# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next > Rules Q&A Chainlock, Investments of the Chain Master, Gazer

## Skrum

OK so....how does this all interact. 

1) Is the Gazer even able to use its rays?

2) When does the familiar make its attacks with regards to Pact of the Chain, and Investment of the Chain Master
2)a) Pact lets you sub one of your attacks to let your familiar make an attack
2)b) Investment of the Chain Master lets you spend your bonus action to "let your familiar take the attack action" 

But, even improved familiars have their own initiative, and act on their own turn. 

I see a few ways to interpret all this, but it's messy.

----------


## nalgarryn

As per the Find Familiar spell, you familiar cannot make attacks, because it cannot take the attack action on its turn. The spell Find Familiar lists the actions that the familiar can take on its turn.

However if you cast a spell with the range of Touch, your familiar can use its *reaction* to deliver the spell attack. That is not the same as making an attack action, because it is a reaction.

The Pact of the Chain does not add the Gazer to the list of available familiars, RAW. However, it is possible to have one for a familiar if the DM permits it.

As per the stat block for the Gazer, it has the "Eye Rays" action where it "shoots two of the following magical eye rays at random" "choosing one or two targets it can see within 60 feet of it."

Since it has 4 eye stalks that are not duplicates, if you roll 2d4 and get the same result you need to reroll one of the dice. The benefit to the Investment of the Chain Master invocation is that the DCs change from what is listed in the stat block to your own spellcaster DC.

It is hard to imagine a DM not seeing the 'Eye Rays' action as an attack action since it is immediately below the 'Bite' action (albeit the Bite action says, "Melee Weapon Attack") in the stat block. Therefore unless your DM permits your Gazer familiar to shoot random eye rays every turn, you would have to use your *bonus* action (on your turn!) to cause the Gazer to shoot out eye rays. There wouldn't be an issue with using your action to cast a touch-ranged spell, have your familiar use its reaction to deliver it, then use your bonus action to cause the Gazer to attack with eye rays. Or you could do the same two things in reverse order.

----------


## Unoriginal

> OK so....how does this all interact. 
> 
> 1) Is the Gazer even able to use its rays?
> 
> 2) When does the familiar make its attacks with regards to Pact of the Chain, and Investment of the Chain Master
> 2)a) Pact lets you sub one of your attacks to let your familiar make an attack
> 2)b) Investment of the Chain Master lets you spend your bonus action to "let your familiar take the attack action" 
> 
> But, even improved familiars have their own initiative, and act on their own turn. 
> ...


Chainlock cannot get you a Gazer familiar, by the book.

If you get a Gazer, it's an houserule, and the interactions between Gazer and Investment of the Chain Master must be similarly houseruled.

Have to note that the Eye Ray does not fit the parameters of the Attack action, as unless I'm mistaken they involve only saving throws and no attack rolls.

----------


## Kane0

> 1) Is the Gazer even able to use its rays?
> 
> 2) When does the familiar make its attacks with regards to Pact of the Chain, and Investment of the Chain Master
> 2)a) Pact lets you sub one of your attacks to let your familiar make an attack
> 2)b) Investment of the Chain Master lets you spend your bonus action to "let your familiar take the attack action"


1) yeah, if you have the pact and invocs for it. By just find familiar, no it can't.

2a) If you take the attack action, you can have the gazer make one eye ray in place of an attack. This may or may not be a random ray, check with your DM. Id say choosing the ray is fine, but you cant double-up with the same ray in combination with the below

2b) You use your bonus action to have the gazer make two eye rays, which are random as nornal for it

Thats the way id rule it

----------


## diplomancer

> OK so....how does this all interact. 
> 
> 1) Is the Gazer even able to use its rays?
> 
> 2) When does the familiar make its attacks with regards to Pact of the Chain, and Investment of the Chain Master
> 2)a) Pact lets you sub one of your attacks to let your familiar make an attack
> 2)b) Investment of the Chain Master lets you spend your bonus action to "let your familiar take the attack action" 
> 
> But, even improved familiars have their own initiative, and act on their own turn. 
> ...


The important thing to understand is that _all_ familiar options in the game that are NOT from the Find Familiar spell (and that includes not only the Gazer, but also the Imp/Quasit familiar variants from the Monstrous Manual) don't work like the Find Familiar spell _at all_. The only thing they have in common is the name "familiar". They are their own creature type (not your choice of Fey, Celestial or Fiend). They can attack. You can't dismiss and resummon them. You can't have them in a pocket dimension. You can have as many of them as are willing to bind to you. And Investment of the Chain Master simply doesn't work with them (as it says "when you cast Find Familiar"), though it's possible that both Voice of the Chain Master and Gift of the Ever-living ones do work, as they don't reference the spell, they just say "your familiar"

----------


## Skrum

Well I'm gonna say based on this thread Find Familiar and Chainlocks in particular are entirely broken, as no one knows what they do. Lol. 4 people giving 4 contradictory answers. 

My read on the situation is this
1) RAW, a gazer is not a valid familiar. But, it is mentioned as an option in Volo's, and is Jeremy Crawford said "ask your DM." So IMO, it's not a crazy thing for a DM to approve

2) Again, by RAW, the eyerays are not an attack. Ergo, if you have a Gazer familiar, they are not prevented from using their rays without the warlock having to take any particular action. It's free, action economy-wise. It also means the rays are NOT valid commands for Pact of the Chain or Investment of the Chain Master, but who cares, free is free. 

3) This puts Gazers firmly in "better than all other familiar options" territory. Not only do they have a better and safer offensive option, they are purely additive to the warlock's action economy. 

4) Thus, if a Gazer is going to be allowed, I think their eyerays should be classified as an attack. This brings them much more inline with other familiar options. I agree with Kane0; through Pact of the Chain, a warlock can sub out one of their attacks to have the Gazer fire a single eyeray. Choosing which one seems entirely appropriate, since the Warlock is most likely effectively giving up their whole action for this. As a bonus action with Investment, they can order the familiar to fire 2 random rays on the familiar's turn. Not letting the Gazer fire the same ray in the same round also seems pretty RAI and inline with beholders, etc.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Well I'm gonna say based on this thread Find Familiar and Chainlocks in particular are entirely broken, as no one knows what they do.


Your conclusion is incorrect, as your question had nothing to do with Find Familiar and Chainlocks as they are in the books. 




> Lol. 4 people giving 4 contradictory answers.
> 
> My read on the situation is this
> 1) RAW, a gazer is not a valid familiar. But, it is mentioned as an option in Volo's, and is Jeremy Crawford said "ask your DM." So IMO, it's not a crazy thing for a DM to approve


4 people gave 4 different answers, which is what you would get if you asked 4 different DMs in person rather than over the internet. It is working as intended.

And no, the Volo's does not mention the Gazer as a valid target for Find Familiar. As explained above in this thread the Gazer becoming your familiar is an entirely different process with different perks and different weaknesses.




> 4) Thus, if a Gazer is going to be allowed, I think their eyerays should be classified as an attack. This brings them much more inline with other familiar options. I agree with Kane0; through Pact of the Chain, a warlock can sub out one of their attacks to have the Gazer fire a single eyeray. Choosing which one seems entirely appropriate, since the Warlock is most likely effectively giving up their whole action for this. As a bonus action with Investment, they can order the familiar to fire 2 random rays on the familiar's turn. Not letting the Gazer fire the same ray in the same round also seems pretty RAI and inline with beholders, etc.


As I said in my previous post, if you're going to houserule the Gazer as a valid target for Find Familiar, you have to houserule how the statblock interacts with the rest of the relevant rules. 

It seems you did just that.

----------


## Skrum

> Your conclusion is incorrect, as your question had nothing to do with Find Familiar and Chainlocks as they are in the books.


Bro




> As I said in my previous post, if you're going to houserule the Gazer as a valid target for Find Familiar, you have to houserule how the statblock interacts with the rest of the relevant rules. 
> 
> It seems you did just that.


Usually when there's a "extra variant" type feature, it's something that should slot pretty seamlessly, and the choice to include it or not is based on things like the power level of the option and if it fits the theme of the game. "Gazers are a variant but you have to make up some extra rules for them" is, to me, a lack of polish on the game. If they are a variant, they should be made in such a way so that they slot into existing rules. Some of us like the NPC's to follow rules to, yah know?

----------


## Unoriginal

> Bro
> 
> 
> 
> Usually when there's a "extra variant" type feature, it's something that should slot pretty seamlessly, and the choice to include it or not is based on things like the power level of the option and if it fits the theme of the game. "Gazers are a variant but you have to make up some extra rules for them" is, to me, a lack of polish on the game. If they are a variant, they should be made in such a way so that they slot into existing rules. Some of us like the NPC's to follow rules to, yah know?


It's not an "extra variant" type feature, and the Gazer is not a variant, it's a "this is a different rule for a similar concept" type feature.

The rules for a creature like the Gazer becoming a familiar are explicitly not the same as the results of using the spell Find Familiar, unlike the Pact of the Chain which builds upon Find Familiar.


In other words, as a DM you can have a NPC follows both the Find Familiar rules and/or the not-spell-based-Familiar rules, and as a player you can ask your DM if you can have a not-spell-based-Familiar according to said rules.

----------


## diplomancer

> It's not an "extra variant" type feature, and the Gazer is not a variant, it's a "this is a different rule for a similar concept" type feature.
> 
> The rules for a creature like the Gazer becoming a familiar are explicitly not the same as the results of using the spell Find Familiar, unlike the Pact of the Chain which builds upon Find Familiar.
> 
> 
> In other words, as a DM you can have a NPC follows both the Find Familiar rules and/or the not-spell-based-Familiar rules, and as a player you can ask your DM if you can have a not-spell-based-Familiar according to said rules.


I think the mistake comes from the fact that it's referred to as a variant in Volo/Monster Manual. But it's not a variant of the Find Familiar spell- why would it be, it doesn't even mention the spell at all; it's a variant of the usual stat block (which does not have the same capabilities).

----------


## Skrum

Well, this character just died....so I think the rules around Gazer familiars are moot, at least at this table.

----------


## Segev

> Well, this character just died....so I think the rules around Gazer familiars are moot, at least at this table.


Nonsense! It sounds like it's time for a Gazer to dream itself into existence, thinking it's this character!

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

One needs to be 3rd level to take Pact of the Chain, and lo and behold one needs to be a 3rd level spellcaster to use a Gazer as a Familiar.

A DM allowing a Gazer to be a Pact of the Chain option seems a logical, and simple step that I would contend most DMs _should_ allow.

The answers above are a bit too griped in the sphincter, for my taste.

----------


## Unoriginal

> One needs to be 3rd level to take Pact of the Chain, and lo and behold one needs to be a 3rd level spellcaster to use a Gazer as a Familiar.
> 
> A DM allowing a Gazer to be a Pact of the Chain option seems a logical, and simple step that I would contend most DMs _should_ allow.
> 
> The answers above are a bit too griped in the sphincter, for my taste.


The point isn't that the DM should or shouldn't allow it, the point is that IF the DM allows the Chainlock to use Find Familiar to get a Gazer familiar (rather than just letting the Gazer become the non-spell based kind of Familar) they have to houserule the interactions between the class features and the monster stat block.

"How do rule X interact with with rule Y?" can have for answer "X and Y do not interact, you will have to houserule it".

----------


## Millstone85

> And no, the Volo's does not mention the Gazer as a valid target for Find Familiar. As explained above in this thread the Gazer becoming your familiar is an entirely different process with different perks and different weaknesses.


Weeell, it depends on *which* Volo rule you use when pitching a gazer familiar to your DM. The one page 126 does not use the spell, but the one page 213 very much does.  :Small Big Grin: 




> *Variant: Gazer Familiar*
> The gazer can serve another creature as a familiar, forming a telepathic bond with its willing master, provided that the master is at least a 3rd-level spellcaster. While the two are bonded, the master can sense what the gazer senses as long as they are within 1 mile of each other. If its master causes it physical arm, the gazer will end its service as a familiar, breaking the telepathic bond.





> *Variant: Familiars*
> Any spellcaster that can cast the _find familiar_ spell (such as as an apprentice, warlock, or wizard) is likely to have a familiar. The familiar can be one of the creatures described in the spell (see the _Player's Handbook_) or some other Tiny monster, such as a cranium rat, a crawling claw, a gazer, an imp, a pseudodragon, or a quasit.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Weeell, it depends on *which* Volo rule you use when pitching a gazer familiar to your DM. The one page 126 does not use the spell, but the one page 213 very much does.


True, but you want to be technical, p.213 only mention that spellcasters with Find Familiar can have the typical Familiar creature as described by the spells, or other Tiny monsters. Not that they're using the spell to get other Tiny monsters as Familiars.

Of note, the Find Familiar spell does not even let you have a regular toad or owl or raven as a Familiar, the spell just summons a spiritual entity and let it takes the shape of a creature, so either the " one of the creatures described in the spell" part of the description refers to said spiritual entity summoned by the spell (which can then take a specific form), or whoever wrote that part forgot/didn't check how Find Familiar worked and assumed that you could take a living creature and make it your Familiar using it.

----------


## Kane0

> or whoever wrote that part forgot/didn't check how Find Familiar worked and assumed that you could take a living creature and make it your Familiar using it.


More likely than one might think.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> whoever wrote that part forgot/didn't check how Find Familiar worked and assumed that you could take a living creature and make it your Familiar using it.


Tressymn, those winged cat, thingambobs, are mentioned as options to be Familiars, with the Find Familiar spell, despite not being spirits.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Tressymn, those winged cat, thingambobs, are mentioned as options to be Familiars, with the Find Familiar spell, despite not being spirits.


The option says you can use Find Familiar (with DM permission) to conjure a Tressymn instead of a regular cat, meaning the familiar spirit is just taking the form of a Tressymn.

You can't use Find Familiar on an already existing Tressymn to have them be your Familiar.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

> The option says you can use Find Familiar (with DM permission) to conjure a Tressymn instead of a regular cat, meaning the familiar spirit is just taking the form of a Tressymn.
> 
> You can't use Find Familiar on an already existing Tressymn to have them be your Familiar.


Then the section goes on to discuss how Tressymn are intelligent enough to learn and remember experiences for the rest of their life, such as the fact that Wand of Lightnings are dangerous.

If a player does not want the Tressymn to be a spirit, but just a winged cat, then I see no reason to stick to the intervening, additional level, of making it a fugazi Tressymn.

Sticking to RAW here, adds nothing, and detracts from certain players desires to have a pet.

----------


## Unoriginal

> Then the section goes on to discuss how Tressymn are intelligent enough to learn and remember experiences for the rest of their life, such as the fact that Wand of Lightnings are dangerous.
> 
> If a player does not want the Tressymn to be a spirit, but just a winged cat, then I see no reason to stick to the intervening, additional level, of making it a fugazi Tressymn.
> 
> Sticking to RAW here, adds nothing, and detracts from certain players desires to have a pet.


Indeed.

There is no reason for a DM to stick to the rules of the book if they think that hinders the fun.

My argument is and has always have been that if you opt to not follow the rules of the book, there is no point in asking "what does the rules of the book say about [rule interaction depending on rules that are not being followed]?".

In other words, I'm all in favor for a PC getting an actual winged cat as a Familiar, but I'm pointing out "if you do that, the Find Familiar rules about having a spirit taking the form of a specific creature when summoned do not apply."

Or in other other words, you can't be both using and *not* using the rules for that one case. Either you use the rules, or you houserule it as you please.

----------


## Segev

It is not strictly within the rules, but in Jathaan's games, the familiar spirits tend to be more fully fleshed-out entities, with interests and drives of their own regardless of the form they take. Some even can revert to their true forms if they wish. This tends to make them more intelligent than the animal stats would indicate, but also means that their loyalty is more fickle. Not to the point that you can expect sudden but inevitable betrayals, or even major disobedience, but they have their own agendas. They're NPC servants with a magical bond to you rather than purely tools with animal-like intelligence guided by your superior mental orders.

It's a lot of fun, and while it can make them more powerful in some ways, it also makes them more interesting to interact with and also sometimes something to be cautious in dealing with.

----------


## Sigreid

My understanding of the find familiar spell is that it gives a permanent bond to a spirit.  That spirit can then take an appropriate form, as desired by the caster whenever re-embodied by the spell.  Chain Lock expands the strength of the form the spirit is capable of managing, but the spirit is not that creature.  This is the same way that Find Steed and Find Greater Steed works, with the paladin forming a permanent bond with one spirit that can take a variety of handy forms based on the needs and desires of the paladin when the spell is cast/recast.  Some creatures that are not spirits (i.e. Quasit) can choose to form a bond, but are that creature and not a familiar spirit.

On the topic of the questions, I'd say yes that investment of the chain master lets your creature use the eye beams.

----------

