I'm using it to mean exploitation of a loophole in the rules, in a way that just doesn't feel "realistic" (although I hate that word).
That is the meaning I assumed you were using, and the one to which I was commenting that I think you only think that because you view the DM having the natural, "realistic" (I hate that word to, and usually use "believable" instead) consequence occur as being inherently inappropriate.
Example: last week I sat at a table with an elf rogue who was excited to try Polearm Master: "If I hold a staff in my offhand as a 1H weapon I get a free attack with my rapier whenever anybody comes within 10'!" (Polearm Master doesn't actually STATE that the free attack is with the polearm itself...)
That is a bad example because the phrase "While you are wielding..." is included in that feature of the feat, and a weapon that requires two hands to use being held in one hand is not a weapon you are
wielding according to how the game rules use that word. Of course, I still get what you are saying about the exploitation of actual loop-holes.
First, the familiar is still incredibly useful in lots of ways. Delivering touch attacks. Stealth scouting. Or "I'd rather spend 10g than die" scouting. Sitting on your shoulder (as you pointed out) using Perception.
I am aware that it has uses, but each of those are not so useful as to make another use "too much" even when taken collectively. The delivery of touch attacks, for example, naturally encourages the consequence of the familiar being attacked along the lines of "Ah! Electric rats?!" *Stomp*. As for stealth scouting... that's extremely situational since scouting is not always needed, and often when it is there is some character in the party that is always going to be better at it than the familiar. Same with "I'd rather spend 10 gp than die." scouting.
Not that scouting isn't useful, or really important in a typical campaign scenario, just that a familiar is not so good at it for that to be "enough" for the effect of having a familiar to be, even with the other uses besides help added on.
Second, it's a 1st level spell. A ritual, no less. Granting Advantage practically forever, without even using a bonus action or initial action, seems way too powerful compared to other 1st level spells.
And now you have shown a clear example of it being your opinion on the DM having a monster ever attack the familiar that is causing at least some of your issues with the spell - because "Granting advantage practically forever" is far outside what the spell ends up doing at my table, where the familiar only avoids attack so long as it isn't in competition for current most annoying thing happening to the attacker, and when recovering the familiar takes up significant time and resources because it's not just 10 gold coins that magically vanish to complete a casting, it's the materials bought with 10 gp some time in advance or requiring a trip to a store on top of the time already required, and it takes 70 minutes to cast as a ritual so can't just treat the familiar as if it doesn't matter if it gets killed in every encounter because you can't always take 70 minutes before getting yourself into another.
The most recent incident of a player at my table having their familiar die (well, as much as one can die) was entirely because the character sent their familiar to help against a creature that had multiple attacks and only one other target within its reach without provoking an opportunity attack by moving enough to get more targets in reach, and the familiar didn't just pop back for the next few encounters because the party didn't have the time to spend on that - they did have the time to take a short rest, which the familiar-having character decided (smartly, I think) to actually rest rather than spend the time (plus 10 minutes) casting the ritual.
The player didn't feel like I was "escalating" anything either; they recognized that putting their familiar in that position wasn't a good idea, even though it would have been if there were more enticing targets around the monster.
Here I think we are using the term "choice trap" differently. In my definition the other choices can still be good, but if one choice is markedly superior then there is decision pressure to take it.
Right, same definition, again... I just don't agree that owl is the "markedly superior" choice in literally all situations.
I made this post because my Warlock just 3rd and I'm getting a familiar. It's in the new Ravenloft content so I actually want a Raven, not an Owl. But...grumble grumble...free Advantage with Flyby (plus Advantage on Perception!) is soooooo good that the little minmaxer in me is having a hard time trading it for a familiar that can imitate voices.
Again, looking at it as "free advantage" is what is causing the problem - not what the owl is actually capable of in practice.
Heck, look at all the insistence that Greatsword > Greataxe || Maul just because of a minor statistical difference.
So... look at almost never by any margin large enough to care about, and most certainly not if I have any feature that allows re-rolls or extra rolls of damage dice because high rolls are cool and more likely with a d12 than 2d6?
That's what I mean by false choice.
...and exactly why I say it isn't.
And it's particularly obvious/problematic with Owls because "swatting at the annoying critter" isn't an option
That's false.
suddenly the DM starts always including an adversary with ranged attacks
...do you
not frequently use adversaries with ranged attack options? I do. Most monsters and NPCs in the game have them built right in, even.
or otherwise contriving fights to make sure there's a way to kill the Owl.
I've killed an owl familiar, and I contrived nothing in doing so. In fact, It wasn't even really intentional - the owl just wasn't outside the area of effect and took some damage as a result.
Flyby isn't as potent inherently, as your choices as DM are causing it to be.
).
