| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I have a quick question regarding potion-drinking and the use of focus for spell(not the feat, the material component).
Potions are a move action to drink, and provokes an attack of opportunity. Is drawing the potion a part of drinking it, assuming it's somewhere accessible? Or do you require a full round action to draw one, and then drink one?
Similarly, using a focus component for a spell, I'm reasonably sure you need to hold it in your hand. Does drawing it require an action like drawing a weapon, or is it part of the action required for casting the spell?
When a spell requires you to drink a potion i think that it doesn't require any extra time, it's just part of the casting.
Now about potions in general, in my group we played that like that:
You can have a few potions on your person (belt, robe pocket etc.) and you can use those as a standart action that provokes, but you can also have a lot of them in your sack (or rather handy haversack) and spend a move action to retrieve it.
Concerning the potion, it might depend on what you consider an item being "stored". But since even drawing a weapon is normally a move action and the Quick Draw feat explicitely excludes potions even "having the potion hanging from my belt" should not be good enough. So I'd rule that "drawing" the potion is a move action ("retrieving a stored item") but might be willing to forgo the AoO if it can be drawn easily as compared to getting it out of my backpack (all the more reason to get a handy haversack).
Alchemist on the other hand can draw and drink their own drinnks as a standard action.
|
Drinking a potion is a standard action that provokes.
In the Forgotten Realms campaign setting there is a piece of equipment called the potion belt & a masterwork version that lets you draw a potion as a free action 1/round. Regular holds 6, mwk 10. Does not provoke.
Just what I was going to post.
Without the MW potion belt, it's a move action to retrieve a potion.
Without a potion belt its a move action, but both versions of the belt allow drawing as a free action. The only difference is how many they hold. I think paizo dropped the ball on specialized adventurers equipment. The sash they made is barely better action wise than a belt pouch.
Concerning the potion, it might depend on what you consider an item being "stored". But since even drawing a weapon is normally a move action and the Quick Draw feat explicitly excludes potions even "having the potion hanging from my belt" should not be good enough. So I'd rule that "drawing" the potion is a move action ("retrieving a stored item") but might be willing to forgo the AoO if it can be drawn easily as compared to getting it out of my backpack (all the more reason to get a handy haversack).
While it's true that drawing a weapon is normally a move action, and that retrieving an item from a backpack, belt pouch, or other location of storage is a move action that provokes an AoO, it's a free action to draw *ammunition*. Since the *size* of a potion is never explicitly given, if my players have taken care to designate that they are prepping the potion for easy-access, I typically rule that this includes using a small enough potion that drawing it from a readily accessible location (tied to the belt or somesuch) is a free action just as is drawing ammunition.
There seems to be a lot of different opinions on how drawing and drinking potions are handled. Are there no more explicit locations in the rules that states more clearly how it's handled, or any FAQs dealing with the subject?
There seems to be a lot of different opinions on how drawing and drinking potions are handled. Are there no more explicit locations in the rules that states more clearly how it's handled, or any FAQs dealing with the subject?
The rules are rather explicit about certain aspects of this process, while being intentionally vague about others (leaving final arbitration to local GMs). Behold the explicit parts:
Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes (provoking an Attack of Opportunity)
Pick up an item - Yes
Retrieve a stored item - Yes (provoking an Attack of Opportunity)
The vagueness lies in what constitutes "a stored item" and what kind of action it takes to retrieve an item that is not stored, but does not need to be "picked up" (if such an item can, in fact, exist under the rules).
This is why we have GMs. >.>
Personally, I've been running a houserule that *drinking* a potion is a move action that provokes, and if one has a +1 or higher BAB, a move action that can be taken during a move (much like drawing a weapon, though it still provokes). This rule came about after a player asked if he could swig a potion while running towards the enemy, and the GM at the time (not me) said, "Show me - you've got a bottle of pepsi and this is a long room, if you can run from one end to the other and chug the bottle and still not run into me or fall over at the end of the run, I'll allow it." Needless to say, the challenge was accepted and the other player provided a thoroughly satisfactory demonstration of his capability.
EDIT:
Yes, but only one of them is correct. :D
Basically, move action to retrieve a stored item (potion), move action to drink it.
Other items - suck as ammunition - have special rules on how quickly they can be drawn or retrieved. Just because you can pull an arrow from a quiver as a free action (as part of shooting it!) doesn't mean you can pull out a potion as a free action.
Retrieving spell components is a free action as part of casting a spell, unless you're grappled.
The assertion that "only one of them is correct" operates under the assumption that there can be no other conditions for a potion than "stored", "in-hand", or "needing to be picked up" - an assumption that seems to me to be contraindicated by simple common sense. If, as you correctly state, "Retrieving spell components is a free action as part of casting a spell, unless you're grappled," then if certain spells call for a potion to be used as a spell component (as some do), then there must be a way to keep a potion on ones' person so that it can be retrieved as a free action. At this point, it becomes clear that, following common sense, it is absurd to contest that in order for a potion to be kept in such a fashion and retrieved as a free action, one must be casting the spell and that otherwise the bringing-to-hand of the exact same potion is a move action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Such a notion is silly!
That said, I would imagine that having the potion carried in such a fashion would leave it vulnerable to sleight-of-hand, called shots, and the like.
|
|
Drinking a potion as a move action is an option if you take the right feat or trait (I believe there is one of each allowing it). You have to balance some things out thinking about potential abuses. The drunken master monk archetype is one place allowing a move action to drink by default could be problematic. The drunk barbarian rage powers are too.
--Vrock & rye
Incorrect - there's a way to keep a potion on one's person so that it can be retrieved as a free action while taking the Cast a Spell action.
Source?
While casting Transformation, you can retrieve a potion of bull's strength as a free action ...
No, you cannot. The phrase "Unless these components are elaborate" would exclude a potion.
If, as you correctly state, "Retrieving spell components is a free action as part of casting a spell, unless you're grappled," then if certain spells call for a potion to be used as a spell component (as some do), then there must be a way to keep a potion on ones' person so that it can be retrieved as a free action.Incorrect - there's a way to keep a potion on one's person so that it can be retrieved as a free action while taking the Cast a Spell action.
There're are also times which it will take more than a single move action to retrieve an item.
If I wanted to, say, pull some spell components out of my spell component pouch, but not cast a spell, it costs me a move action.
If I pull those exact same components out while casting a spell, it's a free action.
This is no different.
I'm sorry, I beg to differ (under the "common sense should be applied to these rules" direction of the developers at Paizo) - if the retrieval of spell components was a free action only while casting a spell, the retrieval of spell components would more properly be identified as subsumed in the actions of casting the spell, as opposed to having its own action (also, in the SRD text you bolded in your last post, the text would read "Unless these components are elaborate, preparing them while casting a spell is a free action.") Similarly, my common sense tells me that it doesn't matter if I'm drawing an arrow to shoot it or to snap it in half over my knee, it's a free action either way. To hear you tell it, if my intention in drawing the arrow was to break it, I'd need a move action, which is silly, and contrary to common sense about the way that items are secured and accessed using ordinary humanoid anatomical arrangements and manual dexterity.
For the sake of illustrating this absurdity further, if I were to draw an arrow and then, once drawn, decided not to shoot it after all (one of my foes readied an action to run up to me if I drew an arrow, to benefit from an AoO opportunity from me firing), would I be able to withdraw (as the arrow-draw was a free action and thus I have a full-round action left at my disposal), or would my subsequent decision to not fire the arrow render the drawing of the arrow for a purpose other than firing it a move action, leaving me only with a standard action left in the round to try to do something clever?
This situation I've outlined is clearly absurd, and contrary to the dictates of common sense vis-a-vis arrow retrieval - obviously I should have the ability to withdraw. Similarly, then, it shouldn't matter if I'm actually casting a spell or demonstrating the methods of casting a spell to an apprentice without actually activating the magic, I should be able to retrieve my material components as a free action. And from there, common sense indicates that I ought to be able to dispense with the miming of the rest of the casting and just retrieve components (including potions if they are so-readied) as a free action.
Please note, I'm not trying to say that the retrieval of all potions or material components should necessarily be a free action: if I have an esoteric material component I didn't expect to use in an encounter that's in my backpack (as opposed to in my component pouch easy and ready to access and use) I would expect that the retrieval of *that* component would be a move action that would provoke an AoO, just like the retrieval of anything else from my backpack storage.
While casting Transformation, you can retrieve a potion of bull's strength as a free action ...No, you cannot. The phrase "Unless these components are elaborate" would exclude a potion.
I admit that certain potions are elaborate in their containers and stoppers; others need not be - there are no formal rules on this matter. Some of the Paizo item cards depict very intricate potions, others depict potions stored in what are essentially test tubes. I ask you, what is elaborate about a cork-stoppered test tube? It's easy to open, easy to grab, easy to swig, etc. I have consumed the contents of a stoppered test tube with one hand, not looking, in under 3 seconds. (Grab test tube from waist-high table, thumb stopper off while lifting, drink.)
I continue to contest that this resolution has to be accomplished on a local, potion-by-potion (and therefore GM-by-GM) basis and cannot be ruled on uniformly under the existing rules. Just because there is no rules presentation that provides for a manner of securing a potion so that it can be retrieved as a free action does not mean that no such mechanism exists.
EDIT:
Also, note that the potion is not "consumed as a free action," but consumed as part of the casting of the spell - the consumption of the potion (which doesn't actually take effect since it's a spell component here) has no action, as it is part of the standard action of casting the spell. (Unlike the retrieval of the components for a spell, which are granted a separate action.) the consumption of the potion is, for the purposes of the mechanics of casting the spell, exactly the same as the consumption of a walnut. The difference, of course, is that the walnut is not magical in the way that the component for this spell needs to be.
Seriously?
Yeah Seriously. You have no idea how many people including myself, have quoted a rule that did not exist. The transformation spell allowing you to do something does not mean you can always do it.
You would need a quote saying potions are an exception to the stowed items rules, not just finding one corner case and saying it is a general rule.As an example drinking a potion is a standard action all its own and without that spell making an exception you could not even cast the spell and drink the potion. The table documents this.
Standard and Move Actions are subheadings in this table
Standard Action
Drink a potion or apply an oil
Move Action
Retrieve a stored item
edit:I just caught elaborate quote, but I don't have time to look it up. Transformation may still now allow it
Patryn, Wraithstrike: with respect, and the utmost regard, I think that our apparently differing perspectives represent two differing stances on the activity generally pursuant to "The Reading Of The Rules" -- it seems to me that the arguments you've put forward are in favor of an exclusive reading of the rules, so that if a particular method of doing something is not enumerated or defined, then that something is not able to be done. My reading takes a fundamentally different approach, with the assumption that the rules presented to me clearly indicate a portion of what can be done, and that they (by and large) cover almost all common cases and most uncommon cases of the mechanics, but that in grey areas, when presented with a clear rationale that entails its own drawbacks and is at least not contraindicated by the existing rules, there latitude to conclude that while not explicitly indicated by the existing body of rules, a particular mechanic is not prohibited either.
The methodology you seem to present, expanded to a general notion, reduces the body of rules to something that could be rendered as Java code and the results of any enquiry be obtained from a computer with the addition of the implied constraint that if a mechanic is undefined it cannot be executed. My methodology is admittedly reliant on the fallible human element of a GM, but allows for considerably more expansive games.
Put another way: I prefer to think of the rules as telling be what I *can* do as opposed to what I *can't* do on the basis of what they define.
In the case of potions that are available to hand as a free action, this could also be the exception rather than the rule, on the same basis for the exception: location of the object in question (i.e. in a small skin flask over the shoulder, in a test tube sized container between my loose-ish belt and waistband, etc.). All I'm trying to say is that while yes, the general rule is "Move action to get it out, standard action to consume, both provoke AoOs," there ought to be latitude in there for creativity to alter that process.
When I was presenting my rationale for the free-action potion-in-hand, I was doing so to attempt to justify and explain my thought process in granting the exception, since other exceptions to the standard "move to get it" rule clearly apply for similar circumstances. I apologize for not making this clearer in my earlier posts.
Coming at the issue from another angle:
It's a move action to "retrieve a stored item."
Is it possible for me to carry an item, on my person, not in my hands, without that item being "stored"?
To me, the common-sense notion of an item being "stored" required the item to be put away somewhere, and/or generally unready for immediate use. If I can carry an item on my person without that item being "stored" what kind of action is it for me to access or use that item? There are no general rules that cover this eventuality, but there are a number of specific rules that seem to be related to this notion. One such is the drawing of a weapon, which is a move action or part of a move action if one has a high enough BAB. Another is the drawing of ammunition. Another is the preparing of spell components (in the context of casting a spell). There are other examples that are more specific to a smaller subset of conditions. Nevertheless, from these contextual rules, I concieved of a notion that, if the non-stored object was small enough, it should be able to be brought to hand with a free action, and if it was more hefty, it should be a move action or part of a move action (under certain circumstances). This is the basis for my notion of the free-action potion: it's out, not stored, but not carried in-hand.
|
|
Is it possible for me to carry an item, on my person, not in my hands, without that item being "stored"?Ruleswise? I don't think so. Either you're holding it, or its stored.
Could you provide an example of what this means?
Examples are items in a handy haversack and the adventurer's sash from Seeker of Secrets which has pouches that if left open allow "easier access" to it's contents. The sash is a vague item, but the closest one to what you're looking for.
--Vrock and Tackle
stuff about potions
I was getting confused because I thought you went from disagreeing with me to agreeing with me. Then I read the post where I asked for the source on and I missed the".. it can be retrieved as a free action while taking the Cast a Spell action."
I had tunnel vision for your post. I agree that the transformation potion allows you to pull the potion out as a part of the spell.
Is it possible for me to carry an item, on my person, not in my hands, without that item being "stored"?Ruleswise? I don't think so. Either you're holding it, or its stored.
Could you provide an example of what this means?
Example the First:
I'm a cleric of Abadar. I have my Holy Symbol (an ornate oversized key) looped in my belt. It's not in-hand, but it is close-at-hand (and not stored in a fashion that takes an AoO-provoking move action to grab, even when I'm grabbing it for a purpose other than casting a spell) and therefore easier to grab and have in-hand than the small box at the bottom of my backpack that contains the vault combination for the lost storehouse of Qal. (Remember, under the rules, that little box only takes a move action to retrieve.) The holy symbol is *clearly* easier to grab and have in-hand than the box.Example the Second:
I'm an abstract character, with a waterskin on a strap over my shoulder. The waterskin in on a short strap, so it doesn't swing about too much, but a long enough one that I can grab the skin and take a swig fairly easily. Taking a swig is a standard action (in the general abstract). Is grabbing the waterskin really a move action to "retrieve a stored item?" It's not stored, it's right there! It's secured, but that's not quite the same.
Example the Third:
I'm a New York lawyer, carrying a briefcase in my left hand with my iPhone clipped at my belt. My netbook in my briefcase is "stored" - my iPhone on my hip is neither "stored" nor is it "held" - it's just easily accessible.
Conclusion:
Just because the rules identify "stored" as a state that can be applicable to an item does not mean or imply that this state is binary, or applies to all non-held items.
EDIT: Essentially, I'm observing the potential for a number of different but similar specific cases and extrapolating a general rule from that observation. In this case, I'm observing that there are a number of ways to arrange certain (usually small) items of equipment in a manner such that they can be quickly and easily retrieved and used. (The holy symbol, the waterskin, the iPhone, ammunition, spell components, etc.) As such, the general rule of "a small item can be carried in a fashion so as to only require a free action to bring it to hand" seems implied by these different arrangements.
Am I "creating" a new rule? Technically yes, though I prefer to think of it as "observing" an undocumented rule, much like a physicist once observed and documented rules of motion. Newton was his name, as I recall. The game rules, much like the laws of physics, are an abstraction to present in a mechanical fashion the processes of a system. Please note, I'm just making an analogy between the two systems: the Laws of Physics describe how matter moves, the rules of Pathfinder describe how my character can act. Just as I don't need explicit knowledge of physical laws to observe that an object falls to earth if I drop it, I don't *need* a rule identifying the existence of a carried-item state other than "stored" before I can observe that such a state exists.
Does this mean alchemists have to use a move action to retrieve extracts and then a standard action to drink them?
Nope.
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.
Example the First:
I'm a cleric of Abadar.Divine foci (and arcane foci, for that matter) follow the rules for material components. Ergo, it's a free action to grab it while you're taking the cast a spell action, elsewise it's a move action that provokes.
(and not stored in a fashion that takes an AoO-provoking move action to grab, even when I'm grabbing it for a purpose other than casting a spell)You're rather begging the question here.
I'm objecting to the interpretation of the rules that violates what seems to be common sense to me, where you would have me believe that a 0.7 second grab of an item at my belt (not during spell casting) is the same kind of action and takes the same amount of my characters' time as rootling around in my backpack for a small item at the bottom.
EDIT: I apologize, my question about the possibility of non-held, non-stored items was intended to be rhetorical, in that I subsequently observed the existence of such a state. I continue to contend the absence of an entry on the Actions in Combat table that defines such a state is *insufficient* to arrive at a conclusion that no such state exists. There's no entry on the table for breathing either - is breathing a move, standard, swift, free, or other action?
Example the First:
I'm a cleric of Abadar.Divine foci (and arcane foci, for that matter) follow the rules for material components. Ergo, it's a free action to grab it while you're taking the cast a spell action, elsewise it's a move action that provokes.
(and not stored in a fashion that takes an AoO-provoking move action to grab, even when I'm grabbing it for a purpose other than casting a spell)You're rather begging the question here.
So how does intent make a distinction of action? If retrieving a spell component is a separate action from casting it, and not an action subsumed as part of casting, how can the action of retrieving differ due to your intention?
Does this mean alchemists have to use a move action to retrieve extracts and then a standard action to drink them?Nope.
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.
Well that's pretty interesting stuff there. Mr. Reynolds seems to think that there is in fact no action for retrieving a component and its action is subsumed into casting a spell.
Well that's pretty interesting stuff there. Mr. Reynolds seems to think that there is in fact no action for retrieving a component and its action is subsumed into casting a spell.Does this mean alchemists have to use a move action to retrieve extracts and then a standard action to drink them?Nope.
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.
I dunno about that, I think it just means that such retrieval is a free action. "In the same manner as" = component retrieval for spellcasting is a free action, thus alchemical material retrieval for extracts, mutagens, and bomb making is a free action. This does, however, support the notion that the act of retrieval of these items/reagents as a free action is inextricably tied to the act of casting a spell or preparing an Alchemist-jobber.
Are you casting Transformation? Then you can retrieve that potion of bull's strength from your spell component pouch as a free action, and drink it as a non-action, while you take the cast a spell action to cast Transformation.
As an aside, and per a strict reading of the item, a potion cannot be stored in a spell component pouch. As a magic item, it has a specific cost.
That said, all the rules do indicate you can ready and drink a potion as part of a single "cast a spell" action, provided said potion is a component consumed as part of that spell's casting. It doesn't matter where a potion is stored for this purpose. It doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, and could possibly have been worded differently to reflect, well, common sense, but the rules are written as they are.
Example the First:
I'm a cleric of Abadar.Divine foci (and arcane foci, for that matter) follow the rules for material components. Ergo, it's a free action to grab it while you're taking the cast a spell action, elsewise it's a move action that provokes.
(and not stored in a fashion that takes an AoO-provoking move action to grab, even when I'm grabbing it for a purpose other than casting a spell)You're rather begging the question here.
EDIT: But thanks for providing examples. I just disagree that they prove what you think they prove, because you're begging the question - "Here's a way that I think let's me store an item such that I can retrieve it as a free / move action that doesn't provoke, ergo I can store an item such that I can retrieve it as a free / move action that doesn't provoke."
The existance of the potion belt and the Handy Haversack and spring-loaded weapons, etc., indicate that there are ways to do this, but it is dependent on specific equipment, rather than just describing something as "near to hand."
I mean, I could claim that I'm keeping my weapon "near to hand," but that doesn't mean I don't have to spend a move action to draw it.
Again, common sense tells me that ones weapon would always be near-to-hand, and since there is an explicit exception provided for weapons, I've been ignoring that aspect of the situation as "asked-and-answered" as it were. Certainly if one of my characters wanted to retrieve a dagger from the bottom of his backpack, I would rule that such an action would take a move action that would provoke, since the character would be retrieving a stored item as opposed to an item in some other state. Since you mention it, though, the "draw a weapon" case is actually another case in favor of a non-binary "stored"/"held" scenario. Weapons take a move action to draw, yes, but (1) the action doe *not* provoke AoOs and (2) if a character has a BAB of +1 or higher, can be done concurrently with another move action. Again, note that the weapon is drawn, as opposed to retrieved-from-storage.
You'll argue that this represents a specific exception to a general rule, and I'll maintain that it represents one of several different cases. Your interpretation is exclusionary to any undefined situations (and as such discourages imagination, innovation and creativity), whereas my interpretation embraces undefined situations (fostering imagination, innovation and creativity - which is what the game is about in the first place).
As regards "begging the question" - yes, inasmuch as I am attempting to observe what I see to be a Truth and supporting it with examples and derivations and extrapolations, I am. The existing rules don't explicitly allow it. Neither do the existing rules explicitly prohibit it, since "stored" is undefined. Common sense tells me that a holy symbol at my belt is not "stored" in the same way that a box at the bottom of my backpack is, and therefore should not take the same effort and length of time to retrieve.
Does this mean alchemists have to use a move action to retrieve extracts and then a standard action to drink them?Nope.
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.You're applying that answer to the wrong question. It's a standard action to use an extract, yes, because it's just like using a potion.
Mixing up an extract, however, is an altogether different process:
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.So, you can pull the materials needed to make an extract from your component pouch as a free action, but you then need to spend the next 1 minute creating your extract.
Once the extract is created, if you aren't holding it, it takes a move action to retrieve it and a standard action to use it.
Bombs, of course, can be created as part of the action to use them:
In summation, the FAQ is correct, but you're reading it wrong.
Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Say what now? It says right there it's a standard action TO USE an extract that includes retrieving it. I don't get what you're saying.
I'm objecting to the interpretation of the rules that violates what seems to be common sense to me, where you would have me believe that a 0.7 second grab of an item at my belt (not during spell casting) is the same kind of action and takes the same amount of my characters' time as rootling around in my backpack for a small item at the bottom.No, I'm asking you to accept that the rule is what it is, because you've already accepted the abstraction that it takes no time at all to move 5', except when it doesn't, and that it takes the same amount of time to move 5', 10', 15', 20', 25', or 30', and that it takes twice as long to move 35' as it does to move 30'.
"Common sense" has already taken a long walk off a nearby short pier.
I accept that the rule is what it is, a rule dealing with stored items. I do not accept that grabbing my iPhone from my belt and getting my netbook (or my pen) out of my briefcase have the same impact on my ability to do other things in the round, because the netbook or pen is considerably harder to get out than the iPhone, and is deserving of a move action's worth of "activity potential" reduction.
I don't accept that moving 35' takes twice as long as moving 30' - merely that moving up to 30' leaves me enough oomph to take a swing at someone within 6 seconds wheras moving 35' doesn't unless I'm running right at whoever I want to hit, and that moving 5' during a series of swings at someone is totally implicit in the give-and-take interplay of hand-to-hand combat. Or spellcasting. Whatever I'm using the rest of my time for.
I don't accept any of the abstractions that you list, in fact. I accept different abstractions that amount to the same thing when interpreted through the lens of the mechanics and rules of the game.
I'm objecting to the interpretation of the rules that violates what seems to be common sense to me, where you would have me believe that a 0.7 second grab of an item at my belt (not during spell casting) is the same kind of action and takes the same amount of my characters' time as rootling around in my backpack for a small item at the bottom.No, I'm asking you to accept that the rule is what it is, because you've already accepted the abstraction that it takes no time at all to move 5', except when it doesn't, and that it takes the same amount of time to move 5', 10', 15', 20', 25', or 30', and that it takes twice as long to move 35' as it does to move 30'.
"Common sense" has already taken a long walk off a nearby short pier.
This is a different situation, but I will say something on it. A five foot step, is just as it says, a stride of about five feet, whereas a move action is moving (walk, run, swim, etc) that distance. And moving 10 ft doesn't take the same amount of time as moving 20 (assuming we're talking about the same character) that person just didn't feel like going the extra ten feet that round for whatever reason. Which is the same reason moving 35 feet does not as you state, take twice as long, that's just as far as the person cared to travel in that interval of time.
So let me ask again:
How does intent make a distinction of action? If retrieving a spell component is a separate action from casting it, and not an action subsumed as part of casting, how can the action of retrieving differ due to your intentions?
Well that's pretty interesting stuff there. Mr. Reynolds seems to think that there is in fact no action for retrieving a component and its action is subsumed into casting a spell.
While it could be a free action, I believe you are correct. With the exception of unusual components (such as maybe a potion), I think the readying of normal spell components is part of the action of casting. Treating it any other way would have a very negative interaction with the oracle's haunted curse.
Haunted: Malevolent spirits follow you wherever you go,
causing minor mishaps and strange occurrences (such as unexpected breezes, small objects moving on their own, and faint noises). Retrieving any stored item from your gear requires a standard action, unless it would normally take longer. Any item you drop lands 10 feet away from you in a random direction.
Since you technically do not retrieve the components as a seperate action by RAW, you can bypass the effects of the haunted curse.
Say what now? It says right there it's a standard action TO USE an extract that includes retrieving it. I don't get what you're saying.Does this mean alchemists have to use a move action to retrieve extracts and then a standard action to drink them?Nope.
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.You're applying that answer to the wrong question. It's a standard action to use an extract, yes, because it's just like using a potion.
Mixing up an extract, however, is an altogether different process:
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.So, you can pull the materials needed to make an extract from your component pouch as a free action, but you then need to spend the next 1 minute creating your extract.
Once the extract is created, if you aren't holding it, it takes a move action to retrieve it and a standard action to use it.
Bombs, of course, can be created as part of the action to use them:
In summation, the FAQ is correct, but you're reading it wrong.
Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
I concur with Davick. Patryn is interpreting the scenario as though the extract is an item. I think Davick (and I) read the FAQ as calling for the created extract to be treated as a material component for the purposes of its retrieval. This makes sense to me, as Extracts are the bread-and-butter of an Alchemists' "spellcasting" - it stands to reason (and common sense) that they would not be unduly penalized in a spellcasting-esque comparison for the materials and content of their kind of casting.