D&D 5E Improved Find Familiar

[Ilbranteloth]

In addition, it doesn't take an action to share senses unlike with the base spell, .

Where do you see this notation? I don't see anything in the warlock that says you don't have to use an action to communicate.

If you're referring to the variant description in the MM under each creature, I would say that those abilities apply only when the creature in question is choosing to serve as your familiar, because it's actually an imp, quasit, or pseudodragon that is serving you, rather than a celestial, fey, or fiend spirit that is only taking its form as described in the warlock ability and find familiar spell.

To be clear, there are only a few things that differ in Pact of the Chain from just casting find familiar, at least as written:

1. It doesn't count against your number of spells
2. You can choose a special form for your familiar
3. You can forgo one of your attacks to have your familiar make an attack instead

That's it. You don't get an actual imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite to serve you. They can communicate telepathically, but only within the limits of the find familiar spell. You don't get the extra benefits of the MM variant if you're not allowing the creature the ability to end the servitude at will.

You don't gain magic resistance, and I'm not even sure if the familiar would have abilities like shapechanger and invisibility. Although I wouldn't outright disallow these, we'd decide as a group, but having an at-will invisible spy at 3rd level without having to cast a spell is fairly powerful.

The reality is, that there's a lot of room for interpretation in the rules, and as a long-time player and DM I'd be fine with whichever variation has already been floated in this thread. But I think the currently written rules are fairly clear with the exception of what actual abilities a familiar in the 'form of an imp, pseudodragon or quasit' actually has.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Saeviomagy]

If this is the only thing that makes a pact of the chain warlock any good, then I have no qualms with giving others access to it (although that access would come with a rider that the advanced familiars are self-willed individuals, not mind controlled slaves).

 

[HarrisonF]

Where do you see this notation? I don't see anything in the warlock that says you don't have to use an action to communicate.

If you're referring to the variant description in the MM under each creature, I would say that those abilities apply only when the creature in question is choosing to serve as your familiar, because it's actually an imp, quasit, or pseudodragon that is serving you, rather than a celestial, fey, or fiend spirit that is only taking its form as described in the warlock ability and find familiar spell.

To be clear, there are only a few things that differ in Pact of the Chain from just casting find familiar, at least as written:

1. It doesn't count against your number of spells
2. You can choose a special form for your familiar
3. You can forgo one of your attacks to have your familiar make an attack instead

That's it. You don't get an actual imp, quasit, pseudodragon, or sprite to serve you. They can communicate telepathically, but only within the limits of the find familiar spell. You don't get the extra benefits of the MM variant if you're not allowing the creature the ability to end the servitude at will.

You don't gain magic resistance, and I'm not even sure if the familiar would have abilities like shapechanger and invisibility. Although I wouldn't outright disallow these, we'd decide as a group, but having an at-will invisible spy at 3rd level without having to cast a spell is fairly powerful.

The reality is, that there's a lot of room for interpretation in the rules, and as a long-time player and DM I'd be fine with whichever variation has already been floated in this thread. But I think the currently written rules are fairly clear with the exception of what actual abilities a familiar in the 'form of an imp, pseudodragon or quasit' actually has.

Ilbranteloth

I agree that the MM changes may or may not apply, it is totally up to the DM. However, I think you are missing the Voice of the Chain Master invocation you can get from Pact of the Chain:

You can communicate telepathically with your familiar and perceive through your familiar’s senses as long as you are on the same plane of existence.

This seems to imply both an extended range and also has no mention of an action being required to do so.


I think you would be hard pressed to say that the familiar imp does not get invisibility. This is from the PHB version of imp. Would you say that a familiar owl doesn't get flyby? Of course it is supposed to be powerful, it is competing against all rituals in the game.

 

[Malovaan]

The MM variant rules for the pseudodragon/imp/etc as familiars doesn't actually state anything about the mage being able to acquire one through the find familiar spell.

I would say that the chain warlock is the only one with the ability to summon a familiar by use of a spell, however if your wizard can find a suitable higher level familiar then perhaps they can try to win over the creature with gifts and see if it will accompany them as their familiar.

I think I may try to convince my DM at some point to allow my wizard to begin a search for such a creature and see if I can tempt it into being my familiar.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I have to go with the cake-eaters on this one.

In multiple places the variant rules specify 'spellcasters' not 'warlock.' The fact that this is consistent with earlier editions has an impact too (at least to me). If they wanted to limit it to the warlock only, they would have done so.

Note that on pg 347 of the MM there's another variant rule that specifies 'ANY spellcaster' that can cast the find familiar spell...can be one of the creatures described in the spell...or some other Tiny monster, such as a crawling claw, imp, pseudodragon, or quasit.

I find 'any spellcaster' to be of perfect clarity.

Plus there is nothing in the warlock description that excludes other spellcasters from gaining these familiars. And any character can take the Ritual Caster feat to gain the ability to cast find familiar.

I also find 'variant' to be of perfect clarity. You can call it what you want, but variant rules are decided by the group in my campaign, not just the DM. Having said that, if you were playing in my campaign and I knew that it was important to you, then I would vote (and encourage others to do so as well) so that only warlocks could gain these types of familiars.

I would also point out that the rules as written in the PHB says your familiar, as defined by the find familiar spell, allows your familiar to take a special form. It's not actually an imp, quasit, pseudodragon or sprite, but just a fey spirit taking that form. Of course, the rules are currently silent on exactly what that means...

Having said all this, the real advantage is that a warlock can have their familiar attack for them, whereas all other familiars (conjured using the spell, including special forms) can't.

A special familiar that is serving of its own free will as described in the variant rules in the MM under imp, quasit, and pseudodragon can attack as much as it chooses, and would not expend the spellcaster's action to do so.

Ilbranteloth

Weak, weak, weak arguments. The entire basis is that the term ‘spell-casters’ covers all PCs. The MM is about NPCs primarily and any decisions about rules therein is based solely on DM fiat. The rule cited on p347 is for a NPC Mage - not a Player Character. The Monster Manual isn’t about player characters and their options, and it isn’t designed to be a power gamer's haven either.

And there is a statement in the Warlock description of the Pact of the Chain that makes it clear that the familiar gained from the pact are superior to normal - as stated above - and refers to those types by name.

‘Earlier editions’ isn’t a valid argument. Most earlier editions didn’t have Warlocks.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I agree that the MM changes may or may not apply, it is totally up to the DM. However, I think you are missing the Voice of the Chain Master invocation you can get from Pact of the Chain:

You can communicate telepathically with your familiar and perceive through your familiar’s senses as long as you are on the same plane of existence.

This seems to imply both an extended range and also has no mention of an action being required to do so.


I think you would be hard pressed to say that the familiar imp does not get invisibility. This is from the PHB version of imp. Would you say that a familiar owl doesn't get flyby? Of course it is supposed to be powerful, it is competing against all rituals in the game.

Yep, I missed that.

I don't have a problem with the imp having invisibility. And I guess the answer to what abilities the special forms get are whatever they are in the PHB writeup, assuming there are differences between those and MM. It's just a little vague.

As I've said before, though, I'm OK with any of the interpretations of the rules as discussed in the thread. Like so many other things there are likely to be variations in each campaign.

Ilbranteloth

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Weak, weak, weak arguments. The entire basis is that the term ‘spell-casters’ covers all PCs. The MM is about NPCs primarily and any decisions about rules therein is based solely on DM fiat. The rule cited on p347 is for a NPC Mage - not a Player Character. The Monster Manual isn’t about player characters and their options, and it isn’t designed to be a power gamer's haven either.

And there is a statement in the Warlock description of the Pact of the Chain that makes it clear that the familiar gained from the pact are superior to normal - as stated above - and refers to those types by name.

Well, I'm not trying to win an argument here, nor do I have any illusions that anything I say is going to change your mind specifically. Nor do I want to. I may be reading something into your posts that isn't there, but based on the tone and language you seem to be trying to convince everybody that your position is the right and only position. That's just not the way this game, and these rules, are written.

I'm just looking at how I (and my players) have interpreted the rules. I can't stand the term DM Fiat, however accurate it may be, but in my campaign it's DM/Player Fiat because we make the decisions together. Occasionally I've held the extra vote, but it's rare. In many if not most cases it's the opposite because if that's the rule the group wants, I can work with it.

As for whether the MM is for NPCs or PCs, the text for the imp says, "Imps can be found in the service to mortal spellcasters..." There is nothing that specifies any limitation to NPCs or warlocks. If you want to interpret it that way so it doesn't spoil your fun at being a warlock, that's fine.

The real point is that you are welcome to interpret it that way. It doesn't make it right. I interpret it differently. That doesn't make it right either. Except we're both right, in our own campaigns.

‘Earlier editions’ isn’t a valid argument. Most earlier editions didn’t have Warlocks.

Who says? Is there a D&D conversation etiquette rulebook someplace that I missed that said earlier editions of the same game are now invalid, null and void?

Whether earlier editions had warlocks or not doesn't negate the impact earlier editions have. I've been running a campaign in the Forgotten Realms since 1987. Some of the players have remained consistent, most have not. In addition to the published history I have my campaign history. So earlier editions have a huge impact in how we interpret the rules. Earlier editions also had a definite impact on the writing and development of the 5th edition rules. Yes, the rules should work on their own without reference to or requiring earlier editions. But for those of us that have been playing through the various editions it's nice that they work well with the earlier editions. The 4th edition did not play nice with the earlier editions (at least not for us) so we didn't use it much.

That doesn't mean that the world doesn't change as the editions change. We like the new concentration rules and the bulk of the new spellcasting rules. The fact that the way magic works has changed (again) isn't a big deal. Saying that somebody's wizard can't keep his faithful familiar anymore, particularly when there are written rules, in one of the core rulebooks that says otherwise is. Of course, as a home campaign, we can allow it regardless.

We use most of the core classes as is. We've added a few additional variations (Archmage - a generalist, and Incantatrix - a new path of sorcerer. Because of the disassociative nature of the new fighter rules we made a lot of changes there.

Ilbranteloth

 

[TrippyHippy]

Well, I'm not trying to win an argument here, nor do I have any illusions that anything I say is going to change your mind specifically. Nor do I want to. I may be reading something into your posts that isn't there, but based on the tone and language you seem to be trying to convince everybody that your position is the right and only position. That's just not the way this game, and these rules, are written.

I'm just looking at how I (and my players) have interpreted the rules. I can't stand the term DM Fiat, however accurate it may be, but in my campaign it's DM/Player Fiat because we make the decisions together. Occasionally I've held the extra vote, but it's rare. In many if not most cases it's the opposite because if that's the rule the group wants, I can work with it.

As for whether the MM is for NPCs or PCs, the text for the imp says, "Imps can be found in the service to mortal spellcasters..." There is nothing that specifies any limitation to NPCs or warlocks. If you want to interpret it that way so it doesn't spoil your fun at being a warlock, that's fine.

The real point is that you are welcome to interpret it that way. It doesn't make it right. I interpret it differently. That doesn't make it right either. Except we’re both right, in our own campaigns.

You are scraping the barrel if you are trying to design a PC character through sidebars made in reference to an NPC Mage in the MM. If it’s not in the Player’s Handbook, it’s not a rule specified for PCs.

Who says? Is there a D&D conversation etiquette rulebook someplace that I missed that said earlier editions of the same game are now invalid, null and void?

No but there is a current edition which is what we are talking about, and previous editions have no relevance. I can play Batman in DC Heroes RPG…..but I wouldn’t make a case for it in D&D5 either.

 

[Pollo Loco]

You are scraping the barrel if you are trying to design a PC character through sidebars made in reference to an NPC Mage in the MM. If it’s not in the Player’s Handbook, it’s not a rule specified for PCs.

Reading through the entire post-chain, this post (the last one to-date) had the most relevant point in my opinion...That players are intended to have characters based on the PLAYER'S HANDBOOK. The other books, DMG, MM, etc., are intended for the DUNGEON MASTER. Having been both a player and DM for about 30 years, this has been a pretty standard rule for every version of the rules of any game I have played.

As a DM, I might house-rule something into a home-game if the player could give a viable reason for it (the role-playing of a wizard earning a non-standard familiar being a perfect example). I would be exceedingly hesitant to allow a variant rule for a player that gave them a option that is pretty much the exclusive domain of another player; i.e. if we have a chainlock in the party, there is pretty much no chance any other player is going to get an "improved" familiar. Without a chainlock in the party, I would be willing to be more lenient with the familiars for other players, but would still make the player earn it, not simply cast a spell for it. For a Wizard, maybe researching an improved version of the spell (with a higher spell level, obviously) might work. Or seeking out one of the critters and befriending it like the MM suggests for pseudodragons would be a possibility as well.

In my humble opinion, thinking that optional rules in a non-player resource simply allow players that option is opening a Pandora's Box that is better left unbreached.

 

[seebs]

I agree that the MM changes may or may not apply, it is totally up to the DM. However, I think you are missing the Voice of the Chain Master invocation you can get from Pact of the Chain:

You can communicate telepathically with your familiar and perceive through your familiar’s senses as long as you are on the same plane of existence.

This seems to imply both an extended range and also has no mention of an action being required to do so.

I would see it as modifying the range of the base communicate and perceive options, but not otherwise changing them, so if you'd have needed an action before, you still need one; all that changed was the range.