D&D 5E Imp as a familiar seems OP (observations and opinions)

[Lucas Blackstone]

Ah, very interesting. The description in my copy of the PHB (4th printing) is identical to the MM description. I looked in the errata, but no change was listed there. There was however, this



Although, I guess technically the description of Invisibility is not a 'statistic'.

Mine is 1st printing, so it's all good with me if what I suggested wasn't legal. It just looked like it from what I had on hand. I still think the invisible full cover works on spells, but since my book has out of date information maybe that is wrong too.

 

[CTurbo]

Having an Imp familiar has been a blast though for sure. I mean, it was supposed to be OP from the beginning, I just didn't realize just how OP it was going to be. As mentioned before, having an invisible flying polymorphing intelligent creature with little people hands can be a game breaker. Throw in it's other tricks and it can shut down entire encounters before they even start.

 

[green_destiny]

PotC Warlock takes Mage Initiate Feat, learns Mage Armor, applies it to Imp for 16 AC.
This with its Magic Resistance, Invisibility, Damage Resistances to cold, bludgeoning, piercing, & slashing from nonmagical weapons that aren't silvered, Damage Immunities fire and poison, and Condition Immunities to being poisoned make it less than squishy.

Mage armor on a familiar! Wow, I never thought of that! It will burn a spell slot but thanks for this. Until now I only use my Warlock's imp for scouting and 'sacrifices' him to gain advantage on an attack (expecting that the enemy can kill him once my familiar is near the enemy).

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Well, that's a problem with your DM's decision to treat lamp oil as equivalent to napalm. It's not an issue with the imp per se.

Don't get me wrong, by-the-book imp familiars are crazy-good, but this particular effect goes far beyond what the book supports or implies.

...however, if we coated the little bugger in magnesium filings....