D&D 5E (2024) Pact of the Chain + Nick Mastery

[UngeheuerLich]

The condescension is really not a great way to be taken seriously

Yeah. You don't have to. Can't take you seriously either.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I DM the most amongst my friends lol

Why does this not surprise me. So you are the DM who uses rules against their players that contradicts the fiction?

And as an aside, you surely cannot think that we live in a world where people get what they deserve. I mean, come on.

No. But sometimes people do.
And if you only play with rules lawyers, I guess that is your own decision.

For me the fun ends at that point.
As I said, I have made my decision to not play with rules lawyers anymore and now I decide to walk away from this depressing thread.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why does this not surprise me. So you are the DM who uses rules against their players that contradicts the fiction?

Very weird conclusion to come to. Obviously no.

No. But sometimes people do.
And if you only play with rules lawyers, I guess that is your own decision.

You persepctive seems...strange.

There are no rules lawyers in my group.

For me the fun ends at that point.
As I said, I have made my decision to not play with rules lawyers anymore and now I decide to walk away from this depressing thread.

Oooookay. You have a good one, but please, next time dont get aggro and then act superior because people play differently from you.

 

[ECMO3]

I do agree that the familiar's attack damage is quite decent. The offensive boost of Pact of the Chain familiar's attack is really good at low levels, but a minor benefit for a high-level Warlock in my in game experience with an A5E Warlock using the A5E Frog Fangs eldritch invocation to allow the familiar to attack without use of my action or bonus action. The familiar also tends to go down very quickly in combat, if you're using it in melee at higher levels, which is a significant limitation on Pact of the Chain.

At really low levels (1-2) a Chain Pact Warlock that sends their familiar forward is the best melee combatant in the game with way more hit points than 1st and 2ind level PCs and doing substantially more damage than 1st and 2nd level PCs.

Regarding Pseudodragon, I would treat its poison sting as an attack. There's no reason to try it otherwise IMHO.

Well RAW it is not an attack. That is a huge nerf, and not one that is really supported or consistent with the new monster design. If it is an attack, it should not have a save (like the Quasit for example).

 

[Lord Twig]

It is exactly because i am more concerned with story than rules that i dont understand their objection.

The player can describe it however they want, the mechanics allow them to do xyz, and they do it, and they describe it. Thats it.

This mechanic lets them do what they wanted from having a combat familiar in the first place. Thats it.

No in my own game, would i even make the player jump through these hoops? No. A chain pet, or a bm ranger's companion, gets their own full turn and sidekick stats.

But if i was a player and my fellow player made this character and the dm accused them of trying to exploit the rules and ignoring the fiction in order to plah the game as just a game with rules (ie mechanistically) rather than thinking ablut the fiction, i would tell the DM off point out all the inevitable ways that that specific DM habitually breaks the fiction for the sake of mechanics. IME that kind of DM always, without fail, does so. They always have a habit of ignoring the fiction and what actually makes sense to read the rules legalistically and refuse reasonable player character actions.

Yes, they can describe it however they want, the problem comes in when you try to explain, in fiction, why you can only do it with a scimitar in your hand that you never use.

There are two ways to fix this. You can do like what you say and just let them do it without requiring the extra scimitar and the Nick weapon mastery OR you can just not allow the bonus attack/Nick attack to be one of the attacks you forgo.

It sounds like we are really not that far off. In my own game I have a Rogue with a magic returning dagger and the Nick mastery. RAW he would need TWO returning daggers to get the bonus action/Nick attack. That didn't make sense to me so I said that when the dagger returned to his hand it counted as a different weapon. I think that is similar to you just giving the familiar its own turn.

I'm just arguing that you should do one or the other. Doing the half-step of allowing the familiar to attack by forgoing the Nick attack, but only when you have two light weapons in your hand and the Nick mastery even though you never use the second scimitar is what I am saying doesn't make sense.

 

[Tessarael]

At really low levels (1-2) a Chain Pact Warlock that sends their familiar forward is the best melee combatant in the game with way more hit points than 1st and 2ind level PCs and doing substantially more damage than 1st and 2nd level PCs.

I agree, though this is an issue specific to D&D 2024 where it can be taken at level 1. In D&D 2014 and A5E, Warlocks don't get their Pact Boon until level 3. By character level 3, the Pact of the Chain improved familiars are at best on par with level 3 characters.

 

[ECMO3]

I agree, though this is an issue specific to D&D 2024 where it can be taken at level 1. In D&D 2014 and A5E, Warlocks don't get their Pact Boon until level 3. By character level 3, the Pact of the Chain improved familiars are at best on par with level 3 characters.

In play a level 3 Imp is still a pretty good melee combatant because of invisibility and the fact they use their reaction to attack. So your invisible Imp attacks using a reaction then turns invisible again using its action. Being Invisible eliminates AOOs and makes it difficult to target and damage the Imp.

If it was not for the Invisibility I would agree that they would not be as good as the better level 3 melee characters.

 

[Tessarael]

In play a level 3 Imp is still a pretty good melee combatant because of invisibility and the fact they use their reaction to attack. So your invisible Imp attacks using a reaction then turns invisible again using its action. Being Invisible eliminates AOOs and makes it difficult to target and damage the Imp.

If it was not for the Invisibility I would agree that they would not be as good as the better level 3 melee characters.

I agree. There are always going to be levels where one character's powers are a bit better.

In that context, I prefer something like the 3E D&D Wizard's familiar that scales with the Wizard's level. A5E Pets & Sidekicks has a somewhat similar mechanism for scaling pets. This does make for a fairly powerful familiar. To balance that, it is a significant investment for an A5E Warlock to get that kind of scaling - you need to take Pact of the Chain, Frog Fangs eldritch invocation, and Empowered Familiar eldritch invocation.

There is an action economy issue, which is the crux of this thread. What does the Warlock need to pay for the familiar to attack?

In D&D 2024, with the Investment of the Chain Master eldritch invocation, you can command your familiar to take the Attack action as your bonus action; and Pact of the Chain also allows you to forgo an attack to have the familiar attack by using its reaction. So if I am reading this correctly, a level 5 Warlock could have their familiar attack twice: by using the Warlock's bonus action, and by forgoing one of the Warlock's attacks.

This can be combined with Pact of the Blade and Thirsting Blade to have the Warlock also attack once at level 5; or you can pull this off with a level dip into say Paladin for Nick weapon mastery if we permit the ruling proposed in this thread. So a Warlock 1/Paladin 1 could have the familiar attack and the Warlock attack if we permit the Nick attack to be replaced; and a Warlock 5/Paladin 1 could have the familiar attack twice and the Warlock also attack. A Fighter level dip is also strong, particularly if done at character level 1, as that gets Constitution saving throw proficiency, heavy armor proficiency, fighting style, and Action Surge at Fighter level 2 if you take it.

Given that Fighter/Warlock and Paladin/Warlock already have strong synergies with Warlock, I understand the reluctance to allow the Nick weapon attack to be substituted by the familiar's attack. Given that the Warlock can already have the familiar attack on a bonus action using Investment of the Chain Master, I have changed my mind and would rule no on allowing Nick to be substituted. It seems unnecessary extra power creep to me and a somewhat dubious violation of the rules as intended (RAI).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

At really low levels (1-2) a Chain Pact Warlock that sends their familiar forward is the best melee combatant in the game with way more hit points than 1st and 2ind level PCs and doing substantially more damage than 1st and 2nd level PCs.

This is a preposterous claim. A level 2 Ranger with 14 con has 1 less hit point than an imp and much better AC, and definitely deals more damage than the imp. A level 2 Warlock with armor of shadows has better ac than the imp, as well, and only 5 fewer HP, but also has Armor of Agythis.

As for damage, the IMP is quite good for damage at low levels, sure, but the warlock is giving up on using Eldritch Blast with Agonizing Blast and Repelling Blast, plus Hex. Or not Repelling (but it is very good in actual table play) and instead has more versatility with Tome or can be using a greatsword and dealing warlock's choice of radiant, necrotic, or psychic, damage, still with Hex up, and using booming blade or GFB adds situational extra damage. Combine Blade and Tome and you can easily have both blade cantrips.

Either way, it's a more effective character than the OP's character, and certainly a better general combatant than any of the chain familiars.

Yes, they can describe it however they want, the problem comes in when you try to explain, in fiction, why you can only do it with a scimitar in your hand that you never use.

Okay? Why is it even being questioned? Why is someone at the table being a rules lawyer?

There are two ways to fix this. You can do like what you say and just let them do it without requiring the extra scimitar and the Nick weapon mastery OR you can just not allow the bonus attack/Nick attack to be one of the attacks you forgo.

It sounds like we are really not that far off. In my own game I have a Rogue with a magic returning dagger and the Nick mastery. RAW he would need TWO returning daggers to get the bonus action/Nick attack. That didn't make sense to me so I said that when the dagger returned to his hand it counted as a different weapon. I think that is similar to you just giving the familiar its own turn.

works for me, though I would have possibly made him have two daggers just because I don't think that the dagger returns so quickly that you could weild it like you would two daggers. But I am not a lawyer about this stuff so I'd be open to just imagining the mechanical effect differently in the fiction than what is technically happening in the raw mechanics.

I'm just arguing that you should do one or the other. Doing the half-step of allowing the familiar to attack by forgoing the Nick attack, but only when you have two light weapons in your hand and the Nick mastery even though you never use the second scimitar is what I am saying doesn't make sense.

So flavor it differently.