Unless the familiar is a genie (or somehow the ifrit), then it should work fine. Keep in mind that if you use that interpretation, you shouldn't get any free passes on your familiar not counting against teleport limits, etc.
|
Also, if that's the interpretation you want to use the player still shouldn't be getting to say "my familiar wishes for..."
Best way I see for that angle to be used while keeping with the intent of the archetype is to treat the familiar as a gm-controlled NPC. (Which is a fun idea to do as a matter of course anyway, imo)
Also, if that's the interpretation you want to use the player still shouldn't be getting to say "my familiar wishes for..."
Best way I see for that angle to be used while keeping with the intent of the archetype is to treat the familiar as a gm-controlled NPC. (Which is a fun idea to do as a matter of course anyway, imo)
Familiars are generally PC-controlled. It's certainly a good roleplay opportunity, but I wouldn't take control of their familiar away over it.
I wouldn't take control of the familiar away, but I would be skeptical if the familiar wished for something that is both out of character for the familiar and particularly just what the wishcrafter wants.
|
"Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions."
Don't you see the roleplay in this?
*Kicks familiar.* "Now fluffy, you had better wish for exactly what I want or no cat food for you today!"
"And pick up my pack. I dumped my STR to 7 because I knew I'd have you to haul stuff around for me."
|
|
Usually != always ;)
If a player is dead set on bypassing the intended restriction against using using one's own "wishes" for spells by having the familiar voice said wishes, I'd either:
Consider making the familiar a NPC to control such rules shenanigans
Or
Consider a house rule/rules interaction adjudication stating that if the familiar is going to "count as" an aspect of the PC in fundamental ways (e.g. the player gets to control it) then the restriction against self-wishing extends to extensions of that character... so no granting familiar's wishes in exactly the same way as no granting self-voiced wishes.
|
|
I don't see how a Wishcrafter PC could conceivably bypass the no-granting-your-own-wishes rule with a familiar. So, in my opinion, you are talking about nothing. Is there actually an issue? And even if it is an issue, it is a significant investment for a once-a-day workaround.
I don't think it matters at all which player says the words. The party is all on the same team and can work together. The wizard's thrush familiar could make the same wish as the wishcrafter's familiar.
By that reasoning the wishcrafter shouldn't be barred from granting their own wishes. And yet they are.
|
|
Can't imagine a context? Off the top of my head, here's an example. Say Haste is a wishcrafter spell for the PC in question. Wishcrafter wins init.
Wishcrafter PC: "Hmm, noone can wish for haste yet, so my familiar will wish for it. BOOM, martials already have haste up for their first actions without their players having had to wish for it then wait for me to cast after their actions!"
|
|
Can't imagine a context? Off the top of my head, here's an example. Say Haste is a wishcrafter spell for the PC in question. Wishcrafter wins init.
Wishcrafter PC: "Hmm, noone can wish for haste yet, so my familiar will wish for it. BOOM, martials already have haste up for their first actions without their players having had to wish for it then wait for me to cast after their actions!"
??? A player can wish as a free action. It's just talking. It doesn't have to be their turn.
Aside from that, haste is the sort of spell the wishcrafter probably wouldn't want to cast as a wish, because they would want to benefit from it themselves as well.
I dunno. You seem to be under the impression that wishcrafter is actually a useful archetype, rather than one that pretty heavily nerfs the player by giving them a situational +1 CL buff (which for haste and other transmutation effects they could just replace by the trait Transmuter of Korada) when they could instead have been having one of the awesome bloodline arcanas like psychic, sage, fey, orc, draconic, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heh... play the familiar as somebody who made a really bad wish.
"I wish I could help, but..."
"Granted."
"Wait, what?"
|
|
Can't imagine a context? Off the top of my head, here's an example. Say Haste is a wishcrafter spell for the PC in question. Wishcrafter wins init.
Wishcrafter PC: "Hmm, noone can wish for haste yet, so my familiar will wish for it. BOOM, martials already have haste up for their first actions without their players having had to wish for it then wait for me to cast after their actions!"
??? A player can wish as a free action. It's just talking. It doesn't have to be their turn.
Aside from that, haste is the sort of spell the wishcrafter probably wouldn't want to cast as a wish, because they would want to benefit from it themselves as well.
Citation on taking free actions when it's not your turn? Especially if you haven't acted yet this combat?
The PRD doesn't define a free action as being possible when it's not your turn in the way it does for immediate actions....
Besides. Examples are besides the point. Fuzzy-wuzzy made the point much more eloquenly. Wishcrafting is "supposed to be" an interaction between players. The same player making the wish and then granting it via two different characters is just inherently inappropriate. In my opinion.
|
|
Fair enough. I withdraw the example, yet I belive the priciple still stands that the wishcrafter's player shouldn't be deciding wishes for the other players without the direct involvement of at least one of those other players.
Edit: fine. Here's an example. Same setup as before, only the wishcrafter goes last in init order.
"Hey, how come none of you martials wished for Haste? I think you need it even if y'all don't.. so my familiar wishes for it so now I can grant you the wish I wish you had made."
I'd say no.
|
|
Fair enough. I withdraw the example, yet I belive the priciple still stands that the wishcrafter's player shouldn't be deciding wishes for the other players without the direct involvement of at least one of those other players.
Edit: fine. Here's an example. Same setup as before, only the wishcrafter goes last in init order.
"Hey, how come none of you martials wished for Haste? I think you need it even if y'all don't.. so my familiar wishes for it so now I can grant you the wish I wish you had made."
The same argument to refute that example applies. Wishcrafter character says "Anyone want haste?" and the fighter replies (as a free action off turn per Arcana), "I do!"
I agree that having a familiar skirts the Wishcrafter's restrictions. Theoretically, it could deliver shocking grasp or something "I wish I could kill them!"
I still don't think that getting to choose your own action once per day breaks the archetype.
|
|
Fair enough. I withdraw the example, yet I belive the priciple still stands that the wishcrafter's player shouldn't be deciding wishes for the other players without the direct involvement of at least one of those other players.
Edit: fine. Here's an example. Same setup as before, only the wishcrafter goes last in init order.
"Hey, how come none of you martials wished for Haste? I think you need it even if y'all don't.. so my familiar wishes for it so now I can grant you the wish I wish you had made."
The same argument to refute that example applies. Wishcrafter character says "Anyone want haste?" and the fighter replies (as a free action off turn per Arcana), "I do!"
I agree that having a familiar skirts the Wishcrafter's restrictions. Theoretically, it could deliver shocking grasp or something "I wish I could kill them!"
I still don't think that getting to choose your own action once per day breaks the archetype.
Ah, but that's not my example. The matials' players had oppprtunity to make the wish during their turns and did not do so. Noone wished for Haste. If everyone again declines to wish for haste via free action when prompted/reminded during the wishcrafter's turn, then I'm saying it's inappropriate (or even abusive of the restrictions in the wishcrafter archetype rules) for the wishcrafter's player to use his alternate character (the familiar) to bypass the requirement for "someone else" to voice the wish.
It seems legit by the rules, but I'll echo the consensus of the thread that if the wishcrafter's familiar tends to wish for things that suspiciously benefit its master, the GM should step in.
"I could really use a horse right now. My familiar wishes for a mount."
"I'm having trouble hitting this thing with my crossbow. My familiar wishes for magic weapon."
And so on. On a related note, wishcrafter seems like such a fun archetype and I really want to play one someday.
|
|
Ah, but that's not my example. The matials' players had oppprtunity to make the wish during their turns and did not do so. Noone wished for Haste. If everyone again declines to wish for haste via free action when prompted/reminded during the wishcrafter's turn, then I'm saying it's inappropriate (or even abusive of the restrictions in the wishcrafter archetype rules) for the wishcrafter's player to use his alternate character (the familiar) to bypass the requirement for "someone else" to voice the wish.Fair enough. I withdraw the example, yet I belive the priciple still stands that the wishcrafter's player shouldn't be deciding wishes for the other players without the direct involvement of at least one of those other players.
Edit: fine. Here's an example. Same setup as before, only the wishcrafter goes last in init order.
"Hey, how come none of you martials wished for Haste? I think you need it even if y'all don't.. so my familiar wishes for it so now I can grant you the wish I wish you had made."
The same argument to refute that example applies. Wishcrafter character says "Anyone want haste?" and the fighter replies (as a free action off turn per Arcana), "I do!"
I agree that having a familiar skirts the Wishcrafter's restrictions. Theoretically, it could deliver shocking grasp or something "I wish I could kill them!"
I still don't think that getting to choose your own action once per day breaks the archetype.
I'm really confused at why the sorcerer would even cast haste if no one in the party wants to benefit from it...
I still don't think that getting to choose your own action once per day breaks the archetype.
If that's not important to the archetype then why are wishcrafters specifically barred from granting their own wish once per day?
|
|
It seems legit by the rules, but I'll echo the consensus of the thread that if the wishcrafter's familiar tends to wish for things that suspiciously benefit its master, the GM should step in.
"I could really use a horse right now. My familiar wishes for a mount."
"I'm having trouble hitting this thing with my crossbow. My familiar wishes for magic weapon."
And so on. On a related note, wishcrafter seems like such a fun archetype and I really want to play one someday.
Real examples! Thank you.
For the mount, I would probably excuse it with a little roleplay. F: "Are we there yet? I wish we could go faster"
I, too, would look askance at a familiar wishing for a magic weapon. I don't think it would come up in normal play, though. There are way better actions a sorcerer could take.
And that is basically my point. Most, if not all, of the "problematic" wishes that would only benefit the sorcerer are not actions the sorcerer would use their once-a-day ability on. It is very rarely in the sorcerer's interest to be selfish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Efreeti (the ancestors of the Ifrit from whom that race inherited this ability) violate the spirit of this restriction all the time. I recall reading about Efreeti in the City of Brass keeping large numbers of humanoid slaves whom they order to make certain wishes at their direction.
In this case, I would wonder what is up with the other players that they won't do the minimal amount of speaking needed to grant themselves a useful buff in combat. Are they by any chance 1st edition veterans who think that a Haste spell would age them?
|
|
I'm really confused at why the sorcerer would even cast haste if no one in the party wants to benefit from it...
Either you don't play a lot of PFS, or PFSers in your area are much less inclined to tell each other how they should be doing their jobs better than they are in mine...
Or why might players not want Haste besides ignorance (real or percieved by the wishcrafter's player)? Maybe they don't want it NOW and would rather the wishcrafter's player save it for a future encounter.
|
|
Efreeti (the ancestors of the Ifrit from whom that race inherited this ability) violate the spirit of this restriction all the time. I recall reading about Efreeti in the City of Brass keeping large numbers of humanoid slaves whom they order to make certain wishes at their direction.
In this case, I would wonder what is up with the other players that they won't do the minimal amount of speaking needed to grant themselves a useful buff in combat. Are they by any chance 1st edition veterans who think that a Haste spell would age them?
I'm with you. Almost every single "make a wish" myth has the genie obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit is what they are all about. I could very definitely picture some poor abused familiar who is kicked by his master and made to wish for things.
For "Exhibit A" of this, just look at the "Twisted Wish" ability under the wishcrafter.
|
|
Well, kicking your familiar around like a slave invites a tangential discussion about why doesn't it then decide to quit being your familiar... but that's worthy of a different thread.
If that's the angle you want, why not just buy some actual slaves to do the same thing? As I said upthread, the difference is in which player or GM is in control of the character. If being able to issue one's own "other person's" wish is the sole reason to stick with the familiar route, then there's the potential for a problem with rules abuse.
Efreeti (the ancestors of the Ifrit from whom that race inherited this ability) violate the spirit of this restriction all the time. I recall reading about Efreeti in the City of Brass keeping large numbers of humanoid slaves whom they order to make certain wishes at their direction.
In this case, I would wonder what is up with the other players that they won't do the minimal amount of speaking needed to grant themselves a useful buff in combat. Are they by any chance 1st edition veterans who think that a Haste spell would age them?
I'm with you. Almost every single "make a wish" myth has the genie obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit is what they are all about. I could very definitely picture some poor abused familiar who is kicked by his master and made to wish for things.
For "Exhibit A" of this, just look at the "Twisted Wish" ability under the wishcrafter.
Is your contention that the ban on wishcrafter self-wishes is purely for flavor, and that familiar wishes fit that flavor just fine? If there are other considerations at work, why don't they apply to the player-controlled familiar too?
|
|
Is your contention that the ban on wishcrafter self-wishes is purely for flavor, and that familiar wishes fit that flavor just fine? If there are other considerations at work, why don't they apply to the player-controlled familiar too?Efreeti (the ancestors of the Ifrit from whom that race inherited this ability) violate the spirit of this restriction all the time. I recall reading about Efreeti in the City of Brass keeping large numbers of humanoid slaves whom they order to make certain wishes at their direction.
In this case, I would wonder what is up with the other players that they won't do the minimal amount of speaking needed to grant themselves a useful buff in combat. Are they by any chance 1st edition veterans who think that a Haste spell would age them?
I'm with you. Almost every single "make a wish" myth has the genie obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law. It wouldn't be too much of an exaggeration to say that obeying the letter of the law but not the spirit is what they are all about. I could very definitely picture some poor abused familiar who is kicked by his master and made to wish for things.
For "Exhibit A" of this, just look at the "Twisted Wish" ability under the wishcrafter.
Well, intentions are hard to detective out, unless a dev opines on this thread (they are welcome to!) Lacking that, we have to muddle through as best we can with what is written...
In that case, it is written that the wishcrafter has a PITA restriction on self-wishes, and going through your own, player-controlled familiar is a lame way around that. Really, I think the "the ban is just flavor" argument is the only leg you have to stand on. If there are any other considerations at work you are clearly violating them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*shrugs*
The rules are pretty clear that the familiar can make wishes, as it's certainly another non-genie creature.
The rules are pretty clear that players generally run their familiars, but groups may have the GM or another player run the familiar.
There's not much disagreement on the first point, and the rules say the second point can go either way as group preference dictates, and makes a general recommendation. Anything else is getting into badwrongfun territory.
|
|
In that case, it is written that the wishcrafter has a PITA restriction on self-wishes, and going through your own, player-controlled familiar is a lame way around that. Really, I think the "the ban is just flavor" argument is the only leg you have to stand on. If there are any other considerations at work you are clearly violating them.
Violating the spirit of the rule in favor of the letter, is exactly in line with flavor of genies and wishcraft.
Sure, a GM can and should veto especially egregious out-of-character wishes from a familiar. But, realistically, anything that an ally could or would wish for should be fair game.
The fact that it is possible only once-a-day is a strong factor in how I feel about this loophole. I'd be much more skeptical if it were possible every encounter.
How is having a familiar any different from having your party voice wishes?
Because the familliar is essentially a class feature extension of the character itself. And the clear intent of this question is to bypass a player's limitations.