RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But until a Paizo representative steps in, the most logical response (to me) seems to be to disallow application of oils to an unwilling target, just as you'd disallow administration of a potion to an unwilling target.
Those don't seem sufficiently similar to me. A potion requires drinking; even if you could get it into their mouth, you couldn't make them swallow. An oil, however, merely requires smearing. That's much easier to force than drinking.
And technically, it would seem you can't administer a potion to a willing conscious person, either.
I would agree. Once again, the whole "drinking" thing. You know how hard it would be to feed someone a potion in the heat of combat? Better just hand it to them and let them spend their own standard action to drink it.
The fact that hostile potions or oils can exist doesn't necessarily directly support using a potion or oil on an unwilling target. It could be sabotage (swap potions of CLW for ILW, or Rusting Grasp instead of Magic Weapon).
Congratulations on being the first person to address that particular concern of mine. ;) I guess it's possible that the intent is that harmful oils would be for sabotage only, but it still feels like a stretch to me.
Anyway, please click the FAQ button. Thanks!
Injection spear! Just poke them to heal them.
|
|
Jiggy
I did spend the time to dig up the 3.0 rules (never bought 3.5) but they are pretty the same - so the current ones are more or less a copy. So you will likely have to go back even further.
But it wasn't fully useless.
Some differences:
It is a bulleted list after the first paragraph. This leads to a slighly different focus when reading. I come back to this later.
Second bullet point: Using a potion provokes attacks of opportunity. A successful attack (including grappling attacks) against the character forces a concentration check (as with casting a spell). If the character fails this check, she cannot drink the potion. ... rest seems as PathfinderInteresting - I understand why this sentence was dropped - doubt it helps.
Third bullet point: A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil. Because of this, incorporeal creatures cannot use potions or oils.
Fourth bullet point: Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion. The potion must be swallowed. Any coporeal creature can use an oil.
last bullet is the unconscious person again - seems verbatim the same.
Reading it in a different way did let me focus on one aspect more closely. I emphasize the part below:
A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil.
This sentence is my view is generic. The uncorporeal mentioned (as the most likely target to rule out) are not a complete list of what is ruled out. For example - a monster without a mouth also can't use a potion as it can't swallow the potion. Anything else that prevents you from swallowing also rules out that it works - see the concentration check that is no longer necessary.
So this is about potions - it leaves the part about oils.
A creature must be able to smear on an oil.
Which action in the rulebook enables you to smear on an oil to an unwilling creature / an item carried by an unwilling creature.
A touch attack is the closest you can get at. But I don't think a touch attack is suffcient - and if it would be sufficient, then range attacks should work as well which seems to have been ruled out in the other thread.
There is one more bit I try to follow and dig deeper into the past. But I thought I already post this part here.
By unwilling I assumed we meant unconscious or otherwise helpless. Is that still what we are going by?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
By unwilling I assumed we meant unconscious or otherwise helpless. Is that still what we are going by?
It'd be pretty hard to argue that an unconscious enemy would function outside the explicit text for unconscious targets. The current discussion is about how to apply an oil (if you can at all) to a conscious, unwilling target.
I.e., I have an oil of bestow curse, or magic missile, or shocking grasp, or whatever, and want to mess you up. How do we implement it?
That's the issue at hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this and no one has mentioned the Potion of Magic Missles yet?
We all agree that they are delicious.
|
|
So it seems there is progress in how to administer potions to an enemy who is not unconsious.
a) there is the injection spear - an exotic weapon. You need proficiency to use it and you need to do a successful hit (not just a mere touch) to inject it.
b) there is touch injection - it is a level 3 spell (sorcerer/Wizard) or level 2 (Alchemist) that allows you to administer a potion with a touch attack.
edit: This still leaves oils - but lets see if we find at least one way it is described.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
A touch attack is the closest you can get at. But I don't think a touch attack is suffcient - and if it would be sufficient, then range attacks should work as well which seems to have been ruled out in the other thread.
I agree that a touch attack seems the closest.
I also agree that it seems perhaps a tad lacking, since a smear is more than mere contact.
Here's my thoughts on that:
Which of the following takes longer?
• Stabbing someone with a sword
• Nocking an arrow AND firing it
• Throwing an alchemical item (i.e., alchemist's fire)
• Retrieving an alchemical item, adding an activator agent, AND throwing it (i.e., the Alchemist class's Bombs feature)
• Casting a spell
• Delivering a touch spell on the round you cast it
• Delivering a touch spell on a round other than the one in which you cast it
All of those are standard actions, except delivering a touch spell on the round you cast it (which is a free action - then somehow, it converts to a standard in future rounds if you're holding the charge). Yet they all seem to take different amounts of time.
As a result, I believe that when the difference in time taken is small enough, Pathfinder's design philosophy is that the action things require is more about game balance than number of seconds.
Delivering a touch spell should take the same amount of time regardless of when you cast it, but since it would (apparently) be lame to wait until the next round to attack but would obviously be broken if it was always a free action, they had the action arbitrarily change types in order to preserve fun and balance at the expense of realism.
Similarly, throwing an alchemist's fire should be faster than mixing AND throwing a bomb, but (apparently) it would've made the class too unappealing to have the bombs be any slower and they also didn't want the bombs pre-mixed (so you can't hand them out ahead of time), so they fudged the timing and called it a standard action anyway.
So! Would a full-round action be a better simulation of timing for trying to smear an oil on an enemy (requiring at least some kind of attack roll, of course)? Perhaps. But the difference is miniscule - larger timing issues have been ignored before.
• They didn't specify a different kind of action
• The standard action seems to be within precedent of almost every other offensive action in the game
• As far as I've seen so far, a standard action melee touch attack is the interpretation that breaks the fewest precedents and creates the fewest blurry areas.
Thus, it's the best solution I've seen so far. Would other solutions work too? Yes. But we want to find the best solution, not just whichever of the available solutions tickles our own fancy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By unwilling I assumed we meant unconscious or otherwise helpless. Is that still what we are going by?It'd be pretty hard to argue that an unconscious enemy would function outside the explicit text for unconscious targets. The current discussion is about how to apply an oil (if you can at all) to a conscious, unwilling target.
I.e., I have an oil of bestow curse, or magic missile, or shocking grasp, or whatever, and want to mess you up. How do we implement it?
That's the issue at hand.
It seems we have spells that don't play nice with the potion/oil rules.
I guess it could be done as a standard action along with the use of the oil, but at the same time it should provoke since using an oil within threat range provokes.
3.5 had a list of every oil/potion that was intended to be made into a spell. PF never changed the potions rules to my knowledge so I guess that can show intent. The question now is if PF is going to follow 3.5 or do its own thing. Magic Missile, Shocking Grasp, and Bestow Curse did not make the cut.
There are not any directly harmful potions other than cure(which could be used against undead).
In any event errata is needed to say spells such as X,Y, and Z are not intended to be potions/oils or ________ is how to use these spells.
But until a Paizo representative steps in, the most logical response (to me) seems to be to disallow application of oils to an unwilling target, just as you'd disallow administration of a potion to an unwilling target.Those don't seem sufficiently similar to me. A potion requires drinking; even if you could get it into their mouth, you couldn't make them swallow. An oil, however, merely requires smearing. That's much easier to force than drinking.
After consideration, I think I have an answer that answers these two questions:
1. Why is applying an oil to an unconscious creature a full round action, when it's a standard action for a conscious creature? Besides "symmetry", or "balance", that is.2. Why wouldn't you be able to apply an oil to an unwilling creature?
Maybe with an oil, you need to get good coverage: front and back.
When giving a potion to an unconscious creature, presumably you want to avoid filling their lungs with the potion. When applying an oil, you have to turn them on their side to get the back.
When applying an oil to an unwilling target, you fail, because they're not letting you get full coverage.
Yes, yes, not a fantastic answer, but it seems to answer the questions I had...
But in running a game, I'd make it a touch attack. And as for the full round action for oils to an unconscious creature: it's because otherwise, everyone would get oils of Cure Light Wounds, negating that disadvantage of potions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
edit: This still leaves oils - but lets see if we find at least one way it is described.
Cheapy linked something earlier (or maybe it was another post on a thread he linked, I'm not sure) where Sean K Reynolds said that putting an oil of cure light wounds on a sling bullet and shooting someone would NOT heal them. ;)
|
|
In the beginning there was the potion
There was a question earlier if some of the rules and the way they are written can be explained from earlier versions.
I did sell my AD&D player handbook a while ago as it wasn't used in 20 years. My D&D basic rules are likely in the bedroom of my son - need to reclaim it as he has now the Pathfinder Beginner Box.
But I was able to get the Expert Rules - printing 1981.
It did confirm what I thought I remembered - in the beginning there were only potions - no oils.
I guess without oils we wouldn't discussing this here. Actually - the thread title doesn't even mention potions. But this might explain a lot if someone with old AD&D books can confirm this.
If indeed there were only potions in the beginning then the question about using it on an enemy never occured. In the early days you either still could fight - or you where dead when you dropped to 0 HP. It also wasn't necessary to add a sentence about unconscious players.
So unconscious and oils seem a later invention. But players already knew the rules for potions - so only add what was necessary to accomodate this.
I can't claim that all the above is how it happened. Someone with more old rulebooks might be able to confirm / refute it. But I thought I mention this here.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I guess it could be done as a standard action along with the use of the oil, but at the same time it should provoke since using an oil within threat range provokes.
That's my current leaning as well. (Oh, and I don't think anyone would suggest that it wouldn't provoke. On that point I think everyone's in agreement - I can't see any way around it.)
3.5 had a list of every oil/potion that was intended to be made into a spell. PF never changed the potions rules to my knowledge so I guess that can show intent.
For starters, the list is gone. Also, there was a big issue late last year where people were trying to say that potions were for creatures and oils were for objects. Part of the argument was that the creation requirements said a spell that targets "one or more creatures". It ended with errata to say "creatures or objects".
The creature/object, potion/oil split is gone in Pathfinder.
There are not any directly harmful potions other than cure(which could be used against undead).
I would also note that I have, in PFS, found potions of inflict light wounds as loot.
In any event errata is needed to say spells such as X,Y, and Z are not intended to be potions/oils or ________ is how to use these spells.
Hence the request for FAQ clicks! Get to clicking, people! :D
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
1. Why is applying an oil to an unconscious creature a full round action, when it's a standard action for a conscious creature? Besides "symmetry", or "balance", that is.
.....
And as for the full round action for oils to an unconscious creature: it's because otherwise, everyone would get oils of Cure Light Wounds, negating that disadvantage of potions.
Did you just give yourself an answer that you said you didn't want? ;)
I think that's the only reason it takes a FRA to oil up a sleeper: so that oils wouldn't be straight-up better than potions. Pure balance/symmetry, nothing to do with actual time simulation.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If indeed there were only potions in the beginning then the question about using it on an enemy never occured. In the early days you either still could fight - or you where dead when you dropped to 0 HP. It also wasn't necessary to add a sentence about unconscious players.
So unconscious and oils seem a later invention. But players already knew the rules for potions - so only add what was necessary to accomodate this.
I can't claim that all the above is how it happened. Someone with more old rulebooks might be able to confirm / refute it. But I thought I mention this here.
Excellent post, Thod! I have a strong hunch that the history you describe might be right.
So here's the kicker question:
If it did happen like that, does that clue us in to current intent, or did the intent change and evolve and the player base didn't keep up with the changing times?
Pathfinder is riddled with examples of both; how do we know which one it is? Can we? This is why my general philosophy when interpreting rules is to let them stand on their own as much as possible, and try really hard to weed out any assumptions that I or others might have, even if we don't recognize them at first.
|
|
Cheapy linked something earlier (or maybe it was another post on a thread he linked, I'm not sure) where Sean K Reynolds said that putting an oil of cure light wounds on a sling bullet and shooting someone would NOT heal them. ;)edit: This still leaves oils - but lets see if we find at least one way it is described.
And there is a good reason for that - Game Balance.
Otherwise a halfling (? - can this be taken by non halflings) with Sponge stones and the feat Juggle Load could 'cast' 2 spells at level 6 - likely 3 with rapid shot. And I guess you archer optimizers can crank up this number a lot higher. Not sure what the limit at level 11 or 16 would be.
Casting >1 spell / round is very, very restricted for wizards / sorcerers. Quick casting via the meta magic feat is the most expensice meta magic feat that exists. You would hear an outcry if there would be easy ways to circumwent this and when non-casters would suddenly do '5 spells / round'.
Did you just give yourself an answer that you said you didn't want? ;)
Possibly. This is not out of the ordinary for me, though.
For starters, the list is gone. Also, there was a big issue late last year where people were trying to say that potions were for creatures and oils were for objects. Part of the argument was that the creation requirements said a spell that targets "one or more creatures". It ended with errata to say "creatures or objects".
I miss that list. I think it was cut to save space, just like the scroll list was. Some things should have been left alone.
T
I would also note that I have, in PFS, found potions of inflict light wounds as loot.
I was using that as an example of something that could work if directly applied. It should have been in 3.5 also. I think the only reason it wasn't is because the magic items were written for PC's and undead PC's was not a conscious thought, or any PC's that benefit from similar things.
Hence the request for FAQ clicks! Get to clicking, people! :D
I already did. :)
|
|
Jiggy
I concur - Pathfinder evolves and there should be ways to administer harmful spells. The injection spear and touch injection are already two steps in that direction.
Someone mentioned a combat trick - or it could be a combat maneuver. But it would have to be done in a careful way to avoid non-anticipated effects.
As I mentioned earlier - I would always allow to administer an oil to a helpless creature similar to an unconscious one. Can't see why it is more difficult to do this on a paralyzed or bound creature compared to an unconscious one.
But I don't yet have a solution for a fully functional enemy that won't open up possibilities for abuse. At least possibilities for abuve in my mind.
|
|
Thod, that post was mostly a joke. I never would have allowed oiled up bullets to work, either.
I'm not talking about an oiled up bullet. I'm talking about Sponge Stones.
These bullets are actually made from a porous stone or heavy wood that absorbs liquids and shatters on impact. Spongestones are often used to deliver poison or burning oil. A flask of oil completely saturates 10 spongestones. When ignited (a free action if fire is available), a burning , oil soaked spongestone deals 1d2 fire damage and can ignite combustible materials (such as a thatched roof). Allowing a spongestone to burn in a sling's cup for more than 1d3 rounds gives the sling the broken conditions.
So this is far from an oiled ordinary bullet. This is a specific bullet that costs 10gp for 10 bullets. And it is specifically made to deliver a liquid over a distance.
There is also somewhere a crossbow that also allows to deliver a liquid over a distance.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But I don't yet have a solution for a fully functional enemy that won't open up possibilities for abuse. At least possibilities for abuve in my mind.
It get the impression that one of the main reasons for people with a stance similar to yours is a fear of abuse (or feeling that offensive use of oils at all is already abusive).
So to help me get on the same page with you, let me lay out how I would (probably) run it if I were GMing a table right now and someone had an oil of, say, bestow curse, and you can tell me what the abuse potential is. Sound good:
First, you need to be holding the oil as normal (duh).
Second, you try to smear it on the enemy. This is a standard action, provokes AoO's, and requires a successful melee touch attack. Failure wastes the oil as it splatters onto the ground in a decidedly non-smearing fashion (or dribbles off the guy's chest without sufficient smearage, or whatever).
If you succeed, then the target gets a save, if appropriate (in the case of bestow curse, Will negates).
...And that's pretty much it! Melee range only, requires touch attack, provokes, and has a possibility to waste the item with no effect (two possibilities, if there's a save). Also remember that the AoO can, per the rules, be directed against the vial and ruin it, once again costing you your item.
If you could show me the abuse potential for that (especially as compared to a scroll, which is half the price), I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want to take a hard line on RAW, there is no provision in the rules for using a potion or oil as a weapon, unlike holy water or lamp oil, for example. Therefore, by a strict reading of RAW, it is not possible.Could we avoid the "if you don't agree with me, then you have to believe absurdity X" arguments, please?
If you have nothing constructive to add in an effort to uncover the meaning of the rules, then please just FAQ it and move on.
If you want to demonstrate why "applying an oil is a standard action" applies to specific circumstances instead of being a default, then please make your case and I will listen. If the entirety of your case is the "I don't think it's plausible" that you've already voiced, then thanks for the input, and please click the FAQ button.
It is constructive. If you want a strict RAW ruling until the developers chime in on the FAQ about it, then you can’t do it as there are no rules supporting it.
I hit the FAQ, but don't poopoo this response because you don't like it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thod, that post was mostly a joke. I never would have allowed oiled up bullets to work, either.I'm not talking about an oiled up bullet. I'm talking about Sponge Stones.
These bullets are actually made from a porous stone or heavy wood that absorbs liquids and shatters on impact. Spongestones are often used to deliver poison or burning oil. A flask of oil completely saturates 10 spongestones. When ignited (a free action if fire is available), a burning , oil soaked spongestone deals 1d2 fire damage and can ignite combustible materials (such as a thatched roof). Allowing a spongestone to burn in a sling's cup for more than 1d3 rounds gives the sling the broken conditions.
So this is far from an oiled ordinary bullet. This is a specific bullet that costs 10gp for 10 bullets. And it is specifically made to deliver a liquid over a distance.
There is also somewhere a crossbow that also allows to deliver a liquid over a distance.
Oh, is that what you're worried about? No problem: magical oil would try to apply its effect to the sponge stone (after all, you smeared it on!) and would fail if the spell effect couldn't target objects.
Why would anyone think soaking an object in an oil that's designed to grant its effect on contact somehow not be used up on said object but get to be used on something else later?
|
|
Nosig
I like the stories. There is a reason that Pathfinder in the beginning was called D&D with home brew rules that fix it. All your examples are great role play that immerse characters at the table and a memorable.
But most of what you have written was - at the time of gaming - breaking RAW.
I have to admit I feel a little bit of irony here when you - as the stalwart defender of RAW that you so often appear towards me - glowingly praise rule breaking of the past.
Don't get me wrong - I applaud you for your gaming history. In the end it is player and GMs like you that pushed the envelope and that moved the rules forward.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have to admit I feel a little bit of irony here when you - as the stalwart defender of RAW that you so often appear towards me - glowingly praise rule breaking of the past.
Seems to me he's more like the stalwart defender of unity - on many controversial threads, he's come out and said he didn't care what the answer was, as long as everyone came to an agreement. :)
Btw Thod, I'm still very interested in hearing what you have to say in reply to this post.
Thanks! :)
|
|
Jiggy
I did start - but I realized a full post that hasn't any holes in it more or less amounts to coming up with a whole solution / needs a lot of checking of rulebooks so I get my arguments completely right.
I've written at least half a page but pulled it for my own review before I posted it. I will try to answer but the is real life beside the boards.
|
|
Oh, is that what you're worried about? No problem: magical oil would try to apply its effect to the sponge stone (after all, you smeared it on!) and would fail if the spell effect couldn't target objects.Why would anyone think soaking an object in an oil that's designed to grant its effect on contact somehow not be used up on said object but get to be used on something else later?
And that reply to your question, I think.
How do you apply a oil of inflict wounds? If you try to smear it on your target with your hand it will affect you, not the target, as you are the first person that touch the oil.
If you are administering it on a unconscious or helpless target you can pout it on him from its container, without touching it until it has touched the intended target.
As I see it, the target it set by the first appropriate subject (item or creature) that is touched by the oil, then to activate it you need to smear it around.
Pouring the oil from a container upon a unwilling target is almost impossible. You would be capable to hit him with a a few drops, but not with the full content of your bottle. Probably a few drops would hit you and a lot of drops will hit the scenery around you two. That would mess with the spell targeting.
Mine is an opinion, obviously, as the rules have a hole here.
Oil and first edition: there was the oil of timelessness, etherealness, fiery burning (throw as a bomb), slipperiness. Simply, in 1st and 2nd edition every potions has a long description and what amounted to specific rules for that potion.
You had potion of human and undead control, giving you the capacity to control human or undead, something that is not possible under the current rules.
|
|
In any event errata is needed to say spells such as X,Y, and Z are not intended to be potions/oils or ________ is how to use these spells.Well the idea of a Potion of Magic Missles is that this would be a trap potion. Something you'd leave lying around marked as a potion of healing. or some other useful beneficial potion.
The person drinking said potion would then be the target of the spell.
Tricks like this get ugly when they become a Potion of Fireball.
and targets one or more creatures or objects.
Fireball don't target anything.
|
|
The rules for applying oils or drinking potions assume that the character in control of the potion is doing so to himself, his gear, or for an unconscious ally for the benefit of the ally.Surely you of all people can help me, Howie. You're at least the fourth person to make the above claim in one form or another. But every time (so far) that I've asked how people came to that conclusion - that when the rules say "applying an oil is a standard action", that it really means "applying an oil to yourself is a standard action" - I've been completely ignored.
Let's see what I can do, Jiggy.
First off, keep in mind that we come to PF from a different perspective. I come to it from the perspective of it being a continuation of the SRD 3.5 (most commonly experienced in the modified form of D&D). If I understand you correctly, you come to it from the perspective of it being a brand new game that stands on its own without any reference to what has come before.
When I say that the rules for potions and oils assume that they are being used for the benefit (or assumed benefit) of the person using them, this is based on 30+ years of playing experience in Original D&D, Basic D&D, AD&D, D&D 3.5, and PF. It is only recently, and only on the PF forums, that I have ever seen the suggestion that an oil or potion can be used offensively. This is not a statement about rules. Rather, it is providing the context in which I have read the PF rules, how I suspect the 3.5 SRD was written, and from which the PF rules were derived. Effectively, the role of a potion is so ingrained in the D&D culture that the writers wrote from the perspective that everyone shared this perspective and did not consider that they needed to write in such a way to spell that out. I am not providing my grognard credentials as a rules argument, which would offer the logical fallacy of appealing to authority (however weak that authority might be). Rather, I am providing it in order to explain the background on why this discussion, debate, or dialog is perceived by some as using rules written for a different purpose as a nice wedge of aromatic cheese. :)
On to the rules elements. I include some items below that stem from some of the pre-PF source material. Such elements may not hold weight for you personally as being definitive, but they 1) support the perspective that potions and oils are generally assumed to be for self-use or in support of an ally, and 2) do hold weight for those who view the game within the light of its historical ancestors.
Quotes the PRD with commentary: "A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed." Ok, so a person uses a potion by imbibing it, or by drinking it. "..Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed." Ok, so an oil is like a potion (it's similar), except that instead of drinking it, it is applied externally. Basically, we should expect them to behave the same, with the sole exception that an oil is external and a potion is consumed by drinking. The passive language of the quotes, in part, foreshadows the fact that subsequent language is being used to discuss giving a potion to or applying an oil to an unconscious person. But, because they are similar, unless stated otherwise either explicitly or by context, we should understand further discussions of drinking potions to be shorthand for drinking a potion or smearing on an oil.
Generally, drinking is considered to be a voluntary activity. That's not a rules statement, it is a statement about the English use of the word. In occasions in the English language where drinking something is involuntary, it is presented with modification to indicate force, trickery, compulsion, etc. Drink doesn't have an explicit rules meaning. But, the standard is used in rules discussions that when a word doesn't have an explicit definition in the rules, that the standard English usage applies. So, drinking a potion should be seen as typically a voluntary activity.
So, what about smearing on an oil? We can go into a discussion that parallels the use of drink, and that will be a bit less clear. Smear is used when talking about voluntarily applying substances with particular characteristics on something, when accidentally doing so, etc. But, in general English usage, if a person smears something on someone else, that is almost always used in a sense where the recipient isn't happy about it. However, we have to remember that within the game terms, smearing an oil parallels drinking a potion. Thus, it makes sense to treat it as voluntary.
All of the above talks (albeit in a longwinded fashion) to the idea that a potion or oil is generally presented within the context of voluntary action. Is there anything else that supports this?
"These items [potions and oils] are essentially precast spells in liquid form. You trigger the spell by drinking the potion or smearing on the oil; this is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity....Using a potion or oil on yourself is always a standard action, no matter what casting time the stored spell normally requires.." This quote is from 3.5 Rules of the Game Article on Using Magic Items. Rules of the Game (RotG) articles are not rules sources. They are written for D&D 3.5. They are written by Skip Williams, one of the 3.5 developers. He sometimes writes from his own perspective, and that perspective sometimes isn't what made it into common usage. However, the reason for including it is that he uses acitve language here. YOU trigger it by DRINKING it or SMEARING IT ON. Who drinks it? The user does, clearly. You smear it on what? Appealing to the parallel between potions and oils...you smear it on yourself. If the spell targets objects, you smear it on the object.
The rules also talk about using potions and oils on an unconscious character. In common experience, this almost always comes up regarding pouring a potion of cure foo down an ally's throat. Why does it take longer to smear on oil on a downed ally rather than on your sword? I have no idea. One can invent reasons, but I suspect it just, once again, parallels the idea that potions and oils are just internal/external applications of the same rule; in other words, it's for game balance and game mastery.
Please, can you tell me what you're basing this on? I see only two options: either there's something I've missed (developer commentary? precedent elsewhere in the rules? something else?), or people are just not challenging their assumptions and are reading the rules according to their pre-conceived ideas.
I tried to spell it out above as best I can. I fully recognize that there is a preconception here on my part. I have the preconception that the rules on potions and oils are written with the expectation that the use is voluntary and presumed by the character to be beneficial.
Let's look at the alternative: The rules have sections on using items offensively. You can throw splash weapons. You can make attacks and touch attacks. If an oil was intended to be used offensively in combat, I would fully expect it to also have rules on how to do that. To the argument that it says it's a standard action to apply an oil, I refer to my position above that this is written from the perspective of voluntary, beneficial actions.
If there's something I've missed, PLEASE show me. Link it if it's a post. Quote it if it's precedent in other rules. Walk me through it if it's an argument/logical progression. Show me this one key point, and this issue gets solved. Completely.
Unfortunately, this is somewhat like proving a negative. There isn't language on using an oil offensively, nor on limiting the scope of the standard action to use on self, because it wasn't envisioned that anyone would use it any other way.
While I hope this helps, I fear that it isn't particularly conclusive. I've merely done the best that I can to spell out my rationale. It is based on some preconception, and also assumes some preconception on the part of the 3.5 developers, as well as the PF developers.
Best of luck!
Is there any reason not to treat oils like alchemical weapons? That is, you hurl the flask at an enemy, hope to hit, upon which the flask breaks, dousing the target in Bestow Curse (or whatever)?
Misses would be awesome, too...
Is there any reason not to treat oils like alchemical weapons? That is, you hurl the flask at an enemy, hope to hit, upon which the flask breaks, dousing the target in Bestow Curse (or whatever)?
Misses would be awesome, too...
A splash is not a smear.
The Rule of the Game articles are actually rules sources*. They are RAI, but every once in a while Skip will also say something like "A GM should be ok about ruling it like this........". When he does this he is always clear to separate the intent of the rules from "this is how I would do it."
As an example he had a suggestion that allows people to stand up from prone as a full round action without provoking. I use that one in my games.
*That does not mean they are rules, but they parallel the FAQ's that Paizo does, many times in much more detail.
PS:Good explanation on the potions though.
PS2: Jiggy reminds me of myself playing with people who came from 3.0 when I started 3.5. Sometimes removing context makes the picture more clear, and sometimes it doesn't. That is why I wish Paizo had not changed the wording in certain areas.
|
|
Wraith, I would say the RotG articles are rules sources if a given group treats them as such. For many of those who came to PF from 3.5, for example, the D&D FAQ was a rules source for Living Greyhawk, but the RotG articles were not. When a group establishes what authority they will adhere to, RotG articles are likely to be less likely to make the list with players who were Living Greyhawk diehards. And, while they were cleaned up at the end of 3.5's life to largely correspond with Rules Compendium and the FAQ, there are still a few misses. For example, the section on potions calls for a Concentration check if attacked while drinking a potion. That's something that Skip created out of whole cloth w/respect to 3.5 as far as I can tell; it may have been explicit in 3.0, I don't know.
And, I agree with the analogy from 3.0 to 3.5 vis-a-vis 3.5 to PF. I didn't play 3.0 and ran into many circumstances where people carried over rules from 3.0, sometimes consciously because it was a grey area that neither edition handled well, and other times through ignorance that the rules had changed between the edition. Those minor changes between 3.5 and PF that either don't improve things and just make them different, or which actually make things less clear....these annoy the snot out of me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's a question to ponder, in regard to the whole "do the oil rules assume self-use?" issue:
Why do oils that work on creatures exist in the first place?
A creature can already either drink a potion or have a potion poured down his/her throat.
Yet oils exist, produce the same effects (spells within certain parameters) as potions, and are explicitly allowed to affect creatures (as opposed to being strictly "potions for objects").
So, why? Why did they invent a second delivery system for these effects?
If the rules for oils are assuming that they'll be used on people who could just be using potions instead (i.e., either a willing or unconscious target), then why can oils be made that target creatures?
And what can the answer to that question tell us about intent? (Since intent seems to be the key point at the moment.)
|
|
Not comprehensive, but a couple of situations immediately come to mind:
Applying an oil to a creature who doesn't know to drink a potion.
Applying a potion to a creature who can't drink for some reason; some creature types do not eat or drink, although most can opt to. In a fantasy setting, this could include creatures that inherently have no mouth, who have been transformed so as to have no mouth, etc.
To apply a potion to someone who doesn't want it in a non-combat environment. Prisoners. Trickery at the massage parlor. etc.
Note: my position isn't that oils can't be applied to other people. My position is that the rules related to actions, which are essentially combat related given that the action economy is irrelevant outside of initiative, assume voluntary use.
Note: I'm starting to warm up to this topic a bit regarding interest, but am slammed for time until after Monday and shouldn't be reading/posting today at all. Don't take lack of reply as disinterest.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not comprehensive, but a couple of situations immediately come to mind:
Applying an oil to a creature who doesn't know to drink a potion.
Applying a potion to a creature who can't drink for some reason; some creature types do not eat or drink, although most can opt to. In a fantasy setting, this could include creatures that inherently have no mouth, who have been transformed so as to have no mouth, etc.
To apply a potion to someone who doesn't want it in a non-combat environment. Prisoners. Trickery at the massage parlor. etc.
Those are all very valid times to use such oils. But the idea that the developers had those in mind while combat usage never occurred to them? That strikes me as unlikely (though not impossible, I suppose).
Note: I'm starting to warm up to this topic a bit regarding interest, but am slammed for time until after Monday and shouldn't be reading/posting today at all. Don't take lack of reply as disinterest.
Noted. :)
Here's a question to ponder, in regard to the whole "do the oil rules assume self-use?" issue:
Why do oils that work on creatures exist in the first place?
A typo in the original 3.0 potion rules that nobody ever fixed. The intent when they were originally written was to have oils be potions for spells that targetted objects. I'm 90% certain on that and have a memory of hearing/reading Monte Cook say something in the distant past about potions and oils. (I'm 10% insane and making things up as I go.)
....Are you serious, or was that a joke? (Honestly asking.)
Serious. That's why all of the sample oils were object-targetting spells and the primary description talked about them targetting objects.
Like I said, my memory on it is fuzzy and could be completely inaccurate. Oils aren't limited to object-targetting spells by PF rules in any case.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
....Are you serious, or was that a joke? (Honestly asking.)Serious. That's why all of the sample oils were object-targetting spells and the primary description talked about them targetting objects.
Like I said, my memory on it is fuzzy and could be completely inaccurate. Oils aren't limited to object-targetting spells by PF rules in any case.
If we assume for the moment that in 3.X it was the intent for oils to be "potions for objects" yet in Pathfinder they work on creatures, then clearly the intent must have changed.
If the intent of the existence of oils has changed, then what has it changed to?
If you could show me the abuse potential for that (especially as compared to a scroll, which is half the price), I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
A fighter could do it without significant skill investment and as we all know martial characters can't have nice things. ;)