Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Potions / oils as weapons


Rules Questions

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
nosig wrote:
hogarth wrote:
...I've had success casting Light on a tanglefoot bag, for instance.

what happens to the spell after you throw the bag, and it is distroyed?

just wondering?

In LG days someone hit me with a silence spell cast on a tanglefoot bag...

Why would breaking (or smooshing) an item dispel a spell that's been cast on it?

Now if you're talking about breaking an item in half and throwing half away, that's an interesting question. I'd say the spell resides with one of the halves of the item; maybe the bigger half?

The Exchange

hogarth wrote:
nosig wrote:
hogarth wrote:
...I've had success casting Light on a tanglefoot bag, for instance.

what happens to the spell after you throw the bag, and it is distroyed?

just wondering?

In LG days someone hit me with a silence spell cast on a tanglefoot bag...

Why would breaking (or smooshing) an item dispel a spell that's been cast on it?

Now if you're talking about breaking an item in half and throwing half away, that's an interesting question. I'd say the spell resides with one of the halves of the item; maybe the bigger half?

I didn't mean to imply that the spell would be dispelled... I just wondered what happened to it when the item it is cast on becomes several items - or is distroyed by other means. Just sort of wondered if the light was on the bag, or the goo, and if the bag splits to more than one piece... or does all the "bits" glow equally...

Scarab Sages

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
nosig wrote:
thank you sir for leaving it as long as you did. We seem to have missed the usual "you're an idiot" response I seem to get when I post something to the Rules forum.

You're an Idiot!!!

Feel better now?.... ;)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dragnmoon wrote:
nosig wrote:
thank you sir for leaving it as long as you did. We seem to have missed the usual "you're an idiot" response I seem to get when I post something to the Rules forum.

You're an Idiot!!!

Feel better now?.... ;)

And he was even right about it happening in the Rules forum! ;)

The Exchange

what? who reads Dragnmoons posts anyway? ;)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Jiggy,

Usually you have great insight into the rules of the game.

In this case, I feel you are having more fun tearing apart my arguments than you are actually exploring the rules themselves.

Are they 100% clear on either of our arguments? No.

Are you 100% right? No.

Am I? No.

Expect table variation. That's all I'm saying.

I gave you my interepretation of a rule that is not 100% clear. I have a right to interpret things that are contradictory or unclear.

Just because my interpretation doesn't match yours, doesn't make it wrong (or visa versa).

So instead of tearing apart my sentences, and the inconsistencies in my own arguments, which I wrote with a blinding headache from work, lets discuss the actual rules and their inconsistencies, eh?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Tales Subscriber
nosig wrote:

1) Can I apply Oil of Daylight to my shield?

2) Can I apply Oil of Daylight to Joes's (friendly NPC) shield?
3) Can I apply Oil of Daylight to Bobs' (Unfriendly NPC) shield?

and how long can does it take to do this (and are there any attack rolls or saving throws involved)?

Can there be an Oil of Mage Armor?
if so, can you apply it to yourself? to Joe? to Bob?
and how long can does it take to do this (and are there any attack rolls or saving throws involved)?

Nosig

1) Yes. You can apply an oil to an object. It does trigger AoO. In my view this shouldn't take longer as applying it on yourself - so it is a standard action.
2) yes. You can apply an oil to an object. It does trigger AoO. In my view an object of a willing person is not worse than an unconscious one. So it becomes a full round action.
3) yes in principle - but applying becomes difficult. It does trigger AoO. Ways to apply it would be - disarm the object - and it becomes unattended = equivalent again to an unconscious person. Or you make him unconscious - that is covered by the rules. I would go as far that I would regard any form of helpless person equivalent to unconscious.

Attack roles might be necessary to disarm, make unconscious, make helpless. All normal rules apply here. No extra roll then for applying the oil.

Could you do the same as part of a combat maneuver while grappling an opponent? Likely no as you can only do standard actions. But player a pins the enemy - player b applies the oil seems completely reasonable and in line with the helpless condition.

Mage Armour - yes. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1minute and targets one or more creatures.
Time needed and if you can do it on an enemy is similar to 2) and 3) above.

This is an attempt to apply the rules as well as possible.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

With all due respect Andy, I'm not even convinced you know what my stance is or what my arguments are for having said stance. You've repeatedly brought in irrelevant side topics (like the caster/target relationship of potions), argued things that I already voiced agreement with (like not being able to use potions offensively in combat, and not being able to use potions or oils as thrown weapons), and failed to even respond to some of my key points (like, "what's the clear intent of an oil of shocking grasp or the bazillion other purely-offensive legal oils?" and "how can a statement with no qualifiers whatsoever not be considered a general rule that applies to all situations that lack an explicit exception?")

If I seem like I'm picking apart your words, it might be because you keep saying things that don't make sense or don't have anything to do with the topic at hand.

If you think I'm not interested in exploring how the rules really work, then I would ask you why Kip and Triple-X are alive.

Sorry about your headache. That would explain quite a bit. Once you're feeling better, perhaps you can go over the first paragraph of this post and we can start over with both of us at least starting on the same page.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Alternatively, if you don't feel this thread has anywhere left to go, please visit this thread I made and flag it for FAQing, and hopefully we can get official clarification. (Also, I think I did a good job there of setting forth exactly what the issues are, so maybe we can finally get on the same page.)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The only reason to use an oil offensively, is to throw daylight on a nightstalker or its weapon.

There would be no reason to throw shocking grasp oil on your enemy's weapon, cause then they'd use it on you.

So if that's the case, just drink the dang daylight potion and cast the spell to dispel the darkness and be done with it.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And invalidating my arguments as irrelevant, because you don't feel they support your rules interpretations, is spurious and disingenuous.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:

The only reason to use an oil offensively, is to throw daylight on a nightstalker or its weapon.

There would be no reason to throw shocking grasp oil on your enemy's weapon, cause then they'd use it on you.

So if that's the case, just drink the dang daylight potion and cast the spell to dispel the darkness and be done with it.

As I already mentioned before, the recipient of an oil does not gain the ability to cast the spell contained therein. Putting an oil of shocking grasp (or any other offensive spell) on a person/object causes the spell effect (such as damage) to be applied to that person/object; it does not give them the ability to deliver that effect to someone else.

If you think that's incorrect (as you apparently do), I would happily listen to your case.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
And invalidating my arguments as irrelevant, because you don't feel they support your rules interpretations, is spurious and disingenuous.

Andy,

I have not been dismissing your arguments out of hand. I have been refuting them, and in many cases, actively requesting that you would explain your case or make a counterargument.

Responding to a claim with a rules quote that flatly contradicts it is not disingenuous.

Example:
"I can't recall an oil being allowed to be used on creatures." <--- Your claim
"Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature." <--- Rules quote that contradicts you.

This is not disingenuous. It is a proper response.

Responding to a claim with a rebuttal and then waiting for a counterargument is not disingenuous.

Example:
You made this claim:
Quote:

The rules do not cover using a potion on a conscious person other than yourself.

The rules cover two things.

Using it on yourself (or an item or object in the case of some oils) or using it on someone else that is unconscious.

I attempted to refute this by arguing that when the rules say that applying an oil is a standard action and give no qualifiers (such as the "on yourself" that you added), that it is a default to which we must always revert when not given instructions to the contrary.

I then asked you multiple times to explain where you were getting your position from/what you were basing it on. I invited you to make your case.

That's how discussions work. You make a claim, I make a rebuttal, you make a rebuttal to that, etc. I'm still waiting for your counterargument on that topic.

Refuting your point and inviting you to come back is not dismissive or disingenuous or anything else but rational and fair.

And finally, I'm a bit surprised at your accusation that my rebuttals are based simply on you not agreeing with me. I've been very careful throughout this thread to back up everything I say with rules quotes to make sure I stay objective in my arguments. If you can point me to where one of my posts seemed subjective, dismissive, disingenuous, etc; then I'd be more than happy to clarify or retract such a statement. If you can't, then I can only assume you're lashing out from frustration, and I would encourage you to take a step back and come back to this discussion later.


Andrew Christian wrote:
The only reason to use an oil offensively, is to throw daylight on a nightstalker or its weapon.

You saw the Silence example above, right?


Andy drinking potions does not allow you to cast spells. The spell is cast upon simultaneously upon the application of the oil or the drinking of the potion.

I have not ready every post but whether your argument support Jiggy rules interpretations is not important. Whether they support the ones in the book are important, and even though I am only skimming I seen more than one that does not apply or that is incorrect rules-wise.

I already made one post upthread giving my opinion, but I figure I can make another one to show you what Jiggy and most of us look for in debates.
-------------------------------------------------------
Rules backed argument:

There are some things that not rules because they are corner cases that leaves them in rules 0 category as I stated up thread. Splash weapons are designed to break upon impact, well really the container is so that the weapon can be delivered.

Potion vials also have break a DC:

Quote:
Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12.

Nothing in the rules says throwing an object at someone damages the object that is thrown. In this case I will also add that nothing in the rules says that if a vial is broken that the oil is considered to be smeared upon whatever the vial hits.

Lets say I have an oil of invis in my hand, and the vial is sundered while I am holding it. Do I then turn invisible?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I can see using a potion offensively as part of a dirty trick combat maneuver.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

wraithstrike wrote:

Rules backed argument:

There are some things that not rules because they are corner cases that leaves them in rules 0 category as I stated up thread. Splash weapons are designed to break upon impact, well really the container is so that the weapon can be delivered.

Potion vials also have break a DC:

Quote:
Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12.

Nothing in the rules says throwing an object at someone damages the object that is thrown. In this case I will also add that nothing in the rules says that if a vial is broken that the oil is considered to be smeared upon whatever the vial hits.

Lets say I have an oil of invis in my hand, and the vial is sundered while I am holding it. Do I then turn invisible?

I don't think anyone has supported the idea of thrown oils being effective, so I'm not sure who's supposed to be reading this argument. Or maybe I missed your point?


Jiggy wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

Rules backed argument:

There are some things that not rules because they are corner cases that leaves them in rules 0 category as I stated up thread. Splash weapons are designed to break upon impact, well really the container is so that the weapon can be delivered.

Potion vials also have break a DC:

Quote:
Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12.

Nothing in the rules says throwing an object at someone damages the object that is thrown. In this case I will also add that nothing in the rules says that if a vial is broken that the oil is considered to be smeared upon whatever the vial hits.

Lets say I have an oil of invis in my hand, and the vial is sundered while I am holding it. Do I then turn invisible?

I don't think anyone has supported the idea of thrown oils being effective, so I'm not sure who's supposed to be reading this argument. Or maybe I missed your point?

That is how the thread started. -->"Can a player use a Potion/Oil as a weapon - basically throwing it against a target to get the magical effect?"

Is the new topic applying the oil as a weapon, and whether or not it is legal?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

wraithstrike wrote:

That is how the thread started. -->"Can a player use a Potion/Oil as a weapon - basically throwing it against a target to get the magical effect?"

Is the new topic applying the oil as a weapon, and whether or not it is legal?

That's (part of) why I started the other thread, to purge the universally agreed-upon stuff and refine the discussion. The current topic is pretty much redundant to that thread.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have not had time to properly address this question in the detail that you have addressed it.

Some of my wording may be incorrect, however, the statements in and of themselves are not incorrect with the mechanics of potions/oils. Lets quit playing semantics about my word choices, when what I’m saying is not inherently wrong.

While saying cast may not be correct, the action of drinking a potion “casts” the spell upon the target. The potion rules say that the drinker is both the caster and the target of the spell.

My stance is this:

Whatever the rules are for casting a spell on an attended object (or creature I suppose if you want to rub an ointment of healing on an undead creature), applies to whether you can rub an oil on someone else’s attended item. Look up that rule, and I think you have your answer. The only addition to that rule, would be the AoO granted to the owner of the targeted object.

But you have to ask yourself, why it would take a full round action to rub an oil (or pour a potion down the throat of) an unconscious creature, if you can do the same thing to a conscious one as a standard action.

That disconnect is why my stance is that potions were not meant to be used offensively. You can dispute that opinion, but since there aren’t any rules covering it, it is not irrelevant.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Will you at least head over here (if you haven't already) and click the FAQ button?

Thanks!


Andrew Christian wrote:


But you have to ask yourself, why it would take a full round action to rub an oil (or pour a potion down the throat of) an unconscious creature, if you can do the same thing to a conscious one as a standard action.

Does it take more time for someone drink something on their own or to have it fed(soup can be used as an example) to them?

Another example is someone who is too weak to hold the a cup.


I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

MagiMaster wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.

That's my theory. An increase in "activation" time just to keep oils from being better than potions.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.
That's my theory. An increase in "activation" time just to keep oils from being better than potions.

But that’s extremely counter-intuitive.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.
That's my theory. An increase in "activation" time just to keep oils from being better than potions.
But that’s extremely counter-intuitive.

No moreso than it taking different actions to deliver a touch spell based on whether or not you cast it that same round.

No moreso than having to spend the same action to throw an alchemist's fire as someone else has to spend to both prepare AND throw a bomb.

As I said to someone else (in the other thread, I think) actions are very often assigned based more on balance/fairness/fun than any simulation of time or effort.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

(This doesn't directly answer your question, but may help in discussion)

Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved explicitly allowed offensive potion like items, with the note that they cost something like x1.5 normal for touch range spells since you were effectively turning them into ranged touch attacks.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.
That's my theory. An increase in "activation" time just to keep oils from being better than potions.
But that’s extremely counter-intuitive.

I can see taking a full 5-6 seconds to forcefeed a character a potion without drowning them. I can see it taking 2-3 seconds to smear an oil on a shield you're carrying. I can't see it taking 5-6 seconds to smear oil on an unconscious friend's shield. So I'd argue the opposite is counter-intuitive.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MagiMaster wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
I'm pretty sure that's the intent for potions, but what about oils? It feels like that's only there for symmetry.
That's my theory. An increase in "activation" time just to keep oils from being better than potions.
But that’s extremely counter-intuitive.
I can see taking a full 5-6 seconds to forcefeed a character a potion without drowning them. I can see it taking 2-3 seconds to smear an oil on a shield you're carrying. I can't see it taking 5-6 seconds to smear oil on an unconscious friend's shield. So I'd argue the opposite is counter-intuitive.

The rules being as they are, and accepting those as how it works. Assume your reality is defined by Pathfinder rules.

Then it is counter-intuitive that it takes less time to smear oil on an enemy who will likely not want you to do it, than it would your unconscious buddy.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Andrew Christian wrote:
Then it is counter-intuitive that it takes less time to smear oil on an enemy who will likely not want you to do it, than it would your unconscious buddy.

I admit it's a bit wonky. But it might be more palatable to think of it this way:

If you want to attack someone, it's a standard action. But you're doing it in the heat of the moment, doing it quickly, and you might miss. But if the target is helpless, you can stab them as a full-round action: coup de grace. It takes longer, but it auto-hits.

Perhaps it would be helpful to think of the oil the same way: on an unconscious target, it's an auto-"hit", but takes a full-round action. Meanwhile, you can try to do it faster (as a standard action), but you could miss and waste the oil.

Just tossing out an idea. :)


Andrew Christian wrote:
MagiMaster wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


But that’s extremely counter-intuitive.

I can see taking a full 5-6 seconds to forcefeed a character a potion without drowning them. I can see it taking 2-3 seconds to smear an oil on a shield you're carrying. I can't see it taking 5-6 seconds to smear oil on an unconscious friend's shield. So I'd argue the opposite is counter-intuitive.

The rules being as they are, and accepting those as how it works. Assume your reality is defined by Pathfinder rules.

Then it is counter-intuitive that it takes less time to smear oil on an enemy who will likely not want you to do it, than it would your unconscious buddy.

Actually, I agree that it should take at least as long. What I mean is that I find the rules themselves counter-intuitive.

For PFS play, yes the rules are the reality. For regular play, the GM defines the reality in the end. The rules are not (and can't be) everything.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here is a question.

What spells that would be made into an oil, would you consider usable as an offensive action?

Keep in mind, that the person who drinks the potion is considered the caster and the target. So that if you throw an oil on someone, you are essentially forcing them to cast the spell.

Additionally, if you try to use an oil on an item that is attended by someone else, and that someone else does not want you to start spreading something on their item, then you must use the rules for casting a spell on an attended object in conjunction with the rules for AoO when drinking/applying a potion/oil.

So for instance. An oil of bestow curse, rubbed on a badguy, would give the badguy the ability to target someone else with bestow curse. You rubbing it on him, would not give you the ability to target him with bestow curse.

The only times I can see this being useful:

If the spell is a target of personal and could somehow adversely affect that creature, like cure spells on a zombie or inflict spells on a living creature.

If you are targeting an item with daylight/silence/darkness or some other type of spell that could negate an ability of the other creature, such as an at will deeper darkness or spell casting.

So you really have to consider why you'd want to use a potion or oil offensively.

It isn't like a spell bomb, where you'd toss the potion and that is in effect casting the spell on that person, unless it is a personal spell.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:

Here is a question.

What spells that would be made into an oil, would you consider usable as an offensive action?

Keep in mind, that the person who drinks the potion is considered the caster and the target. So that if you throw an oil on someone, you are essentially forcing them to cast the spell.

So for instance. An oil of bestow curse, rubbed on a badguy, would give the badguy the ability to target someone else with bestow curse. You rubbing it on him, would not give you the ability to target him with bestow curse.

"Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed...The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect)...The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."

If Joe smears an oil on Bob, Joe is the effective caster, and Bob is the target. If it were an oil of bestow curse, Joe is the effective caster of bestow curse, and Bob is the target of bestow curse. But, any decisions about the nature of the curse (what curse it is) is determined by the creator who brews the potion of bestow curse. Joe doesn't get to decide at rub-down time.

That said, given the parallels between potions and oils, this literal reading of who casts and who is the target for an oil is probably not intended. My opinion is that the entire topic of offensive use of oils is outside the scope of what the written rules on potions/oils was written to cover.

Quote:

The only times I can see this being useful:

If the spell is a target of personal and could somehow adversely affect that creature, like cure spells on a zombie or inflict spells on a living creature.

You may be unintentionally misusing a specific term here, but spells with a target of personal cannot be made into a potion or oil. For example, there are no potions of shield out there.

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Potions / oils as weapons All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.