| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The Alchemist have a problem. An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens. Nice, but the Alchemist got to store these items somewhere, rigyt? And:
Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.
This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item,
picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door.
Table 8–2: Actions in Combat
Retrieve a stored item
Attack of Move Action Opportunity: Yes
So retrieving a potion/extract/mutagen is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity.
Then he got to drink it:
Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action.
The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion
or oil provokes attacks of opportunity.
attacks of opportunity again.
Now here is a paradox
The Chirurgeon
Power Over Death: At 10th level, a chirurgeon adds breath
of life to his formula book as a 4th-level extract. His infused
curative ability applies to this extract.
Well he can't drink an extract if he his unconscious, but he could try and help a dead friend and administer a potion to an unconscious ally. Problem is, he can't.
School conjuration (healing); Level cleric 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless) or Will half, see text; Spell
Resistance yes (harmless) or yes, see text
This spell cures 5d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level
(maximum +25).
Unlike other spells that heal damage, breath of life can bring
recently slain creatures back to life. If cast upon a creature that
has died within 1 round, apply the healing from this spell to the
creature. If the healed creature’s hit point total is at a negative
amount less than its Constitution score, it comes back to life and
stabilizes at its new hit point total. If the creature’s hit point total is
at a negative amount equal to or greater than its Constitution score,
the creature remains dead. Creatures brought back to life through
breath of life gain a temporary negative level that lasts for 1 day.
Creatures slain by death effects cannot be saved by breath of life.
Like cure spells, breath of life deals damage to undead creatures
rather than curing them, and cannot bring them back to life.
My bold.
In order for the spell to work the ally must be 'cured' within 1 round of his/her death but:
A character can carefully administer a potion to an
unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the
liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a fullround
action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.
Even if the alchemist could administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a standard action it would not help unless the alchemist know who is going to die and when.
Move action: retrieving a extract
Move action: Move to the dead ally
standard action: administer a potion to an unconscious:
Even with Handy Haversack things don't change.
Retrieving any specific item from a haversack is a [/b]move
action[/b], but it does not provoke the attacks of opportunity that
retrieving a stored item usually does.
I like the APG but there are some stuff that I don't get. The witch didn't get any protective spells (except for mage armor so she is easily burned at the stake) and there are no potion belt in the equipment section of the book. Potion belt is probably not OGL, but Pazio could create utility belt or an Alchemist's belt. A belt with XX slots. Alchemist could perhaps use if more effectively and thus getting more slots out of it. Perhaps there could be master work versions of it with more slots.
Scroll could occupy one slot.
extracts/potions/oils two slots
holy water/ Oil (1-pint flask)/Acid/ Alchemist’s fire three slots.
Or just a belt with XX slots for extracts/potions/oils
Drawing a potion from the belt could be a free action or s swift action.
My suggestion is:
A) Create an Alchemist's belt or a utility belt
B) let the Alchemist be able to administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a standard action.
If there is something I have missed, my bad.
BTW: Haste only affecting the Alchemist, not his alleys, make the spell rather weak.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pretty much anything involving breath of life is a little off, it's even difficult for normal casters to do. That said...
Alchemists are assumed to be able use extracts as a standard action implies pulling out an extract when using it is a free action (similar to the way it is a free action for a wizard to remove spell components). I think this is a safe assumption at this point.
Assuming you are adjacent to an ally you could remove the extract as a free action and pour the extract down his throat. The very fact that the class ability exists sort of implies this is the case. There are also ways you could work around this, with extra arms, spring loaded wrist sheaths, etc...
Further, the more I hear clarifications from the paizo crew, the more I think extracts are intended to be used almost identically to spells which would imply that using an infused extract on an unconscious ally would be a standard action. This bit is... on very shaky ground though.
Finally, just having it on his spell list means he can use it with a staff... I'm not exactly sure how much of a benefit that is since it's not very clear if an alchemist can recharge staffs... but it's there.
Thanks Dennis for your answers, but as much as I would like them to be true they are just speculations. Errata is needed.
Pretty much anything involving breath of life is a little off, it's even difficult for normal casters to do. That said...
I would say that is wrong.
Moving to ally: Move action.Casting spell and touching ally: Standard action.
Alchemists are assumed to be able use extracts as a standard action implies pulling out an extract when using it is a free action (similar to the way it is a free action for a wizard to remove spell components). I think this is a safe assumption at this point.
Drinking the extracts is a standard action. They are still potions, so they need to retrieved since they are stored items.
Assuming you are adjacent to an ally you could remove the extract as a free action
Again, nothing in the rules imply this. Bombs perhaps, but extract no. Even if that was true it won't help, administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action. So dead stays dead.
This also assumed you are adjacent to the ally. So The Alchemist has to know who is going to die and when. That is impossible.
and pour the extract down his throat. The very fact that the class ability exists sort of implies this is the case. There are also ways you could work around this, with extra arms, spring loaded wrist sheaths, etc...
pour the extract down his throat is still a full round action. Just because the Alchemist can drink is extracts as a standard action it doesn't mean he can administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a standard action. Extra arms, spring loaded wrist sheaths, etc. is just ad hoc. They need to fix this.
Further, the more I hear clarifications from the paizo crew, the more I think extracts are intended to be used almost identically to spells which would imply that using an infused extract on an unconscious ally would be a standard action. This bit is... on very shaky ground though.
Clarifications from the paizo crew or errata would be welcome, but I think this needs work. Haste sucking and other weird stuff going on.
Finally, just having it on his spell list means he can use it with a staff... I'm not exactly sure how much of a benefit that is since it's not very clear if an alchemist can recharge staffs... but it's there.
That's not really a solution.
I'm going to go out on a limb here when it comes to bombs. Rapid reload lets you full attack with a light cross bow, it does not let you to retrieved stored items as a free action. That's why there are quivers. No quivers, no full attack even if you have the rapid reload feat. The bomb is a weapon (just as the extract is a potion).
Fast bombs: An alchemist with this discovery can
quickly create enough bombs to throw more than one
in a single round. The alchemist can prepare and throw
additional bombs as a full-round action if his base
attack bonus is high enough to grant him additional
attacks. This functions just like a full-attack with a
ranged weapon. An alchemist must be at least 8th level
before selecting this discovery.
So he can quickly create enough bombs to throw more than one in a single round and it functions just like a full-attack with a ranged weapon.
Well, in order to create bombs he got to have stuff, ingredients or whatever. They must be stored somewhere. These items need to be retrieved.
Agree, some items do not to be retrieved. Like arrows or bolts, but that is because they are stored in a quiver.
In 3.x WOTC had the potion belt, so you could grab a potion as a free action. WOTC did notice the problem with retrieving a stored items so potion belt was created.
I think the alchemist suffers from the same problem as the summoner. In order for the class to function a lot of exceptions has to be created. That said, I rather have exceptions than the "hey, you can house rule"-fix.
As of now breath of life can't be used.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ah, missed this:
Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.
Does retrieving necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies include retrieving extract, or is it just retrieving necessary materials for bombs?
Still doesn't help with administer a potion to an unconscious creature.
|
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot. There is no move action involved, it is a standard action. Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action. Drinking the extract is also part of this free action. This is clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless. However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing so I would be happy to allow it. This seems to be the intention with this ability.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot. There is no move action involved, it is a standard action. Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action. Drinking the extract is also part of this free action. This is clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless. However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing so I would be happy to allow it. This seems to be the intention with this ability.
Bingo... though I would probably only allow force feeding unconscious allies as a standard action mostly because the idea of giving a drink to another character who is moving around in combat seems just weird.
There are also a couple other solutions to this problem, there is a spell in Ultimate Combat calls "Touch Injection" which allows you to store an infused extract for hours and deliver it with a touch. You could theoretically deliver it as part of a full attack action.
Finally, for the desperate there is the syringe spear which significantly reduces the usefulness of the cure.
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot. There is no move action involved, it is a standard action. Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action. Drinking the extract is also part of this free action. This is clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless. However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing so I would be happy to allow it. This seems to be the intention with this ability.
Bingo... though I would probably only allow force feeding unconscious allies as a standard action mostly because the idea of giving a drink to another character who is moving around in combat seems just weird.
There are also a couple other solutions to this problem, there is a spell in Ultimate Combat calls "Touch Injection" which allows you to store an infused extract for hours and deliver it with a touch. You could theoretically deliver it as part of a full attack action.
Finally, for the desperate there is the syringe spear which significantly reduces the usefulness of the cure.
Touch Injection is indeed a fix. Thanks.
I'm still hoping for an offcial answer. I think others do too.
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot. There is no move action involved, it is a standard action. Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action. Drinking the extract is also part of this free action. This is clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless. However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing so I would be happy to allow it. This seems to be the intention with this ability.
Bingo... though I would probably only allow force feeding unconscious allies as a standard action mostly because the idea of giving a drink to another character who is moving around in combat seems just weird.
There are also a couple other solutions to this problem, there is a spell in Ultimate Combat calls "Touch Injection" which allows you to store an infused extract for hours and deliver it with a touch. You could theoretically deliver it as part of a full attack action.
Finally, for the desperate there is the syringe spear which significantly reduces the usefulness of the cure.
Touch Injection is indeed a fix. Thanks.
I'm still hoping for an offcial answer. I think others do too.
If you want official answers mark your post with FAQ, as I did.
Couple of things:
1. Breath of life doesn't have to be used to save a life -- you can use it just to be normal healing. Yes it does have an extra benefit for those that should be dead, no that doesn't make using it for that a requirement.
2. Infusions -- if you make an infusion of breath of life you can give it to someone else to administer, you don't actually have to do it yourself.
3. Pre-mixed -- it takes a minute to mix an extract, afterward you don't have to mix it you simply have to drink it/ apply it. Just to be clear on this point, it does not have to be mixed on the spot and whoever stated otherwise was wrong -- bombs are activated on the spot -- the catalyst for bombs however are also made ahead of time.
4. Alchemist have no problems using heavy armor, they simply aren't trained to do so. Taking a level in fighter, gunslinger(guntank), cavalier or some other class that grants heavy armor proficiency might not be a bad idea.
Sorry I missed your post.
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot.
No that is actually wrong. You mix up extract and bomb.
Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action
Again you are talking about bombs. Fixing an extracty takes one minute or you can have it made before the battle, but then you have to store it somewhere. Retrieving a stored item is a move action.
Drinking the extract is also part of this free action.
Well the problem isn't the drinking. It's the "administer a potion to an unconscious creature".
And BTW, drink it does provokes AoO since it is a part of a standard action.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless.
That is my point :-(
However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing ...
Agree, but it is bad game design and it needs to be fixed.
The way I see it, this isn't a matter of FAQ, this is a matter of errata.
Couple of things:
1. Breath of life doesn't have to be used to save a life -- you can use it just to be normal healing.
I know, This thread is however about the "bring a dead ally back to life" function.
2. Infusions -- if you make an infusion of breath of life you can give it to someone else to administer, you don't actually have to do it yourself.
Yes I know, but this doesn't fix anything.
administer a potion to an unconscious creature is a full-round action still stand and retrieving a stored item is still a move action.Even if you could administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a standard action that "someone else" still have be next to the dead ally unless that "someone else" have the elexir in his/her hand.
3. Pre-mixed -- it takes a minute to mix an extract, afterward you don't have to mix it you simply have to drink it/ apply it. Just to be clear on this point, it does not have to be mixed on the spot and whoever stated otherwise was wrong -- bombs are activated on the spot -- the catalyst for bombs however are also made ahead of time.
On this we agree. even Pre-mixed the problem still stands.
4. Alchemist have no problems using heavy armor, they simply aren't trained to do so. Taking a level in fighter, gunslinger(guntank), cavalier or some other class that grants heavy armor proficiency might not be a bad idea.
Thanks, but let's stick to the problem at hand ;-)
Well haste still suck, but that's not much to debate. No erata needed just weird and I don't like it.
If you want official answers mark your post with FAQ, as I did.
I did, but as I said before: The way I see it, this isn't a matter of FAQ, this is a matter of errata.
But thanks anyway :-)
What I meant was you could have the item in a better position to be used to save the dead person's life (funny statement that).
I agree it isn't going to be easy to do, but I don't fully agree that it should be either, though if breath of life had a "1 round +1 round for every 10 caster levels you have" line instead of simply 1 round that wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
I do feel my first point however really does address some of what is being said here -- you are claiming that it is useless and doesn't function as designed -- I'm pointing out that it does function, you can use it to heal which is what it is intended to do, it is somewhat unfortunate that saving someone's life is hard to do but that's true in life too.
Please note you said, "Chirurgeon can't use breath of life" which isn't a true statement -- he can, however to use it to its fullest effect does take a bit of contriving to do. The two things (works but hard to use fully and doesn't work at all) are not the same however.
If you want official answers mark your post with FAQ, as I did.I did, but as I said before: The way I see it, this isn't a matter of FAQ, this is a matter of errata.
But thanks anyway :-)
As has been pointed out, an extract and a potion are different things. Though "in many ways, they behave [a]like," they are different, and follow different rules.
Here's the relevant FAQ again, with important parts bolded:
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.
In the case of an extract, the necessary materials would be the extract itself. So for a standard action, an alchemist can draw an extract and drink it. He can also give it to someone else in that standard action if he has the infusion discovery, because again, extracts behave differently from potions.
It is a standard action to use an extract, and if you have discoveries which let you use it in fancy ways, then it is still just a standard action. It takes an alchemist only a standard action to drink an extract of restoration, despite that spell's one minute casting time. It takes a preservationist one standard action to release his summoned critters, despite those spells one full round casting time. It takes a chirgeon one standard action to draw and administer a breath of life. Because it is an extract, and it takes him one standard action to use it.
I suppose this is what a third arm is for.
Or having a pet iron cobra follow you around.
Question:< paraphrasing myself>, what action is it to use an infusion?
James Jacobs: Move action to take it out, standard action to drink it. Regardless of who's using that particular infusion, since it's been prepared ahead of time as a "fake potion" of sorts.
The ONLY time an infusion's creation and use all gets rolled together into one standard action is when the alchemist "casts" the infusion like a spell on himself.
Thank you Bascaria -- I knew I was missing a basic point somewhere.
I suppose this is what a third arm is for.
Or having a pet iron cobra follow you around.
Question:< paraphrasing myself>, what action is it to use an infusion?
James Jacobs: Move action to take it out, standard action to drink it. Regardless of who's using that particular infusion, since it's been prepared ahead of time as a "fake potion" of sorts.
The ONLY time an infusion's creation and use all gets rolled together into one standard action is when the alchemist "casts" the infusion like a spell on himself.
I know it is a bit of a dick move to pull the "but Jacobs isn't rules..." line, but I do disagree with him here.
An infusion is kind of like a fake potion, but it also is kind of not like a fake potion. To wit, an infusion is still an extract. In fact, the class ability never even calls it an infusion. The class ability is called "infusion," but the word doesn't refer to the final product there, but rather the process of making the final product, which is an "infused extract."
Since there is no rules about how an infused extract differs from a regular extract in use other than it persists after being put down, we can only infer that the rules don't change, an infused extract continues to take a standard action to use, and so it isn't a move/standard to use it, but only a standard.
An argument COULD be made that that only remains true while the ALCHEMIST holds the infusion, and not while other people hold it, but that seems to me more extrapolation than the words themselves warrant, because, once again:
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb.
Does not read:
It is a standard action for an alchemist to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb.
While all that infusion says is:
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
NOT:
An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects, similar to a potion.
Well sometimes it help to actually read the rules.
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form.
An extract is “cast” by 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.
An alchemist can draw and an extract as a standard action.
@Zark: draw + drink = Standard action.
@Bascaria: extract is “cast” by drinking it, not by carefully administer it to an unconscious creature.
draw + drink = Standard action
draw + carefully administer it to an unconscious creature = ?.
By RAW move action + full-round action, because the drinking part is inherent in the rules, even to an alchemist. If you don't drink it normal rules applies. Use = drink. Use is not inserting it into the eye of a beholder or building a subway with it, or anything else.
@Dennis: force feeding unconscious allies as a standard action? The thing is, even applying oil to an unconscious creature is fullround action.
@Abraham spalding: "I agree it isn't going to be easy to do, but I don't fully agree that it should be either", not a surprising statement from you since we know you dislike healers. Well you are obviously in good company.
Yup -- my biggest thing was the 'it doesn't work' part which it does. Other than that inaccuracy I'll be honest and say I do hope something comes out of this to make it a little easier, personally I would like to see breath of life have an extra round or two like I said earlier, but if they make it a bit easier to use for the alchemist I wouldn't cry about it.
Well sometimes it help to actually read the rules.
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form.
An extract is “cast” by 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.
An alchemist can draw and an extract as a standard action.
@Zark: draw + drink = Standard action.
@Bascaria: extract is “cast” by drinking it, not by carefully administer it to an unconscious creature.
draw + drink = Standard action
draw + carefully administer it to an unconscious creature = ?.By RAW move action + full-round action, because the drinking part is inherent in the rules, even to an alchemist. If you don't drink it normal rules applies. Use = drink. Use is not inserting it into the eye of a beholder or building a subway with it, or anything else.
Except I cant take the Trait that speeds up potion drinking and apply it to extracts so some exceptions do apply to the difference of the two.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The devs have made it pretty clear that extracts are not potions, in spite of the similarities. The FAQ makes it clear, conversations on chat, lots of posts on the forums make it pretty clear. There are two FAQ entries which spell this out.
In spite of the wording in the alchemist write up, *
So quoting the rule that is specifically in the potion section of the book doesn't really have a lot of weight.
If you want simple, easy to parse wording, here it is from the FAQ:
"It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb." There is no limits like "on yourself", it's spelled out, plain and simple. I don't think there are any dark mysteries, from every conversation I've seen with the devs the understanding I get is the bolded part is the whole of it.
This is how I run it:
No, it's not 100% crystal clear. It is however not a huge stretch, and the only way you can interpret the abilities that is consistent and works with all the abilities. It is also consistent with the FAQ, works with the Breath of Life ability you are talking about, and it's consistent with a ton of comments I've read by the developers.
Edit: I made a bunch of tiny changes after posting because that's how I am. If someone crossposted, apologies.
Edit Edit: FWIW, I went ahead and hit FAQ on your post because while I am right, it's far from obvious.
|
Extracts work differently to potions, you are getting the two mixed up.
To create an extract you mix it together on the spot. There is no move action involved, it is a standard action. Retrieving the bottle reagents etc. used in the creation of said extract is a free action. Drinking the extract is also part of this free action. This is clearly stated in the FAQ for the APG.
Feeding an infusion (which this is) to another player could be construed as a full round action if you were being harsh and I agree that this would render the Breath of Life infusion totally useless. However, I do not think that creating and feeding infusions to another PC as a single standard action is rediculously unbalancing so I would be happy to allow it. This seems to be the intention with this ability.
Bingo... though I would probably only allow force feeding unconscious allies as a standard action mostly because the idea of giving a drink to another character who is moving around in combat seems just weird.
There are also a couple other solutions to this problem, there is a spell in Ultimate Combat calls "Touch Injection" which allows you to store an infused extract for hours and deliver it with a touch. You could theoretically deliver it as part of a full attack action.
Finally, for the desperate there is the syringe spear which significantly reduces the usefulness of the cure.
Touch Injection is indeed a fix. Thanks.
I'm still hoping for an offcial answer. I think others do too.
It can actually be a Breath of life: the alchemist drink his extract and breath on the dead body. Range: touch.
The extract isn't a potion. So getting the dead to "drink" it is not a requirement.@Bascaria:
Infusion: 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.
A infusion is a discovery. It has different rules from a extract. Don't confuse the two.
You are trying to force the rules of extracts over infusions.
I know it is a bit of a dick move to pull the "but Jacobs isn't rules..." line, but I do disagree with him here.
Seeing how Jacobs was the one that created the class, I would say he is the best authority about what was the intention behind the powers of the class.
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.
You guys are fixating on the in potion form and forgetting both the In many ways, and the they behave like spells part of the description. You should take as a whole, not only pieces of it.
Looking the list of extracts, the third I find is Crafter's Fortune:
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels). If we take the restrictive view "they are identical to potions, save the name" the range of the spell lose any meaning.
If we use my interpretation, that can be summed up as: "drinking the extract the alchemist get access to the spell for a brief time", it as meaning, as the alchemist get access to the spell power, not to the effect of the spell. So he could "cast"* it on a target within close range after imbibing the extract.
*Note: he is no actually casting the spell, so he is not subject to all the casting rules.
I would just do a little homebrew to fix this:
The alchemist drinks the extract to give him the ability to cast the spell as a free action (or swift if you prefer). This means that you don't have to worry about the whole action thing, and it keeps the power of the spell at the same level.
Clearly this is a matter of RAW conflicting with RAI. The alchemist should have the ability to use the spell, changing the rules for it isn't so game breaking IMO.
A good post
Oops it seems you wrote what I did before I did, but said it was RAW. I guess FAQ will be needed, but from what I can tell Jacobs will probably say what you said.
|
|
A good postOops it seems you wrote what I did before I did, but said it was RAW. I guess FAQ will be needed, but from what I can tell Jacobs will probably say what you said.
I was adding to my previous post while you were writing yours, so it is parallel thinking.
I am far from being the ultimate authority about alchemists. I will ask about this tread into JJ thread, link it and see if he will clear our doubts.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, as folks mentioned, breath of life CAN just be used as a more powerful cure critical wounds. But it wasn't on the original alchemist spell list because saving dead folks is the primary point of the spell, and while an alchemist can "cast" an extract on himself with the same speed at which a spellcaster can cast spells (regardless of material components or having to mix chemicals in a vial or whatever), the alchemist can't normally use his spells on other targets. Thus... breath of life is a really illogical spell to give the alchemist. He can't use it on himself when he really needs it (since he'd be dead) and he can't use it on other people (since it's an extract).
So, with the chirurgeon, his gaining of breath of life as an extract is awkward, I agree. BUT he automatically treats it as an infusion (see "Infused Curative") which means the problem with using it on someone else goes away–he can now effectively cast this (and other cure spells) on another target, the same way a traditional spellcaster can.
Looking back to the APG rules on infusions... we see that an infused extract, when cast, persists even after the alchemist sets it down. So, at the start of a day when the alchemist feels or worries that he'd need to save someone's life, he could create a breath of life infusion; it'll sit there in his pouch or wherever (and in his prepared spell lists until it's used), and as such he can use it on a dying adjacent ally. Move action to get the infusion, standard to pour it into the adjacent ally's mouth. If the ally's not adjacent, the alchemist would be well advised to be carrying the infusion of breath of life in a hand during a battle where he fears he might need it, so he can move action up next to the dead ally and then standard action pour the infusion in the ally's mouth.
THAT SAID... actually moving up to a dead body, then casting the spell as an infusion and then using it on a target as it's being "cast" also works. Remember, potions are NOT extracts/infusions, and vice versa. Extracts/infusions function very much as spells, with unusual side effects/flavor text to them. There's nothing that says you CAN'T use an infusion on another target as part of the casting of the extract being made into the infusion, and from a game balance standpoint since that just lets you cast that elixir as an infusion... you could just step up to the dead body (move action) and cast/apply the infusion onto the body (standard action).
It's a difficult spell/elixir to use, timing wise... but that's 100% on purpose, since it allows you to cheat death. It has to be more difficult to time than raise dead since if it wasn't, it'd be BETTER than raise dead and thus would have to be higher level.
(winces, steps back, watches thread and hopes it doesn't erupt into an explosion of rules lawyering/arguments)
|
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
One other thing:
It's true that I'm not on the design team. But I did design the alchemist, and that design work is available for anyone to look at-it was basically the first playtest incarnation of the class, more or less. It then went through the same playtest feedback/development process as the other base classes-a process I was NOT involved in. Furthermore, I was not involved in the design of the chirurgeon archetype...
...but that said, I do have a LOT of experience with the Pathfinder rules. And I've worked with Jason for nearly a decade. I feel pretty confident that the majority of rulings I would make on the game would be the same as his rulings-with a few exceptions where our fundamental philosophy on gaming differs. And where those philosophical differences cause different takes on rules elements, I cede the ruling to Jason and the design team (but only after stating my case so that they've got another take on the ruling to consider before making their decision).
Folks are free to treat my advice and rulings and help on these boards as "unofficial" or "optional" or even "untrustworthy" if they want, and I try not to let that bother me... but I've seen that attitude pop up enough on these boards that I generally don't answer rules-based questions on the rules forums.
And since I'm one of the most active Paizo employees on these boards, that means that folks have more or less "scared off" what could be a pretty handy resource for them to resolve questions and conflicts in their own game. Which is kind of sad. So... hopefully folks take my previous post in the way it was intended: as helpful advice and a look behind the philosophy of my own game design and interpretations of the rules.
In fact... I think the community could benefit a LOT from embracing the philosophy of "It's okay to play the rules via a different interpretation than someone else-EVEN if that someone else is Jason Bulmahn or someone from Paizo."
stuff
Thanks for the feedback :-) but I think you are wrong :-(
A) Your earlier post (in another thread), Draw = Move action + drink = standard action has already been proved wrong by the rules itself.
Page 27 APG: An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
B) "There's nothing that says you CAN'T use an infusion on another target as part of the casting of the extract being made into the infusion" If infusion = lets the drinker cast spells on others the problem is solved, but that is not what the rules say. I would be very happy if you are right.
1) Move to dead friend. Move action.
2) Draw and drink an extract (and aiming target) as a standard action.
A nice fix, but this isn't the way it works by RAW.
So here is what we do know.
an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below).
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.
An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
Infusion: 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.
So Infusion does not by RAW let a drinker cast spells on others. It lets other than the creator drink and get the benefit of the extract.
Or you could say: The rules does not say drink = casting spell and the pass on the effect to someone else.
It says drinking = casting spell and gaining the effect.
The drinker and only the drinker gains the effect.
Dragon's Breath: Gives you a dragon’s breath weapon. The damage you can deal with a breath weapon isn't the effect. The breath weapon is the effect. There is a difference. The drinker gets the effect and the effect might affect others. But you can't get the effect of CLW and then affect others with the same CLW.
Drinking extract of CLW does not mean you can drink it and heal others. The drinker gets the healing. With Infusion others than the alchemist can drink the extract and gain its effect. That is, they get healed.
Drink a extract of haste. You get hasted. if you got Infusion and drink an extract of haste. You get hasted. If you give an extract of haste to you friend Mona, then Mona can drink extract of haste and get the effect of haste. Mona and only Mona gets the effect.
he effect isn't you can cast CLW or Haste. The effect you are cured 1d8+1. You are hasted.
You all say it isn't a potion. And here the rules get messy. If it isn't a potion and the only way to cast the spell and get the effect is drinking the extract, then you can't even administer it to an unconscious creature by trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat.
You can administer a potion to an unconscious creature by trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat, but if you all agree it isn't a potion then the only alternative is drinking or use the spell Touch Injection.
Get me right, I'm not saying you can't administer an extract to an unconscious creature. I'm saying the only way to it is the same way as you administer an potion or an oil to an unconscious creature.
Sure we can discuss the word imbibed., but imbibed is an inherently a drinking concept when it comes to extracts. (Hope I got the message across in spite of my crappy English).
|
In fact... I think the community could benefit a LOT from embracing the philosophy of "It's okay to play the rules via a different interpretation than someone else-EVEN if that someone else is Jason Bulmahn or someone from Paizo."
I think people might be surprised how often in games *with all Paizo employees* we decide to house rule certain things we think could use tweaking. Personally, I find the attitude a lot more relaxing and lends itself to more roleplaying.
One other thing:
It's true that I'm not on the design team. But I did design the alchemist, and that design work is available for anyone to look at-it was basically the first playtest incarnation of the class, more or less. It then went through the same playtest feedback/development process as the other base classes-a process I was NOT involved in. Furthermore, I was not involved in the design of the chirurgeon archetype...
...but that said, I do have a LOT of experience with the Pathfinder rules. And I've worked with Jason for nearly a decade. I feel pretty confident that the majority of rulings I would make on the game would be the same as his rulings-with a few exceptions where our fundamental philosophy on gaming differs. And where those philosophical differences cause different takes on rules elements, I cede the ruling to Jason and the design team (but only after stating my case so that they've got another take on the ruling to consider before making their decision).
Missed this last post. Posted before I read your post.
I do change my mind sometinmes you know :-)Again, as the designer was you intent with infusion:
Alchemist drink CLW and can the cast it on friend?
AS I said again. This would indeed fix the problem
1) Move to friand. Move action.
2) Draw and cast the spell by drinking the elixer = standard action.
Another question.
Does casting the spell provoce AoO? If so, how to you avoid it? There is no word on cocentration checks.
I know this isn't probably done, but if you could give Sean or Jason a nod. Infusion OR Breath of Life is really unclear.
Then not much else I can say will change your mind
Answer my last post :-)
, and since it sounds like you've already decided how to run things in your game, you don't need my advice anyway.
I'm not running the game.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Missed this last post. Posted before I read your post.
I do change my mind sometinmes you know :-)Again, as the designer was you intent with infusion:
Alchemist drink CLW and can the cast it on friend?
AS I said again. This would indeed fix the problem
1) Move to friand. Move action.
2) Draw and cast the spell by drinking the elixer = standard action.Another question.
Does casting the spell provoce AoO? If so, how to you avoid it? There is no word on cocentration checks.I know this isn't probably done, but if you could give Sean or Jason a nod. Infusion OR Breath of Life is really unclear.
Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
And ANYONE can give Sean and Jason a nod. That's what the FAQ button is for. Don't be afraid of it; just because you don't receive immediate feedback that the question has immediately been brought to our attention and that we're dropping everything to address the issue immediately doesn't mean that we ignore it.
|
Creative Director
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answer my last post :-)
Just did.
I'm not running the game.
Then what I say to you doesn't matter. Your GM is the one who makes the call. Feel free to send him or her to this thread for some food for thought, but I'm not here to provide you with ammunition to use against your GM in a rules argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jason:
Just to cover a quick side point.
I've felt that when it was pointed out to the boards at large that your answers, while your answers (which does carry some weight) aren't necessarily the answers it was to help unburden you of having to watch every word you say.
This means I approach it with the same theory as advice from a friend learned in a subject -- worthy of thought, but not the only answer, and possibly not completely correct. As such while it is sound advice, and possibly a good idea even if it isn't 100% correct, in a 'rules' environment I also have to give to the argument that it is just that, advice -- not the rules.
As such it's a bit awkward to have complaints that amount to (in my eyes), "it doesn't matter what I say because people won't believe me and therefore why say anything" when you've specifically tried to unburden yourself from the law-giver position.
Either you are, 'one of the guys' or you are, 'the boss' -- can't really have it both ways, as new managers find out regularly.
So while the opinion is worthy of respect (and when it is presented, or I present it I try to indicate as such) I'm not going to give it 'official' status until you decide that's what it actually is again.
Missed this last post. Posted before I read your post.
I do change my mind sometinmes you know :-)Again, as the designer was you intent with infusion:
Alchemist drink CLW and can the cast it on friend?
AS I said again. This would indeed fix the problem
1) Move to friand. Move action.
2) Draw and cast the spell by drinking the elixer = standard action.Another question.
Does casting the spell provoce AoO? If so, how to you avoid it? There is no word on cocentration checks.I know this isn't probably done, but if you could give Sean or Jason a nod. Infusion OR Breath of Life is really unclear.
Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
And ANYONE can give Sean and Jason a nod. That's what the FAQ button is for. Don't be afraid of it; just because you don't receive immediate feedback that the question has immediately been brought to our attention and that we're dropping everything to address the issue immediately doesn't mean that we ignore it.
Thanks for all the answers!
*looks around sheepishly and hopes you don't notice I was the one who originally disagreed with you*
This makes sense, and clears up what was my original issue with the "using an infusion is a move+standard" response. There is one thing which I don't get, though, which is the distinction between an alchemist "pre-casting" it as an infusion, which would make it a move action to draw, and an alchemist doing it "on the spot."
Since it takes a minute of work to make an extract, we can assume that if the alchy is doing all of this within the 1-round timer on Breath of Life that he has already got the extract prepared. So what's the meaningful difference, then, between the two options? Is there ever a situation where the alchemist would have to spend the move action to pull out the infusion, or is it only that if the alchemist gives the infusion to somebody else, they have to spend a move action to get it out?
And FWIW, I -- and many others I am sure -- love seeing you on these boards, and wish that we (taking blame where it is due) hadn't done so much to scare you and the other devs off so much. In my games, and I think I speak for many on these boards on this point, I will just house-rule something like this to make the most sense. The problems arise, though, when we are playing in someone else's game. For me in particular, I am the most knowledgeable about the rules in my group, and when someone else GMs, they look to me for rules interpretations often, and they are less confident in their ability to house rule, since it takes a fair bit of system mastery in order to change the rules without worrying about it coming back to bite you a few sessions down the line.
That, for me at least, is why I tend to push back against your answers on here. Not because I disagree with you or think the answers are problematic, but because it helps me figure out how to respond to them when I bring your answers.
Then what I say to you doesn't matter. Your GM is the one who makes the call. Feel free to send him or her to this thread for some food for thought, but I'm not here to provide you with ammunition to use against your GM in a rules argument.
No need to get ammunition. My GM is cool. But unclear rules do not benefit players, GM or the game.
The whole "explosion of rules lawyering/arguments" and implying if I won't accept arguments that contradicts the rules I won't change my mind, is just beneath you. So is the argument: if you can't house rule every unclear rule you're a jerkThanks anyway for the answers.
Jason:
Just to cover a quick side point.
I've felt that when it was pointed out to the boards at large that your answers, while your answers (which does carry some weight) aren't necessarily the answers it was to help unburden you of having to watch every word you say.
This means I approach it with the same theory as advice from a friend learned in a subject -- worthy of thought, but not the only answer, and possibly not completely correct. As such while it is sound advice, and possibly a good idea even if it isn't 100% correct, in a 'rules' environment I also have to give to the argument that it is just that, advice -- not the rules.
As such it's a bit awkward to have complaints that amount to (in my eyes), "it doesn't matter what I say because people won't believe me and therefore why say anything" when you've specifically tried to unburden yourself from the law-giver position.
Either you are, 'one of the guys' or you are, 'the boss' -- can't really have it both ways, as new managers find out regularly.
So while the opinion is worthy of respect (and when it is presented, or I present it I try to indicate as such) I'm not going to give it 'official' status until you decide that's what it actually is again.
+1
And I still would like an 'official' answer. That does not equal being ungrateful.
In fact... I think the community could benefit a LOT from embracing the philosophy of "It's okay to play the rules via a different interpretation than someone else-EVEN if that someone else is Jason Bulmahn or someone from Paizo."
Amen!
It always amazes me how rules-thin early RPGs were ... and yet we seemed to be able to play 'em just fine. I remember having a blast with original Gamma World, and the entire rule set was way shorter than most chapters of the Core Rulebook :)
I thought the only way someone else could gain the benefits/effects of an extract was to drink it themselves if the infusion discovery was used with the extract.
That has been one of my points all thru this thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Folks are free to treat my advice and rulings and help on these boards as "unofficial" or "optional" or even "untrustworthy" if they want, and I try not to let that bother me... but I've seen that attitude pop up enough on these boards that I generally don't answer rules-based questions on the rules forums.
And since I'm one of the most active Paizo employees on these boards, that means that folks have more or less "scared off" what could be a pretty handy resource for them to resolve questions and conflicts in their own game. Which is kind of sad. So... hopefully folks take my previous post in the way it was intended: as helpful advice and a look behind the philosophy of my own game design and interpretations of the rules.
This makes me very sad :'(
To the OP, I'm not really sure what else you can ask for at this point. As far as I can tell you represent a small minority of people who might find the wording of the alchemist as a gamestopper. A quick search of the forums did not turn up a great number of similar threads, as is normally the case with ambiguous or unclear rules. James designed the class. He's given his opinion on the matter. A number of players stepped in well before and drew from their experience some very persuasive arguments, backed by legitimate interpretation of the rules.
And that's all you can really ask for. People have given you a response, to the best of their abilities. You have to take those responses and put them together with the written rules and try and come to a consensus that allows the game to continue in a way that's still fun for everyone.
Remaining intractable when presented with well-reasoned, cited, and informed arguments is what's 'scaring off' a lot of people that used to post very helpful information. People are less inclined to be helpful when presented with inflexible viewpoints.
I'm sorry you didn't find the answers you were looking for. I'm sorry you felt attacked when defending your viewpoint. Hopefully you can find a way to resolve this issue to your satisfaction. I don't believe you'll find that solution here.
Hmmm.. I thought i had it. Now I'm really confused.
While we have the attention of our therapod overlord...
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
The intended dichotomy really didn't come across in the rules.
When you say "legal target" are you implying that infusions can't be made of true strike at all (for example) or that you can't "cast" the infusion of truestrike on someone?
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.
Infusion: 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 extract can be non potion legal spells, and the infusion doesn't appear to change that. I was having too much fun using alter self to turn the Gnoll hating ranger into a gnoll...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a T-Rex makes a rules suggestion, I follow it unless a Red Dragon says otherwise.
If a T-Rex makes a rules suggestion, I follow it unless a Red Dragon says otherwise.
Especially if the T-Rex helped write the rules in the first place.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
THAT SAID... actually moving up to a dead body, then casting the spell as an infusion and then using it on a target as it's being "cast" also works. Remember, potions are NOT extracts/infusions, and vice versa. Extracts/infusions function very much as spells, with unusual side effects/flavor text to them. There's nothing that says you CAN'T use an infusion on another target as part of the casting of the extract being made into the infusion, and from a game balance standpoint since that just lets you cast that elixir as an infusion... you could just step up to the dead body (move action) and cast/apply the infusion onto the body (standard action).
There are a couple of useful items for that:
- glove of storing (free action to recover the infusion);- spring loaded wrist (swift action to get a potion in hand from the sheath)
This makes me very sad :'(
Why?
I can take an advice and so can a lot of other posters, but isn't the advice forum.
If the dev's can't take the heat, stay out or explicitly say : "this is my take on it. This is my advice." Having a dev posting an opinion as a rule and then start whining because people argue with the is just childish.
It's has been pointed out before by others far for eloquent than me that this is a game. Games have rules. Some of us actually pay for this game and like some of the more confusing stuff to get sorted out. that's why there is a FAQ. But you could send Lisa a note and suggest they remove the FAQ.
If we all should just house rule, just make the next book filled with blank pages and let the players and GM make up the rules themselves.
If you think facts are stupid things why post in this thread? You are not helping anyone.
To the OP, I'm not really sure what else you can ask for at this point.
At this point? Official errata or an Official respond. I certainly didn't ask for posts like yours.
As far as I can tell you represent a small minority of people who might find the wording of the alchemist as a gamestopper.
I don't find the wording of the alchemist as a gamestopper.
A quick search of the forums did not turn up a great number of similar threads, as is normally the case with ambiguous or unclear rules.
So, what's the your point? The 'can I wild shape and keep my shield bonus thread' had something like a 1 000 posts. Eventually JB answered and wrote an errata. The only other thread was created by the same guy some time earlier. The thread pointed out the rules was flawed and it resulted in an errata.
James designed the class. He's given his opinion on the matter. A number of players stepped in well before and drew from their experience some very persuasive arguments, backed by legitimate interpretation of the rules.
The only legit help I've been given is from Dennis. I trust Dennis and he is a real smart, nice and helpful poster. I do not however always agree with him, but this time he is probably right. And as you can read for yourself he too says the rules are unclear. Same goes for BigNorseWolf. Also a smart, helpful and nice poster and even he is confused.
As for James, it is a well known fact that he tries to help people and he seems to be a generous person, but it also a VERY known fact that you can't trust James on rules. JJ knows this is widely spread opinion (if not the consensus) on the Messageboards . Being a genius when it comes to coming up with cool ideas/designs and being creative does not equal being an expert on creating and interpret rules.But sure, I agree with Diego Rossi:" Seeing how Jacobs was the one that created the class, I would say he is the best authority about what was the intention behind the powers of the class." Problem is creating a class and intent doesn't always go together with game mechanics. The APG did prove JJ wrong on draw and drink:
Move action to take it out, standard action to drink it. Regardless of who's using that particular infusion, since it's been prepared ahead of time as a "fake potion" of sorts.
The ONLY time an infusion's creation and use all gets rolled together into one standard action is when the alchemist "casts" the infusion like a spell on himself.
AGP states: Draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
Or do you claim the APG is wrong? It's cool. We all make mistakes. I have I also been proven wrong. Even by myself. But trusting blindly JJ just because he created the class?As for your: "backed by legitimate interpretation of the rules."? You turned an opinion into a fact. Really unsportsmanlike.
And that's all you can really ask for.
Remaining intractable when presented with well-reasoned, cited, and informed arguments is what's 'scaring off' a lot of people that used to post very helpful information. People are less inclined to be helpful when presented with inflexible viewpoints.
Again, this thread was not created in the advice form. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm arguing. And people have been helpful regardless of your opinion of me.
I'm sorry you didn't find the answers you were looking for.
Please to tell me what I think or don't think, what I did find and didn't find. I did I found some of the answers I was looking for.
I'm sorry you felt attacked when defending your viewpoint. Hopefully you can find a way...
I didn't feel attacked. The only poster coming close to attacking me attacking me in this thread is you.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1
And I still would like an 'official' answer. That does not equal being ungrateful.
No, wanting an official answer does not equal being ungrateful... it's making comments like this that makes you seem ungrateful:
Thanks for the feedback :-) but I think you are wrong :-(
Token thanks, instant brushoff.... classy.