Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 7591040" data-attributes="member: 2525">For a topic involving feats? Yes, I trivialize the first few levels. MOST characters won't even have the opportunity for a feat until level 4. Those few who can get it earlier are variant humans. So yeah it's fair that I am, for this particular topic, dismissing the first few levels. The overwhelming majority of time spent with this feat in games overall will in fact be outside the first few levels. We should all acknowledge that, as part of an honest discussion of the issue.It won't be every combat. In fact I can tell you from direct experience, and the experience of pretty much every single person who has posted to these message boards and the WOTC message boards (before they shut down) and Reddit that IN PRACTICE the familiar isn't dying every combat. Because it rapidly becomes apparent to the DM that wasting an action to MAYBE kill a familiar is not the best use of the foes actions (and doesn't make sense from a role playing aspect either, since the owl is a nuisance but the guy trying to kill them is the serious threat).It's clear. Nobody I have seen has every even vaguely argues that your help action has no effect if you move away from the target after taking the action. Nothing in the game supports that interpretation, no other rulings from Crawford or Mearls or others supports that intepretation, I can see no justification for that kind of ruling beyond a house rule. And I would argue it's a bad house rule by the way.This is starting to feel like one of those hypothetical theoretical "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type arguments. Are you even having this issue in a game, or are you  just trying to game this conversation?</blockquote>

Verification