If your GM truly is a RAW GM, then surely he can quote you the rule that says that personal range extracts can only be used on the alchemist. No such rule exists, so he is effectively making a houserule. I am a RAW GM and if something like this comes up, I find the relevant text to back up my rulings after the game. Before pathfinder, I was studying to try and become a MtG judge, but decided against it in the end. Here's some things you can quote that show you can indeed use personal range extracts on other people with infusion:
An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, 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.
Extracts are like potions, but they are not potions. A similar relationship to this is spells vs. Spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities are not spells, but they behave like spells. Just like Extracts are not potions, but they behave like potions.
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: Alchemist. 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 becoming inert, 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.
So you normally can't pass infusions to anyone. They are only usable by the alchemist. This line refers you to the infusion discovery for an exception to the rule. Specific rules trump more general rules.
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 formulae 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. 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.
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.
This is where you find out that extracts work like potions, but are not potions. You cannot make a potion of a personal range spell. But extracts are not potions. They work like potions, but they are not bound by the rules of only being able to contain a spell that targets a creature or object. You cannot make a potion of shield or disguise self, but you can make an extract of shield or disguise self.
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).The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.
Here you can see that person drinking the potion is the caster and the target of the effect.
Now let's check out the infusion discovery. This is where it all comes together:
InfusionBenefit: 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.
It says extracts can be imbibed by a non-alchemist. It doesn't say only extracts that don't have a range of personal. It just says infused extracts. This is why alchemists can pass out an extract of shield or disguise self, and they will actually work when the person drinks the extract.
To summarize this giant wall of text:
1. Extracts are not potions (just like a spell-like ability is not a spell)
2. Extracts behave like potions (just like a spell-like ability behaves like a spell)
3. Extracts can't be used by anyone other than the alchemist, unless he has the Infusion discovery
4. Extracts are "cast" by drinking them (the person drinking it is both the caster and the target)
5. Infused extracts created by the alchemist can be used by anyone he gives the extract to
There is nothing to suggest that personal range extracts are any different from an extract that has a creature or object as a target. Absent this distinction, they work exactly the same. You're going to have to get your GM to quote the rule he is using to declare that personal extracts can't be used with infusion because if we are all using it wrong, I need to update my understanding of the rules.
I will say again...have him come on here...to the forums and make his case personally so that we as a community can see where his confusion comes from. This is not to "bash" him or call him a bad GM (although it really seems that we are lol) but so that we can show him that what he is doing is indeed a houserule. If he wants to own up to that and tell you that he is actually nerfing one of your discoveries then that's his right as the GM in his games...but to say that its RAW and that he is following the rules, he needs to show where he is coming by that rule.
Specific trumps general...every GM knows this. If he is thinking that extracts ARE potions then does he not allow you to make extracts of personal spells at all? What about spells above 3rd level? Can you only make one extract a day? All of these are limitations of POTIONS not EXTRACTS
Potions are not Extracts
Extracts are not Potions
Honestly, Alchemist is a really bad class to play in a game with a "strict RAW" GM, regardless.
The extracts thing lacks the massive amount of rules text and explanation and support of regular casting. Hell, the actual text on how extracts work in Alchemy is only a few sentences long! Not just how they're used, but even how they're prepared and how you learn new ones. All in just a few sentences. It's woefully insufficient to make actual "RAW" rulings with. Then there's the absurd rules with bombs and splash weapons and when they're weapons and when they're not, and which can be full attacked with while the other can't (not with quickdraw, at least), etc... which comes out of PF's desire to f*** over the flask rogue yet still have a class that full attacks with flask-like "weapons."
It's a total cluster****, I would avoid the class entirely in any game with such a self-proclaimed DM. Stick to classes whose attacks and abilities are lengthily and fully expounded upon, like actual spellcasters.
I will say again...have him come on here...to the forums and make his case personally so that we as a community can see where his confusion comes from. This is not to "bash" him or call him a bad GM (although it really seems that we are lol) but so that we can show him that what he is doing is indeed a houserule. If he wants to own up to that and tell you that he is actually nerfing one of your discoveries then that's his right as the GM in his games...but to say that its RAW and that he is following the rules, he needs to show where he is coming by that rule.
Specific trumps general...every GM knows this. If he is thinking that extracts ARE potions then does he not allow you to make extracts of personal spells at all? What about spells above 3rd level? Can you only make one extract a day? All of these are limitations of POTIONS not EXTRACTS
Potions are not Extracts
Extracts are not Potions
Haha Seems like everyone is bashing the DM indeed. I think the developers shouldnt had made something in between items and spell, it makes thing more confusing.
Like the guy above me said.... It would seems like if all the extract were personal by default but since the made the Alchemist extract act as a duplicate of the actual spell I guess it would make perfectly sense that All the spell descriptions are being used by extracts which would include the Range: Personal.
Spell like Haste that suppose to affect one person per level only affect the Alchemist so the Infusion would make a lot of sense on this spell specifically.
Anyhow... when you have two developers saying different things, who should we believe until an Official rule is made on this? While Reynolds said something about working with spells in a topic someone linked here and Jacobs said it infusion doesnt work with personal range extracts.
Hmm perhaps but Jacobs seems to be the only one of the devs currently answering rule questions. The others doesn't seems to care.
JJ also claims to be the one who wrote the Alchemist class. He says so right in my linked thread on page 1.
It is unfortunate, since he very clearly is not a "rules guy." Fluff is great, but ultimately I care most about whether the class actually functions correctly.
JJ also claims to be the one who wrote the Alchemist class. He says so right in my linked thread on page 1.
It is unfortunate, since he very clearly is not a "rules guy." Fluff is great, but ultimately I care most about whether the class actually functions correctly.
Oh wow I like your Alchemist version. I was thinking last night that same thing, that probably Alchemist should had spells instead of extracts and they wouldnt give too much rules problems.
I really like those simple and straight changes which is how it should had been. Nice work.
If your GM truly is a RAW GM, then surely he can quote you the rule that says that personal range extracts can only be used on the alchemist. No such rule exists, so he is effectively making a houserule. I am a RAW GM and if something like this comes up, I find the relevant text to back up my rulings after the game. Before pathfinder, I was studying to try and become a MtG judge, but decided against it in the end. Here's some things you can quote that show you can indeed use personal range extracts on other people with infusion:
An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, 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.
Extracts are like potions, but they are not potions. A similar relationship to this is spells vs. Spell-like abilities. Spell-like abilities are not spells, but they behave like spells. Just like Extracts are not potions, but they behave like potions.
...
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: Alchemist. 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
Thank you very much for writing all this.
Ill try to explain my GM's point in a bit. He says that the caster of all the extracts is ALWAYS the drinking alchemist BY RAW ''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'', he says that it mentions ''DRINKING ALCHEMIST'' for a reason, he says that it is only meant to be casted by an alchemist. By RAW he says that the alchemist is always the caster of the spells (even those that he passes) with the infusion discovery. He says that the infusion discovery never mentions in the text that the none-alchemists can cast the extracts but just IMBIBE them and gain their effects but they are not actually casting it. He says that the caster of the spell is always the alchemist, even the ones that I infuse and that I don't embibe. For example if I make a true strike INFUSION and pass it down to an ally it wont make any effect to the new none-drinking alchemist because the original caster is the ALCHEMIST and the true strike is a personal spell which only affects ''ME'' the caster, in this case the alchemist.
I tried to explain him that infusion discovery let my allies to be the new casters(IMBIBERS) of the infusions but he states that the INFUSION discovery doesn't say that the new none-alchemists are the new casters of the spell, he states that they drink it but they are not the casters, he says they only gain the spell effect when they embibe it but do not make them the new caster of the spell. He keeps saying that the alchemist is and always will be the caster of the spell.
Plus James Jacob answered this question here http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=656?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Qu estions-Here#32775, James Jacob didn't give too much info and just replayed me to my question ''I'd say no... but these are better questions to be asking the rules team''. And here I am, asking this in the rules team and recieving a WHOLE DIFERENT ANSWER!!.
oh dear... so, i'd be tempted to ask the DM, so can i counter the monster's spell like abilities, or see him cast the spell-like...
however, this has been stated I'll repeat:
Extracts act like potions except where they do not.
A potion's effective caster and target is the person popping the cork and chugging.
A potions CL and effects are determined in the hour of brewing.
Extracts do not require pre-determination of effects (so people have said and see no reason to doubt them)
An alchemist can make and quaff extracts in less time than potions
An extract vacating an alchemists hand (not necc his iirc) becomes inert.
Infusion allows the alchemist to infuse an extract with a little more oomph to make it last longer, and allow others to quaff as the alchemist.
Transposing any 'the casting alchemist' with 'non-alchemist' where required.
btw: spell likes cannot be countered and have no verbal nor somatic components.
Done:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/v/vocal-alteration"You alter the target’s voice to something else. For example, you could make the target’s voice high-pitched, husky, or nasal, or change its accent to an accent you are familiar with. If this spell is used as part of a disguise, the target gets a +10 bonus on the Disguise check when trying to fool a listener."
The "You" in this passage has to be the drinker of the extract, otherwise the alchemist would have to decide one the spell parameters when preparing, which is never done for any spells.
The first thing that came to my mind after reading this was....
The Alchemist give a Barbarian a Vocal Alteration infusion. He just say: "Hey buddy come and drink this" (without even saying what it is) and teh Barbarian all of a sudden turn soo smart after drinking the extract and immediately knows what he is drinking and how to use it and he decided to have the voice of a dwarf!
Im not truing to mock you, its just that it sound quite odd for someone to decide something of an extract/spell when he have no clue about spells and effects.
To summarize this giant wall of text:
1. Extracts are not potions (just like a spell-like ability is not a spell)
2. Extracts behave like potions (just like a spell-like ability behaves like a spell)
3. Extracts can't be used by anyone other than the alchemist, unless he has the Infusion discovery
4. Extracts are "cast" by drinking them (the person drinking it is both the caster and the target)
5. Infused extracts created by the alchemist can be used by anyone he gives the extract toThere is nothing to suggest that personal range extracts are any different from an extract that has a creature or object as a target. Absent this distinction, they work exactly the same. You're going to have to get your GM to quote the rule he is using to declare that personal extracts can't be used with infusion because if we are all using it wrong, I need to update my understanding of the rules.
(For some reason the quote have limitations of space, so I quoted just the summary)
Hehe Huge wall of text but an interesting one and worth reading. I might be butting in again XD but since the GM is just answering through his player, I'm going to put some points on the table based on what Mr Matthews posted.
Just trying to see all this conflict from a different point of view.
The Summary:
To summarize this giant wall of text:
1. Spell-like abilities still use all of the spell descriptions since its an exact duplicate (just like extracts) except for components such as Verbal and Somatic. Spell-like even eliminate Materials but extracts no.
2. Extracts are like something in between both worlds which is the cause of so many confusions I guess.
3. Yah it seems the class was restricted Heavy on this but it applies to all sort of exacts including the one that a spell caster could normally use to affect others like Cure Light Wound or Haste.
4. Hmm even this one could confuse I guess, even if it were possible to cast all kinds of spells the extract/spells still check for valid targets. Or would you give an extract of Enlarge Person to an outsider? I mean ... sure he could drink it it no problem but it would still not affect him even if the Infusion says it affect the drinker.
5. The Infusion seems to had been made to lift the #3 point restriction. I admit it was poorly written, so I guess all the normal descriptions for the spell would still apply.
The Bold comments:
1.In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form
Those many ways aren't very specific I'm afraid.
2.Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.
Hmm yeah potions are limited to 3rd level spells extract are not so indeed you can have more powerful effects since you can duplicate 6th level spells.
3.An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist’s possession
Hmm if this is quite clear, then why the need to state that can affect ONLY the Alchemist if that suppose to be enough since one else can take them and drink them.
4. an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below)
Hmm as point #3 of the summary. Its a restriction to the class which infusion lift. The class probably would had been unbalanced if he had spells instead of extracts, but we wouldnt have all these conflicts LOL.
5. 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.
Hmm after reading Jose Suarez 916 latest post on what his DM said about this. I guess that is exactly what is written, so is referring to the alchemist, also since it says its an exact duplicate of the spell then all the spells description, limitations etc etc should apply.
6. targets one or more creatures or objects.
Hmm another reason why extracts can have more powerful effects.
7. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down.
Yup, so someone else is able to drink it.
8. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
Again point #3 and #5 of the summary, could be just to lift the restriction, but still to gain the effect must be a valid target.
At this point I doubt even having SKR or God himself tell your GM the way that it works would change his ruling.
Ask him this and give his response.
What does the infusion discovery do?
This would give all of us a chance to see what is thinking...but again I really don't think your GM is going to budge on this regardless of what anyone says.
Your GM is bad and you should feel bad!
-Zoidberg
At this point I doubt even having SKR or God himself tell your GM the way that it works would change his ruling.
Ask him this and give his response.
What does the infusion discovery do?
This would give all of us a chance to see what is thinking...but again I really don't think your GM is going to budge on this regardless of what anyone says.
He says that infusion discovery lets me affect my allies with extracts but do not make them the ''caster'' of the extract, he says that its just a tool to let an ally be affected by extracts but not make them the caster of the spell itself and it is the reason that personal spells do not affect allies because personal spells only affect the ''caster'' of the spell.
He says that in the infusion discovery dosen't mention anything about letting my allies ''cast'' this spell, he only sees the word imbibe and gain the effect but not actually casting the spell itself.
yea... i can see choosing settings for spell when prepared (as if a potion) [and before hate, i know alchy break this...]
but the ally cannot use... hell compromise and say you will choose settings at making the potion, if they can use it...?
Make sure he understands that alchemists don't CAST spells at all. They make extracts similar to a potion that can copy spells. With infusions they can hand those extracts to someone else and that person can then use it. They are drank and activated JUST like potions meaning that the infusion discovery doesn't HAVE to say that allies are the caster because they act like potions...that the only rule he needs to know that he's wrong
IT DOES NOT matter if its a spell of personal range or burst or whatever other kind
If he doesn't want them to work that way then it's a houserule and he has to at least own up and say that he is house ruling it
I'll say again that you probably just need to give up...even if everyone from the design team went and personally told your GM how infusions work I doubt he's going to change his stance
However...see if there is a PFS GM nearby where you live...PFS is known for being more RAW than anything...have him ask that GM...I personally don't think it will work but you can have some hope
I really hope this doesn't cause a continual issue with your GM brother....and I hope he doesn't have any other weird reading of other class features
How would the DM arbitrate Bless as an infusion?
Note: You can add a "spell" to your formulae list via a Trait. Elixers that are based on area spells affect the alchemist only, so in effect, ALL elixers become personal!
The original target/range of the spell is ignored by the elixer, it only affects the imbiber of the elixer, period. For infusions, it allows anyone to become the imbiber.
Make sure he understands that alchemists don't CAST spells at all. They make extracts similar to a potion that can copy spells. With infusions they can hand those extracts to someone else and that person can then use it. They are drank and activated JUST like potions meaning that the infusion discovery doesn't HAVE to say that allies are the caster because they act like potions...that the only rule he needs to know that he's wrong
IT DOES NOT matter if its a spell of personal range or burst or whatever other kind
If he doesn't want them to work that way then it's a houserule and he has to at least own up and say that he is house ruling it
I'll say again that you probably just need to give up...even if everyone from the design team went and personally told your GM how infusions work I doubt he's going to change his stance
However...see if there is a PFS GM nearby where you live...PFS is known for being more RAW than anything...have him ask that GM...I personally don't think it will work but you can have some hope
I really hope this doesn't cause a continual issue with your GM brother....and I hope he doesn't have any other weird reading of other class features
Hes pretty much in blind-mode at the moment, hes not house ruling it because he believes on what he says to be the right reading and the right interpretation. You got no clue of how frustrating it is to tell him the same thing over and over again, to make him see this thread and still he wont change his mind. It makes me wanna cry lol.
The only way this could be solved is that the rules team get in here, see this post and end it once and for all with their judgement.
Anyways thank you all for ur help, even tho it didn't make him change his mind it actually solidify my believes on how the alchemist works.
How would the DM arbitrate Bless as an infusion?
Note: You can add a "spell" to your formulae list via a Trait. Elixers that are based on area spells affect the alchemist only, so in effect, ALL elixers become personal!The original target/range of the spell is ignored by the elixer, it only affects the imbiber of the elixer, period. For infusions, it allows anyone to become the imbiber.
I know but he thiks that the alchemist is the caster of the spell even tho the ally imbibes the extract, its frustrating ....
for a potion, its on creation, for an alchemist extract when the alchemist uses/activates/quaffs it.
for a potion, its on creation, for an alchemist extract when the alchemist uses/activates/quaffs it.And if it's an infusion, passed off to someone else?
for infusions, the 'non-alchemist' = 'alchemist'/quaffer/drinker/gurgler/chugger/sipper
Well to try to end this conflict Im going to make a new fresh topic with the direct question to see if we get the attention of the rule staff so the question is considered for an official FAQ ruling, like is suggested.
|
[...]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.
P-p-p-post necro!
You know, I've turned the potion rules inside and out looking for that rule more than once, and I've yet to find it. While I can certainly see it as a particularly well entrenched opinion (I've found quite a few potions of resist energy [fire] in PFS), I've never actually found the rule that makes it so. If the crafter of a potion has to make those decisions for the spell he bottles, what stops the crafter of a wand, scroll, or wondrous item from having to make precisely the same decisions?/threadjack
On the issue at hand, while I strongly suspect that it will do no good, here's some other RAW-based questions to toss at him:
Why only apply the typical range rules to personal infusions? Why is he not concerned by infusions of close, medium, and long range spells? Or, other people have said, of infusions with multiple targets?
Why is it that Alchemists' infusions have this problem, but not any other source of personal spells? He doesn't think that triggering a wand of true strike gives the wand's crafter a +20 to hit for one round. So why...
Never mind. You've made it quite clear that he's not listening to reason, Mr. Suarez. Sadly, this seems to be a case where the GM in question doesn't actually care for RAW, but rather for (as I think BBT put it?) RAITIRTABSHFOT (Rules As I Think I Remember Them And Barry Said He Found One Time).
Guess I'll go FAQ the other thread. I wanna see that wonderful "No response required" in action! ;)
|
At this point I doubt even having SKR or God himself tell your GM the way that it works would change his ruling.
Ask him this and give his response.
What does the infusion discovery do?
This would give all of us a chance to see what is thinking...but again I really don't think your GM is going to budge on this regardless of what anyone says.
He says that infusion discovery lets me affect my allies with extracts but do not make them the ''caster'' of the extract, he says that its just a tool to let an ally be affected by extracts but not make them the caster of the spell itself and it is the reason that personal spells do not affect allies because personal spells only affect the ''caster'' of the spell.
He says that in the infusion discovery dosen't mention anything about letting my allies ''cast'' this spell, he only sees the word imbibe and gain the effect but not actually casting the spell itself.
To repeat the question, what i say about scrolls or personal range spells?
Or wands?Both cast the spell when you use them and they can be activated by anyone that has spent points in Use Magic Device.
|
|
[...]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.P-p-p-post necro!
You know, I've turned the potion rules inside and out looking for that rule more than once, and I've yet to find it. While I can certainly see it as a particularly well entrenched opinion (I've found quite a few potions of resist energy [fire] in PFS), I've never actually found the rule that makes it so. If the crafter of a potion has to make those decisions for the spell he bottles, what stops the crafter of a wand, scroll, or wondrous item from having to make precisely the same decisions?
/threadjack
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).
Under magic items, potions and at page 477 of the CRB.
And:
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.
in the Brew potion feat.
BTW, this work for the OP too: 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).
[...]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.P-p-p-post necro!
You know, I've turned the potion rules inside and out looking for that rule more than once, and I've yet to find it. While I can certainly see it as a particularly well entrenched opinion (I've found quite a few potions of resist energy [fire] in PFS), I've never actually found the rule that makes it so. If the crafter of a potion has to make those decisions for the spell he bottles, what stops the crafter of a wand, scroll, or wondrous item from having to make precisely the same decisions?
/threadjack
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).Under magic items, potions and at page 477 of the CRB.
And:
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.in the Brew potion feat.
BTW, this work for the OP too: 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).
Well done Mr. Rossi. In the Alchemist case the Infusion discovery was poorly written and the text of the extract didn't need to be too specific because after all the Alchemist was going to be the extract creator and his user/drinker.
But with all that said, this might recall for another clean topic for a new question about the extracts about "casters and users" to confirm if those rules will apply to extracts when the Infusion discovery is used because I'm sure many people are still going to the defend their point of view with the fact the "extracts aren't potions nor spells".
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.
I lost hope with the rules team staff.
I don't think hoping for a response from the design team would be a valuable use of your time. The rules are pretty clear and the only one who seems to think otherwise is your GM. I would just pick a different discovery or just live with your GM's neutered version. You can still give out most of your infusions. I have a feeling that even if the design team did clarify it, your GM's position wouldn't change. There has been compelling evidence presented by many rules lawyers on here to show him he is wrong. In the end, it's his game, so I would probably drop it before both of you end up with sore feelings toward each other over it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Universal Formula extract wouldn't need to specifically exclude infusions, if personal range extracts were already excluded from that discovery.
I feel the need to once again suggest giving up. Some DMs just make their games inhospitable to a class or a build or a concept. It sucks, you wanted to play it. I know, I've been there. Many, many times. But sometimes its best to shelve it for a game where you can actually enjoy the character, and make something else for this game.
*That one's actually a show stopper for me. Fumble rules = bye bye.
The classes, ESPECIALLY the spell casters, can be molded and fluffed many different ways. So you may want to consider taking whatever you wanted to do with Alchemist, and channeling a spellcaster to fill that role instead. Wizard or Sorc is a good sub for a bomber alchemist; Synth. Summoner or Druid is a good alternate for a melee Alchemist.
I feel the need to once again suggest giving up. Some DMs just make their games inhospitable to a class or a build or a concept. It sucks, you wanted to play it. I know, I've been there. Many, many times. But sometimes its best to shelve it for a game where you can actually enjoy the character, and make something else for this game.
** spoiler omitted **
The classes, ESPECIALLY the spell casters, can be molded and fluffed many different ways. So you may want to consider taking whatever you wanted to do with Alchemist, and channeling a spellcaster to fill that role instead. Wizard or Sorc is a good sub for a bomber alchemist; Synth. Summoner or Druid is a good alternate for a melee Alchemist.
He gived me the option to use ur alchemist spellcaster rules(you posted the link in this thread) but he was a bit unfair, he wanted to remove the total concept of ''extracts'' which it was fine with me but then he wanted to put extra restrictions on the spellcasting which I did not like for example, he wanted to keep the restriction of not been able to cast my spells no my allies(restriction given to the alchemist extracts), then he wanted me to prepare spells like wizards does(15 mins per spell) instead of letting me choose to prepare them 1 min ahead of time(like extracts do).
I tried to negotiate with him, pretty much accepting the 15 mins of prep time in between spells but of letting me cast spells to my allies without wasting it on the Infusion discovery. Negotiations failed miserably so I prety much decided to stick with the alchemist has it is and hope for a future ''fix'' to the class spellcasting mechanism.
I don't think hoping for a response from the design team would be a valuable use of your time. The rules are pretty clear and the only one who seems to think otherwise is your GM. I would just pick a different discovery or just live with your GM's neutered version. You can still give out most of your infusions. I have a feeling that even if the design team did clarify it, your GM's position wouldn't change. There has been compelling evidence presented by many rules lawyers on here to show him he is wrong. In the end, it's his game, so I would probably drop it before both of you end up with sore feelings toward each other over it.
He will take the design team answer, he said he would and I believe him, hes a man of his word. But you are right tho, I will drop the argument since its pretty much useless to argue about something that we are uncleard off. By the way, what do you think about this? this has to be a mistaken wording or something, take a look.
Thanks to Diego Rossi for this,
(Under magic items, potions and at page 477 of the CRB)
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.
brew potion FEAT says in the last sentence:
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).
So whats the deal here? lol, they made a mistake on the writing?
ask him what happens if you chug all of your bombs? frankly this seems abuot the bestest option.