|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I was having a discussion with a friend, and they stated that an alchemist can use an extract on another person as a standard action (if they have the infuction discovery) in the same way you cast a spell on someone else. For example. An alchemist could use a move action to move behind the fighter, then use a standard action to use an extract of CLW on the fighter.
I've been unable to find anything that says this is true, but he seems adamant it exists. I couldn't find anything on the PRD, D20PFSRD or forums to agree with this, and figured I'd start a thread about it.
Nope.
The Alchemist can give his infusion to the Fighter and the Fighter can use his own action to drink it. Alternately, like a potion, an infusion can be administered to an unconscious creature as a full-round action.
If you were feeling generous, you might house-rule that the Alchemist could feed the conscious Fighter a potion or extract as a full-round action, but I wouldn't let him do it as a standard.
|
|
This is actually a hypothetical situation where a friend and I were discussing an alchemist character I have in another game he's not playing in. He asked why I just didn't use my Cure extracts (chirurgeon archtype) to heal others like a spell, to which I replied you can't. He said he saw it somewhere they function like spells so you can use them on others if you have the infusion discovery. The rules didn't seem to match, but I figured I'd throw up a post in case there was something I couldn't find in the eratta or search function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that an extract is equivalent to casting a spell, and an infusion is like casting a spell on someone else, I'm not certain I agree that 'feeding' someone else an Infusion is a full-round action.
I don't see anywhere in the RAW that it indicates that the action type to use an extract\infusion is different from casting a spell; one could infer it from the fact that they "behave as potions in spell form", but given the numerous major differences between an extract\infusion and a potion (like being able to brew infusions of personal spells), I would be more likely to think that it would function just like casting the spell, including the action type.
[edit]
He said he saw it somewhere they function like spells so you can use them on others if you have the infusion discovery. The rules didn't seem to match, but I figured I'd throw up a post in case there was something I couldn't find in the eratta or search function.
Infusions let you use any of your known extracts on others; the Chirurgeon archetype can make his Cure extracts into Infusions without even taking the relevant discover.
The only concern here is what action type is required. Normally, you would hand the infusions out to allies before a combat, then they would drink them as needed; my thought is that although they're similar to potions, they're first and foremost spells, then without specific rules text stating they take a full-round action to 'feed' to someone else, they would take the same action as casting the spell would normally take.
An extract is cast by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion. You can cast a spell on someone else; you can't drink an extract on someone else, that doesn't even make any sense.
All the Infusion discovery does is allow the extract to persist once it leaves the Alchemist's possession. It can then be imbibed by others. It does not give the Alchemists any ability to target his extracts on anyone but himself, he can simply pass them out.
There are NO rules for 'casting' an extract on someone else; even using the rules for administering potions to an unconscious creature is a generous interpretation since extracts are not potions. Another interpretation would be it simply cannot be done.
Extracts are not cast like spells, they are imbibed like potions. If you want to infer rules from an analog, you should look to potions, not spells.
An extract is cast by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion. You can cast a spell on someone else; you can't drink an extract on someone else, that doesn't even make any sense.
All the Infusion discovery does is allow the extract to persist once it leaves the Alchemist's possession. It can then be imbibed by others. It does not give the Alchemists any ability to target his extracts on anyone but himself, he can simply pass them out.
There are NO rules for 'casting' an extract on someone else; even using the rules for administering potions to an unconscious creature is a generous interpretation since extracts are not potions. Another interpretation would be it simply cannot be done.
Extracts are not cast like spells, they are imbibed like potions. If you want to infer rules from an analog, you should look to potions, not spells.
So you advise then that we ignore the numerous ways they don't behave like potions?
As primary examples: They can't be 'sped up' by using the traits\feats that let you drink potions more quickly; they can include spells of a Personal range (unlike potions), they can be dispelled just like a spell; and they can include spells that are higher than the level a potion normally allows.
Even the text states that extracts are CAST; the method they are cast is by drinking it, but that's simply an alternative method of casting the spell (akin to how Spellstrike modifies the way a touch spell can be delivered)
So no, I don't agree that the proper analog is potions. In fact, given the precedent set by Spellstrike - that the class's key abilities are not meant to make things more difficult for the class - I believe that treating them more like spells than potions is completely appropriate, because to do otherwise hinders the class.
[edit]
However, I also admit that there are similarities to potions, just like I recognize there are differences - enough that I think the appropriate answer is, "It's a GM call," because there are no rules clear enough to cover it.
However, I also admit that there are similarities to potions, just like I recognize there are differences - enough that I think the appropriate answer is, "It's a GM call," because there are no rules clear enough to cover it.
You say "GM call", I say "house-rules" Potato, potato.
(Yeah, that one doesn't work in print)