Except I've already said poison is a drink and you would try to drink it. so that interpretation comes out of nowhere.
The "appropriate" use for a number of poisons is to apply it to the weapon.Drinking is not an "appropriate" use for inhalation, injury, or contact poisons. Applying to a weapon is the "appropriate" use for a contact and especially injury poisons.
EDIT: Technically, drinking it yourself is not the appropriate use for ANY poison.
Except I conceded the spell doesn't work like that.
In any case, I'm sorry, but I'm still not debating with you at all after the personal attack you made on me earlier.
|
Fireball deals d6 damage per CL. It is a 3rd level evocation spell.
A 7th level evocation spell, scouring winds, deals only 3d6 damage, regardless of level. By 13th level when you can cast it, it is outpaced by fireball by 7d6. It does many other things, though.
If someone wants to create a new spell that's crappier than one in core, I'm not going to stop them. Though I'd say the long duration goes a long way toward making it not so crappy (against any enemies that can't escape the area, at least).
"Of course, this assumes an acid that isn't "obviously" harmful. If it smells and is billowing smokey fumes, I'm not letting the bluff check happen.
*genuine applause*
Excellent! We do agree."Wait - when I was sick my mom used to give me smokey, bad smelling stuff all the time! Gack! she was trying to kill me!
Doctor? You mean "assassin."
Wait - when I was sick my mom used to give me smokey, bad smelling stuff all the time! Gack! she was trying to kill me!In a fantasy world (PFS) our characters drink drinks in a tavern that do everything short of setting the building on fire. The question is does the target think it's a drink.
School 1 says - "what's in the vial? acid/poison, auto save, no drinking. Grandma's Special Reserve Kick-a-pu Joy Juice, glug-glug smack lips.
School 2 says - "lol! roll me a bluff check... my Sense motive is a 21. your bluff? 20? sorry guy... I recognize it as a splash weapon and pitch it on you."
As hard as it is for the School 1 judge to understand/beleave - I'm ok with the School 2 result.
No, your mom wasn't trying to kill you, but let me posit this question to you. In the woods, you stumble onto a bottle with a bad smelling, smoking liquid inside. Is your first instinct to drink it?
In other words, do you automatically think such an item is a drink?
If you answered yes, how are you alive?
If you answered no, why would your character act like that if you wouldn't? And as I said there, no one who lived to adulthood would.
If someone wants to create a new spell that's crappier than one in core, I'm not going to stop them. Though I'd say the long duration goes a long way toward making it not so crappy (against any enemies that can't escape the area, at least).Fireball deals d6 damage per CL. It is a 3rd level evocation spell.
A 7th level evocation spell, scouring winds, deals only 3d6 damage, regardless of level. By 13th level when you can cast it, it is outpaced by fireball by 7d6. It does many other things, though.
But this is my point. Dominate person has a larger range, a longer duration, and a significantly more powerful effect. Scouring Winds, in addition to its duration and damage, also blocks all vision and messes with ranged attacks and fliers. You can also move the effect every round. That makes it not better than fireball, but places it in a completely different category. If we focus only on the damage, though (fireball does more damage which is energy typed; scouring winds does less which is weapon typed), then fireball is clearly superior, so how is it 4 spell levels lower?
If we compare dominate person and beguiling gift ONLY on the criteria of "can it cause them to take an obviously and immediately self-destructive action?" then clearly beguiling gift is stronger, but there are MANY MANY other ways that dominate person is stronger.
Also, any response to why command doesn't allow a second auto-save against obviously self destructive orders? The reason it doesn't is the spell exists specifically to get someone to take a short-term self destructive action. Command gets him to drop prone in a river of acid, or drop his sword and shield in the middle of a fight. Beguiling gift exists to get him to drink an inflict potion or swap his +5 Greataxe of everything-bane for a -2 quarterstaff made of balsa wood. Both are obviously self destructive. Dominate makes up for that in its flexibility and duration.
but let me posit this question to you. In the woods, you stumble onto a group of people relaxing around a camp fire. A really hot babe walks over to you winks and hands you a mug with a bad smelling, steaming liquid inside. "Something to warm you up sailor?" she says leaning close. You notice that she's not wairing anything under that leather jacket. Is your first instinct to NOT drink it?
Are all your part working correctly, or are you gay?
Yes my first instinct is to not drink it unless I know what it is. All my parts are working fine, but my self preservation instinct beats my mating instinct every time.
And how did this become about my sexuality exactly?
|
Cartigan, I'm with you that as appropriate for the item only applies to don or consume, not to use. However, I also think we should read "don" as widely as we possibly can in this situation, because of the examples given, specifically "a sword wielded in a free hand." This is a generic example which can be read broadly as "a [weapon] wielded in a free hand." If you are handed a weapon, you wield it in a free hand (or 2, if it is a two-hander). So if you hand the person a vial of acid and say "drink this drink" with the casting of the spell, then you have actually done two things.
(1) You have cast beguiling gift to get them to accept and use the item.
(2) You have made a bluff check to convince them that the acid is a drink.Nowhere in the spell does it say that you get to dictate the terms of their use. Only that they use it as appropriate. So if you want them to drink the acid or molten lead, you must convince them it is a drink. Otherwise, they don (read: "equip") the item and "wield" it. They do this by throwing it in your face.
Which actually opens up the interesting interpretation that if a druid has Throw Anything or an equipment feat which lets him chuck shields, then he could just throw the shield back at you rather than equip it since that has become an "appropriate" action for him.
Also, to the people who keep bringing up willingness, this has been addressed over and over again. Reread the thread.
Can you point me to the part of the spell that say that you can refuse to don or consume something if it is evidently harmful? Where is the part that say the targed should be convinced of anything?
When you accept the offered item after falling the ST you have 2 options:
a) don it (in a broad sense)
b) consume it
You get a vial labelled poison. What are you option
a) don it -> not possible
b) consume it -> possible -> forced
If I can choose the "appropriate" action I will put away the poisoned apple to be eaten after the fight/discussion/encounter has ended.
Eating or drinking a beer is not an "appropriate action" in the middle of a hostile encounter.
Similarly removing your possibly magic shield to don a new shield is not an appropriate action in the middle of a hostile encounter. Reducing your AC even temporally is not appropriate.
The spell don't allow an evaluation of what is appropriate or it will auto-fail most of the time.
Cartigan, I'm with you that as appropriate for the item only applies to don or consume, not to use. However, I also think we should read "don" as widely as we possibly can in this situation, because of the examples given, specifically "a sword wielded in a free hand." This is a generic example which can be read broadly as "a [weapon] wielded in a free hand." If you are handed a weapon, you wield it in a free hand (or 2, if it is a two-hander). So if you hand the person a vial of acid and say "drink this drink" with the casting of the spell, then you have actually done two things.
(1) You have cast beguiling gift to get them to accept and use the item.
(2) You have made a bluff check to convince them that the acid is a drink.Nowhere in the spell does it say that you get to dictate the terms of their use. Only that they use it as appropriate. So if you want them to drink the acid or molten lead, you must convince them it is a drink. Otherwise, they don (read: "equip") the item and "wield" it. They do this by throwing it in your face.
Which actually opens up the interesting interpretation that if a druid has Throw Anything or an equipment feat which lets him chuck shields, then he could just throw the shield back at you rather than equip it since that has become an "appropriate" action for him.
Also, to the people who keep bringing up willingness, this has been addressed over and over again. Reread the thread.
Can you point me to the part of the spell that say that you can refuse to don or consume something if it is evidently harmful? Where is the part that say the targed should be convinced of anything?
When you accept the offered item after falling the ST you have 2 options:
a) don it (in a broad sense)
b) consume itYou get a vial labelled poison. What are you option
a) don it -> not possible
b) consume it -> possible -> forcedIf I can choose the "appropriate" action I will put away the poisoned apple to be eaten after the fight/discussion/encounter has...
If they hand you a poison drink, you drink it. If they hand you a cursed quarterstaff, you drop your greatsword and wield it. If they hand you a necklace of strangulation, you put it on. I've been arguing this all along.
We then went to a discussion of what happens if they hand you a vial of acid. As written, a vial of acid is a splash weapon. The appropriate "donning" is to equip it as a weapon and chuck it at somebody. That is in keeping with the example of "wield a sword."
The question was, can you get somebody to drink a vial of acid with this spell? My response was that you would need to make a bluff check to get them to consider it a drink and drink it. If you hand them a poisoned apple, no check is necessary because the appropriate action with an apple is to drink it. Not so with a vial of acid.
I have never said the spell can't get you to do harmful things. I have been arguing against that since the very first page of this thread. The spell very obviously gets you to do harmful things. However, it can only get you to do APPROPRIATE harmful things, and drinking a vial of acid or a tub of molten lead is not appropriate unless you believe the acid or lead to be something else. That is where the bluff check comes in.
It's not in the spell, it is a call as a DM. As written, if you handed somebody a vial of acid, the only option from the spell's point of view is to have them chuck it in your (or any of the target's other enemies) face. I am actually expanding its power to accommodate for even more trickery.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts. Don't be jerks.
Wombat:
alureing Chalaxian Courtesan sees you pause looking at the mug "It's tea baby - Mommys' special brew to keep things "warm" all night and not leave little packages behind" bluff check? Diplomacy? disguse?
Oh! Ok well as a DM:
In this case, because it depends on sexuality, I would have a diplomacy check dc(dc for target's starting attitude +10). Because it depends on sexuality, I might impose penalty's or benefits depending on their racial subtype, and it would flat out fail against anyone who wouldn't be sexually attractive to you (due to being heterosexual and of the opposite gender, or gay and of your gender for example).If you succeed, they drink it if you fail, they realise what you're up to and attempt to splash it in your face.
LINK2
LINK3 (my fave)
What are potions like in your game?
How do you differentiate a potion from an acid? Especially considering some of the fun and creative ideas in Link3!
Without opening the can of worms I did before, I see no difference between handing someone a vial of acid with the spell and trying to make them drink it, and handing someone a sword and trying to make them eat it.
I say acid is a splash weapon and that by default, when you hand it to them they use it as a splash weapon. If you want to make them drink it, it should involve some sort of check, just like trying to make them eat the sword would.
wow Wombat - we've almost got you into School 2! now just realize that I am not fighting you, heck, normally my character isn't even fighting your NPC (at least not trying to kill them). The reason she would be trying to "de-spell" the druid is to capture the poor bugger alive! (her quote "Don't kill 'em! They're worth more ALIVE!"). She's third level now and has never done a hit point to any creature other than herself (and almost killed herself then). And been very helpful in each mod she's played (thou it is kind of hard to do in the Dungeon Crawl mods).
I always was in school 2. My first post in this thread was about de-spelling a druid. I said:
This is a perfectly valid use of the spell. In fact, it seems to be the entire point of the spell. It's no more dickish than giving someone a cursed item with it which is something the spell explicitly says you can do.Druids have high will saves and it's a level 1 spell that's will negated. If the druid fails the save, that's his problem.
The only thing I've argued against is the spell being able to make someone drink a splash weapon.
|
The only thing I've argued against is the spell being able to make someone drink a splash weapon.
My question is how do they know that it is a splash weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?
Wombatkid, sure, roll a Bluff/Dip/Disguise - sounds great to me! She is trying to do one (or all) of those things to convence the Target that the item is something it's not. I'll sigh thou when the School 1 DM says "oh, and the target gets a +10 bonus to his sense motive cause it doesn't look like a potion vial."
If the person has good reason not to trust what you say, they get a bonus to their sense motive. This isnt being school 1, it's being fair. If I can see your penis and you're trying to use a bluff check to say you're a chick, I'm getting a bonus to my sense motive.
and responding to something you said to someone else
If I roll a 30 bluff thou and the guy is a 3rd level druid and he beats me... I'll sigh and maybe chack you up as a School 1 Judge (perhaps wrongly).
You do realise that at the same level you can roll a bluff of 30, the druid can roll a 30 sense motive right?
My question is how do they know that it is a splash weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?
My question is how do they know that a sword is a slashing weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?
These two questions sound the same to me. But that might just be me.
I'm disappointed that no one saw/acknowledged my spider joke. :(
I saw it. It was very amusing.
As far as the use of other things that could be food or potions, the reason we have so many warning labels on things like Drano, is because people in the past have drunk them. Random bottles of liquid are in the DM determines it category, the bottle could have foul wine, bad water, good wine, or even poison.
So have we finally all agreed that if this tactic is used on a druid with a steel shield, the druid will use the shield, and lose his spells?
Not forever like the comparisons many others in this thread are saying. Just for a single day, one day just like the rules say.
|
|
Wombatkid, sure, roll a Bluff/Dip/Disguise - sounds great to me! She is trying to do one (or all) of those things to convence the Target that the item is something it's not. I'll sigh thou when the School 1 DM says "oh, and the target gets a +10 bonus to his sense motive cause it doesn't look like a potion vial."If the person has good reason not to trust what you say, they get a bonus to their sense motive. This isnt being school 1, it's being fair. If I can see your penis and you're trying to use a bluff check to say you're a chick, I'm getting a bonus to my sense motive.
and responding to something you said to someone else
If I roll a 30 bluff thou and the guy is a 3rd level druid and he beats me... I'll sigh and maybe chack you up as a School 1 Judge (perhaps wrongly).You do realise that at the same level you can roll a bluff of 30, the druid can roll a 30 sense motive right?
My question is how do they know that it is a splash weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?My question is how do they know that a sword is a slashing weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?
These two questions sound the same to me. But that might just be me.
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).Wombatkid, sure, roll a Bluff/Dip/Disguise - sounds great to me! She is trying to do one (or all) of those things to convence the Target that the item is something it's not. I'll sigh thou when the School 1 DM says "oh, and the target gets a +10 bonus to his sense motive cause it doesn't look like a potion vial."If the person has good reason not to trust what you say, they get a bonus to their sense motive. This isnt being school 1, it's being fair. If I can see your penis and you're trying to use a bluff check to say you're a chick, I'm getting a bonus to my sense motive.
and responding to something you said to someone else
If I roll a 30 bluff thou and the guy is a 3rd level druid and he beats me... I'll sigh and maybe chack you up as a School 1 Judge (perhaps wrongly).You do realise that at the same level you can roll a bluff of 30, the druid can roll a 30 sense motive right?
My question is how do they know that it is a splash weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?My question is how do they know that a sword is a slashing weapon? Are you allowing them a knowledge check, craft check, or 3 rounds for a spell craft check if it is magic? Or are you giving the character knowledge for free?
These two questions sound the same to me. But that might just be me.
I've already covered this.
|
|
The question was, can you get somebody to drink a vial of acid with this spell? My response was that you would need to make a bluff check to get them to consider it a drink and drink it. If you hand them a poisoned apple, no check is necessary because the appropriate action with an apple is to drink it. Not so with a vial of acid.
Sorry, but the spell don't give the option to choose.
Consume or don as appropriate.
After seeing what come chemist is capable to drink from laboratory beakers or what childes are capable to eat and drink I have serious doubt that if someone was offered a liquid with a compulsion to consume what was offered him he would use it as a splash weapon. Even if the liquid was emitting noxious fumes.
It's not in the spell, it is a call as a DM. As written, if you handed somebody a vial of acid, the only option from the spell's point of view is to have them chuck it in your (or any of the target's other enemies) face. I am actually expanding its power to accommodate for even more trickery.
RAI, probable, or put it away for future use
RAW? no|
|
I've already covered this.
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).
Under the "It depends on what is in the flask"? Well, that is the question. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Do you tell your players, "You are handed a flask of acid." or "You are handed a flask of elven wine" when this spell is used against them?
A sword is fairly obvious that it is a sword. But a 1 pint flask of liquid is only obvious if it is either a) labeled (if you trust the label), or b) the character knows something about it (via knowledge check, etc). Other then that, it is just a flask of green bubbling liquid that someone has told you is elven wine.
Sorry if you covered this differently and I missed it, it has been a) one of those days here at work, and b) one of those threads where lots can be missed.
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).
The spell says that you act appropriately for the item. Unless some effort has been made to disguise the nature of the item, then the item is used according to whatever it is. If your stoppered vial is a potion, it is drunk. If it is acid, it is thrown. If it is injury poison, it is applied to a weapon. If it is a poisoned drink, it is drunk.
The spell fluff says that part of the spell casting is enticing the target to use the proferred item. Thus, you aren't giving the target free knowledge. It is using knowledge gained when you proferred it, "Have this nice vial of acid." In that case, they know its a vial of acid and act appropriately. If you want to deceive them as to the nature of the item, then you must make an appropriate deception-type skill check (bluff, disguise, linguistics, etc.)
If the players try and use this to gain knowledge they couldn't have (such as the hypothetical artifact hunters from above), then the DM steps in and says that they are outside the purview of the spell.
The question was, can you get somebody to drink a vial of acid with this spell? My response was that you would need to make a bluff check to get them to consider it a drink and drink it. If you hand them a poisoned apple, no check is necessary because the appropriate action with an apple is to drink it. Not so with a vial of acid.Sorry, but the spell don't give the option to choose.
Consume or don as appropriate.
After seeing what come chemist is capable to drink from laboratory beakers or what childes are capable to eat and drink I have serious doubt that if someone was offered a liquid with a compulsion to consume what was offered him he would use it as a splash weapon. Even if the liquid was emitting noxious fumes.
It's not in the spell, it is a call as a DM. As written, if you handed somebody a vial of acid, the only option from the spell's point of view is to have them chuck it in your (or any of the target's other enemies) face. I am actually expanding its power to accommodate for even more trickery.RAI, probable, or put it away for future use
RAW? no
No, the spell does not give the option to chose. You "consume or don the object, as appropriate for the item in question." Thus, if you are handed a drink, you drink it. If you are handed a splash weapon, you use it as a splash weapon.
If you are handed a beaker of liquid, you are not "under a compulsion to consume." You are under a compulsion to consume or don as appropriate for the item. Appropriateness is determined by the item, not by you. Thus, if it is a splash weapon, by RAW, you have no choice but to chuck it at somebody. You will NEVER drink a splash weapon with this spell by Raw.
Wombat, if I might amend what you said,
"I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).I've already covered this."
It depends on what the target THINKS is in the flask.
No, it doesn't. It depends on what is in the flask. That is ALL that matters for the sake of the spell. You act appropriate for the item in question, not as appropriate for your perception of the item in question.
I would rule that you can try and deceive the target as to the nature of the item and have them behave differently, but by RAW, this is not the case.
I've already covered this.
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).Under the "It depends on what is in the flask"? Well, that is the question. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Do you tell your players, "You are handed a flask of acid." or "You are handed a flask of elven wine" when this spell is used against them?
A sword is fairly obvious that it is a sword. But a 1 pint flask of liquid is only obvious if it is either a) labeled (if you trust the label), or b) the character knows something about it (via knowledge check, etc). Other then that, it is just a flask of green bubbling liquid that someone has told you is elven wine.
Sorry if you covered this differently and I missed it, it has been a) one of those days here at work, and b) one of those threads where lots can be missed.
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.
Note that this is only when using this spell. If they stumble upon the acid in the woods, they'd have to identify it.
As for how I would handle it when someone does it to my players? The same way I would if they tried it on an npc: if the enemy wins the skill check they drink it, if not they throw it.
Although this wouldn't happen. I'm always happy when players try to do this kind of stuff to me, but I'm not a dick enough DM to intentionally try to make a player drink corrosive acid.
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.
This screams to me of meta-knowledge, aka pinching a steamer on RP.
|
|
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).The spell says that you act appropriately for the item. Unless some effort has been made to disguise the nature of the item, then the item is used according to whatever it is. If your stoppered vial is a potion, it is drunk. If it is acid, it is thrown. If it is injury poison, it is applied to a weapon. If it is a poisoned drink, it is drunk.
The spell fluff says that part of the spell casting is enticing the target to use the proferred item. Thus, you aren't giving the target free knowledge. It is using knowledge gained when you proferred it, "Have this nice vial of acid." In that case, they know its a vial of acid and act appropriately. If you want to deceive them as to the nature of the item, then you must make an appropriate deception-type skill check (bluff, disguise, linguistics, etc.)
If the players try and use this to gain knowledge they couldn't have (such as the hypothetical artifact hunters from above), then the DM steps in and says that they are outside the purview of the spell.
Personally I do not think that the bluff check is appropriate here. You have already failed the will save vs an enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell. Per the PRD on compulsion spells:
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.
By failing the saving throw, you are forced to act as the spell states. No bluff check needed as you already failed that via the will save. And yes, magic can trump skill usage.
Mechanically, a splash weapon is a weapon. So using it appropriately, would be as a [i]splash weapon[/]. So unless someone tries to convince you it's not a splash weapon, that's how you would use it. I would give this knowledge freely. It might not be realistic, but it's in line with how the spell works with other weapons. You wouldn't eat a sword, you wouldn't jab yourself with an arrow, don't pirate movies.... I mean drink splash weapons.This screams to me of meta-knowledge, aka pinching a steamer on RP.
It's a pretty skewed view that making a spell make sense mechaniaclly is the same as denying roleplaying.
I should point out that, as I said, I'd allow a social skill roll to make the person think it's a drink and act accordingly, but if you don't bother doing that or fail the roll, the dude is gonna realise it;s a splash weapon.
By failing the saving throw, you are forced to act as the spell states. No bluff check needed as you already failed that via the will save. And yes, magic can trump skill usage.
I failed the will save. Good job, you just handed me a splash weapon. I have to use it appropriately.
The bluff skill to make me think the splash weapon is a drink is separate from the compulsion effect of the spell.
I hand you a stoppered flask of bubbling green liquid as part of a BG spell (that you failed the will save on). Do you chuck it or drink it? Note, that this is about the same size as a smaller wine bottle (1 pint).The spell says that you act appropriately for the item. Unless some effort has been made to disguise the nature of the item, then the item is used according to whatever it is. If your stoppered vial is a potion, it is drunk. If it is acid, it is thrown. If it is injury poison, it is applied to a weapon. If it is a poisoned drink, it is drunk.
The spell fluff says that part of the spell casting is enticing the target to use the proferred item. Thus, you aren't giving the target free knowledge. It is using knowledge gained when you proferred it, "Have this nice vial of acid." In that case, they know its a vial of acid and act appropriately. If you want to deceive them as to the nature of the item, then you must make an appropriate deception-type skill check (bluff, disguise, linguistics, etc.)
If the players try and use this to gain knowledge they couldn't have (such as the hypothetical artifact hunters from above), then the DM steps in and says that they are outside the purview of the spell.
Personally I do not think that the bluff check is appropriate here. You have already failed the will save vs an enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] spell. Per the PRD on compulsion spells:
Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.By failing the saving throw, you are forced to act as the spell states. No bluff check needed as you already failed that via the will save. And yes, magic can trump skill usage.
I feel like I am making the same argument over and over again...
I was suggesting the bluff check as an additional power the spell has to allow you to get people to misuse items in a way inappropriate for the item in question, such as drink a vial of acid.
As written, if you hand them a vial of acid, they through it at you, no bluff check, no questions, so long as they failed their will save. We are in total agreement there.
However, in response to the question of whether or not you could get people to drink a vial of acid, I said THAT would require a bluff check, which I said from the very first posting of it was my DM interpretation, not the RAW. The bluff check is necessary not to get them to use the item--they are doing that because they failed their will--but because you are trying to convince them the item is something other than what it is. That is outside the purview of the spell and so requires a check.