Rules help: Familiars

[Saggo]

Now, I can see some arguments about ambiguity in the first sentence about timing, but that's at the level of a tweet, not errata.

It's not so ambiguous if we apply some syntactical parsing. It's not a compound sentence but it is a complex sentence, so there are multiple clauses with regard to the subject (you, or specifically familiar here) and the predicate (aid). The clauses in our sentence are "aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature" and "aid within 5 feet of you."

Since there is no clause or further clarification that you have to be in some sort of Help State or Help Concentration at the time of the attack, the Help Action is an at-will action. The following sentence clarifies that aid is rendered against the target creature.

Given all that, we have a sentence that says: You aid a friendly creature in attacking a target (fun fact, target can be friendly to you), and you aid while the target is within 5 feet at the time the Help Action is taken. The requirement for Help to benefit the attacker is simply the attack occurs before your next turn.

Things you learn writing a natural language parser.

You can, of course, read it different ways, such as the argument "aid [...] attacking a creature within 5 feet of you." That requires introducing new implied information to the sentence (rearranging syntactic atoms, additional punctuation, new subordinate clauses, etc).

The narrative believability is the least of the problems. As a narrative, there are virtually limitless options that explain how you did some sort of distraction, you and/or the target moved, and the attack was made.

 

[leonardoraele]

I stand corrected. Seems that the crawford rules different than i do. I am ruling differnt though based on the rules text and based on the fact that the creature potentilally has a full turn, can move away. Cast spells without being distracted and eventually kill you and still not ged rid off your distraction... no thank you. That is taking it alottle too far.
Note that maybe if the enemy kills you, you could make a case that the blood spills distractingly in the enemy's face.

You must think on combat in D&D as happening all in the same time. The Help action says you team up with your ally. You distract the enemy when your ally is going to attack. If you don't think this way, combat as a whole don't work at all, not just the Help action.

For example, attack of opportunity doesn't happen during a chase even if you actually manage to reach the target, because everything is supposed to be happening at the same time during combat.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not so ambiguous if we apply some syntactical parsing. It's not a compound sentence but it is a complex sentence, so there are multiple clauses with regard to the subject (you, or specifically familiar here) and the predicate (aid). The clauses in our sentence are "aid a friendly creature in attacking a creature" and "aid within 5 feet of you."

I'm not seeing how you've determined that 'within 5 feet of you' is clearly attached to 'aid' and not 'creature'. No change in sentence structure or syntax is necessary to mean the latter. Further, the latter piece you've identified as a clause doesn't parse cleanly if taken separately. "Alternatively, you can aid ... within 5 feet of you." That leaves the question of 'what's within 5 feet? The ally, the target, something else?" I think it's pretty clear that 'within 5 feet of you' doesn't attach to 'aid' but must instead attack to either the friendly creature or the attacked creature. Either way, this 'within'ness doesn't clearly imply that you need only be within that distance during the action.

 

[Guest 6801328]

The "out" is that if you are attacking with a rapier, but not the quarterstaff, then you are "holding" the staff, not "wielding" it as the game uses the term.

Of course, that I find that to be direct and explicit and you don't is just a difference in philosophy, so it's not really all that important to debate when we both arrive at the same conclusion: the player can't do a thing which is clearly not intended just because words can be twisted by their reader.

Except that as far as I know there's no definition in the rules that "Wield" means to hold a weapon and have the option of attacking with it. It requires an interpretation, and a DM decision, to make that determination. And while I agree with your conclusion, and think it's a silly/obvious misinterpretation of RAI, if "You're the DM you can do whatever you want" is an answer, then why do we even discuss rules on the forums?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...if "You're the DM you can do whatever you want" is an answer, then why do we even discuss rules on the forums?

That's not any answer I've given, since my answer was actually "well, the game establishes its own context in which the definition is this." but the answer you suggest can be an answer to questions while we still discuss rules on the forums because it isn't the only answer - especially because it isn't an answer to every question, such as it not being the answer to the question "What does this feat intend to suggest is possible?".

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You must think on combat in D&D as happening all in the same time. The Help action says you team up with your ally. You distract the enemy when your ally is going to attack. If you don't think this way, combat as a whole don't work at all, not just the Help action.

For example, attack of opportunity doesn't happen during a chase even if you actually manage to reach the target, because everything is supposed to be happening at the same time during combat.

Yes. That is right. Everything is indeed happening simultaneously. And I can accept that. It still rubs me wrong though, because even if everything happens simultaneously if you think too hard about that it gets very complicated. Take the same scenario and the owl familiar owl uses the help action to help the archer attacking the orc. The familiar helps and flies away. About 30ft. Now you decide to use a fireball spell and the archer shoots. So where is the owl? Next to the enemy to distract him or safe in the air outside the AOE. I think most people use schrödinger's owl. It is there when the archer shoots but away when the fireball hits and also away when the enemy tries to retailate.

 

[nswanson27]

Yes. That is right. Everything is indeed happening simultaneously. And I can accept that. It still rubs me wrong though, because even if everything happens simultaneously if you think too hard about that it gets very complicated. Take the same scenario and the owl familiar owl uses the help action to help the archer attacking the orc. The familiar helps and flies away. About 30ft. Now you decide to use a fireball spell and the archer shoots. So where is the owl? Next to the enemy to distract him or safe in the air outside the AOE. I think most people use schrödinger's owl. It is there when the archer shoots but away when the fireball hits and also away when the enemy tries to retailate.

This goes both ways. I don't have to guess what kind of response I'd get if I'd complain about the "unreal-ism of turn-based mechanics" to the DM in the case that the monsters were getting the upper-hand due to it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Exactly. Use an owl familiar and see how PCs react. This should be a good guide how to make rulings.

 

[nswanson27]

Exactly. Use an owl familiar and see how PCs react. This should be a good guide how to make rulings.

Hmmm... if you went off players' reactions that as a way to make rulings, I think you'd find your hands severely tied as a DM - at least for some players that I know.
But anyways, I guess as a player in the games that I play, I'd just think of it as a gimped enemy. Having one attack be with advantage per turn is much better to deal with than an enemy making multiple attacks of its own, and another hit-point pool to have to chew through.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry I did not understand what you meant with the second hit point pool.
I however know what you mean with severely tied hands. But I am usually rather successful with trying to be as fair as possible and my players don't actively try to exploit rule holes and I am glad for that.