't aggravated my group's Wizard enough about Identify, it turns out that when he went to cast the Identify that sparked my previous thread, he wanted to cast it via his familiar (because there were dangerous creatures somewhat nearby). Sure enough, Find Familiar says that your familiar can deliver any spell that you cast with a range of 'touch' as if it had cast the spell itself as long as it is within 100 ft. of you.

Now most spells are 'unidirectional' - they have an effect on their target (or targeted area) and that's it. I have no problem with a familiar delivering such a spell. But Identify, of course, transmits information back to the caster, and I guess I have always viewed the physical act of touching the object to be identified as integral to that transmission. Still, there is a perfectly sane argument that the familiar is touching the object and can communicate telepathically with the caster, so why should this not work?

But even though I have been, I think, liberal with the telepathic communication business and the "see through your familiar's eyes" feature (not trying to gate information through how the familiar itself would perceive the world), this just felt like toooo much making the familiar a complete robo extension of the Wizard. So I said, sure the familiar can deliver the spell, but you won't get much information back. The ruling was accepted, the Wizard went himself, and everything turned out fine, but I think I have to admit it is a nerf, albeit a niche one.

So, what say you? Does it seem arbitrary? Does it seem unfair? Is it an unnecessary/petty imposition of my sense of how the world works?

Yes both unfair and petty and not needed, sorry but you asked. Not major, but you your self basically made the arguement why.