| 13 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Question:
An Alchemist extracts when made with the infusion discovery follow the rules about potions on page 477 Pathfinder Core Rulebook 2nd paragraph?
I understand that the rules about extracts under the Alchemy(Su) probably didn't need to be too specific since the creator/caster and the user/drinker would be the same person the Alchemist but with Infusion discovery some word conflicts exist and I want know this for sure since "extracts aren't exactly potions nor spells".
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. 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).
Please do not post here. I'm trying to get the rules team attention in order to consider this question for FAQ.
All right. I put here both links of the 2 questions I submit in order to hope for an official FAQ that can end all this conflicts and discussions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules team does not answer just because you call them out. They also don't like to be called out. I have noticed that a post is more likely to be noticed if it gets a lot of FAQ's and comments, so telling people to not comment is detrimental to your cause.
|
The rules team does not answer just because you call them out. They also don't like to be called out. I have noticed that a post is more likely to be noticed if it gets a lot of FAQ's and comments, so telling people to not comment is detrimental to your cause.
True, and comments keep it on the first page, where people see the thread.
Also,
1) What is your question? I see a line of text with a question mark at the end, but what is your question?
2) What are the obvious possible answers, and what are the immediate effects of either answer?
3) Can you give me an example of where the perceived lack of clarity is causing a problem?
Because I'm not seeing a problem -it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one - but you obviously have some thoughts on this, why not contribute instead of your, quite frankly, confrontational stance?
(And is this your first time on the boards? FAQ doesn't work that way, FYI.)
Based in part on the following sentence from the Alchemist descrition, I would go with yes.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion[/quote ]
The rules team does not answer just because you call them out. They also don't like to be called out. I have noticed that a post is more likely to be noticed if it gets a lot of FAQ's and comments, so telling people to not comment is detrimental to your cause.
Oh is that so? hmm Well there had been many discussions about this topic in the past few days.
If I made a new topic it was because someone suggested that it would be better to create a clean topic with the question because the Staff dont like to read wall of text and such.
But fine post all you want I guess.
Also,
1) What is your question? I see a line of text with a question mark at the end, but what is your question?
2) What are the obvious possible answers, and what are the immediate effects of either answer?
3) Can you give me an example of where the perceived lack of clarity is causing a problem?
Because I'm not seeing a problem -it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one - but you obviously have some thoughts on this, why not contribute instead of your, quite frankly, confrontational stance?
(And is this your first time on the boards? FAQ doesn't work that way, FYI.)
Hmm the question is not that clear huh? Dammit and I can't edit it anymore. But what the question is asking is if the Alchemist Extracts follow, use or apply the same rules that the potion have on the Core Rulebook page 477. (which is post as reference in quote below the question)
For clarity's sake: Your question would not be about extracts, but about infusions.
An extract can only be used by an alchemist, and so she'll obviously know what the extract can do. An infusion can be used by others. They're the same base 'liquid' but the fact that one can be passed on to others is significant enough to require a different term.
As to the question itself, and the complaint that a non-magic-user wouldn't have the knowledge to 'choose' the variables of an extract, I'd like to point to the Cleric spell
With this blessing, you call your allies to move forth and empower them to conquer and become victorious. Each round for the duration of this spell, each of your allies can choose one of the following bonuses for that round at the beginning of its turn (their choice).
-Increase its speed by 30 feet.
-Stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
-Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus.
-Gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.
-Cast a single spell of 2nd level or lower as if it were an enlarged, extended, silent, or still spell.These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round. Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste.
It's admittedly not an exact comparison, but the spell implies that when cast, the affected allies automatically know the benefits that the spell can impart and can choose what benefits them the most.
I would argue that an infusion would function the same way; the act of 'casting' the spell via the infusion would impart the necessary knowledge to the drinker in order to 'choose' the various variables the spell allows. The answer is, "It's magic!"
For clarity's sake: Your question would not be about extracts, but about infusions.
An extract can only be used by an alchemist, and so she'll obviously know what the extract can do. An infusion can be used by others. They're the same base 'liquid' but the fact that one can be passed on to others is significant enough to require a different term.
As to the question itself, and the complaint that a non-magic-user wouldn't have the knowledge to 'choose' the variables of an extract, I'd like to point to the Cleric spell
With this blessing, you call your allies to move forth and empower them to conquer and become victorious. Each round for the duration of this spell, each of your allies can choose one of the following bonuses for that round at the beginning of its turn (their choice).
-Increase its speed by 30 feet.
-Stand up as a swift action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
-Make one extra attack as part of a full attack action, using its highest base attack bonus.
-Gain a +2 bonus on attack rolls and a +2 dodge bonus to AC and Reflex saves.
-Cast a single spell of 2nd level or lower as if it were an enlarged, extended, silent, or still spell.These effects are not cumulative with similar effects, such as those provided by haste or a speed weapon, nor do they actually grant an extra action, so you can't use it to cast a second spell or otherwise take an extra action in the round. Blessing of fervor does not stack with haste.
It's admittedly not an exact comparison, but the spell implies that when cast, the affected allies automatically know the benefits that the spell can impart and can choose what benefits them the most.
I would argue that an infusion would function the same way; the act of 'casting' the spell via the infusion would impart the necessary knowledge to the drinker in order to 'choose' the various variables the spell allows. The answer is, "It's magic!"
Well if the Alchemist had Blessing of Favor it would be exactly as Haste. It can only affect the Alchemist (not 1 creature per level) and if made with an infusion then it would affect just 1 person which would the one who drink it.
So it still would make more sense that the creator of the potion would choose one of the potion (I know its a Lv4 but theorically speaking) or extract which will be the only of the abilities the drinker would get.
You missed my point. There are spells in the game that affect other people and that have variable effects from which the target gets to choose, even if he or she has no magical ability whatsoever.
A Barbarian with no magical ability can be a target of Blessing of Fervor, and despite having no spell-casting ability whatsoever, it's (likely) assumed that the spell grants him enough knowledge to be able to choose how the spell affects him.
The same would be true if the Barbarian were drinking an alchemist's infusion.
You missed my point. There are spells in the game that affect other people and that have variable effects from which the target gets to choose, even if he or she has no magical ability whatsoever.
A Barbarian with no magical ability can be a target of Blessing of Fervor, and despite having no spell-casting ability whatsoever, it's (likely) assumed that the spell grants him enough knowledge to be able to choose how the spell affects him.
The same would be true if the Barbarian were drinking an alchemist's infusion.
Hmm perhaps you got a point there but also the caster of the spell is present and casting it on the spot upon his allies and he could in part instructions upon his allies (talking is a free action). But potions and extracts (with infusions) dont requiere that the creator is standing there next to the drinker.
Hmm perhaps you got a point there but also the caster of the spell is present and casting it on the spot upon his allies and he could in part instructions upon his allies (talking is a free action). But potions and extracts (with infusions) dont requiere that the creator is standing there next to the drinker.You missed my point. There are spells in the game that affect other people and that have variable effects from which the target gets to choose, even if he or she has no magical ability whatsoever.
A Barbarian with no magical ability can be a target of Blessing of Fervor, and despite having no spell-casting ability whatsoever, it's (likely) assumed that the spell grants him enough knowledge to be able to choose how the spell affects him.
The same would be true if the Barbarian were drinking an alchemist's infusion.
Irrelevant, because I can apply the same logic: Unless the drinker stole the infusion from an alchemist, then you can also assume that the alchemist and the drinker met at some point - in which case the alchemist spent a free action to tell the drinker what the infusion did and what options it granted.
To offer some additional precedent: If the 'caster' decides these variables a the time of casting, then shouldn't any potion that offers variable benefits to an imbiber require a footnote as to what effects it grants? This isn't standard practice in modules or adventure paths, to my knowledge; the text simply states that it's a 'Potion of X'.
Well you need to identify the potion at least with Identify spell or a spellcraft check. Otherwise it would be just a vial with a liquid inside for you.
Well you need to identify the potion at least with Identify spell or a spellcraft check. Otherwise it would be just a vial with a liquid inside for you.
Since a potion has no roll required to 'use' it, you don't have to identify it before use. Is it wise to do so? Yes. But is it required? No.
So even if you pick up random vial X off the ground and chug it without second thought, the rule still applies: "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)." Meaning that the person drinking it still chooses any variables related to the spell contained within the potion.
There's really enough precedent on this one that an FAQ is not really necessary - when the 'casting' of a spell is transferred to another person (through potion, wand, infusion, etc.) then that person is assumed to be the caster for the purposes of determining any variable effects of the spell.
So even if you pick up random vial X off the ground and chug it without second thought, the rule still applies: "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)." Meaning that the person drinking it still chooses any variables related to the spell contained within the potion.
You are leaving out the sentence before the one you quoted, which then leads to an incorrect conclusion. Diego Rossi already explained this in the thread this came from.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. 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).
and from brew potion
When you create a potion, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.
Effects that would be decided when spell is cast are decided by potion maker. Effects that need to be controlled after the "casting" like a fly spell are then controlled by the subject of the potion.
I see no reason an extract would be any different.
Extracts are not potions....seems like a really good reason why they would be different
Extracts are spells in potion FORM...not potions
Extracts are drank like a potion...its a liquid in a flask/vial that you drink using your mouth as the preferred orifice...still not a potion
Other than the above extracts following none of the rules of potions
Extracts are potions that only alchemists can make. If you are the alchemist or the person drinking the infused version of the extract in melee combat, the enemy gets an AoO against you exactly the same way it would if you had drunk a potion. The person drinking your extract has no clue what is inside of it. They have to trust you. If they asked for a healing extract and you handed them an extract of Beast Shape 1 (fish), well it sucks to be them. If they stole an extract from you, I would have the DM randomly role which extract they took and count down your list to that extract. For someone to find out afterwards what an extract does and then say 'I wouldn't drink that' is hogwash.
So even if you pick up random vial X off the ground and chug it without second thought, the rule still applies: "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)." Meaning that the person drinking it still chooses any variables related to the spell contained within the potion.You are leaving out the sentence before the one you quoted, which then leads to an incorrect conclusion. Diego Rossi already explained this in the thread this came from.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. 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).and from brew potion
When you create a potion, you make any choices that you would normally make when casting the spell. Whoever drinks the potion is the target of the spell.Effects that would be decided when spell is cast are decided by potion maker. Effects that need to be controlled after the "casting" like a fly spell are then controlled by the subject of the potion.
I see no reason an extract would be any different.
There are numerous differences. First and foremost, it's a class ability, not a magical item. It also allows for the creation of infusions with a 'personal' range, something that potions can't mimic. The fact that feats like Accelerated Drinker don't affect them and that they take a standard action to use are also a pretty clear indication that they are not options but are a variant of actively casting the spell.
My comparison to potions, while admittedly incorrect in this instance, wasn't to say that extracts are potions - they're not - but to point to a precedent. I still see that precedent as valid, although not through this example but through the earlier one I made regarding Blessing of Fervor.
Personally, I see the text you quoted as contradictory; the caster can't make all of the variable choices of the spell and still leave control of the effects up to the imbiber. Your example of a potion of Fly as illustrating what "the drinker controls the effect" means doesn't strike me as all that useful; of course the potion creator doesn't imbue some pre-planned flight path into the potion, that's just silly and makes the potion absolutely useless.
Xaratherus the effects normally made at casting are made by the crafter. Continuing effects are controlled by the recipient.
Xaratherus the effects normally made at casting are made by the crafter. Continuing effects are controlled by the recipient.
Let me ask a question then: Does a person imbibing a potion of Disguise Other choose what they look like, or is the illusion preset by the creator?
The disguise is a continuing effect. Does the potion's creator choose what the disguise is, or does the person drinking it?
If the former, then what happens if a humanoid drinks a potion that was made by a non-humanoid to disguise as a non-humanoid? Nothing?
Extracts are not potions....seems like a really good reason why they would be different
Extracts are spells in potion FORM...not potions
That's exactly what potions are.
Infusions are identical to potions including the rules on which potions can be made. The major difference between infusions and standard potions are the speed in which they can be made.
You can not make an infusion which breaks the standing rules on potions, i.e. you can't make a potion with target equals You.
Citation please?
RAW seems to indicate the exact opposite. From the description of the Alchemist's Alchemy class feature:
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.
If this does not indicate that an Alchemist can do exactly what you say - i.e., create extracts (and thereby infusions, since by RAW the Infusion discovery places no additional limitations on what extracts they can use with it) that have a range of Personal - then what does it mean exactly?
Let's assume that that's not what it means. That still indicates that there are significant differences between extracts and potions, and so the statement "Infusions are identical to potions..." just isn't true.
So, why does the Accelerated Drinker trait not work with Extracts?
Extracts are not Potions, that's why.
I wasn't saying they were. I was saying that they're very definitely not. There are some superficial similarities, but extracts are implied to be far more powerful and varied than potions.
Then we're in agreement, and now it's big disco party funtime!
My take is that infusions are a limited form of Imbue with Spell Ability.
Imbue with Spell Ability
School evocation; Level cleric/oracle 4; Domain community 4, magic 4
CASTING
Casting Time 10 minutes
Components V, S, DF
EFFECT
Range touch
Target creature touched; see text
Duration permanent until discharged (D)
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
DESCRIPTION
HD of Recipient Spells Imbued
2 or lower One 1st-level spell
3-4 One or two 1st-level spells
5 or higher One or two 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell
You transfer some of your currently prepared spells, and the ability to cast them, to another creature. Only a creature with an Intelligence score of at least 5 and a Wisdom score of at least 9 can receive this boon. Only cleric spells from the schools of abjuration, divination, and conjuration (healing) can be transferred. The number and level of spells that the subject can be granted depends on its Hit Dice; even multiple castings of imbue with spell ability can't exceed this limit.
The transferred spell's variable characteristics (range, duration, area, and the like) function according to your level, not the level of the recipient.
Once you cast imbue with spell ability, you cannot prepare a new 4th-level spell to replace it until the recipient uses the imbued spells or is slain, or until you dismiss the imbue with spell ability spell. In the meantime, you remain responsible to your deity or your principles for the use to which the spell is put. If the number of 4th-level spells you can cast decreases, and that number drops below your current number of active imbue with spell ability spells, the more recently cast imbued spells are dispelled.
To cast a spell with a verbal component, the subject must be able to speak. To cast a spell with a somatic component, it must be able to move freely. To cast a spell with a material component or focus, it must have the materials or focus.
Just like a cleric who uses imbue with spell ability, an alchemist who gives out an infusion is out that spell slot, even if the recipient never actually uses the infusion.
Everyone gets hung up on the fact that the word "potion" appears in the "Alchemy" heading of the Alchemist
The two lines I gave about extracts are the only 2 things that make extracts like potions at all
They are in container of some sort and are imbibed...that's it
Extracts do not have to have any effects decided on when made because there was no spell casts to make it...those effects are decided when it is drank
Potions require someone to actually cast a spell to make the potion and said person can only do so once a day
Once again extracts are not potions...they do not follow the rules of potions beyond what is said in their description...extracts are not potions
Nor are extracts spells. Nothing says they should default to behaving more like spells than potions.
Extracts do not have to have any effects decided on when made because there was no spell casts to make it...those effects are decided when it is drank
this is just your opinion unless you can show where that is said in the rules.
Where does it say they do have to be decided when made.
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.
So if it EXACTLY duplicates the spell on which the formula was based and is cast when being drank when ELSE would the decision be made?
Potions have the statement saying that the decision is made by the caster that makes it...extracts do not
I did FAQ it and this is opinion...simply adding some info and incite
I would use the exact same quote as one to support for extracts working like potions and thus having effect decisions made when prepared.
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.
Alchemy (Su): Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist's fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potion-like 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. When an alchemist creates an extract or bomb, he infuses the concoction with a tiny fraction of his own magical power—this enables the creation of powerful effects, but also binds the effects to the creator.
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.
In three places it describes then as being like potions, but also says that they have some exceptions, which are noted. While there could be more, they become much less potion-like if effects are decided when they are consumed.
|
Irrelevant, because I can apply the same logic: Unless the drinker stole the infusion from an alchemist, then you can also assume that the alchemist and the drinker met at some point - in which case the alchemist spent a free action to tell the drinker what the infusion did and what options it granted.Hmm perhaps you got a point there but also the caster of the spell is present and casting it on the spot upon his allies and he could in part instructions upon his allies (talking is a free action). But potions and extracts (with infusions) dont requiere that the creator is standing there next to the drinker.You missed my point. There are spells in the game that affect other people and that have variable effects from which the target gets to choose, even if he or she has no magical ability whatsoever.
A Barbarian with no magical ability can be a target of Blessing of Fervor, and despite having no spell-casting ability whatsoever, it's (likely) assumed that the spell grants him enough knowledge to be able to choose how the spell affects him.
The same would be true if the Barbarian were drinking an alchemist's infusion.
Also: nothing says that the recipients of Blessing of Fervor need to be able to communicate in any way with the caster in order to select which benefit they gain from the spell, so it can't be required that the caster explain the spell in order to allow the subjects to choose their effect.
Characters understanding of what they can pull of with Blessing of Fervor is part of the spell. And all of them are basically doing things they can already do, just now it's better or faster, so how much understanding they really need is debatable.
Understanding what infusions for polymorph spells, illusion spells, etc, can do, would be providing extra effects beyond what the spells normally do by imparting knowledge of how the spell works. And it leads to weird things like what would happen if you gave one of the above infusions to a sleeping or unconscious character. Would they decide in their dreams or unconscious? Be random? Nothing happens?
What happens if my character casts a spell in his sleep that has effects that must be decided on? No rules for the sleep-walking sorcerer eh
As written extracts are cast when drank...potions "take effect" when drank since the spell to make then have already been cast...while the decisions of the potion are made by the caster who made it...the person drinking has "control" of the effects
Again yes this is opinion I will quote when it's not for future reference
Nor are extracts spells. Nothing says they should default to behaving more like spells than potions.
Except for the fact that the description of the Alchemy ability consistently compares them to spells and describes them as being prepared like spells and using the same sorts of stats that other casters use to determine how many spells they can know and prepare per day, whereas the only consistent comparison the Alchemist's 'Alchemy' description makes between extracts and potions is the fact that you drink them?
When using Craft (alchemy) to create an alchemical item, an alchemist gains a competence bonus equal to his class level on the Craft (alchemy) check. In addition, an alchemist can use Craft (alchemy) to identify potions as if using detect magic. He must hold the potion for 1 round to make such a check.
An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens. Bombs are explosive splash weapons, and mutagens are transformative elixirs that the alchemist drinks to enhance his physical abilities—both of these are detailed in their own sections below.
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.
An alchemist can create only a certain number of extracts of each level per day. His base daily allotment of extracts is given on Table 2–1. In addition, he receives bonus extracts per day if he has a high Intelligence score, in the same way a wizard receives bonus spells per day.
When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it's not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed.
Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formuale list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). 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. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
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).
An alchemist can prepare an extract of any formula he knows. To learn or use an extract, an alchemist must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the extract's level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against an alchemist's extract is 10 + the extract level + the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.
An alchemist may know any number of formulae. He stores his formulae in a special tome called a formula book. He must refer to this book whenever he prepares an extract but not when he consumes it. An alchemist begins play with two 1st-level formulae of his choice, plus a number of additional forumlae equal to his Intelligence modifier. At each new alchemist level, he gains one new formula of any level that he can create. An alchemist can also add formulae to his book just like a wizard adds spells to his spellbook, using the same costs, pages, and time requirements. An alchemist can study a wizard's spellbook to learn any formula that is equivalent to a spell the spellbook contains. A wizard, however, cannot learn spells from a formula book. An alchemist does not need to decipher arcane writings before copying them.
Just at a quick count, there are 8 direct references to extracts behaving like spells, and roughly 5 of them behaving like potions - and then the last four paragraphs are mirroring the preparation, casting, and component requirement\usage of spells that are included in every other casting class.
I see a lot there that supports treating them more like spells than potions.
The description of the Alchemy ability compares and contrasts extracts to spells and potions to explain to readers how they work, as they need a starting reference point. Extracts have some similarities, some differences to spells. It certainly isn't consistent in saying extracts work the same as spells. Mixing ingredients into vials and infusing the concoction with a tiny fraction of alchemist's own magical power isn't the same as how any of the spell casting classes prepare their spells. After the first paragraph it uses quotation marks around "casts" to denote an unusual usage. (if you disagree,what other usage do you think this is?)
I see this
Rather than cast magic like a spellcaster, the alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.
and
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potionand
In many ways, they behave like spells in potion formand
fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effectsand
the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells
is a lot more than just saying extracts that are spells you drink. And certainly doesn't support that extracts should work more like spells than potions. Give me a specific quote that supports your stance.
I will...as soon as I find that line that says "extracts are potions and work in all ways EXACTLY like them"
I cannot find it I'm my books...the srd...the prd...my masterworks reference tool or my memory....
Currently digging through the entirety of the Internet to find it so give me some time...will hopefully find it before they answer the FAQ
GreenMander has explained this about as well as I think anyone could based on the current text. It is really the only option that makes sense from an in game logic point of view, and he has taken quite a bit of time showing how the rules point to the same thing.
|
|
Extracts are treated in some way like spells (ex: slots per day) and in some ways like potions (ex: you drink them), and in some ways like neither (ex: can only affect the alchemist without the Infusions discovery). They are both "like spells" and "potion-like," not exactly one or the other.
Unfortunately there are a few parts of their function where it's not easy to tell whether they act like spells, potions, or neither. This is why we got the FAQ saying that Accelerated Drinker doesn't apply to Extracts.
I personally think the RAW is unclear on this one and have no idea what the intended rule is.
I intend to treat it as if the drinker chooses the function of the infusion on drinking, regardless of the devs' statement, because I don't think Alchemists should have a much harder time using effects like Beast Shape or Resist Energy than proper casters do. In the corner case in which the drinker is unconscious I might let the alchemist choose if he's the one to administer the infusion (he makes a last-minute adjustment locking the effect) or might decide randomly. But I doubt that's going to come up. What potions would you feed an unconscious character other than Cure?
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?