Question about extracts and who make their choosing?


Rules Questions

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Still searching but...

I'm with Xaratherus...his words about them being prepared arcane casters was pretty much what I was going to say next

By forcing them to make the choice when prepared you are highly limiting any versatility...kind of the cool thing about them since they can make an extract in one minute

If you want to do that to alchemist then do other prepared casters have to choose all effects when the spell is prepared?

I don't seem to remember any rules forcing a wizard who prepares Resist Energy or something similar to make the decision of what energy type to resist...that rules exist for potions

Alchemists even have their own "spell" book (called formulae) and can even learn formulae using a wizards spell book

So until I can find that hidden line why would extracts follow that same rule when they are not potions...they are a prepared spell...in a bottle

Again I see a potion as a spell already casts then bottled...extracts are spells bottled before casts...which is why the ONLY work on the alchemists unless he uses up a discovery to do otherwise

(The "you" in my statements are not directed at anyone in particular...no one take any offense)


Drakkiel wrote:

Still searching but...

I'm with Xaratherus...his words about them being prepared arcane casters was pretty much what I was going to say next

By forcing them to make the choice when prepared you are highly limiting any versatility...kind of the cool thing about them since they can make an extract in one minute

If you want to do that to alchemist then do other prepared casters have to choose all effects when the spell is prepared?

I don't seem to remember any rules forcing a wizard who prepares Resist Energy or something similar to make the decision of what energy type to resist...that rules exist for potions

Alchemists even have their own "spell" book (called formulae) and can even learn formulae using a wizards spell book

So until I can find that hidden line why would extracts follow that same rule when they are not potions...they are a prepared spell...in a bottle

Again I see a potion as a spell already casts then bottled...extracts are spells bottled before casts...which is why the ONLY work on the alchemists unless he uses up a discovery to do otherwise

(The "you" in my statements are not directed at anyone in particular...no one take any offense)

If Alchemist can make the extracts in 1 minute... I dont see where the "limitation" is. Since he can basically do them on the spot inside any dungeon. So it makes perfectly sense they choose for the extracts they make.


Xaratherus wrote:
Alchemy wrote:
Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

To me, that is the clearest indication. If something is unlike a potion, and can duplicate spell effects that a potion cannot duplicate, then it means one of two things:

1. We're dealing with a spell - cast through a radically different method than normal, but a spell nonetheless.
2. We're dealing with something that is neither a spell nor a potion, but a completely different method of using magic, and so attempting to extrapolate based on existing magic is wholly assumptive.

Since I don't really find it realistic that the designers would allow a class to fall into category 2, where they just leave out all of the mechanics on it? I base how the class ability works on the "quacks like a duck" principle - where the 'duck' is a prepared arcane caster - and then I use the rules for those classes.

What the quote does imply is that the statement "extract = potion" is just not valid; how can it be, when it clearly states that extracts can do things that potions cannot?

Im sorry but the fact that the extract says: extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not ONLY means that you are not restricted to Spells Lv 1 to 3 like potions are. So spells Lv4, 5 and 6 definitely have powerful effects and duplicates spells a potion can not.

So I dont agree with those two points you said.


Phytohydra wrote:

The way I see an Alchemist is a "proxy" of a spellcaster. So following the "quack like a duck" comparison as stated above, we must now categorize them as either spontaneous, or prepared spellcasters. Since an Extracts are his proxy of spells and the rules are clear that he must prepare them beforehand he is a prepared caster.

So as a Wizard being the easiest comparable 'prepared' caster, make the same argument. Wizard casts resist energy as the spell, he determines all variable spell effects as normal at the time of casting.

As with extracts, the reason that they are limited to the Alchemist is to prevent others from casting his spells without his permission. Much in the same way that a rouge who steals a wizards spell book is no more capable of casting his spells a the wizard is without it. The “spell/extract” is the power and the Alchemist/Wizard is the magical medium to translate metaphysical power into a physical form.

By infusing an extract and allowing another player to use it constitutes the giving away of a spell. Similar to a potion, or a scroll. But you have to look at how potions and scrolls work. A potion requires no magical aptitude to use, whereas a scroll requires magical ability. Potions do not. Infusions can be given to any one and used by any one. Much like a potion, although they are not potions, I agree.

However by making the argument that a Barbarian is capable of determining that his Infusion of resist energy is capable of making the selection of energy type at the time he drinks it would be similar to saying that infusions behave like a scroll. A barbarian cannot use a scroll, I have to assume that Infusions would be ruled the same as potions, except where specifically exempted by the RAW found in the APG, as a balancing issue.

Can’t have barbarians running around with scrolls now can we?

Totally agree with you. We can't have Barbarians using scrolls. haha Also a Barbarian can not use Use Magic Device while on rage but he can drink a potion but still he can't concentrate enough to make any choosing if he had to make any.


Karse wrote:
If Alchemist can make the extracts in 1 minute... I dont see where the "limitation" is. Since he can basically do them on the spot inside any dungeon. So it makes perfectly sense they choose for the extracts they make.

Which is great for non-combat spells, but not so hot in a fight.

Nor does it address things like Levitate, where the caster controls the levitation. But with an infusion, the alchemist may be nowhere near the drinker.


Levitate is a continuing effect which is controlled by the drinker. It's only effects decided upon "casting" that need to be decided by the creator. At least that's how potions work and thus some of us believe extracts work.
For the record I never said that an extract IS a potion or that they are exactly like a potion. I'll even repeat for the 100th time before someone else does - Potions are not extracts. Extracts are not potions. But extracts ARE potion-like. That's right in the Alchemy description.

And that duck is also clucking like a chicken. So is it a chicken...or a duck. Neither, it's a new animal altogether.

Alchemists are not casters. They can't use any feats, etc that require caster levels. They don't need to concentrate. They don't need 8 hours sleep.
Yes the developers started with the spell caster framework and built upon it and modified it to match the theme of an alchemist using potion-like stuff. They already changed some specific mechanics (like concentration) common to spell casters to match this theme into this new animal.


GreenMandar wrote:

Levitate is a continuing effect which is controlled by the drinker. It's only effects decided upon "casting" that need to be decided by the creator. At least that's how potions work and thus some of us believe extracts work.

For the record I never said that an extract IS a potion or that they are exactly like a potion. I'll even repeat for the 100th time before someone else does - Potions are not extracts. Extracts are not potions. But extracts ARE potion-like. That's right in the Alchemy description.

But to go back to the original point, personal effects can't be made into infusions, according to this interpretation, right?


Why not?

Grand Lodge

GreenMandar wrote:
Why not?

It hurts some people's feelings.

PFS has allowed Personal Extract Infusions, but this makes some sad.

So, they quote rules for spells, and/or potions, to prove that it doesn't work RAW.

Thing is, Extracts aren't Potions or Spells, and only have a few similarities to either.

So, these similarities have inspired some to push it, and state that they work, in all ways, like either spells, and/or potions, depending on what they fighting for.

This isn't true, but they will dang well fight to prove their position.


I think the confusion comes from the fact that you drink a bottle of liquid, therefore people assume it's the same as a potion. It would almost have been better to just say they make alchemical runes that you crush in your hand as a standard action in order to gain its effects. That way nothing about it suggests that it is a potion.

Grand Lodge

Wouldn't be much of an alchemist then though.


Some of us think extracts are potion-like because it explicitly says so in the alchemist description as I have detailed above in this thread, but is ignored. And I'm not saying they are exactly like potions, not sure who is. It's a straw man argument to keep pointing out that exacts are not potions, and then move to saying therefore they are nothing like potions (other than you drink them) and they must work just like spells. Some seem to want the alchemist to be just another spell-caster, but with a thin veneer to make it seem as if it might be something remotely original.
However if you look at the RAW, the developers made a number of changes from how a traditional spell casters work. Sure they started with the broad framework of spells per level, rules on how a spell book works, etc. This only makes sense to maintain power balance ,familiarity of rules concepts, and not having re rewrite the entire magic chapter. But they did made some radical changes to some of the more specific technical rules presented in the magic chapter and spell-caster descriptions, to bring it in line with the theme of an alchemist. I like that the developers pushed away from the norm a little bit to create a class that works a little different. Some of these changes work to the alchemist's advantage vs. spell-casters and some don't, but like every new class that is how it is supposed to be.

Changes to the Alchemist's advantage:
-Don't need to concentrate when drawing and drinking extracts.
-Don't need rest to prep extracts.
-One minute of prep per extract vs. one hour or minimum of 15 minutes if broke up, for all of a wizard's or magus's spells.
-A few alchemist specific extracts allowing powerful, flexible effects like Alchemical Allocation and Universal Formulae.
-IF they take Infusion Discovery they can break the taboo of giving "personal" spells to others.

Changes to the Alchemist's disadvantage:
-No zero level extracts
-Can't draw and drink extracts defensively
-Know fewer extracts for free than spells for casters: two instead of three (plus stat modifier) at first level. One instead of two on all the following levels.
-Alchemists are not considered spell-casters for purposes of qualifying for things like feats and prestige classes.
-Extracts are not considered spells for purposes of feats - IE metamagic, magic items - IE Peals of Power, etc.
-The default without the Infusion Discovery, doesn't allow alchemists to share any extracts.

Potentially, having to make effect decisions for extracts ahead of time when mixing them, is on here as well.
I may very well be wrong, but if so it's not because alchemists work just like spell casters. Clearly they don't. Some of the above changes like no concentration checks or not needing rest, seem to indicate that there isn't a whole lot of mental heavy lifting going on when alchemists draw and drink their extracts. Thematically this seems consistent to me, with the idea of them not choosing effects when the extract is consumed.


Yeah the line is very thin between extracts, potions and spells. All this problems would had been prevented if they had made the class full spellcaster or extracts be exactly like potions in every way.

So is perfectly fine that people think differently about extracts because there are so many loop holes, they should had been more specific.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Extracts are not potions. This is not a strawman.
Straw Man Argument

Extracts are potion-like, but they are not potions.

Alchemy wrote:
Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist’s fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potionlike extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.
To stay on topic, extracts are cast when you drink them and since it is not a potion, that is when you make the decision for its effects. They go to great lengths to differentiate extracts from potions. Here's another example:
Alchemy wrote:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

It says they behave like spells too, but they obviously aren't spells even though they produce spell effects. They also can contain level 6 spells whereas potions can only contain up to level 3 spells. They aren't potions even though they are potion-like. They are extracts.

Alchemy wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.
"As if imbibing a potion" means that it is a standard action, provokes an AoO, it can't be used underwater, etc. In effect, you can just look at the activation line for potions and disregard everything else:
Potions, Activation wrote:

Activation: Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container, preventing the character from drinking the potion or applying the oil.

A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil. Because of this, incorporeal creatures cannot use potions or oils. Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil.

A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature's throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.

That last part requires the infusion discovery, but the rest of that should apply. This last part is irrefutable proof that extracts are not potions and behave more like spells than they do like potions, even though they are neither:
Alchemy wrote:
If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is expended during the consumption of that particular extract.

Material Components used in the extract aren't comsumed until you drink it. If you don't consume the extract, you get to keep the components. Potions consume the material component when creating them.

To summarize: You make effect choices when you drink the extract/infusion. The choice isn't made in advance by the Alchemist. Extracts are not potions. Extracts are not spells. Extracts are extracts.


Robert A Matthews wrote:

Extracts are not potions. This is not a strawman.

Straw Man Argument

Extracts are potion-like, but they are not potions.

Alchemy wrote:
Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist’s fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potionlike extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.
To stay on topic, extracts are cast when you drink them and since it is not a potion, that is when you make the decision for its effects. They go to great lengths to differentiate extracts from potions. Here's another example:
Alchemy wrote:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist’s level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

It says they behave like spells too, but they obviously aren't spells even though they produce spell effects. They also can contain level 6 spells whereas potions can only contain up to level 3 spells. They aren't potions even though they are potion-like. They are extracts.

Alchemy wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.
"As if imbibing a potion" means that it is a standard action, provokes an AoO, it can't be used underwater, etc. In effect, you can just look at the activation line for potions and disregard everything else:
Potions, Activation wrote:
Activation: Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or
...

It is a straw man argument because no one here is claiming extracts are potions. This does not mean that the statement is false; quite the contrary. Everyone agrees that it is true, but repeatedly injecting it into the conversation as if that is what others are saying means that either you haven't understood what the others are saying or you are intentionally obscuring what they have said.

Most of what your evidence here seems completely irrelevant, in fact I would call it a red herring. The only part that I see that matters is the line you referenced which states "An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion..." For potions, the thing we are casting like, the creator casts the spell and makes the decisions, and the drinker casts the effect of the spell. If it wasn't desired to be this way, it should say "An extract is cast by drinking it, this action is equivalent to drinking a potion"


The reason we keep saying "extracts are not potions" is because people keep trying to apply rules for potions to extracts. You make decisions for the extract as you cast it(drink it). Having to decide the effect in advance is a characteristic of potions, not extracts. For example poly purpose panacea. You don't decide which effect use until you cast it.


A short sword is like a rapier. They are both martial weapons that deal piercing damage at 1d6 base. They can both be wielded with Weapon Finesse, and are both in the light blades weapon group. However, they are not the same; a short sword has a 19-20 threat range, whereas a rapier has an 18-20 threat range.

A rapier and a scimitar are similar. They both are martial, one-handed weapons that deal 1d6 damage and have an 18-20 threat range. But they are also quite different--rapiers deal piercing damage, scimitars do slashing, and rapiers can (by default) use Weapon Finesse, while scimitars require another feat, albeit one that makes them even more powerful for a Dex-based wielder.

A longsword is like a bastard sword. They are both one-handed heavy blades that can also be wielded in two hands to get extra Strength damage on rolls. However, they are also quite different in many of the rules surrounding them.

An agile breastplate is almost exactly the same as a normal breastplate, but it follows some different rules.

Pathfinder is full of these situations where one thing is "like" another, and may even be explicitly said to be like another. That doesn't make them the same thing.


Robert A Matthews wrote:
The reason we keep saying "extracts are not potions" is because people keep trying to apply rules for potions to extracts. You make decisions for the extract as you cast it(drink it). Having to decide the effect in advance is a characteristic of potions, not extracts. For example poly purpose panacea. You don't decide which effect use until you cast it.

Now you are begging the question along with your straw man.

The book says it works like potions. If you think a certain aspect of it does not work like a potion, then confine your arguments to why you think that is the exception to the rule. In that long list you put up earlier, I saw nothing that did this, rather the closest your argument came was stating different exceptions to the general rule.


I am also one who would like to see a resolution to this situation as I have an Alchemist, but this whole argument is going around in circles and it appears won’t be resolved unless a designer/developer chimes in.

If there isn’t a resolution before PaizoCon, I will just ask at the convention and at the same time if they can please make an official (FAQ) ruling.


Robert A Matthews, you conveniently left out the prior sentence in regards to alchemist's and components. And you missed an important part of what you did quote.

PRD wrote:
Creating extracts consumes raw materials, but the cost of these materials is insignificant—comparable to the valueless material components of most spells. If a spell normally has a costly material component, that component is expended during the consumption of that particular extract. Extracts cannot be made from spells that have focus requirements (alchemist extracts that duplicate divine spells never have a divine focus requirement).

Costly means it has a listed cost in the spell description. The alchemist's non-costly component equivalents are consumed when the extract is created, just like with potions. Mostly likely the exception about costly material components was made because extracts go inert after a day and to not get use out of potentially expensive extracts was considered too unfair.


Hobbun wrote:

I am also one who would like to see a resolution to this situation as I have an Alchemist, but this whole argument is going around in circles and it appears won’t be resolved unless a designer/developer chimes in.

If there isn’t a resolution before PaizoCon, I will just ask at the convention and at the same time if they can please make an official (FAQ) ruling.

Ohh That would be nice. Hopefully that will happen :)


It is perhaps worth noting that restoration has a variable costly material component. If you use it to get rid of a permanent negative level, it costs 1,000 gp. If it's for non-permanent negative level or the other uses, it's 100 gp.

And I doubt it matters, but it doesn't get much more clear than this on whether extracts are potions or not.


Whether extracts = potions is not the debate here. Continuing to state that they are not is redundant and furthers nothing.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

2 people marked this as a favorite.

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qv2

Alchemist, Choices When "Casting": If I makes an extract of a multiple-choice spell (such as protection from energy), do I make that choice when I create the extract, or when I drink it?

You make the choice when you drink it.

Grand Lodge

Bam.


Wow, PDT is on a roll today!

I need to go bump my advanced firearms thread! :P

51 to 76 of 76 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Question about extracts and who make their choosing? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.