Firstly, yes, if a spell requires an attack, that attack still counts as an attack.
So, what you have to remember is the "specific beats general" rule. This is detailed on page 7 of the PHB. The core of the rule is:
If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.
So the general rule here is that familiars can't attack. There are 2 exceptions to this general rule:
A familiar can deliver spells with a range of touch on your behalf, even if the spell requires an attack roll.
A Warlock with the Pact of the Chain can forgo one of their attacks to let their familiar make one.
So when you cast a spell with a range of touch, you can have your familiar do the actual "touching" on your behalf. You cast the spell as normal using whatever actions it requires. The familiar is required to use their reaction, and if the spell requires an attack roll, it makes the attack roll. Since it uses your modifier anyway, it's exactly the same as you making the attack roll except that you don't have to stand next to what you're casting the spell on.
In the case of a Warlock with the Pact of the Chain, the Warlock takes the Attack action as usual, then has the familiar do the actual attack. The errata for the PHB says:
When you
let your familiar attack, it does so with its
reaction.
If the Warlock can make multiple attacks with the Attack action, the familiar can use its reaction to replace one of them with its own attack, then the Warlock makes the rest.
Finally, only spells with a range of touch can be delivered by your familiar. There is no option for having your familiar cast a spell on your behalf, and the option for allowing a familiar to attack instead of yourself specifically says "when you take the Attack action", not just "when you make an attack".
Yes, a missed attack expends a charge, or charges.
The sequence is as described:
- expend n charges,
- determine whether the attack hits
- if hit: roll 2 n d10 for damage
(This is your #2 interpretation.)
Best Answer
It is just an attack, not ranged, not melee, not a weapon, not spell
Let's start with the obvious, the item doesn't say it's melee/ranged/weapon/spell.
The ring isn't a weapon, and although it is magic it isn't creating a spell.
The ring hits at 60ft, so it's not melee.
The attack can hit a target 60ft away, so maybe it is ranged?
Ruling that it is ranged has consequences
We need to think carefully about whether or not the attack should be classified as ranged, because that ruling has consequences. If we say it is ranged then when it hits a target 5ft away you will be rolling at disadvantage. There are other interactions with ranged attacks (eg Arrow-Catching Shield) which you are imposing on the ring with this ruling.
The rules do not include a description of how to classify attacks as "ranged attacks"
While the ring does seem similar to a ranged attack, we should try not to bend the rules to our ruling. Rules do not exist to be rules lawyered into a conclusion that we are trying to confirm, we should instead read the rules to discover what the correct conclusion is. The rules say:
They do not say:
We should be careful to not think these are equal. The first is not a definition of can be classified as a ranged attack, it is a description of what things we already know are ranged attack are.
The rules go on to say:
Not:
Is there even a projectile?
Even if we do incorrectly interpret this rule as "anything that sends a projectile to strike a foe at a distance is a ranged attack", then in this case what is the projectile?
The ring says it "a spectral ram's head", to me that sounds like the ram's head appears, it doesn't seem to imply that the ram's head is shooting from the ring at the target. In my mind, the ram's head appears by the target and hits them.
Ring of the Ram is an attack at up to 60ft
We can conclusively say that Ring of the Ram does not make weapon or spell attacks. It is also not listed as a melee or ranged attack, so we can conclude it is neither of them either. It's just an attack at up to 60ft, that's all.