| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Or does that count as leaving his posession?
I assume by 'cure elixir' you mean a non-infused extract. And no, you can't do that any more than if you poured it into their mouth awake to get around not being able to give it to them.
I assume so. Our first level alchemist thought it might work and I've never really read alchemist.
I meant a cure light wounds extract. Don't think it's infused.
It's ambiguous as to whether an alchemist can administer a non-infused extract to an ally. Unless there's been an errata or FAQ on the subject that I'm unaware of, it's really up to GM discretion. I'd personally allow it.
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.
It's clear for potions, so I'd allow it for extracts. Yes you can.
No.
If he wants to use any Extract on someone other than himself, he needs the Infusion Discovery.
This is RAW.
I assumed that he already had the Infusion discovery.
It's ambiguous as to whether an alchemist can administer a non-infused extract to an ally.
It is definitely not ambiguous. It is very explicitly spelled out in the rules. Extracts cannot affect anyone but the Alchemist--Infusions can affect anyone.
No.
If he wants to use any Extract on someone other than himself, he needs the Infusion Discovery.
This is RAW.
The rules say he "cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use". It says nothing about whether he an use them on an ally, and never defines whether this qualifies as leaving his possession.
I'd say it's ambiguous, and personally I'd allow this.
Extracts cannot affect anyone but the Alchemist--Infusions can affect anyone
I'm not seeing this rule. Again, if there's a FAQ or errata I don't know about that would be one thing, but I'm scanning the rules right now and the only restriction seems to be that the extract cannot leave his possession.
It's actually not ambiguous, since stated in the rules, the target has to drink the extract (imbibe like a potion). ie, they are using it. So no, they cannot without the infusion discovery.
However, the question was focused on doing it to an unconscious ally. Which, as per potions, I'd allow.
It's actually not ambiguous, since stated in the rules, the target has to drink the extract (imbibe like a potion). ie, they are using it. So no, they cannot without the infusion discovery.
However, the question was focused on doing it to an unconscious ally. Which, as per potions, I'd allow.
So if the ally was awake, would you allow them to hold still, open their mouth, and have the alchemist pour it in?
this is the same.
It's actually not ambiguous, since stated in the rules, the target has to drink the extract (imbibe like a potion). ie, they are using it. So no, they cannot without the infusion discovery.
Hmmm... it seems that applying a potion to another creature is only possible when their unconscious and isn't possible with a conscious ally. So technically you just need the party monk to start medidating so you can pour your extract down his throat :P
Then yeah, by RAW it'd only work on unconscious allies. Still wouldn't change my ruling in my own game, though.
|
It's actually not ambiguous, since stated in the rules, the target has to drink the extract (imbibe like a potion). ie, they are using it. So no, they cannot without the infusion discovery.
However, the question was focused on doing it to an unconscious ally. Which, as per potions, I'd allow.
So if the ally was awake, would you allow them to hold still, open their mouth, and have the alchemist pour it in?
this is the same.
You are literally bypassing the rules and dismissing the Infusion Discovery, through some minor detail, that you believe, defies RAW.
No, the rules are, as stated by many, not ambiguous.
You are literally bypassing the rules and dismissing the Infusion Discovery, through some minor detail, that you believe, defies RAW.
The infusion discovery allows your ally to carry and use your extracts. This is markedly different from the alchemist applying his extracts (as a full round action, no less) directly to his allies.
|
|
So, the ability to hold an Extract, is all that is gained?
There is no proof of such nonsense.
Holding hands with an ally, whilst both gripping the Extract doesn't bypass the restriction of Extracts either.
Neither does tossing the Extract into the ally's mouth, and having him catch with his teeth works either.
Infusion, or Alchemist only.
Again, I don't see the water-tight support for that strong interpretation in the rules.
An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist’s possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below)
It doesn't have anything to say about who can benefit from extracts, merely that it must remain the alchemist's possession to remain effective. I'd say a GM would be on strong footing to rule that if the alchemist applies it to another creature with his own action, it never left his possession and is still effective.
I can see where you're coming from, but the rules just aren't phrased in such a way as to preclude someone else from benefitting from the alchemist's extract. He just cannot hold it or activate it himself.
In practice, having the alchemist run around and use full-round actions to apply his extracts to his allies is very impractical, so I don't feel this infringes too strongly on the infusion discovery.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't have anything to say about who can benefit from extracts, merely that it must remain the alchemist's possession to remain effective.
Is a liquid that is currently in your mouth in my possession?
Extracts are not Potions
No, but an extract is "cast by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion"; so as far as activation is concerned, it does work like a potion, and a potion can be applied by one ally to another.
There is no evidence to prove that even an Infused Extract can be administered to an unconscious ally.
For an infused extract, I'd strongly argue otherwise. An extract is imbibed like a potion, and a potion can be applied by one ally to another.
Non-infused, I'd agree your position is probably closer to the RAW, but for infused extracts I don't think you have a leg to stand on.
Is a liquid that is currently in your mouth in my possession?
And this is where the ambiguity lies. The fact that the alchemist is performing the action leads me to believe that the extract (as an object that can be physically possessed) ceases to exist while it is still within his possession, even if the effect is directed into an ally.
It doesn't have anything to say about who can benefit from extracts, merely that it must remain the alchemist's possession to remain effective.Is a liquid that is currently in your mouth in my possession?
There is some kind of innuendo to be made here... ;)
Now, someone else places it in an available orifice, such as my mouth.
Is it in my possession then?
If the extract was at all recoverable, then yes you'd be right. But it's not; the extract actually stops existing as an object at some point in the process of administering it to the recipient. The question is whether, as far as the rules are concerned, it has left the possession of the alchemist before or after it has stopped existing as an object. I don't believe there is a basis to make a strong ruling one way or another.
You could easily use the logic of the liquid entering the subject's mouth (as you do) and thus leaving the alchemist's possession before taking effect. You could just as easily use the concepts of actions (as I do) to rule that the object was still within the alchemist's control when it stopped existing. I'm sure you could come up with several common-sense lines of reasoning to support either intrepretation, but this just underscores my point that there's no rule to go on.
I'm sure you could come up with several common-sense lines of reasoning to support either intrepretation
I cannot come up with any common sense lines of reasoning in which a liquid stops existing when someone is in the process of drinking it.
I cannot come up with any common sense lines of reasoning in which a liquid stops existing when someone is in the process of drinking it.
The game isn't a complex biological simulation. Once an extract or potion has been imbibed, it stops existing as an item. Of course the material components of such an item continue to exist in the target's body and bloodstream long after the effect has passed, and eventually the character is going to piss it out. But the rules don't bother themselves with that; as a physical object, the potion/extract stopped existing at some point. For the purpose of this ruling, we must determine at what point the extract ceased to be an extract and started to be a magical effect.
I will accept your interpretation. The extract ceases to exist when it hits your ally's throat and therefore they gain no benefit from it.
Or, if you'd like to try again:
How is pouring an extract down an allying throat not passing it to them?
You need the infusion discovery to do this.
Get the infusion discovery.
How is pouring an extract down an allying throat not passing it to them?
Well, let's go through a few things:
* It is questionable whether the extract still exists as an object that can be possessed once it is actually inside the target's body; it is entirely reasonable to rule that it is now an intangible magical effect.
* The action that is used to apply the extract is the alchemist's. Ergo, the alchemist had control of the extract when it functionally stopped existing as per the game rules.
* The stated reason why the alchemist cannot pass his extracts to others is because they "siphon from his own magical aura". If he is applying the extract himself (as a full-round action, I might add), then he would logically be capable of applying his magical aura with it.
Again, the alternate ruling is entirely reasonable. I'm not saying that this is the one correct ruling; I'm saying that there is no hard rule to go by and both rulings are acceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not questionable.
You're trying to rules lawyer your way to a free feat that exists clearly to do what you're trying to do.
The rules do not get plainer. They cannot be any plainer. They will not be any plainer than this.
* It is questionable whether the extract still exists as an object that can be possessed once it is actually inside the target's body; it is entirely reasonable to rule that it is now an intangible magical effect.
Let's say I don't pour it down someone's throat. Let's say I pour it down a funnel into their mouth. Does it still work?
Now I pour it down a funnel with a length of tubing attached, like those beer drinking things in those movies. Does it still work?
What if my friend is dying on the floor below me and I can see him through a grate in the ceiling and his mouth is open and I pour my extract down through the grate into his mouth--does it work?
Can someone drink my extract with a straw using their action, but I'm holding the container the extract is in and the straw?
Let's say I build a 10' scaffold with a complex set of piping sloping back and forth down the length of it such that it travels through the set up for at least 10 seconds before it enters my friend's mouth. What if I drip it into the contraption then run down really quick before it gets to the bottom and then drink it myself?
Where is the breaking point?
The fact is, it doesn't matter if it exists once it's in the target's body. If you're pouring it out of a container and not into something you possess (like your own mouth or another container), it's not in your possession. There's no "check for possession" phase or something during your turn--you can't trick the extract because it only notices if it's out of your possession once every 6 seconds or something like that. If it leaves your possession, it ceases to function.
If you pour it in some guy's mouth, it leaves your possession before the target is affected by the extract. It's not instantaneous upon being splashed on their lips, after all--otherwise you could administer infusions as splash weapons. They have to ingest it--that's implicit in the nature of the extract. There is a moment, no matter how short, in which it is not in your possession before the power takes effect--it cannot be any other way.
The very fact that you're making me argue this is absurd. I can't figure out if you legitimately believe this, if you're trolling, if you're just trying to see how "skilled" you are at pedantry, or whatever else, but it's not working--zero people are convinced. We're all just in disbelief that you're fighting this obvious truth.
When asking a question such as this...and 99% or more of the people telling you the answer is NO...take it as that
That's the POINT of a forum...its not a place to get wood for your "I want it to work this way" fire...its to get the general consensus on a rule
If you try to find a way around a ruling by using specific context or wording of a rule then you are working WAY to hard on this
If this is a house game...do it...explain it to your GM any way, hell promise him "something in return" for all we care
Ever read about the Bag of holding, portable hole arrow? Instant death of anything in a large radius (can't remember exact details). There are no rules for attaching a bag of holding and a portable hole to an arrow though...so its GM fiat. However...
This is the Rules Questions forum and people will try and give you RAW...in this case there ARE explicit rules as to HOW to allow the allies of an alchemist to benefit from his extracts....INFUSIONS
There are a ton of other ways to heal a party member anyways...if you are to the point where this is a life/death issue I am truly sorry, your party must be in one extremely difficult fight...FIGHT ON!!!
EDIT Found the picture I was looking for: Link
|
It's actually not ambiguous, since stated in the rules, the target has to drink the extract (imbibe like a potion). ie, they are using it. So no, they cannot without the infusion discovery.Hmmm... it seems that applying a potion to another creature is only possible when their unconscious and isn't possible with a conscious ally. So technically you just need the party monk to start medidating so you can pour your extract down his throat :P
Then yeah, by RAW it'd only work on unconscious allies. Still wouldn't change my ruling in my own game, though.
You mean a Extract, I think.
Potion = anyone can drink it at any time, conscious or not, personal range spell can't be used to make a potion
Infusion = anyone can drink it at any time, conscious or not, you can make an infusion of a personal range spell
Extract = only the alchemist can use them.
The terms aren't interchangeable.
@ Daskar
An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession,
In the mouth of a ally it is outside the alchemist possession.
I admire your climbing skills as mirrors are very hard to climb, but
this extract show that a potion don't disappear as soon as it touch your mouth.
Alchemical Allocation
This extract causes a pale aura to emanate from your mouth. If you consume a potion or elixir on the round following the consumption of this extract, you can spit it back into its container as a free action. You gain all the benefits of the potion or elixir, but it is not consumed. You can only gain the benefits of one potion or elixir in this way per use of this extract.
I don't see why it should be different for an extract.
The rules do not get plainer. They cannot be any plainer. They will not be any plainer than this.
Of course they could be plainer, and should be plainer.
The RAW is:
"an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for his allies to use."
If the RAI is that the infusion discovery is required to administer an extract to an ally, it should have read:
"an extract has no effect if imbibed by anyone except the alchemist who prepared it."
It may very likely be the RAI, but that is not what was written, and no clause in the rules to that effect. If you wish to argue that it is not possible to imbibe an extract without it first leaving the alchemist's possession then that is reasonable; there just aren't any rules on that one way or another.
Where is the breaking point?
GM would have to make the call. I'd probably rule that the alchemist must be adjacent to the intended target, and must perform a full-round action to administer the extract. So long as you meet those requirements, knock yourself out.
The lack of a clean breaking point is probably the strongest argument anyone has brought up against my interpretation so far.
There's no "check for possession" phase or something during your turn--you can't trick the extract because it only notices if it's out of your possession once every 6 seconds or something like that. If it leaves your possession, it ceases to function.
No, you're correct; if the extract leaves the alchemist's possession before it becomes a magical effect, then it wouldn't function. I've never argued otherwise; my interpretation entirely hinges on when it ceases to be an extract and starts to be a magical effect.
If you pour it in some guy's mouth, it leaves your possession before the target is affected by the extract
There is no such rule; that is your ruling. It is an entirely reasonable ruling and I wouldn't contest a GM on the matter.
otherwise you could administer infusions as splash weapons
There is a big difference between a full-round action targeting an adjacent creature and a standard action with a 10 ft range increment.
Exactly what that means in-universe is up to you, but mechanically it couldn't be delivered as a splash weapon.
The very fact that you're making me argue this is absurd. I can't figure out if you legitimately believe this, if you're trolling, if you're just trying to see how "skilled" you are at pedantry, or whatever else, but it's not working--zero people are convinced. We're all just in disbelief that you're fighting this obvious truth.
There's no reason to be hostile here. I'm legitimately interested in this conversation, and have responded to every point made with respect for the other posters. If you don't want to discuss this further, then you don't have to. I respect your right to your opinion and we can leave it at that.
I don't see why it should be different for an extract.PRD wrote:
Alchemical Allocation
This extract causes a pale aura to emanate from your mouth. If you consume a potion or elixir on the round following the consumption of this extract, you can spit it back into its container as a free action. You gain all the benefits of the potion or elixir, but it is not consumed. You can only gain the benefits of one potion or elixir in this way per use of this extract.
Hmmm, that's a neat one. I correct my earlier statement about the strongest point against me. Still a specific spell effect rather than a general rule, but a strong one in favor of the potion still existing as an item while inside someone's mouth.
Seeing as there's a bit of hostility, I'd like to leave it as these agreed-upon facts:
* Extracts are applied as potions, meaning that an alchemist can apply one to his allies.
* Most people agree that without the infusion discovery, it would leave his possession and thus have no effect.
* Because there are no rules regarding when the extract leaves the alchemist's possession, a small minority argue otherwise.
If the RAI is that the infusion discovery is required to administer an extract to an ally, it should have read:
"an extract has no effect if imbibed by anyone except the alchemist who prepared it."An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.<----- under infusion.
That means that a non infused extract can't be imbibed by a non alchemist to gain its effects. Its almost the exact wording you were looking for.
That means that a non infused extract can't be imbibed by a non alchemist to gain its effects. Its almost the exact wording you were looking for.
Well, there we go.
Still a very odd way of phrasing things, with the general section stating the limitations by "possession" of an object and the specific section stating the limitation by class, but that is the clause we were looking for.
Still a very odd way of phrasing things
No it is a very specific way of phrasing things that does not rely on intent. An extract that leaves the alchemist's possession becomes inert. Period. It doesn't matter why the extract is no longer in the alchemist's possession. If it were worded so that intent was a factor, then you'd start seeing people talking about alchemists "accidentally" spilling extracts that "just happen" to be consumed by other PCs; or PCs using Sleight of Hand to steal extracts from the alchemist to use themselves. These types of shenanigans are nothing new; I remember some of the disputes over the 1st Ed AD&D rules on intent vs. outcome.
The only way around this limitation is to take the Infusion discovery.
I don't know if a developer straight up saying it will change it, because the rules state it as well, but take a gander at this.
2) Extracts only affect the alchemist unless you have the infusion ability.
|
|
I don't know if a developer straight up saying it will change it, because the rules state it as well, but take a gander at this.
2) Extracts only affect the alchemist unless you have the infusion ability.
Exactly. If the alchemist has the Infusion discovery, then the extract will affect the recipient, whether the recipient is conscious or not. If the alchemist does not have the Infusion discovery, then the extract will not affect the recipient, whether the recipient is conscious or not.
There is nothing ambiguous about the rule.
Thanks for the help everyone. It didn't come up last night as no one got overly damaged. I asked because, as I said, I haven't really done more than briefly skimmed the alchemist but am kinda being looked to as the guy who knows the Pathfinder rules.
I just want to point out one thing because it seemed to have been missed:
With the infusion discovery the alchemist can pass out his extracts to his allies. So yes they can hold it, but more importantly they can (or must) use their own action to drink it.
So instead of the wizard standing in the back casting different spells on different people for 4 rounds, everyone drinks their potion in the first round.
Now, I will start with saying that I too interpret the rules as saying "You need the infusion discovery to administer the extract to an ally".
However, I could see an argument for the other interpretation as well. Effectively the Fighter has to hold still while the Alchemist pours the Enlarge Person extract or whatever down his throat. The alchemist has to use up his Full Round Action to do that. And the Fighter probably has to do the same to hold still. You could even argue he becomes flat footed when doing that, or that if he takes damage the attempt fails.
So instead of a standard action on the Fighters turn it now is a FRA on both their turns if they don't have the Infusion discovery. That's probably how I would rule it, but that would be a houserule, I agree.
No it is a very specific way of phrasing things that does not rely on intent.
The "alchemy" section states the restriction by possession of the physical extract. The "infusion" section states that non-infused extracts have a restriction by class. Neither of these are the inferred RAI, which is restricts the person gaining the effect to the alchemist who prepared it.
So yes, I stand by my position that this is worded awkwardly. The text is fragmented and we cannot use formal logic to actually derive the RAI. All taken together I agree that we can infer the intent, but that doesn't mean it's clearly stated.
An extract that leaves the alchemist's possession becomes inert. Period. It doesn't matter why the extract is no longer in the alchemist's possession
To repeat myself for the dozenth time, the argument was that by applying the extract himself, it never actually leaves the alchemist's possession. I scoured the rules last night for any reference to support one interpretation or another, and couldn't find anything.
In any case, this line of logic has been rendered irrelevant, as the section under the "infusion" discovery states that there are further restrictions that were not explicitly mentioned in the earlier section on extracts. This is enough to convince me to switch positions.
For the record, my former position was that the text was sufficiently vague that both interpretations were logically correct.
I don't know if a developer straight up saying it will change it, because the rules state it as well, but take a gander at this.
2) Extracts only affect the alchemist unless you have the infusion ability.
And there's the last nail in the coffin.
It's a shame the rules never actually say that one critical sentence. They dance around the subject, but never actually say it.
So instead of the wizard standing in the back casting different spells on different people for 4 rounds, everyone drinks their potion in the first round
Yup; infusion is the top candidate for your first discovery.
Now, I will start with saying that I too interpret the rules as saying "You need the infusion discovery to administer the extract to an ally".
In case it isn't clear at this point, I've also been convinced of this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When an alchemist creates an extract or bomb, he infuses the concoction with a tiny fraction of his own magical power—this enables the creation of powerful effects, but also binds the effects to the creator.
Directly in the Alchemy Description, first paragraph. Bold emphasis is mine.
No it is a very specific way of phrasing things that does not rely on intent.The "alchemy" section states the restriction by possession of the physical extract. The "infusion" section states that non-infused extracts have a restriction by class. Neither of these are the inferred RAI, which is restricts the person gaining the effect to the alchemist who prepared it.
So yes, I stand by my position that this is worded awkwardly. The text is fragmented and we cannot use formal logic to actually derive the RAI. All taken together I agree that we can infer the intent, but that doesn't mean it's clearly stated.
Yes, the description of the Infusion discovery could have been better worded. But, really, is "imbibed by a non-alchemist" that much more confusing than "imbibed by someone other than the alchemist that created it" so as to require the extra word count?
An extract that leaves the alchemist's possession becomes inert. Period. It doesn't matter why the extract is no longer in the alchemist's possessionTo repeat myself for the dozenth time, the argument was that by applying the extract himself, it never actually leaves the alchemist's possession. I scoured the rules last night for any reference to support one interpretation or another, and couldn't find anything.
That's because "possession" is a pretty cut-and-dried definition that doesn't require system rules.
Let me break it down for you: I recommend testing this with an attractive partner, but whatever floats your boat.
1) Pour a shot of your favorite liquor in a shot glass. As long as you hold the shot glass, the liquor is in your possession. If you tip the shot into your mouth, but don't swallow (consume) the shot, it's still in your possession.
2) If you tip the shot into your partner's mouth (or transfer the shot mouth to mouth), the shot is no longer in your possession, even before your partner can swallow it. Note that swallowing (consuming) occurs after a person has possession (you can't swallow what's not in your mouth; if it's in someone else's mouth, it's no longer in your possession).
It seems that if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck some people will still think, "Oh hey look! A banana!"
I swear people. Why the hell would the infusion discovery exist if you could just stand next to people and have you extract work on them as your pour them down their throats? At most it uses up the Alchemist's turn to do so but I wouldn't say that was as much as problem since it keeps the other characters actions unused.
No, you must have the Infusion discovery for the alchemist extracts to work on anyone else.
I have to ask.. why does the alchemist just brew a CL* potion... or oil and be done with it?
that being said. RAW seems fairly clear...RAI I have to kinda point back to RAW.
[[more interesting comes in with can you pour a bomb down an unconcious person's throat?]]