4
\$\begingroup\$

The description of the find familiar spell states:

Finally, when you cast a spell with a range of touch, your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell. Your familiar must be within 100 feet of you, and it must use its reaction to deliver the spell when you cast it. If the spell requires an attack roll, you use your attack modifier for the roll.

This means that the spell is counted as originating from the familiar; however, the caster has to cast the spell for it to work.

Most spells, aside from sacred flame, can't target creatures in total cover because there is no direct line of sight to them.

As part of casting the spell, does the caster have to have direct line of sight to the target, or can they use their familiar's line of sight for this purpose? Is this what is meant by the text, "your familiar can deliver the spell as if it had cast the spell"?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch No, it's for spells which specifically aren't Sacred Flame, which ignores cover. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Jul 9 '18 at 23:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ I would suggest asking the extension question separately. It seems to warrant it \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Jul 10 '18 at 2:06
  • \$\begingroup\$ @DavidCoffron Sounds like a good idea. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Jul 10 '18 at 12:43
12
\$\begingroup\$

Line of sight is irrelevant. Spells only require a line of effect unless otherwise stated.

As you quoted, the familiar can only deliver touch spells. Thus, the familiar must touch the target. So, in this particular case, line of effect is also irrelevant. If the creature can be touched there must be a line of effect via the contact.

If the spell calls for a melee attack:
The familiar makes a melee spell attack roll using your spell attack modifier.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you. I thought it worked this way, but I wanted to be entirely sure that this was supported by the rules. \$\endgroup\$ – SeraphsWrath Jul 10 '18 at 0:26
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You might want to add that spells in general don't require line of sight (or any sight at all) unless stated in the spell description; what they do require is a clear path to the target (i.e. "line of effect") - which in this case is basically irrelevant because if the familiar can touch the target, there's obviously a clear path between the familiar and the target. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 10 '18 at 1:16
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Not every touch spell is a melee spell attack. \$\endgroup\$ – David Coffron Jul 10 '18 at 2:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @DavidCoffron -- updated \$\endgroup\$ – ravery Jul 10 '18 at 2:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast -- clarification added. \$\endgroup\$ – ravery Jul 10 '18 at 2:31
-6
\$\begingroup\$

Well if the spell gets cast through the familiar, then as long as you know where the familiar is, and it knows the general location of the enemy or sees it, then it could be cast from either line of sight(because you might see them too). And for the extension, if your familiar is counter spelled, it is technically just desummoned, so it wouldn’t be on the same astral plane as you...

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure what this answer is trying to say, or how it answers the question. Could you edit it to clarify? \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast Jul 10 '18 at 1:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.