|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Simple question.
Can you make oils, using the brew potion feat, of spells that have targets of objects and not targets of "one or more creatures" ?
Linkage to creation rules:
Potions from the magic items area of the book
Brew Potion Feat
MAgic Item creation rules
For example:
Can you make potions/oils of the following spells:
B) Magic Weapon
A) seems to follow all the rules set for potions/oils in the book, less then 3rd level, does not have a range of "personal", less then a 1 minute casting time, targets one or more creatures.
B) Seems to follow some of the rules too: less then 3rd level, does not have a range of personal, less then 1 minute casting time, but here is where it changes, this spell has a target of "one weapon touched".
The reason that I ask this, is that there are potions given in tables in the "Game Mastery Guide" that are of spells like B above, also there are references in the text of applying oils to objects, but the potions creation rules do not back up making said oils with the brew potion feat.
Just wanted to get this answered and either cleaned up as a FAQ or errata.
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed.
Potions and Oils are both made with the brew potion feat. An Oil is simply a potion that you rub on something (target item) rather than drink (target creature)
|
|
A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed.Potions and Oils are both made with the brew potion feat. An Oil is simply a potion that you rub on something (target item) rather than drink (target creature)
Can you point to the backing in the rule book for that?
The reason that I ask is that, from what I can see, anything made with the brew potion feat must target creatures and not items.
It is easy sometimes to miss something in the core book, so if you know where it backs up your claim, I would like to know.
Huh, interesting. It never says anywhere how to make an oil. They aren't listed on the Wondrous item tables, and aren't describes anywhere except under the Potions section of the Magic Items chapter. They lifted that section verbatim from the 3.5 DMG, except they didn't include the table of common potions and oils.
I guess you would have to houserule it either way. We always played that they were the same thing, since they were in the same section of the Magic Item guides and weren't called out anywhere else.
EDIT: I FAQ'd this thread, because while it seems common sense to me, not having the actual rule anywhere is an error carried over from 3.5.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We always played that they were the same thing, since they were in the same section of the Magic Item guides and weren't called out anywhere else.
A plain reading of the Core Rules (without bringing in assumptions from other systems) is that oils are the same as potions in every way except delivery method - rubbing instead of drinking.
The only apparent discrepancy in the rules themselves is that the requirements to make one is that the spell being reproduced must target "creatures", while later in the same section it says "The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
I went ahead and clicked the FAQ, but I think the interpretation that requires the fewest assumptions and implies the fewest errors is that the targeting requirement should have said "creatures or objects" instead of "creatures". By adding just those two words, suddenly there's no issue at all.
Every other explanation/interpretation I've seen either doesn't fix anything or is more complicated/convoluted than that, so I'm sticking with what I described above.
|
|
We always played that they were the same thing, since they were in the same section of the Magic Item guides and weren't called out anywhere else.A plain reading of the Core Rules (without bringing in assumptions from other systems) is that oils are the same as potions in every way except delivery method - rubbing instead of drinking.
The only apparent discrepancy in the rules themselves is that the requirements to make one is that the spell being reproduced must target "creatures", while later in the same section it says "The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
I went ahead and clicked the FAQ, but I think the interpretation that requires the fewest assumptions and implies the fewest errors is that the targeting requirement should have said "creatures or objects" instead of "creatures". By adding just those two words, suddenly there's no issue at all.
Every other explanation/interpretation I've seen either doesn't fix anything or is more complicated/convoluted than that, so I'm sticking with what I described above.
I am okay with that answer too (and I have house ruled that way in the past).
I think that if we can get a solid answer, it will cut down on some of the arguments when it comes to potions/oils and what you can do with them (see oil of magic weapon, or a monk with the vow of fasting using an oil of cure moderate wounds, etc).
Things like oil of magic weapon was common enough in 3.5 to have an entry on the potions and oils random generation table. Were I the DM, I wouldn't allow oils of cure x to be created. The Vow imposes specific penalties in exchange for specific gains, and to circumvent those penalties is cheesy to me. Besides, there is an existing item that the monk could use: Restorative Ointment
A plain reading of the Core Rules (without bringing in assumptions from other systems) is that oils are the same as potions in every way except delivery method - rubbing instead of drinking.
The only apparent discrepancy in the rules themselves is that the requirements to make one is that the spell being reproduced must target "creatures", while later in the same section it says "The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
I went ahead and clicked the FAQ, but I think the interpretation that requires the fewest assumptions and implies the fewest errors is that the targeting requirement should have said "creatures or objects" instead of "creatures". By adding just those two words, suddenly there's no issue at all.
Every other explanation/interpretation I've seen either doesn't fix anything or is more complicated/convoluted than that, so I'm sticking with what I described above.
+1
Not all potions are oils, but all oils are potions. Does that make sense?
Potions are potions. Oils are also potions. Really, if they had called the feat Brew Drought and stated that potions and oils were both droughts, than this confusion could have been easily avoided, but hey, I guess "Brew Potion" sounds cooler.
Since oils are in the Potions section of the Magic Items chapter, it stands to reason that they too are potions and, as such, can be made with Brew Potion.
I'm not sure why this is even being discussed. It's pretty clear cut in the RAW.
A plain reading of the Core Rules (without bringing in assumptions from other systems) is that oils are the same as potions in every way except delivery method - rubbing instead of drinking.
The only apparent discrepancy in the rules themselves is that the requirements to make one is that the spell being reproduced must target "creatures", while later in the same section it says "The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
It's not a contradiction because it is in a completely different paragraph.
Sentences make up individual, distinct thoughts. Paragraphs group similar thoughts together. Different paragraphs talk about different, generally unrelated, groups of thought. That's how the English language works.
One paragraph is talking about potion droughts, whereas the other one is talking about oil droughts. As such, one paragraph (such as the one saying "creatures only" doesn't necessarily apply to the other (saying "creatures or objects").
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
One paragraph is talking about potion droughts, whereas the other one is talking about oil droughts. As such, one paragraph (such as the one saying "creatures only" doesn't necessarily apply to the other (saying "creatures or objects").
A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures.
The English language says that if the one sentence of a paragraph has an explicit subject ("potions or oils") and the next sentence uses the pronoun "it" as its subject, the second sentence refers to the same subject as the first. As such, the description applied to said subject in the second sentence of the same paragraph applies to the subject of the preceding sentence ("potions or oils"). Care to re-think the necessity of that little English lesson? ;)
One paragraph is talking about potion droughts, whereas the other one is talking about oil droughts. As such, one paragraph (such as the one saying "creatures only" doesn't necessarily apply to the other (saying "creatures or objects").A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures.The English language says that if the one sentence of a paragraph has an explicit subject ("potions or oils") and the next sentence uses the pronoun "it" as its subject, the second sentence refers to the same subject as the first. As such, the description applied to said subject in the second sentence of the same paragraph applies to the subject of the preceding sentence ("potions or oils"). Care to re-think the necessity of that little English lesson? ;)
Consider me "schooled."
I still think it's just a bad bit of rules language (a glitch in other words), and that you guys are over-thinking it.
All the developers need to do is clean up that single sentence so it says "creatures or objects."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
All the developers need to do is clean up that single sentence so it says "creatures or objects."
That's exactly what I said up-thread. And since it's a two-word fix that fits everything else in the rules, I think it's pretty clearly the intent. Probably a mere typographical oversight.
Bit of an aside, to those saying either that oils can only be used on objects and/or that a monk (or anyone else, or whatever) can't use an oil of cure light wounds:
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.
So oils can clearly be applied to creatures. And hopefully no one will try to argue that an oil can only be applied to an unconscious creature.
@Jiggy: To clarify, If such an oil existed the hypothetical monk could use it fine. However, were I GM'ing they simply wouldn't exist in my world because to me it is a cheeseball move to render a freely chosen disadvantage moot.
EDIT: To be completely clear, in my games potions affect creatures and oils affect items.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Jiggy: To clarify, If such an oil existed the hypothetical monk could use it fine. However, were I GM'ing they simply wouldn't exist in my world because to me it is a cheeseball move to render a freely chosen disadvantage moot.
EDIT: To be completely clear, in my games potions affect creatures and oils affect items.
Seems fair. :)
Do please be careful to make clarifications like the above while in the rules forum, and especially in threads like this one that are trying to draw "official" attention to a specific issue. This thread (and its sister thread that spawned it) have already had several people get confused as to what exactly was in question, due in part to the whole monk thing.
People often weigh in on threads like these with house rules that are not clearly labeled as such (i.e., "I run it like this" can easily be read as "This is my interpretation of the rule" when they might mean "this is the house rule I chose to implement to deal with the ambiguity"). I think this lack of clarity really dilutes the effectiveness of this section of the forums.
Hopefully that didn't sound like a lecture. I'm just really verbose, so mundane points can end up sounding bigger than I mean them to be. :P
No worries. ;)
@Jiggy: To clarify, If such an oil existed the hypothetical monk could use it fine. However, were I GM'ing they simply wouldn't exist in my world because to me it is a cheeseball move to render a freely chosen disadvantage moot.
EDIT: To be completely clear, in my games potions affect creatures and oils affect items.
Keep in mind that, that is not a failing in the potion/oil rules, but of the Vow rules. If you wish to draw official attention to that "cheesy combo" as you call it, ask that they fix the Vow. That's where the problem started, after all.
Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.
Your other option would be to let oils be commonplace, and then tempt him into a "special bath" that turns out to be thousands of oils of inflict serious wounds.
|
|
Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.Your other option would be to let oils be commonplace, and then tempt him into a "special bath" that turns out to be thousands of oils of inflict serious wounds.
Oils of Vampiric touch would be more fun. Not realizing what happened till 1 hour later (when the temp hit points go away) would suck!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Oils of Vampiric touch would be more fun. Not realizing what happened till 1 hour later (when the temp hit points go away) would suck!Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.Your other option would be to let oils be commonplace, and then tempt him into a "special bath" that turns out to be thousands of oils of inflict serious wounds.
On the other hand, the inflict version gives you the opportunity to ask him for several hundred will saves. The look on his face would be priceless.
Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.Your other option would be to let oils be commonplace, and then tempt him into a "special bath" that turns out to be thousands of oils of inflict serious wounds.
That would be hysterical... I don't know that I would be that evil as a DM...
Well, Ravingdork, I don't think the Vows are broken. Underpowered for their cost, maybe, but since they are 100% optional, if I had a Monk player wanting to take one (or more) I would make sure they knew that I would be a stickler to the rule and any attempt to cheese out of their restrictions would be frowned upon.
Who said anything about Vows being broken? If anything, I think they are brokenly weak.
Your other option would be to let oils be commonplace, and then tempt him into a "special bath" that turns out to be thousands of oils of inflict serious wounds.
Surely there are less costly ways of offing someone.
In standard games, I would imagine the oils are just as common as potions (or at least have a ratio equal to that of creature target spells and object target spells).
Errata!
Page 119-In the Brew Potion feat, in the Benefit section of the Brew Potion feat, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, change “one or more creatures” to “one or more creatures or objects”.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the interpretation that requires the fewest assumptions and implies the fewest errors is that the targeting requirement should have said "creatures or objects" instead of "creatures". By adding just those two words, suddenly there's no issue at all.
Page 119-In the Brew Potion feat, in the Benefit section of the Brew Potion feat, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, change “one or more creatures” to “one or more creatures or objects”.
|
|
Errata!
Page 119-In the Brew Potion feat, in the Benefit section of the Brew Potion feat, in the first paragraph, in the first sentence, change “one or more creatures” to “one or more creatures or objects”.
Woot. Thanks Grick for pointing that out to me.
Now we can have fun items like:
Oil of Obscure Object
Oil of Shrink Item
Oil of Snare
Oil of Rope Trick
etc.
This makes my rogue happy.
|
|
By the way, where was this errata posted? Noticed a lack of a link in Grick's post.
It is at the following link:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources
in the Errata listed as :
To update Fourth Printing to Fifth Printing: Download Errata for the Core Rulebook v4.0 (2.3 zip/PDF)