If we assume for the moment that in 3.X it was the intent for oils to be "potions for objects" yet in Pathfinder they work on creatures, then clearly the intent must have changed.If the intent of the existence of oils has changed, then what has it changed to?
This is purely speculation on my part, but if I had to guess how we got here:
- Potions used to be items you drank for beneficial effects. Some of them were poisonous or cursed, but that was due to the fact that the pre-d20 editions sometimes had "treasure" that hosed the players. (Because that's fun?)
- The d20 system was invented to be the core of the v3.0 rules. Potions in 3.0 were tied to low-level spells. The potion/oil split happened mainly to have personal-use items of object-affecting spells.
- Through splatbook and rule expansion, you start seeing characters and creatures who can't physically imbibe potions but could benefit from an oil. Nothing explicitly prevented the creation of an oil of cure light wounds, for example, so I think this is around the time when the perceived intent got muddied and possibly altered.
- PF gets built off the v3.5 rules, keeping the potions section virtually intact other than removing references to concentration skill checks. "Original" intent gets further muddied and diluted as time passes.
At least that's how I see it. Whether the actual intent has changed or not is entirely conjecture; I think it's more a matter of perceptive, a case of the rules being interpreted by different generations of people with varying degrees of experience in older editions.
Personally, I like having potions (and oils) be primarily self-use items, partly due to the comfort factor of it being what I'm used to, and partly because you can already create single-use, use-activated magic items as wondrous items for offensive purposes. If Paizo comes out with a FAQ or errata that lets potions and oils start being used on unwilling targets, however, it's not going to ruin the game for me.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Personally, I like having potions (and oils) be primarily self-use items, partly due to the comfort factor of it being what I'm used to
I get the feeling that a lot of the opposition to the idea is based largely on that (hence, in my speculation at least, why it's taken entire pages to get people to answer some basic questions that I've been asking from the get-go; thanks for being one of those people).
Anyway, the position that you and others are describing is making a little more sense now, but at this point I still feel its validity requires too many assumptions for it to be the most likely interpretation. But by all means, keep throwing your thoughts out there. If nothing else, it'll keep the traffic up and maybe generate some more FAQ clicks. ;)
but at this point I still feel its validity requires too many assumptions for it to be the most likely interpretation.
Conversely, one could argue that your opinion is limited by an experiential ignorance of potion history, and mainly driven by your bias to want to be able to have an inexpensive PFS-legal method of spellblasting enemies with a non-caster that doesn't require UMD. ;)
In all seriousness, my originally posted view was that RAW it's not currently allowed. I've mainly been trying to provide some context to help you understand why some people got worked up in the original thread, rather than trying to debate anything.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
but at this point I still feel its validity requires too many assumptions for it to be the most likely interpretation.Conversely, one could argue that your opinion is limited by an experiential ignorance of potion history, and mainly driven by your bias to want to be able to have an inexpensive PFS-legal method of spellblasting enemies with a non-caster that doesn't require UMD. ;)
Because after all, it doesn't get much cheaper than double the price of scrolls! ;)
Because after all, it doesn't get much cheaper than double the price of scrolls! ;)
but at this point I still feel its validity requires too many assumptions for it to be the most likely interpretation.Conversely, one could argue that your opinion is limited by an experiential ignorance of potion history, and mainly driven by your bias to want to be able to have an inexpensive PFS-legal method of spellblasting enemies with a non-caster that doesn't require UMD. ;)
It is for the character that can't use scrolls. ;)
|
If Paizo comes out with a FAQ or errata that lets potions and oils start being used on unwilling targets, however, it's not going to ruin the game for me.
(sorry just cutting down to what I was responding to:
Iron Cobra A great fun toy for a potion brewing wizard. Has the following ability:
Which it than later says: "Since an iron cobra's poison reservoir can contain multiple types of venom, the construct's specific use can be further tailored by varying the poison used. Some spellcasters even fill these reservoirs with potions, so that when the cobra bites, it injects the potion into its target. "
Offensive Potions.. :)
Okay so on threads this old you might see that because that used to be the only option to get it out of the FAQ Queue. So it probably wasn't answered due to either not being a clear enough question or other issues.