@JeremyECrawford can you cast dragon breath on your familiar?
— Find familiar (@familiar_find) December 19, 2017
Dragon's breath is cast on a willing creature. Your familiar is a creature that can be willing. Find familiar prevents a familiar from attacking, but dragon's breath involves no attack. #DnD https://t.co/GsCXwE63CN
— Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) December 19, 2017
Doesn’t make sense at all. In find familiar description it says nothing about attack rolls, but attack itself, breathing any king of harmful energy onto someone or something seems pretty attacky to me.
RAW, it is crystal clear. Your feelings of what is “attacky” has no bearing on the matter. If you don’t like it, make up your own rules, but don’t complain about it like a whining child.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack
(Player’s Handbook, page 194)
Rules in RAW are clear, attacks require an attack roll. You can always change them if you’re DMing but them the rules.
Nope, it’s not.
RAW says that “if there is a question”. That’s totaly not the same as “ONLY actions with attack rolls are considered attacks”. It’s nothing but speculation.
And I would even go as far as dare to disagree with @JeremyECrawford : for all and any logical reasons an action that involves dealing damage to a creature as a result of an attack roll or failed saving throw should be considered as an attack of a sort.
Moreover, Shoving or Grappling actions don’t require an attack roll but are still considered a “special melee attack”.
P.s. Pushing the situation further into being ridiculous, if two casters use both Dragon Breath and Invisibility on the same target you can just go play Smaug while still being unseen by anybody as invoking Dragon Breath’s ability both isn’t an attack (in your opinion) AND isn’t casting a spell. It’s just simply an action to invoke it.
Don’t take it personal, but your logic is pretty bad. Whatever you think RAW “if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack”. Even Attack action is not an attack. But it kind of contains one (or more) attack. What is about grapple and shove? Yeah, they are attacks, because “specific rules overrides general rules” and they are called attacks in their description.
About invisibility – yeah, you are correct, it works that way RAW. What is ridiculous in it? Are you aware of that invisible creatures can be located until they’re hiding? So 2-lvl spell is just giving disadvantage on attacks against familiar. It’s not so useful.
Is Dragon’s breath OP on familiars? As for an owls, it is pretty strong. But familiars can be killed pretty easily.
Oh, I’ve looked that you used the word “logical” in your comment. Nope, you don’t know logic even on the base level. You can google what is it, if you don’t believe me. But here how it works in laws, science and any serious matter. People define what words mean in their sphere. Then they use this definition, so nobody won’t be confused. “Attack” could be called “Abracadabra” in rules (with the same definition). It’s called “Attack”, so associations about it will help you to understand what is written. But instead you are coming with your own definition from your life experience and call it logical.
“if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack”
and as I mentioned previously, that’s not the same as “ONLY an action that requires an attack roll is considered an attack”.
So basically what you are doing is also “interpriting” things that aren’t written clearly. Just the same as me.
About logic… It’s kind of rude of you defining who knows what, but skiping that, RAW still says only the following:
“IF THERE’S EVER ANY QUESTION whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack (Player’s Handbook, page 194)”
– that’s not the definition. It doesn’t define an “attack”, it defines “what an attack SHOULD be IN CASE you aren’t certain”. Which leaves enough room for debating.
As for me, it’s quite clear (and doesn’t require any questions) that a harmful action that involves trying to attack someone or dealing a real damage to them is an ATTACK.
And as it’s also fixing not only Familiar’s spell “bug” but also Invisibility’s there is more reason for such an opinion. And as far as RAW goes (and while PHB still isn’t reprinted in regards for that phrase about the “question”) both yours and mine statements are nothing more than opinions, not a fact.
Futher more in the monster manual it list the creatures actions and specifies which are considered attack actions and dragons breath does not have this qualifier