Android ID associated with familiar devices

I have a rooted Moto e6 that I’m trying to change the Android ID on to one from a previous phone that is no longer serviceable. This is not about app ID’s, which have already been answered. I’m attempting to recover a couple accounts and do not have the phone number I used when I set them up. Just being on a familiar network and knowing the previous passwords isn’t enough any more, and since they shut down the “can you provide us with more information,” I’m stuck trying to make a familiar device from scratch.

I downloaded my data from the one account I still own that was on that phone. This includes the 19-digit Android ID associated with the original device, as well as other device info such as the serial number, IMEI, etc.

I’m under the impression that’s the Android ID Google uses to identify “familiar devices.” I’ve looked and verified it’s the same across different accounts on the same phone under the same user.

Going from another answer in here, I pulled up /data/system/users/<User_ID>/settings_ssaid.xml on my Moto e6 and
the android_id shows up as a 64 bit hex string. I tried searching for the 19 digit number on the phone with Total Commander, but came up with nothing.

Yesterday I decided to try and swap out the 64 bit hex string with the 19 digit Android ID from the old phone, rebooted, pulled the device configuration data, and nothing changed. Still showing the same ID. I pulled it again this morning and, again, same.

My question is: Where is this number located? Am I looking in the wrong place?

Thanks in advance.

dnd 5e – Pact Boon and Find Familiar: Will changing from Pact of the Chain to Pact of the Tome affect your familiar’s form?

You lose the ability to cast find familiar when you change pacts.

Pact of the Chain says:

You learn the find familiar spell and can cast it as a ritual.

So Pact of the Chain is the source of find familiar. If you switch from Pact of the Chain to Pact of the Tome, you lose the ability to cast find familiar familiar. So the question “what happens when I recast it after changing pacts” is moot since you cannot cast it at all.

Your familiar will hang around after you switch pacts, but once it drops to 0 hit points or you “dismiss it forever” it is gone for good, unless you somehow gain the ability to cast the spell again. However, it should be noted that it is entirely reasonable for a DM to rule that the services provided by the familiar are part-and-parcel to your current pact agreement, and changing terms would cause your familiar to vanish.

If you later find a way to recast find familiar, you may only choose one of the usual options, not the options provided by Pact of the Chain.

This part is quite simple: Pact of the Chain is what gives you the ability to choose one of the special forms. Without Pact of the Chain, you may not select one of the special forms. You always select from the available forms when you cast the spell, since the spell says:

You gain the service of a familiar, a spirit that takes an animal form you choose: bat, cat, crab, frog (toad), hawk, lizard, octopus, owl, poisonous snake, fish (quipper), rat, raven, sea horse, spider, or weasel.

The phrase “it reappears after you cast this spell again” is simply indicating that you must cast the spell again to reacquire the services of your familiar – it isn’t bypassing the rest of the spell description.

dnd 5e – Pact Boon and Find Familiar; Will changing from Pact of the Chain for Pact of the Tomb effect your familiar’s form?

I’m currently playing as a Warlock and at 3rd level I picked Pact of the Chain as my pact boon. I then using one of the special form provided by Pact of the Chain, summoned a Sprite familiar. At 4th level I plan to use the optional rule, Eldritch Versatility, to change from Pact of the Chain to Pact of the Tome.

Would that affect my familiar’s form OR would my familiar stay as a sprite?

Cuz as it is written:

When you cast the spell, you can choose one of the normal forms for your familiar or one of the following special forms: imp, pseudodragon, quasit, or sprite.

Additionally, if my familiar were to drop to 0 hit points and I cast Find Familiar again, Would the familiar stay as a sprite?

The resummoning section of Find Familiar spell description does not state any change in the form of your familiar when revived.

When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again.

Only when casting it with a familiar already active does the spell description state any change to form.

If you cast this spell while you already have a familiar, you instead cause it to adopt a new form.

dnd 5e – How much HP does a Pact of the Chain Imp familiar recover on a Short Rest?

I believe a Pact of the Chain Imp familiar uses the normal Imp stat block. So it has:

  • Hit Points 10 (3d4 + 3)
  • CON 13 (+1)
  • Challenge 1 (200 XP)

For purposes of recovering HP during a Short Rest, how many hit dice does the Imp have, and what dice does it roll?


Also, how is this determined, ie. how does this generalize to the other kinds of familiar?


I am asking this to get a RAW answer, if one can be found. I did not find any connection between monster HP and monster HD in my player books, and I am hoping the Monster Manual or DMG have something unambiguous.

My first guess, based on what I remember from some older editions of D&D, would have been that CR would be same as HD, but this does not make much sense when some of the 5e monsters have fractional CR.

Can a Familiar holding an item take it into the pocket dimension when dismissed?

I had a weird thought related to the Portable Hole & familiars. If a familiar is holding a portable hole, and you dismiss it into it’s pocket dimension, what happens?

Does the portable hole do it’s Astral Plane vacuum thing, the familiar’s dimension isn’t from an item? I would think not because it doesn’t seem like that would happen with a Bag of Holding or Portable Hole and say the Rope Trick or Demiplane spells.

What happens if you get in the Portable Hole, have the familiar take it and disappear into the pocket dimension? Are you permanently stuck with out something like Plane Shift? You could conceivable get out of the Hole into the Pocket dimension, but there doesn’t really seem to be any way out because you can’t resummon the familiar outside either the pocket dimension or Hole. Can you toss an enemy in the Hole, have the Familiar take it into the pocket dimension, the enemy could get out or break out, and conceivable the familiar could take the hole and be resummoned, leaving the enemy behind. Is that enemy then permanently gone unless they have Plane Shift if you permanently dismiss the Familiar before creating a brand new one?

dnd 5e – How do I handle the wizard’s familiar invalidating exploration, outshining the rogue, at low to no cost?

I am having some issues trying to find a balance in what seems to me to be an overpowered spell considering its low level. I will state first that I have always considered the familiar as a very attractive archetype of fantasy literature and I’d love to have it in my games. But I think the way it is handled in DnD 5e is very disruptive for the game and, from a narrative point of view, very far from the fantasy trope of what a wizard’s familiar should be in my opinion.

I think the only way to address the problem is to change the spell, but before doing so (to my wizard player’s initial regret) I want to get other DM’s opinions first.

I am going to present my arguments against the spell as is written first, and after that, I am going to exemplify the effect that a familiar could have as the rule is written on a very well known adventure, Lost Mine of Phandelver, so that I can be told if I am misinterpreting something. The goal of using a prewritten adventure is because I cannot stress enough that what I am looking for is not ways to design adventures against the rules (more on why I don’t like/need that later), but help on shedding some light on whether maybe I am overstating its potential effects.

First of all, the narrative problem. In my opinion, a familiar should be a very special creature for the wizard, a sort of magical pet they are very fond of. It should be a creature with a name, and its survival should be of paramount importance for the wizard, being its death a great loss for them.

For example, I recall that this spell in Rolemaster required acquiring the creature by normal means, spending a week casting the spell on it and that if the creature died you had a -25 penalty for two weeks! So it was hard to get it and it was very, very bad to lose it. It was powerful, but the stakes were high.

But as the spell is written in DnD, this is just some kind of disposable resource, not even worthy of a spell slot (since you can even cast it as a ritual). You can have one familiar now and a totally different one an hour later, almost at no cost. You can even make it disappear when you don’t need it and it’s going to be a nuisance for a given scene (let’s get rid of the damn cat in this scene, now it is useless!). Treated this way, it seems to me a familiar has the narrative weight of a magic potion: this is, none at all. That is sad.

Second, as the spell is written, it is what would be called a “disruptive technology” for the game. I know there are a thousand forums giving advice on different ways a DM can neutralize the power of a familiar (distance, area effect attacks, etc.), and I want to stress that is not the lack of ideas on how to do it what takes me here. I have plenty. Is that I have two big problems with this approach to “solving” the problem. First, I don’t think I should warp the whole world and completely redesign every adventure to accommodate for a rule that has the power to suck the fun out of almost every adventure as it is written. I think changing that rule is a far easier and logical alternative to that. Second, I think a DM shouldn’t try to design encounters where the players can’t use their special powers or use them in a very diminished form. On the contrary, the DM should design situations where the players are challenged but where their powers can shine, and there is a very thin line between challenging their powers and making them useless. DMs tend to think they are very clever designers, but players are very good at detecting when a situation has been expressly designed by the DM to counteract some of their abilities, and the third time they notice you are actively working against their powers they are logically going to be pissed off. I think it is more honest to openly state that a rule/spell is not working and just change it.

Third, and in a certain way the most important reason why I don’t like it. Familiars are going to consistently hog the spotlight of other player’s characters precisely when those characters should have their “special moment”. What’s the point in investing in that stealthy rogue abilities if each time you have to approach an enemy camp, examine the enemy’s castle defenses or scout a possible ambush, the wizard is just going to send its spider before you and map every corner of the dungeon, and at absolutely no risk and no cost, before you even have the chance of trying?

At last, I am going to exemplify the effect this spell could have on an average dungeon (not one expressly designed to purposely counteract it). As this is a first level spell, let’s keep in mind that this would be something a newly created character could perfectly do. Let’s examine the potential effects of a familiar as is written in some of its dungeons (minor spoilers ahead).

Cragmaw hideout: our first level wizard uses his bat familiar to spot the goblins guards (no need for the rogue to even bother). From the entrance of the cave, the bat maps out the entire cave before the characters have even set one foot in it. Exciting adventure ahead.

Redbrand Hideout: our heroes approach the dungeon from the secret passage. Unless the DM rules that the spider is too big to pass under the doors (while the player suspiciously squints at him), 90% of the basement is going to be discovered without moving a finger. Yeah, you could get them attacked with the Nothic first, but since they are probably going to send the spider through the passage before them, it is going to be discovered earlier anyway. Exciting adventure ahead.

Castle Cragmaw: the wizard sends his owl to every window in the castle to examine its contents and enemies. Again, 90% of the castle is known before even getting too close to it. Sure, the wizard should move to repeat the operation from the southern and northern limits of the castle to cope with the 100’ limitation, but that’s pretty easy. There is a chance that the owl is discovered in the window, but with almost no consequence: it would be very hard to attack, and the worst thing it could happen is that they have to wait an hour before repeating the operation. The rogue is again just yawning in a corner. Exciting adventure ahead.

Wave Echo Cave: since there are no doors, characters can easily be aware of every corner of the dungeon three or four rooms ahead. You could save time and lay out before them the entire dungeon floorplan and all its enemies. Exciting adventure ahead.

I know, I know, there are ways to avoid these uses of the familiar, but it would end up being too obvious that you are working hard against it, and when they notice (and they always do), that’s very annoying for the players (oh, what a coincidence, it turns out that the goblins have a trained hawk guarding the castle for no apparent reason!).

So, to wrap things up, it seems to me that the only logical alternative is to modify the rule. As I said, I love the idea of familiars in a fantasy setting, so ruling the spell out completely is something I don’t want to do. But I think I have to adjust it so that its effects are not so disrupting for the game. I haven’t made my mind about how to do it yet, honestly, but I like the idea of “hard to get, hard to lose” that the Rolemaster spell had. And I think also that the extent of the remote senses capacities should be limited somehow too.

So, how do I handle the wizard’s familiar invalidating exploration, outshining the rogue, at low to no cost?

dnd 5e – If my familiar is forced through my action to drop a rock while over a target, is it considered an attack?

Question As Written – Multiple Problems

My bat familiar (from the find familiar spell) has a Strength score of 2, and can therefore carry 7 lbs. (Per the “Lifting and Carrying” rules (PHB, p. 176), its carrying capacity is its Str score times 15, divided by 4 for being Tiny.)
I cast enlarge/reduce on a rock that weighs 56 lbs. to Reduce it, making it weigh 7 lbs.

So far, so good.

I have my familiar fly over a target. Then, as an action, I recast enlarge/reduce on the rock to Enlarge it,

No. Per the description of Enlarge / Reduce, it targets an “object that is neither worn nor carried”. If your bat is carrying the rock, you cannot cast Enlarge/Reduce on it.

cancelling out the first enlarge/reduce spell and enlarging the rock x8 to make it weigh 448 lbs.

Maybe not. When you begin to cast Enlarge / Reduce, that immediately ends your concentration on the previous spell and the rock returns to 56 pounds:

As soon as you start casting a spell or using a special ability that requires concentration, your concentration on another effect ends instantly.

This optional rule from XGtE (p.5) was officialized in the Sage Advice Compendium 2.5 and more recently repeated in TCoE (p. 5)

“If you’re concentrating on a spell, your concentration on it ends immediately when you start casting another spell that requires concentration.”

Although your previous Englarge/Reduce ends immediately, your new cast does not take effect until your new spell is complete. Thus, there will be a slight delay between ending the concentration on the first spell and completing the second spell so that the rock grows to 448lb. That delay is the casting time of the spell, which is one action.

One action does not map out to any amount of time more specific than “less than about 6 seconds”, but we can estimate the actual amount of time using real world falling speeds. The range on your Enlarge/Reduce is only 30 feet. With this maximum range being the 30 foot hypotenuse from you to the rock, you are standing 20 feet away from your opponent, and rock is just 21.25 feet over them. To fall 21.25 feet it will take the rock just 1.15 seconds. Can you begin and end your spell in just over a second? DM’s call, but possibly not.

Although they are written for falling creatures, if you apply the optional falling rules from XGtE (p.77) to objects, the rock actually falls the first 500 feet instantly, meaning you have no time to cast another spell on it as it falls.

This is too much for the familiar to hold and it drops the rock. Not as an attack, but because it has no choice.

It does have a choice. It can choose to hold on to the rock, and fall with it, rather than dropping it.

Question as Intended – Not an attack for either of you

Setting aside the Rube Goldberg (or, perhaps Heath Robinson, since you are Canadian) set up of your problem, what is it that you are really asking? Looking at your comments to others:

A familiar cannot attack. So it matters in the sense that if it is considered an attack, it will not work if the familiar is the one considering to have attacked. But if it is considered my attack then it would be legal

and

All that rule states is that IF there is an attack roll it is definitely an attack, it does not say that if there is no attack roll it is not an attack,

You clearly understand that a familiar by definition cannot attack, so dropping the rock cannot be the familiar’s attack. I think you are trying to ask something like, “Can I make an attack if I haven’t taken the attack action?”, or “Can the effects of my spell constitute an attack if it is not actually a spell attack?” or “If my decisions cause damage to happen, is that an attack?”

If something like this is your question, then I would answer No, this is not an attack, for design principle reasons.

Let’s clear away the superfluous familiar and the double-casting of Enlarge / Reduce, and posit this: Your enemy is standing under a precariously balanced rock at the base of a small cliff. With a single casting of Enlarge/Reduce, you could dislodge the rock, causing it to fall on them. Is this an attack?

No. NOT because you don’t make an attack roll specifically, BUT rather because you don’t have an available Attack action to make. Your action this turn was to Cast a Spell. You did not choose the Attack action, therefore you cannot make an attack. You can certainly use your spell to set up a potentially damaging environmental situation, and you may end up hurting your opponent, but it was still not an attack.

My perspective here is informed by my understanding of action economy, agency, and game balance. This is not an articulated game feature, but it underlies nearly every discussion on this site about what is permitted, and what is balanced. Other DMs might rule differently, but at least for me:

As a PC, you receive a limited number of actions. However, when you take those actions, you have a great amount of control over them. If you choose to Cast a Spell on a legitimate target, most times the spell will work and do what you wanted it to do – you will Enlarge that rock and cause it to tumble off the cliff. If instead you choose to Attack (perhaps run up that cliff and push the rock down on your opponent as an improvised weapon), you have some control over that – you get to make the attack roll, perhaps drawing on your relevant ability bonuses, Inspiration, or even your familiar giving you Help. That attack is mostly about you and your rolls, and the opponent is just a passive AC score for you to hit.

In either of these cases, you have paid for your agency in the currency of actions. Allowing you to both cast a spell that significantly changes the world, and then also have an ancillary result of that change be an attack, your attack, would be going beyond your allotted actions. Rather than this, your spell action has now created an environmental situation that could damage your opponent. But the resolution of that is now not under your control or influence – it is the DM’s concern. Perhaps they will allow a saving throw, but they get to decide the ability score targeted, assign the DC, and assign advantage or disadvantage – you are not an agent in the process. Or, perhaps for narrative reasons, they will simply decide that your opponent steps out of the way or gets flattened by the rock. The point is that this is the DM’s action, not yours.

From this framework, let’s consider your follow-up questions:

An alternative but similar thought for comparison: If I use an action to dismiss the familiar, does it drop the rock? (ending concentration on the enlarge/reduce spell and still dropping a 56 lbs. rock)

You can end concentration simply by choosing to, without an action – but you originally paid for the spell with an action. You can dismiss the familiar as an action. For me, you have paid for this to be an attack by spending your dismissal action on it. I would be fine with, in that case, allowing you to time the dismissal to correspond with dropping the rock on the opponent, and allow you to make an attack roll – I might allow you to include proficiency, and I might allow you to use your spellcasting ability as the to-hit modifier. Even if I didn’t allow an attack roll against passive AC, I might have you make an Arcana or Animal Handling check contested by the Athletics or Acrobatics of the opponent. In any event, the important thing is that you would get to make the roll. You have purchased that by spending the action; I would consider it an attack.

In either case, does this count as an attack from the familiar, or because I used an action to cause it, is it my attack?

It would never be an attack from the familiar, by definition. A familiar can certainly cause damaging things to happen, but these are not attacks, because their resolution is squarely under DM, not player, control.

If you used an action whose primary function was cause damage, that to me is an attack, even if it also results in the dismissal of your familiar, and whether or not I called for an attack roll. If you used an action whose principle result was the casting of a spell and a subsequent change in the nature of reality (growing or shrinking a rock), that is not an Attack, that is Casting a Spell.

dnd 5e – Find familiar spell, Sanctuary, and spell attacks in DnD 5th edition

Both castings of sanctuary end.

Sanctuary states:

If the warded creature makes an attack, casts a spell that affects an enemy, or deals damage to another creature, this spell ends.

Since you are casting inflict wounds which goes on to affect an enemy, sanctuary ends for you. Find familiar 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.

Now, your familiar delivers the spell as if it had cast it. This indicates that the familiar is making the attack for inflict wounds. If the familiar had cast inflict wounds it would deliver it by making an attack against the target, ergo it makes an attack when you cast the spell through the familiar. Therefore, sanctuary ends for the familiar as well.


It is worth mentioning that this does create an odd situation that might cause a DM to rule that sanctuary does not end for the caster of inflict wounds. If the familiar’s attack misses, one might argue that the inflict wounds spell did not affect the enemy creature, and so sanctuary would not end for the caster. I wouldn’t rule this way, but there is room for it.

Find familiar spell, Sanctuary, and spell attacks

Find familiar spell, Sanctuary, and spell attacks – Role-playing Games Stack Exchange

dnd 5e – What level of knowledge constitutes being familiar with a location for clerics casting Find the Path?

It’s up to the DM, but the teleport spell gives some insight.

Unfortunately, “familiar with” is given no clear or objective definition in the rules. However, the teleport spell gives some insight, as familiarity plays a role in that spell’s success:

“Very familiar” is a place you have been very often, a place you have carefully studied, or a place you can see when you cast the spell. “Seen casually” is someplace you have seen more than once but with which you aren’t very familiar. “Viewed once” is a place you have seen once, possibly using magic. “Description” is a place whose location and appearance you know through someone else’s description, perhaps from a map.

Obviously, the “very familiar” category as described here qualifies for find the path, and “seen casually” seems to qualify as well – “not very familiar” still implies some level of familiarity.

“Viewed once” is the tough one. I have had my players use scrying to spy on an NPC, and then try to use find the path to get there. On one occasion, they recognized the location, and though they had never been there and only seen it through scrying, they were aware of the rough geographical location, so I let them use find the path. They tried this another time, and had no idea where the location seen through scrying was, so I did not allow them to use find the path.

DreamProxies - Cheapest USA Elite Private Proxies 100 Cheapest USA Private Proxies Buy 200 Cheap USA Private Proxies 400 Best Private Proxies Cheap 1000 USA Private Proxies 2000 USA Private Proxies 5000 Cheap USA Private Proxies ExtraProxies.com - Buy Cheap Private Proxies Buy 50 Private Proxies Buy 100 Private Proxies Buy 200 Private Proxies Buy 500 Private Proxies Buy 1000 Private Proxies Buy 2000 Private Proxies Proxies123.com