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?
Ohhh dammit! I didnt realized this until know >.> *sighs* I guess another question its in order here. There cant two different rules for the same thing! So one have to be wrong.
But this one needs an ERRATA not an FAQ. *sighs* Still I will make a clean topic for this one too. I will check all the recent erratas before making the post.
|
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?
The fist mean that you don't decide if the potion of Energy resistance protect you from fire or from electricity, it has been already decided by the potion creator.
The second that if you drink a potion of fly you control the effect and so if you fly or walk, your direction and so on.
Decision in the first sentence are the decisions about the spell effects, control in the second sentence is how the spell effects empress themselves.
ahhhh Hmm Perhaps I read it too fast lol. So basically The Creator of the potion is the caster of the spell and the one who make the choices. Then the drinker is the "effective" target (because is a spell cast upon him) and the caster of the effect (and not the spell) so that he can control the spell effect.
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.
While that is still a raw deal, honestly it's much better than the restrictions he is imposing on you currently, and the restrictions the RAW imposes on extracts. I'd take the deal.
Do point out to him that wizards get bonus feats as a class feature and can use one of them to take an arcane discovery for 1 minute spell slot filling. So request maybe getting the boost at 5th level (when wiz can take Fast Study), or at least allowing Fast Study as an alchemist discovery.
That's really not so bad, though. If he's allowing everything else I wrote as is: concentration checks to cast defensively; metamagic rod/feat use; actual multi-target spells and infusion tax is completely gone; cantrips; etc...
That's much better than what you've got right now.
Official Rules Response
|
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qv1
Alchemist and infusions: Can I use the infusion discovery to create an infused extract of a personal-range formula (such as true strike), which someone else can drink?
Yes, you can. The design team may decide to close this loophole in the next printing of the Advanced Player's Guide.
Loophole? It's literally the only advantage extracts have, compared to a mountain of negatives.
Oh well, at least a definitive answer that you can.
Loophole? It's literally the only advantage extracts have, compared to a mountain of negatives.
Oh well, at least a definitive answer that you can.
I know this is old but I just want to point out that extracts don't have casting time. This is a pretty serious advantage with some spells.