| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Despite searching this forum, I was unable to find a thread that covered this topic previously. It seems every other thread was devoted to whether or not alchemists could make potions out of personal range spells. I say no, but that's not what I'm interested in.
An alchemist can, of course, make personal range extracts for his own use. But, if he has the infusion discovery, can he make personal range infusions for others to drink?
I mean, everyone in the party will want to try some of that polypurpose panacea, especially the repressed wizard girl with 8 Charisma who really wants a lucid dream of having her way with the muscle-bound barbarian (or the repressed wizard guy who wants that hot elf chick.) But can they, or does the alchemist get to keep all the lucid dreams for himself?
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bump, is there any solid answer to this question? this question should be an FAQ.
My DM keeps telling me that ''personal'' spells affects only the caster of the spell no matter what and that the alchemist is not excluded from this rule. How can I convince him? were does it say that I can use personal infusion extracts on my allies?
Personal infusions work on other people. It is basically the only benefit extracts have over spellcasting.
If your DM does not like it, offer to "nerf" yourself by making up variant rules where extracts work like actual spells and you get cantrips like every other 6- or 9-level caster does.
Extracts are drunk 'as if imbibing a potion'.
Potion rules state this:
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).
Infusion discovery allows non-alchemists to drink the extract to get the effects. Due to this, and them being imbibed like a potion, personal spells would be able to affect those who drink the infusion.
Although, it'd be amusing if it just affected the alchemist. Someone else drinks it, and the alchemist gets the buff. Quick! time for some coordinated super buffing of the alchemist :)
There's also this line in Infusion:
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
That's pretty clear cut.
Its not that he dosen't like it, its just that he sticks with the ''personal range'' rules which it only works on the original caster of the spell. If I'm able to find some solid proof he might let me use personal infusions.
Everyone says the same thing, ''alchemists are excluded from this rule'' but how can I prove it or how can you guys prove this, I can't find the text that says ''alchemist infusions are excluded from the personal range spell'' rules.
You won't find that rule, because they generally don't include rules when they aren't needed. You won't find the rule that player characters need to go to the bathroom now and then either.
|
Nothing in the Infusion Discovery description notes a limitation on what extracts can be used.
Your DM is making an arbitrary ruling, based on the fact that he believes the Alchemist is a spellcaster.
The Alchemist is not a spellcaster, and does not count as one for the purposes of feats, traits, or abilities.
Also, note, an actual caster can use Imbue with Spell Ability, to effect others with some personal spells.
So, he wants to put restrictions, based off being a caster, but none of the benefits, and then put additional penalties, and restrictions, because, well, f*ck Alchemists, I guess?
You won't find that rule, because they generally don't include rules when they aren't needed. You won't find the rule that player characters need to go to the bathroom now and then either.
Lmao its funny you know, he actually tells me the same thing you just told me ''you won't find that rule, because they generally don't include rules when they aren't needed''. We just need an admin to clear this out.
Nothing in the Infusion Discovery description notes a limitation on what extracts can be used.
Your DM is making an arbitrary ruling, based on the fact that he believes the Alchemist is a spellcaster.
The Alchemist is not a spellcaster, and does not count as one for the purposes of feats, traits, or abilities.
Also, note, an actual caster can use Imbue with Spell Ability, to effect others with some personal spells.
So, he wants to put restrictions, based off being a caster, but none of the benefits, and then put additional penalties, and restrictions, because, well, f*ck Alchemists, I guess?
Hes just applying the ''range personal rules'' to any personal Infusion I would make which states that these kind of spells only affects the spellcaster that casted the spell.
The issue is that the alchemist themselves never 'cast' anything. Anyone who drinks the infusion is casting it.
Thats more convincing, You pretty much ''cast'' the spell once you drink the spell and not when you create the extract. So the person that drinks the infusion is the true ''caster'' of the spell am I right?
Right, and the alchemy ability states this:
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.
That's when the 'casting' happens.
Right, and the alchemy ability states this:
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.That's when the 'casting' happens.
Infusion pretty much let the ''ally'' to drink any type of extract, making the ally the ''drinking alchemist'' am I right?
I'm just gona link him to this topic so he gets convinced because its so annoying to keep telling him the same thing over and over again >.>
Extracts are weird. They're like potions in some ways, not like them in others. For example, with a potion, you need to decide everything about the spell when you create it. This means that if you have a potion of resist energy, it has to be a potion of resist energy(fire), (cold), (electricity), (acid), or (sonic). [I don't remember if sonic is actually one of them, but you get the idea.] Note that just about no one listens to this rule. Ever. Another example is lesser restoration. You need to choose which ability score to heal when the potion is made.
But extracts? They aren't like that. They aren't made like potions are made. You don't decide the effects until you 'cast' it. And in this case, and this is important for the personal spell range thing, the casting isn't the creation of the infusion, but rather the drinking of it.
Or another example. Let's say a wizard prepares truestrike. Through some ability, a monster has the ability to steal a spell and then cast it. The monster decides to steal truestrike, and he then casts it.
You're darntootin' right that the monster is going to be under the effects of truestrike, even though he didn't prepare the spell. He just had an ability that let him use someone else's prepared spell. In this case, he used the spell the wizard prepared (aka: the infusion the alchemist crafted) and then cast it.
The wizard preparing the spell is exactly similar to the alchemist creating the infusion. They're both prepping it to be used at a later time.
Indeed.
I would also note that this a tried and true tactic.
If he tries to throw the "cheese"(hate this term) comment your way, just mention the Imbue with Spell Ability spell.
Didn't know that Imbue with spell ability existed, thank you very much.
Anything else I could use to win this argument with him? hes a totally ''RAW DM'' and I will need ALOT of proof for this.
|
|
If he is a "RAW DM", then his stance here is hypocritical of that claim.
The RAW proves him wrong.
Remember, extracts are not potions, and do not follow the rules of potions.
Extracts, are extracts.
Specific trumps general.
These are core things that any "RAW DM" should remember.
If he wants to houserule, because he doesn't like it, then he should a least give up his "title", and also let you switch the Discovery.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As BBT said.
Ask your GM to show you the RAW that states that infusions are potions, or follow the rules of potions.
It is what he uses for his reasoning, but it just is not true.
Otherwise, you could not make an infusion of an extract of 4-th level or higher.
As for the RAW on extracts that strengthens your case : "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not."
Right, and the alchemy ability states this:
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.That's when the 'casting' happens.
He says that drinking the extract is when casting happends but he keeps telling me that the caster of the spell is the alchemist and making personal extracts unable to target my allies ....
As BBT said.
Ask your GM to show you the RAW that states that infusions are potions, or follow the rules of potions.
It is what he uses for his reasoning, but it just is not true.
Otherwise, you could not make an infusion of an extract of 4-th level or higher.
As for the RAW on extracts that strengthens your case : "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not."
Hes not saying that it has the same ruling has potions, he just says that personal only affects the spellcaster that made the spell, imbibing equals casting it but dosen't makes u the original caster of the spell.
Well then sorry for your lots. It sounds like nothing short of an official declaration personally handed to him by the designers would convince him otherwise. My alchemist (who was giving out personal infusions all the time) allowed a lot of fun tactics that simply wouldn't have been possible otherwise, and he hardly overpowered anyone else. In fact, some times the only thing he could do was help allies out with the infusions they couldn't get the effects of otherwise.
You should probably make a new thread that just presents everything fairly, and then try to get an FAQ about it. Old threads tend to not do so well at getting FAQs. It's certainly possible that infusions can't be used with personal range spells, but based on many aspects of the rules, I do not feel that that is likely.
|
|
Hes not saying that it has the same ruling has potions, he just says that personal only affects the spellcaster that made the spell, imbibing equals casting it but dosen't makes u the original caster of the spell.As BBT said.
Ask your GM to show you the RAW that states that infusions are potions, or follow the rules of potions.
It is what he uses for his reasoning, but it just is not true.
Otherwise, you could not make an infusion of an extract of 4-th level or higher.
As for the RAW on extracts that strengthens your case : "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not."
What he say will happen is a rogue use Use Magic Device and cast a scroll of True strike or use a wand of True strike?
The limitation on personal use spells is for potions, but infusion aren't potions.
|
|
Oh, and Wands of Personal spells.
UMD, and it's done.
He is stuck on a restriction, exclusive to potions, but not only are extracts not potions, but he actually agrees that they are not potions, so his reference for the restriction, is made irrelevant, by his own words.
So, he is saying, that it doesn't work, because of a rule, which he says doesn't apply, but somehow, that doesn't mean it works, because of the referenced rule.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hmm This is an interesting topic with an interesting question. I didnt want to butt in this argument because it seems like everyone who had post before me is in favor that Infusion of personal spells can affect someone who is not the caster. Though heck I guess, its just my opinion.
So I dont agree. I believe that the infusion is just a tool to be able to affect with extracts other people but like I said its just like an instrument to do so, but the "caster" still would be the Alchemist. In the extract ability all the time is referring to the Alchemist alone and the only thing that infusion does is for the extract not to go inert when leave the Alchemist hand, so if the extract functions exactly as the spell then the only valid target of a personal spell would still be the Alchemist. Just my 2 cents.
Also in the Off-Topic of James Jacobs there are several questions asked no long ago in which he state that only extract that affect creatures can be use on other or imbue into items, not he personal ones.
I guess this is rather complicated and might need an official FAQ ruling, because it might go either way.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Sorry your GM sees it that way. Although, he is free to houserule his game all he wants really. I have seen this in pathfinder society, and some of the effects that are possible are very unbalanced. Still, it works as written and they would have to rewrite the ability to fix the broken stuff which I highly doubt they will. I would allow it in my home game but would houserule the cheese out.
Use touch injection to use polypurpose panacea on an enemy to make them sleep for 1 hour, no save
Any number of other debilitating personal spells with touch injection because personal spells don't allow a save.
|
|
Well "An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects."
I believe that its effects mean those of the infused extract.
So, we know that a Shield extract is RAW.
And infused Shield extract is RAW.
And a non-alchemist imbibing an infused extract gains its effects (also RAW).
I would say that, by RAW above, a non-alchemist imbibing an infused Shield extract will gain its effects (in this case, +4 shield bonus to AC and negating magic missiles attacks directed at him).
Eeeeeeeeeeeeek That Cheese is scary. Yah a sane DM shouldnt allow such thing.
And this is why I created that thread. Any advantages the extract system actually grants you are "cheese" and need to be "fixed."
Just start using metamagic rods. And saying you're using your haste extract on the whole party. And if a foe threatens when you drink an extract that you expect a concentration check to avoid the AoO. And that you will now be casting cantrips. And that you are getting rid of Infusion because spells can be used on others if the target line says so anyway, making Infusion as redundant and pointless as Prone Shooter was (iirc, it got updated).
He apparently wants extracts to be spells when it would hurt you. So it's time they started acting like spells when it would help you, too.
|
|
Hmm This is an interesting topic with an interesting question. I didnt want to butt in this argument because it seems like everyone who had post before me is in favor that Infusion of personal spells can affect someone who is not the caster. Though heck I guess, its just my opinion.
So I dont agree. I believe that the infusion is just a tool to be able to affect with extracts other people but like I said its just like an instrument to do so, but the "caster" still would be the Alchemist. In the extract ability all the time is referring to the Alchemist alone and the only thing that infusion does is for the extract not to go inert when leave the Alchemist hand, so if the extract functions exactly as the spell then the only valid target of a personal spell would still be the Alchemist. Just my 2 cents.
Also in the Off-Topic of James Jacobs there are several questions asked no long ago in which he state that only extract that affect creatures can be use on other or imbue into items, not he personal ones.
I guess this is rather complicated and might need an official FAQ ruling, because it might go either way.
I don't like the idea of sharing personal use spells with other people without using UMD, but the OP asked a question about the rules, and the rules are clear.
What you can do sharing infusions of spells with a range of personal with other characters and the consequences of losing a infusion (you don't recover the extract slot until the infusion is used or destroyed) are the reasons why the alchemist in our campaign has avoided to take the infusion discovery.
The game developers(JJ, Jason B, etc) sended me here to make my question and still we got no official help from ANY of them nor the staff watching these forums. This topic about the Infusion with personal extracts its been around a long time, players have used this method(or myth) of buffing the entire party with personal extracts and yet we can't recieve a clear and official answer.
Come on now people, players have done this ''personal sharing spell trick with infusions'' since day 1, why didn't the developers clear this out? where is the FAQ!!!
|
|
There was already a way to give others personal spells, without UMD, before the Alchemist.
So, this is not new.
Really, this DM needs to decide if he wants the Alchemist to be a spellcaster, treat extracts as potions, or stick with actual RAW.
Imbue with Spell Ability has several limitations that don't exist for the infusions:
1) "Only cleric spells from the schools of abjuration, divination, and conjuration (healing) can be transferred";2) at most "One or two 1st-level spells and one 2nd-level spell" can be transferred, not 6th level extracts;
3) "In the meantime, you remain responsible to your deity or your principles for the use to which the spell is put."
Decidedly different from the infusion discovery.
|
|
Imbue with Spell Ability is different, but the fact that it can give the effects of some personal spells(like True Strike) to others sets a fine example.
The major reasoning people have been using against it are:
1) Spellcasters can't do it, like the Infusion does.
2) Potions can't do it.
3) I don't like it, and I am calling it "cheese"(which usually just means that you don't like it).
There is a counterpoint to all those.
1) Alchemist are not spellcasters.
2) Extracts are not potions.
3) Liking, or disliking a rule has no meaning in regards to it's legality, and is thus, irrelevant.
Mark FAQ on this thread please, we need assistance here >.>
@Jose
Do not be surprised if this comes back as "no reply required" or "answered in FAQ" with no FAQ
The rules are very clear on this situation
As for
The game developers(JJ, Jason B, etc) sended me here to make my question and still we got no official help from ANY of them nor the staff watching these forums.
They sent you hear to make use of the forum. The Rules Questions forum is for you to ask the population of the forum a question and get a general consensus on the answer. A LOT OF TIMES these questions are answered easily by someone that reads the rules constantly and understands them very well...AKA "rules lawyers"
Not posting it ALL but the rules for extracts are...
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. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
An alchemist can prepare an extract of any formula he knows.
Infusions' rules...
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
The above is the wording off of the d20pfsrd...for some reason the SRD will not load for me and I have no books atm.
So if an alchemists makes an extract of True Strike, and gives it to the party monk. The monk drinks the extract and gains its benefits. Monk now has +20 to his next attack roll.
The alchemist is still using up one of his slots just as someone had casts the spell on themselves would. The monk is still using a standard action to drink the infusion/extract just as if someone had used a wand or scroll or command word item.
Thems the rules brother...
If your GM can disprove anything I have said please have him come on the forum and do so. I have posted RAW. If he is a "RAW GM" then he should agree.
Sorry, I just don't see the need for a FAQ. This issue doesn't come up often enough for it to be considered a FREQUENTLY asked question IMO. The rules are clear. Your GM can implement whatever houserules he wants. His interpretation is wrong if he thinks he is going by RAW. That said, it's his campaign and as the GM he is empowered to make whatever calls he feels fit his campaign. The FAQ isn't there to win arguments, it's to provide an answer to a common question in order to keep people from asking the same question repeatedly. Long as he isn't GMing for PFS under his interpretation, he is right because he is the GM.
Agreed on the GM part...though things like this should be made clear before he let someone take a class where he is going to impede the way a class feature works
This comes up often where a GM makes a call on something to do with a class...I always ask my GM prior to making a character concept and build if he has any issues with "X" class's features or has any houseruled changes for it
At this point I suggest you ask to play something else before he says you cannot make bombs or take only 1 discovery period just because he doesn't like you having more than 2 arms, a tentacle, or even wings :) (j/k)
Specific trumps general rules. A discovery is more specific than a line of text in the section on magic.
Not that it is needed but...
....Alchemists don't cast spells....
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nana?Ultimate-Magic-Ultimate-Combat- Alchemist#4
And here is a post with the author and creative director responding to someone saying that you can pass out infused personal extracts, and he agrees with them.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=502?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#25095
@Jose
Do not be surprised if this comes back as "no reply required" or "answered in FAQ" with no FAQ
The rules are very clear on this situation
As for
The game developers(JJ, Jason B, etc) sended me here to make my question and still we got no official help from ANY of them nor the staff watching these forums.They sent you hear to make use of the forum. The Rules Questions forum is for you to ask the population of the forum a question and get a general consensus on the answer. A LOT OF TIMES these questions are answered easily by someone that reads the rules constantly and understands them very well...AKA "rules lawyers"
Not posting it ALL but the rules for extracts are...
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. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.An alchemist can prepare an extract of any formula he knows.Infusions' rules...
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.The above is the wording off of the d20pfsrd...for some reason the SRD will not load for me and I have no books atm.
So if an alchemists makes an extract of True Strike, and gives it to the party monk. The monk drinks the extract and gains its benefits. Monk now has +20 to his next attack roll.
The alchemist is still using up one of his slots just as someone had casts the spell on themselves would. The monk is still using a standard action to drink the infusion/extract just as if someone had used a wand or...
He insists that ''personal range infusions'' spells can't be passed by the alchemistto my allies, hes a ''by the rules guy'' he dosen't like house rules either, he just understands that personal spells can't be used by anyone except the alchemist itself.
Thanks for the info Drakk.
Sorry, I just don't see the need for a FAQ. This issue doesn't come up often enough for it to be considered a FREQUENTLY asked question IMO. The rules are clear. Your GM can implement whatever houserules he wants. His interpretation is wrong if he thinks he is going by RAW. That said, it's his campaign and as the GM he is empowered to make whatever calls he feels fit his campaign. The FAQ isn't there to win arguments, it's to provide an answer to a common question in order to keep people from asking the same question repeatedly. Long as he isn't GMing for PFS under his interpretation, he is right because he is the GM.
Maybe its not a frequently asked question but its still a very good question to answer clearly to evade confusions in the future.
He actually hates ''house rulings'', hes not ruling anything against me nor against the alchemist class, he just understands something different from the rules written. He knows a lot about rules in general but maybe hes a little confused about the whole ''alchemist extract mechanics'' and personal spells with the infusion discovery.
For him everyone in this forums have used the alchemist wrong since day 1, for him ''personal'' spells(extracts) can't be used by no one else besides the alchemist. Hes not house ruling anything at all, hes just interpreting something different from what he reads. If you can prove him by ''RAW'' that he is wrong then he will simply let me be.
Hes not the type of GM that likes to say ''Im the GM and I am always right'' he actually like to do everything by RAW, pure and simple RAW.
This is not a frequently ask question but its still a very debatable question, even tho we all ''globally'' agree with the same thing this question is not completely clear and got some big holes.
Specific trumps general rules. A discovery is more specific than a line of text in the section on magic.
Not that it is needed but...
....Alchemists don't cast spells....http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nana?Ultimate-Magic-Ultimate-Combat- Alchemist#4
And here is a post with the author and creative director responding to someone saying that you can pass out infused personal extracts, and he agrees with them.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=502?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#25095
Usefull very usefull, ur my life saver, thank you!
Jacobs talked about this too in this Link with a more direct question.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=656?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here
Sorry, I just don't see the need for a FAQ. This issue doesn't come up often enough for it to be considered a FREQUENTLY asked question IMO. The rules are clear. Your GM can implement whatever houserules he wants. His interpretation is wrong if he thinks he is going by RAW. That said, it's his campaign and as the GM he is empowered to make whatever calls he feels fit his campaign. The FAQ isn't there to win arguments, it's to provide an answer to a common question in order to keep people from asking the same question repeatedly. Long as he isn't GMing for PFS under his interpretation, he is right because he is the GM.
Indeed is not a FAQ but is still a very good question which bring a lot of confusion and that even developers think different about and a lot of people had been using Infusion for a long time in a way that might not be the right one.
So I think this really needs an official ruling so that everyone knows how Infusion suppose to work.
So, an Alchemist can hire a few villagers (or create a few simulacrum, or borrow some zombies from the evil cleric, etc.) to stand back from the battle and drink 6-9 buffing extracts for the melee-based Alchemist all at the same time?
Or a bunch of adventurers break into an alchemist's lab and discover his extracts and drink them, and the alchemist is made aware of the thieving because all of a sudden he has been effected by Alter Self.
It isn't as complicated as your GM is making it. If he is not ruling that the imbiber is the caster, he is ruling that the personal range of the spell is meaningless. Other people can cast the alchemists personal range spells on the alchemist from any distance by drinking them because the alchemist is technically the caster.
The only other option is to rule that any personal extract drank by anyone besides the alchemist has no effect, which is exactly opposite of what the Infuse Discovery says.
The comment amount the DM having the position that EVERYONE ELSE is "doing it wrong" makes it fairly obvious he isn't truly a RAW DM. If there was even a modest split of opinion on this issue, he might have a chance, but there isn't.
Range personal on any item effect affects the "caster", and the person drinking the infusion is the caster, plain and simple. The general rule is that only the alchemist can drink their elixirs, but the Infusion discovery clearly overrides that rule.