Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlock's Pact of the Chain
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7334728" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>Throw me into the camp that says that were you to take the Attack action and attacked with a light melee weapon in your main hand (thereby allowing you to make an attack with a light melee weapon in your off-hand), you could allow the Familiar to substitute its attack for the off-hand one.</p><p></p><p>The way I'm reading it... all the Pact of the Chain feature states is that so long as you "take the Attack action", you can forgo ANY of your own attacks to allow the familiar to attack. But it says nothing about how you acquire the attack that you substitute in the first place, nor what type of action you use to make it. If you take the Attack action, any attacks you acquire can be substituted so long as you fulfill the obligations for how you acquire them.</p><p></p><p>As far as two-weapon fighting is concerned... it says that if you take the Attack action *and* you attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can attack with a light melee weapon in your other hand (using your Bonus action). And via Pact of the Chain, you may forgo one of your attacks to allow the familiar to make an attack of its own (using its Reaction.) Obviously you can't forgo your main hand attack because that causes your off-hand attack to disappear (since you only get your off-hand attack if you both use the Attack action *and* make an attack with a light melee weapon)... but the off-hand attack *is* an attack itself and thus I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be allowed to be forgone.</p><p></p><p>Now, this is how I personally read it and would personally rule it at my table. There's probably a good chance that were Sage Advice asked, they'd tell us that the <em>intention</em> was that only your main hand attacks coming directly from the Attack action were meant to be substituted. But as far as how it's written (from what I'm reading in the SRD)... I see no reason why any attack could not be forgone so long as the Attack action was taken.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 7334728, member: 7006"] Throw me into the camp that says that were you to take the Attack action and attacked with a light melee weapon in your main hand (thereby allowing you to make an attack with a light melee weapon in your off-hand), you could allow the Familiar to substitute its attack for the off-hand one. The way I'm reading it... all the Pact of the Chain feature states is that so long as you "take the Attack action", you can forgo ANY of your own attacks to allow the familiar to attack. But it says nothing about how you acquire the attack that you substitute in the first place, nor what type of action you use to make it. If you take the Attack action, any attacks you acquire can be substituted so long as you fulfill the obligations for how you acquire them. As far as two-weapon fighting is concerned... it says that if you take the Attack action *and* you attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can attack with a light melee weapon in your other hand (using your Bonus action). And via Pact of the Chain, you may forgo one of your attacks to allow the familiar to make an attack of its own (using its Reaction.) Obviously you can't forgo your main hand attack because that causes your off-hand attack to disappear (since you only get your off-hand attack if you both use the Attack action *and* make an attack with a light melee weapon)... but the off-hand attack *is* an attack itself and thus I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be allowed to be forgone. Now, this is how I personally read it and would personally rule it at my table. There's probably a good chance that were Sage Advice asked, they'd tell us that the [I]intention[/I] was that only your main hand attacks coming directly from the Attack action were meant to be substituted. But as far as how it's written (from what I'm reading in the SRD)... I see no reason why any attack could not be forgone so long as the Attack action was taken. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Warlock's Pact of the Chain
Top