Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7334726" data-attributes="member: 6880599">While your not wrong, it could if you don't ever have to do anything after lunch but phone watch and that does not mean that if you take your lunch in your car you can't watch YouTube on your phone. So, while I get your point, this is not work, its D&D and generally players take turns and within that turn they can manipulate the order of things, I for example, allow players to move 10ft take an attack action using the extra attack feature attack one person, move 10ft again and use a bonus action to cast healing word on an ally around the corner, and move a third time and use the second attack of the extra attack action. I get you or another GM might not allow that. So I would say as far as I can see rules as written, you use the attack action on your turn you can substitute one attack to your familiar. Getting more picky over that is not clarified in the RAW. If your saying RAI means only using the attacks provided by the attack action they could have written it:Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of the attacks you received from that action to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own....They didn't. So RAW is "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own." Now they could have clarified as"Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks including those from bonus actions and action surge on the same turn to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own."The true is it says in RAW: "Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own." --- So take the attack action and you can give one of your attacks to your familiar. Any argument over picking a specific attack on your turn is a house rule since it does not say which attack you have to pick. I do also think nit picking between attack actions is a waste of GM and player time since all the attack actions have the same weight BUT I do recognize that if a GM comes to the conclusion you did first and then a player interprets the way I do, that player will VERY likely come across as rule layering which will put this on a GMs naughty list and cause a house rule to prevent the perceived violation. So my best advice to players and GMs is just be aware of it, make your choice, try to make sure the other side knows before its used, and try to be tolerant of this as possible to "misinterpret" while not trying to rules lawyer but just learning the rules as the GM uses them. The RAW might be solid but the RAI would have to be clarified and ultimately this rule is not a game/class breaker ether way. If the GM needs to house rule so everyone can get past it, house rule and get past it. The only time I see this as a possible REAL problem is if someone built a character with one understanding (Like a Cleric/Warlock) but then couldn't use the investment to actually play as intended similar to a player building a level 1 Rogue with Expertise in investigation, 16 intellect, and the dungeon delver feat only to find out the GM only ever used passive perception for traps or 1 Rogue with Expertise in Perception, 16 Wisdom, and the Observant feat only to find out the GM only ever used active investigation roles for traps... (seriously I have run across both) ... Point is a player wanting to understand a rule in the game and be good at something does not make them an evil player (by itself anyway) so if they build to this RAW and you think RAI should be:"Additionally, when you take the Attack action, you can forgo one of your own attacks received from this action to allow your familiar to make one attack of its own."Then, let them know your house rule to clarify RAI a head of time, or possibly make some "Session 1 Character Corrections" with GM oversight and their new understanding. ... I had a good GM let me change the Observant feat for the Alert feat because he decided one day out of the blue he did not want to use passive perception any more AT ALL because they wanted the games to be more random and I was happy to do it as opposed to being stuck with useless feat that would just irritate me every time I saw it because I didn't take it to read lips but to make a non-rogue non-ranger scout.</blockquote>

Verification