This came up last session and I am still unclear what RAW/RAI have to say about this.
Fighter is in melee combat, alchemist comes up to the fighter and feeds him a potion. So it's clear this is the alchemists move and standard action. But is drinking the potion a free action in this case? Is there an attack of opportunity involved?
Similarly, can the alchemist apply poisons to someone else's weapon while in combat.
Just seems weird to be able to apply poison to someone who is actively engaged in melee combat.
The alchemist claims both are RAW. I allowed it last session but am trying to figure out how it is suppose to be run before our next session.
Thoughts?
The only mention I know of for administering a potion to another character is this, from the end of the Potion section, Magic Item Chapter, CRB:
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 full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature.
Personally, I would insist that the alchemist player produce a rule citation to support their claim.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also put the burden of proof on the Alchemist in this case.
Given that this is PF1, though, it probably requires a teamwork feat to assist someone else with drinking a potion out of their turn. And it probably has Dodge, Mobility, and Combat Expertise as prerequisites! Lol.
I found a few references to administering a potion to another creature that is not unconscious though I don't know how much it helps.
Each participant in a duel can act normally on his turn, but his actions must target or affect either himself or one of the other duel participants (either an ally or an opponent). For example, a warrior might make an attack with his bow against anyone participating in the duel,or he might administer a potion to a wounded ally also involved in the duel, but he could not attack anyone other than a participant.
This is extremely vague and duels aren't the same as normal fights as they use a separate set of rules. Even though its stated that this is something you can do it doesn't elaborate on how this is carried out.
Sipping Pet (Ex) As a standard action, the marauder can administer a dose of a liquid (such as an extract, infusion, potion, or an alchemical liquid like antitoxin) to his animal companion, even if the companion is unconscious. The alchemist must be adjacent to or riding the companion to use this ability. An alchemist must have the infusion discovery to select this discovery.
This is clear on how it works, but it's also a discovery that applies specifically to the alchemist's animal companion. This suggests that it either isn't something that could be done or at the very least it's something that would normally take longer. If we assume that all the discovery does is quicken how long it takes (from a full round to a standard) then it suggests that normally it's a full round action to administer a potion to a creature that's awake.
then there's this which is 3rd party content
Once per day, the heir can brew a free potion as a full-round action. Once created, he can store the potion, drink the potion himself or use a standard action to administer to an adjacent creature. The heir can store up to 1 of these free potions at a time plus 1 for each soothsayer training talent he has. If he tries to brew a new potion while at his maximum, the oldest potion he created expires.
This is basically a more complicated version of Pathfinder's story feats. Where if you do X it unlocks additional power. The thing above is something that can be unlocked and is the equivalent of the benefit of a feat. Again, all this really tells us is that without some special ability it's not something you can do as just a standard action.
I couldn't find anything on how it would "normally work", just an idea of how a feat that lets you do it would work.
feeds him a potion
Not possible within the rules (to my knowledge). And considering that combants are constantly moving around and turning on the spot (that's why Pathfinder doesn't have a facing system!), and how difficult the task is in real life, it also wouldn't be realistically possible. Which doesn't mean it must be impossible in-game, but that it would require a special ability (e.g. from a feat), or magic.
Similarly, can the alchemist apply poisons to someone else's weapon while in combat.
That seems to be legit RAW. "Applying poison to a weapon or single piece of ammunition is a standard action." CRB pg. 558 I agree that it's weird, but it doesn't say who'se weapon. Honestly though, who uses poisons anyway? Note that unless the recipent of the poison also has Poison Use, they're at risk: "Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison."
In my opinion if the fighter don use the aid move the alchemist received an attack
That doesn't exactly answer the question, but using that 5,000gp magic item woupd let you deliver an extract/potion as a standard action AFTER spending a full-round action prepping the gloves.
Or there's the MEDLANCE which would let you potion an ally as a move action, but this is a Technological Item from Iron Gods, so it should be better than stuff you can make without a high tech setting.
there is no rule that says you can't make someone else drink a potion
There's also no rule that says my character can't kill people just by thinking about them.
Pathfinder is a permissive rule system - you can only do what some rule allows you to do. If it weren't we wouldn't need classes or feats, as you could literally make up what your character can do.
Drinking something and making someone else drink something are different actions.
there is no rule that says you can't make someone else drink a potionThere's also no rule that says my character can't kill people just by thinking about them.
You clearly haven't read the Occult classes.
But seriously Derklord is right.
I'd let the rule for force-feeding an unconscious person a potion work for conscious people - maybe let AoO work on either the giver or receiver, attacker's choice.
Pathfinder is a permissive rule system - ...
It's really not though. There are many aspects of the rules that are permissive, but it is not absolute.
Scenario 1:What are the rules to jump from a balcony, grab a chandelier, swing, and then drop down on top of the bad guy?
There is no specific rule for this, so it can't be done?
GM: Ok, jump check to reach the chandelier, DC 20 reflex save to grab on to it (as if making a jump that failed by 4 or less) - this part is pretty easily adapted from current rules, even though there isn't a specific rule for it.
And to time your release to land on the bad guy? Is that an attack roll? Maybe a CMD roll? A GM can easily come up with something, even though there is no specific rule for it.
Scenario 2:
I want to jump on a shield, slide down the stairs, and shoot the orc in the face. (Again no specific, or permissive, rule that let's us do this)
GM: Okay, you will need the shot on the run feat, make a DC 25 Acro check to keep your balance on the shield. And at the end of your turn make another DC 25 acro check when you hit the bottom of the stairs or you fall prone.
Both of these are theoretically possible, both require GM adjudication.
As for the OP scenario, I would either disallow it (combat is to chaotic to be feeding another combatant a potion without special abilities to do so), OR require a full round action from the giver, OR a standard action from both - e.g, use the drinkers standard for their upcoming turn - or the drinker needs to use a ready action on their previous turn to drink when the other character stuffs the bottle in their face. And I would have both provoke an AoO (whether adjacent enemies can take 2 AoO's or not is another matter).
It's really not though.
It really is. Nothing you wrote clashes with that.
Both of these are theoretically possible, both require GM adjudication.
If you require the GM to be able to do that, that only shows the permissive nature. Just because you're working off the GM's permission and not a permission written into the rules, doesn't stop it from being a permission that you need. If Pathfinder weren't a permissive system, you could do the things you described without asking the GM.
I'd let the rule for force-feeding an unconscious person a potion work for conscious people - maybe let AoO work on either the giver or receiver, attacker's choice.
I wouldn't. If the other guy is moving, the task gets harder. Now, handing the other player the potion, that I would allow, probably as a move action that provokes (as with drinking the potion, the AoO can be made against the potion).* The other player can than use the normal rules to drink it.
*) If I missed existing rules for that, I'd be happy for a referral.
I'd allow feeding a potion to a conscious ally as a Standard Action (that provokes AoO).
I don't like to say No to players without a good reason, and I'm pretty sure chasing after an ally to feed him potions is not an overpowered tactic.
Yeah feeding a potion to a moving person would be harder than feeding a still person. On the other hand if that person is trying to help you it's going to mitigate a lot of the problems that come with feeding an unconscious person.
We have one person who wouldn't allow it and another who would say it's a standard action. A good middle ground would be to say a full round action (which happens to coincide exactly with the only rule we've found that covers a similar situation).
Also, there's no way I'd disallow this, it's such an unbeleavablly beleavable action.
It would be a lot easier it you could just brew the potion to work on contact rather than ingestion.
I wouldn't allow it as-is; it's silly. I want my humor to occur deliberately or outside the game, not because the soundtrack for every session includes "Wackety Sax".
But is it broken or unfair? Certainly not. Potions are terrible. Maybe an aspergillus or whatever, or an incense-potion in a censer, or even just a jar of goop in a sling.
Poisoning someone's weapon while they fight with it? I mean...that could be a cool high-level ninja-esque deal, maybe? CMD+4+some kind of weapon size modifier, maybe.
It would be a lot easier it you could just brew the potion to work on contact rather than ingestion.
Isn't that what Oils do?
So you can have the alchemist chasing the fighter around trying to give him/her a massage instead.
Which doesn't really fix the slapstick-comedy issue of the situation you describe.
But we can mentally flavor the action however we want as long as game balance is maintained. The alchemist takes the cap off the potion and holds it out, and the fighter receives it out of turn in the same way that they can use AoO out of turn. The cost of drinking a potion (1 standard action) has been paid.
Yeah feeding a potion to a moving person would be harder than feeding a still person. On the other hand if that person is trying to help you it's going to mitigate a lot of the problems that come with feeding an unconscious person.
If the other character helps, shouldn't it cost them an action or something? Which is why I mentioned handing the other PC the potion (although the AoO is unnecessary as I've come to realize).
Confession time: Since my last post, I remembered that I had actually allowed a player to draw a potion, move towards an unconscious ally, and pour it down their throat, all in one turn, in the campaign I'm GMing, because I thought that it should be doable.
I still think it should be harder to pour someone trying to dodge enemy attacks a drink than to instill a potion into an unconscious ally.
I'm pretty sure chasing after an ally to feed him potions is not an overpowered tactic.
But is it broken or unfair? Certainly not. Potions are terrible.
With actual potions? Sure. I'm not worried about an emergency potion of CLW or Shield. I'm worried about the Alchemist pouring an infusion extract of Monstrous Physique II (Deathsnatcher) down the Barbarian's throat who can then pounce an enemy with six rage-boosted attacks first round of a combat with no preparation time.
With actual potions? Sure. I'm not worried about an emergency potion of CLW or Shield. I'm worried about the Alchemist pouring an infusion extract of Monstrous Physique II (Deathsnatcher) down the Barbarian's throat who can then pounce an enemy with six rage-boosted attacks first round of a combat with no preparation time.
Sure. As I said, potions are crap. Extracts can be quite good.
When an alchemist first gets monstrous physique 2, they are level 10, so that infusion lasts at least 10 minutes. There's a good chance that the barbarian would have been pre-buffed anyway, which wouldn't have used up the alchemist's action at all. I guess there's a theoretical problematic spell out there, but it seems like a very niche case.
What is the Craft skill required to make sippy-cups? Or flexible straws? Have straws been outlawed in Golarion, yet? Have they been INVENTED, yet?
It's really not though.It really is. Nothing you wrote clashes with that.
We probably have different ideas of what it means if a system is permissive.
eg, I consider most board games permissive systems. The rules tell you exactly what you are allowed to do with your pieces. You can't do things with them that are not spelled out in the rules.
Pathfinder, being more of a story telling device, has no restrictions on what your character may attempt. There are rules that define what the result of many common actions are. A GM is needed to interpet many other cases to determine what the results are. But there is nothing that prevents a character from trying to slide down the stairs on a shield. That is perfectly allowed without any need for rules. The success/failure of such needs a GM ruling. But any character that is not unconscious/dead/restrained is allowed to declare such an action.
We probably have different ideas of what it means if a system is permissive.
I'm pretty sure Derklord was using a fairly straightforward, literal definition: permissive game systems require you to have *permission*. Whether it's from the rulebook or the GM.
I don't know about the rules involved, but if you and I are engaged in melee combat... and your homeboy waltzes up to you to lovingly spoonfeed you a potion, I better get an AoO on AT LEAST you (probably your homeboy, too).
There we were, actively clashing swords... then you pause and start leaning back a little bit, making a weird kissing motion with your lips, like you are suckling on an invisible teat. What in the far reaches of the Abyss is happening here? Are you having a stroke? Then I see the hand of the Alchemist holding a jar reach past your shoulder to administer the potion into your awaiting lips. Oh, that's adorable... have at you!
While I am inclined to allow it, I am not in favor of this being at no risk to the alchemist, or the drinker. To me this is something that draws the attention of he drinker, making him and the alchemist vulnerable to AoO. I also think that it should be a full round action on the part of the alchemist.
I don't like the idea of applying poison to a someone else's moving weapon, and while it's not game breaking, it just seems that the rules had an implied 'your weapon', not any weapon within reach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, if drinking a potion normally triggers an AoO, feeding a potion to somebody else should do the same. Maybe both the PCs should trigger AoO simultaneously, and an adjacent enemy can choose which one they want to attack.
However, I hate making things full-round actions. I like my PCs being able to take move actions rather than being expected to stand in one place for the whole of a combat. I don't like it for the 'feed a potion to an unconscious ally' rule either, since it usually leads to someone having to use up two entire turns just to stabilise an ally in combat.
|
Then you’re going to hate that taking a potion out is a move action, and since potions aren’t weapon-like, that can’t be done as part of the move to get to the person, either. Spring-loaded Wrist Sheaths or something similar would be the way around that.
Extracts don’t have that issue, but an infusion you’ve handed off to someone likely should work the same as a potion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Then you’re going to hate that taking a potion out is a move action
Yup.
I'd want to put my potions in a weapon-shaped bottle. If you can draw a dagger (or halberd, for that matter) during a move, then you should be able to draw a glass container if you can choose what shape it is. Or you could store the ounce of liquid in a special chamber in the handle of a dagger.
|
|
There’s an item for that, though it doesn’t say what action it is to take something out of the pommel or that it’s liquid sealed. Hollowed Pommel.
A lot of things like this in PFS are there for balance, not realism. Or were there for balance at one point, then subsequent items/abilities/etc. created an imbalance. Small adjustments to action economy add up.
A lot of the PFS players in my area complained about scenarios being too easy, especially at high level. But at the same time, a lot of small action economy rules were being ignored, which only makes the problem worse.
All of that being said, I’ve generally seen feeding someone a potion as a move or a standard if they are conscious, not a full round action. Because it is unclear what action it should be.