D&D General What items can what types of familiar or animal companion use?

[EzekielRaiden]

Though I don't run 5e myself, I know the rules well enough to comment, and my GM philosophy doesn't change between this and the game I do run (Dungeon World). As a general rule, I try to be favorable to players when I can, though I also let them know that if they convince me something is reasonable, it is possible their enemies can use it against them, too, should such a situation arise. That isn't common, but it has happened.

For object use, it's...pretty straightforward. Does it have hands? Paws are pretty bad for throwing things, they're usually for standing on. A creature like a raccoon, for example, genuinely has hand-like front paws. A flying creature could probably hold some small objects in its regular feet (birds tend to have highly developed grasping talons for a reason!), but "throwing" is pretty much not a thing--dropping, definitely, but not throwing.

For wands and other magical items, I'd treat the familiar as an extension of the caster in many cases--but this would be a big loophole for their opponents to use familiars for similar purposes, so they might think twice about advocating for a world where familiars can use wands to cast spells. As a control on familiars using such things, if we're treating the familiar as an extension of the caster, that applies to attunement in both directions. Either the caster can't have their familiar attune to things that require being a spellcaster....or they can, but it eats up the caster's own attunement slots because the familiar is "piggybacking" on the spellcaster's power. Both of those seem reasonable to me, and I'd accept whichever of them the player(s) collectively prefer--but we'll pick just one and stick to it for that campaign.

For more out-there stuff...I mean if the rules don't tell us, we talk it out. Generally, I prefer to favor RAW unless it is so blatantly, unavoidably stupid that it cannot be justified without brain-melting mental gymnastics, but when RAW is silent, we talk things out.

 

[Shiroiken]

Cats, can use boots.

And some can use hats.

 

[R_J_K75]

I prefer to favor RAW unless it is so blatantly, unavoidably stupid that it cannot be justified without brain-melting mental gymnastics

I read all the Find Familiar/Familiar entries from 1E-5E and the 2E version is the one I like the most. Its pretty cut and dry when explaining what the spell does and what the familiar can do. Not a whole lot to debate. I know one of the key points of 5E was rulings over rules, but I find the edition overly vague in spots. I really don't like that in 4E in 5E that the familiar is a spirit instead of a physical living creature either.

 

[James Gasik]

Agreed.

Unfortunately I can't nix attunement, because I think 5e (and A5E) characters already are powerful enough without magic items. Magic items that did super cool things were really a focus in earlier editions when your characters had fewer and less impressive features. Throwing out attunement would just result in even more powerful PCs... I already gripe about 5e characters' ability to punch well above their weight class

That's the rub isn't it? 5e is "sort of" designed around not needing as many magic items-some, like magic weapons, or saving throw boosters, do become necessary, items that enhance mobility or allow survival in crazy places like worlds that are on fire or deep beneath the sea for some adventures, but by and large, nobody "needs" a Staff of Power. Magic armor is needed at some point, when enemies start getting attack bonuses of +9 and up, but after so many levels of barely being able to hit PC's, I'm sure many DM's balk at the notion, lol.

But WotC refuses to ever say at what points PC's should have certain items, as in previous editions, that bothered some DM's (mostly the ones who like magic items to be "special" or prefer magic-poor worlds) so now everything is up to the DM to balance.

Whether it be Feats (well, pre 2024), multiclassing, magic items, or if your Familiar can use a Ring of Spell Storing.

And the attunement system is a poorly designed safety valve, because it treats all items that require attunement as exactly the same. As one reaches higher tier, the attunement requirements could come off weaker items, to keep the more potent ones in check (Staff of Power, Robe of Eyes, etc. etc.).

Basically, the DM is told to "figure it out" and because that's a daunting task, many games have effectively made loot almost worthless. "You find a 10,000 gp jade idol, encrusted with gems. You find a Cloak of Arachnida or a Ring of the Ram." In all cases, the most likely response a player will have is "neat". Or maybe "eh, at least we can sell the idol for some Heroes' Feasts".

Not the "WOW!" that such things really deserve.

Now some may say, "But James, you have to have limits on items, or everyone will be wearing Cloaks of Displacement, Rings of Free Action, and dual-wielding Swords of Sharpness!" but I mean, those items only exist in the game by DM fiat, right? Why isn't that a good enough limitation? I mean that's how people did it pre-WotC, the only limits on items were sensical ones like not wearing two pairs of boots...well there's the two rings thing, I guess.

So instead the game has hundreds of magic items that simply put, even if they did exist in the game, probably would never get used. Bleah.

Anyways, I'm derailing the thread, sorry. I just miss the days when magic items were a thing players could treasure (hah), instead of throwing them on a loot pile and forgetting about them.

 

[Misanthrope Prime]

Unless the rules specify a part of anatomy that an animal doesn't have, they can use the item. Air bud logic: "ain't no rule says a dog can't play basketball"

If the text of a magic ring specifies a finger, for example, only monkeys can use it. If a boot specifies that it goes on a foot, snakes can't use it.

Remember that things like familiars or primal beasts aren't just regular trained animals but magic spirits given the form of animals. They can do things animals cannot.

 

[R_J_K75]

Remember that things like familiars or primal beasts aren't just regular trained animals but magic spirits given the form of animals.

I couldn't find anything that described what magical spirit means pertaining to familiars, or what benefits it grants them if any, only that magical spirits that take the form of their beast form counterpart they are assuming. Am I missing something?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I couldn't find anything that described what magical spirit means pertaining to familiars, or what benefits it grants them if any, only that magical spirits that take the form of their beast form counterpart they are assuming. Am I missing something?

It changes their creature type. So a cat familiar is a fey or a fiend, not a beast.

 

[R_J_K75]

It changes their creature type. So a cat familiar is a fey or a fiend, not a beast.

Yes, I know but what exactly does that mean? Only thing I could find was on pg 6 of the MM24 which just says where it plane of origin is, doesn't really say how that modifies it stats though that I could find.

 

[Tessarael]

I agree with the comment that most wands require attunement by a spellcaster.

Regarding specifying that a familiar is a celestial, fey, or fiend, instead of a beast, it just affects what spells can target them. For example, the Awaken spell can only target a beast or plant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes, I know but what exactly does that mean? Only thing I could find was on pg 6 of the MM24 which just says where it plane of origin is, doesn't really say how that modifies it stats though that I could find.

It doesn’t modify stats, but creature type does affect some spells and abilities. In which case, the effect is discribed in the spell or ability description.