Okay - I will concede that, yes, Supernatural abilities naturally do not provoke AoOs.
However, I will defend that it's fairly obvious that Extracts are meant to be hit with Attacks of Opportunity because they involve drinking, and they are "cast" and casting spells provokes AoOs. The description of the Alchemist even says:
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist."
Since the spells are themselves considered "cast" in a manner, the full effect of imbibing Extracts are:
1) Drinking, which is easily considered "distracting" and thus would provoke AoO's
2) Similar to a Potion, which also explicitly says provokes AoO's
3) "Casting" in effect, but without somatic/verbal components, can be affectd by Dispel Magic and other anti-magic effects, and casting provokes AoOs
Given that "extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not," and that, with Infusion, they can be passed to non-Casters for ingestion (since Extracts do not require Use Magic Item checks, the same way Potions don't), it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to ALSO be completely immune to Attacks of Opportunity. At that point, there's little to no reason to ever take any other buffing class, since the Alchemist would just be totally overpowered.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
Seems like the general consensus is "It probably provokes, but the rules are ambiguous."
Anyone care to join me in clicking the FAQ button on my original post?
There's no need for an FAQ. Drinking an extract provokes. I get that you'd rather it didn't or that you could drink defensively. But you can't. Thats just how it is. It's one of the weaknesses of the alchemist and you accept it along with being able to hit touch AC and do splash damage.
Also I need to address something from your first post. You can't "Use" an infusion on an ally. Infusions are treated as potions. So you pass them out to allies, you don't use them on them. Unless you have poisoners gloves, touch injection or a medilance.
Actually, I'm GMing for alchemist PCs and I want to make sure I don't take AoOs on them that aren't legal.
As you can see from this thread it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the matter, it isn't as settled as you think.
The infusion discovery does not say that extracts affected by the discovery are treated as potions. I agree that treating them like potions for most purposes makes the most sense, but it doesn't actually say that in the rules.
Infusion
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
Moreover, James Jacobs, who, while not one of the rules team, IS responsible for originally designing the Alchemist base class, has said, "Infusion/extracts are not potions, and vice versa." In the same post he recommends allowing an alchemist with an infusion-modified extract of BoL to administer it to a fallen comrade as a standard action.
Supernatural abilities normally don't provoke, unless noted so, in their description.I'd like to see examples of that; generally, any ability of any kind which requires either a Standard or Move Action to perform will say whether it provokes an Attack of Opportunity or not.
Some examples:
Oracle revelations often do not state if they provoke. Nature oracle revelation: Life Leach (Su): You can draw life force from the bodies of enemies and channel it into yourself. As a standard action, you can drain the life essence from one living target within 30 feet...
Same with cleric domain powers: Community domain: Calming Touch (Sp): You can touch a creature as a standard action to heal it of 1d6 points of nonlethal damage + 1 point per cleric level...
Or sorc bloodline powers: Accursed bloodline: Horrific Visage (Su): At 1st level, you can draw upon your hag ancestor to cause one target to perceive you as having a horrifying appearance. As a standard action, you can force one target within 30 feet to make a Will save or be shaken for 1 round for every 2 sorcerer levels you possess...
And some feats: Blinding flash combat feat: Benefit: As a move action, you can expertly angle the blade of your weapon or shield to reflect light into an opponent’s eyes, dazzling your foe for 1 round. This feat functions as a gaze attack, and the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Dex modifier) to resist the effect. This is a sight-dependent effect, and does not work on creatures that are already blinded or creatures that do not rely on sight as their primary sense. You must be wielding a weapon or shield with a polished or reflective surface in order to use this feat. You must be in an area of bright light to use this feat.
Neither the feat nor the gaze attack entry clarifies if it provokes or not.
Seems like the general consensus is "It probably provokes, but the rules are ambiguous."
Anyone care to join me in clicking the FAQ button on my original post?
There's no need for an FAQ. Drinking an extract provokes. I get that you'd rather it didn't or that you could drink defensively. But you can't. Thats just how it is. It's one of the weaknesses of the alchemist and you accept it along with being able to hit touch AC and do splash damage.
Also I need to address something from your first post. You can't "Use" an infusion on an ally. Infusions are treated as potions. So you pass them out to allies, you don't use them on them. Unless you have poisoners gloves, touch injection or a medilance.
Actually, I'm GMing for alchemist PCs and I want to make sure I don't take AoOs on them that aren't legal.
As you can see from this thread it is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the matter, it isn't as settled as you think.
The infusion discovery does not say that extracts affected by the discovery are treated as potions. I agree that treating them like potions for most purposes makes the most sense, but it doesn't actually say that in the rules.
Moreover, James Jacobs, who, while not one of the rules team, IS responsible for originally designing the Alchemist base class, has said, "Infusion/extracts are not potions, and vice versa." In the same post he recommends allowing an alchemist with an infusion-modified extract of...Infusion
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
If u go down about 5 or 6 posts, James does say that it provokes casting and also giving to someone in situation of giving one to an ally.
|
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
General:
1) Supernatural abilities don't provoke2) Drinking potions provoke
Specific:
1) The alchemist Alchemy ability is a supernatural ability that say: Extracts "In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. "
Then it list in what aspects Extracts are different from potions:
a) "Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not"
b) "When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. 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). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it's not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed."
c) "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."
The specific don't say anywhere that drawing and drinking the extract don't provoke, while it say that the extract work as a potion with specific exceptions.
For the alchemist drawing the extract and drinking it is a single action, so it should provoke only once (not once for retrieving a stored item and once for drinking a potion like item), but in the alchemist rules there is nothing about not provoking when drinking the potion like object.
- * -
The FAQ
Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?
No.
This is more an errata than a FAQ. It say that a feat published in a book that was printed in 2009 hasn't taken in consideration a class presented in a book printed in 2010.
What it say is that you can't "almost-quicken" an extract with a feat. The reason is fairly clear: an extract is way stronger than a potion.|
|
I'm pretty sure that
SU doesn't provoke, unless otherwise specifies sets up the general
No where in Alchemy SU does it say Extracts provoke AOO. Yet right after that Bombs also SU specifically list they provoke.
Actually it say something slightly different:
Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Normally:
- drawing a non weapon-like item provoke and require a move action;- any ranged attack provoke, including throwing objects and you use a standard action to throw an item.
Using bomb instead require a single standard action that provoke only once.
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
The supernatural ability is preparing the extract. That doesn't provoke.
Drinking it however, does.
People keep saying this but it'd be nice to see it an actual print if it's true.
I don't understand how it's ONLY like a potion when it comes to provoking but it's not like one when it comes to other abilities. I'm only seeing "as if imbibing a potion", NOT 'provokes as if imbibing a potion'.
It's like saying drinking alcohol provokes. There are several drinking abilities that state that they don't provoke but nothing I remember a rule/ability that states drinking alcohol normally provokes.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that if it only says "as if imbibing a potion" is to say that it provokes, then why say it? Why not instead "as an action that provokes"? Seems very round about for no reason.
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
The supernatural ability is preparing the extract. That doesn't provoke.
Drinking it however, does.
People keep saying this but it'd be nice to see it an actual print if it's true.
I don't understand how it's ONLY like a potion when it comes to provoking but it's not like one when it comes to other abilities. I'm only seeing "as if imbibing a potion", NOT 'provokes as if imbibing a potion'.
It's like saying drinking alcohol provokes. There are several drinking abilities that state that they don't provoke but nothing I remember a rule/ability that states drinking alcohol normally provokes.
I think the thing that bothers me the most is that if it only says "as if imbibing a potion" is to say that it provokes, then why say it? Why not instead "as an action that provokes"? Seems very round about for no reason.
At this point if it doesn't provoke like drinking a potion is there any sense in which it is like drinking a potion?
Beats me. Every time it's clarified they say it's not a potion. Why not just remove that if it's not true?
LazarX: If your last post was to me, I'm not getting what your point is.
At this point if it doesn't provoke like drinking a potion is there any sense in which it is like drinking a potion?
It has to go past the lips and down the throat?
Rules wise it doesn't seem like a potion other than the container.
The point is when you have new types of classes, you're going to get variances from expectations.
What alchemists do is a weird hybrid of potion making and spellcasting. They get the speed of spellcasting, but they aren't spellcasters, and they're limited to mostly self buffs.
Kay, but what does that have to do with "It's why specific overrides general is the number one clause in the game."? I have no idea what specifics vs general you are talking about.
The FAQ doesn't go at all into why Accelerated Drinker doesn't work for extracts. Either from a logical simulationist perspective or for balance reasons.
My guess would be that it isn't that using these feats to drink without provoking would be an issue, but that using them to dink multiple extracts a round would be problematic. The equivalent of a free quicken on all spells, since alchemists can retrieve their extracts for free.
It seems to me if you allowed an alchemist to only retrieve one extract a round for free as part of drinking it, this balance issue would largely go away and let these feats etc. work in a balanced fashion and it would be more consistent.
Seem to me it would provoke an attack of opportunity as it doesn't say that it won't. If it didn't provoke the text would say so. I don't think that is unclear.
From the PRD:
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."
The last line if this weren't to provoke would say so. It would say this instead "An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action that doesn't provoke an attack of opportunity".
Everyone keeps saying that the FAQs say that extracts aren't a potion though the extract text says they are. The FAQs say nothing of the sort. They just say that regular potion or alcohol related feats don't work with them without giving a reason. For example the FAQ on Accelerating Drinker doesn't say "No, Accelerated Drinker doesn't work because extracts are not potions." It just says "No."
So extracts cast by drinking them, as if imbibing a potion. That functions in all ways as imbibing a potion, including AoO, except for things the FAQ has said don't work with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone keeps saying that the FAQs say that extracts aren't a potion though the extract text says they are. The FAQs say nothing of the sort. They just say that regular potion or alcohol related feats don't work with them without giving a reason. For example the FAQ on Accelerating Drinker doesn't say "No, Accelerated Drinker doesn't work because extracts are not potions." It just says "No."
So extracts cast by drinking them, as if imbibing a potion. That functions in all ways as imbibing a potion, including AoO, except for things the FAQ has said don't work with them.
If you go back through the threads where they made this ruling, the reason they gave is that Extracts are Extracts, and neither Potions or Alcohol.
It's similar to how Crossbows are Crossbows, and neither Bows nor Firearms.
Crossbows shoot arrow-like darts like a Bow; they are also aimed and shot just like a Firearm. However, they are still different, and thus Feats which specifically mention "Bows" or "Firearms" but do not mention "Crossbows" do not work on Crossbows.
Extracts are imbibed like Alcohol and Potions: they are drunk, and like Potions they grant effects immediately upon consumption. However, they are not the same, and have substantial differences: Extracts only persist for 24 hours; they are only given any sort of power while they are close to the preparing Alchemist's body, and cannot be transferred to anyone - including other Alchemists - unless the preparing Alchemist uses the Infusion Discovery.
Extracts are a third type of non-poisonous ingested liquid that have been ruled in other threads to not actually BE Potions, though they function similarly (as, again, how a Crossbow and Firearm function very similarly at a fundamental level, but ultimately are two very different things).
Thus, Feats and Abilities which say "Potion" or "Alcohol" but do not mention "Extract" do not work with Extracts. Conversely, Abilities which mention "Extracts" but do not mention "Potions" or "Alcohol" do not work with Extracts.
---
One major reason for this codified distinction is that Extracts, through Alchemist abilities, can be created on-the-fly through Swift Alchemy (so it's even better than a Wizard preparing spells), at high levels can be made in a single Standard Action through Instant Alchemy, they have effects that go up to 6th Level spells, and you can make as many of them as you please (up to the max number per day, based on Alchemist Level), and Extracts can have effects that have a target of "You" on them (so if they're Infused and Passed, you've just given your teammate a guaranteed +20 to hit); this is balanced by the fact that Extracts only last for 24 hours, and without taking the Infusion Discovery no-one else can use them but the Alchemist.
A Potion, however, is permanent, lasting until imbibed or destroyed, and naturally can be used by anyone; to balance this, however, you may only create one per day because it is a Magical Item, and you may only have up to third-level spells prepared in the potion.
As it stands, Scrolls are already significantly better than Potions: ANY spell can be placed on a Scroll, regardless of level, target, etc.; any number of spells can be placed on a single Scroll; they're significantly cheaper to both buy and craft...
Wands of Cure X, as well, are better than Potions of the same sort, just because of the number of charges, all-around cost, etc.
Potions, however, can be used by anyone, no matter how bad their Use Magic Device score is, and doesn't require a Spell Completion trigger - you drink 'em and you're done. THAT is the reason Potions are still viable. Because for everything else that sucks about them, you always have THAT.
And Feats and Abilities which decrease the time to drink a Potion help to further bring them back into the realm of "usability".
If there were no distinction between Potions and Extracts, however, there really would never be a reason to obtain Potions, take the Brew Potion Feat, etc. You would just always have an Alchemist make up their Infused Extracts for the day, pass them around, and then go Bomb-crazy all day long.
Potions would be a completely obsolete part of the game if Extracts were given all the same treatment as Potions in abilities and feats, with none of the downsides (like also suffering AoOs).
One major reason for this codified distinction is that Extracts, through Alchemist abilities, can be created on-the-fly through Swift Alchemy (so it's even better than a Wizard preparing spells), at high levels can be made in a single Standard Action through Instant Alchemy, they have effects that go up to 6th Level spells, and you can make as many of them as you please (up to the max number per day, based on Alchemist Level); this is balanced by the fact that Extracts only last for 24 hours, and without taking the Infusion Discovery no-one else can use them but the Alchemist.I could be completely wrong, but I read both Swift and Instant Alchemy as applying to crafting Alchemical items, not to making extracts.
Right, sorry. It IS only Alchemical items; I messed that up.
However, an Alchemist can still make Extracts on-the-fly, rather than prepping every Extract at the beginning of the day, like ever other Prepared Caster has to.
They even still beat the Arcanist in that regard, because an Arcanist must at least prepare their Spells Known for the day; an Alchemist, however, can just prepare nothing after he wakes up, and throughout the day spend 1 minute per Extract to get exactly the spells he needs (especially since their Formulae is theoretically infinite, like a Wizard's Spellbook is).
About to go into a Dungeon you didn't expect in the least? You'd better hope your Wizard and Cleric prepared enough relevant spells, or that your Arcanist, Sorcerer, or Oracle known enough relevant spells. Oh, wait, never mind - give the Alchemist 15 minutes and you'll have nearly every buff, healing, and transmutation spell you could need at the ready!
By the way, I'm aware my post right above this is a gross over-simplification, but it still stands that one of the truly-nasty aspects of the Alchemist is that he access to a theoretically-unlimited number of spells, and can prep throughout the day.
The amount of pre-encounter prep time the Alchemist needs to deal with nearly any enemy puts even the Wizard to shame (since an Alchemist can adapt to nearly any situation if they're given even 5 minutes of quite time).
Pretty sure that works just fine, but takes a full round action? I remember there was rules somewhere about applying various drinks/chemicals/etcs to helpless people
Moreover, James Jacobs, who, while not one of the rules team, IS responsible for originally designing the Alchemist base class, has said, "Infusion/extracts are not potions, and vice versa." In the same post he recommends allowing an alchemist with an infusion-modified extract of BoL to administer it to a fallen comrade as a standard action.
Yes, I'm sorry that should have been full-round action, not standard action, as that is actually what it is according to a FAQ answer.
OK, so in this regard they are treated similar to potions, except that, like a normal extract, an additional action isn't needed for an alchemist to retrieve them.
(Normal potion: move to retrieve, standard to drink, FRA to administer to someone else. Extract: Standard to retrieve and drink, FRA to retrieve and administer to someone else.
|
|
Everyone keeps saying that the FAQs say that extracts aren't a potion though the extract text says they are. The FAQs say nothing of the sort. They just say that regular potion or alcohol related feats don't work with them without giving a reason. For example the FAQ on Accelerating Drinker doesn't say "No, Accelerated Drinker doesn't work because extracts are not potions." It just says "No."
So extracts cast by drinking them, as if imbibing a potion. That functions in all ways as imbibing a potion, including AoO, except for things the FAQ has said don't work with them.
You are right, that it gives no reason.
Still, if we say that Extracts function as potions, then other abilities would treat them as potions, like the Raging Drunk class feature.
So, we still end up with the question:
When, and how, does an Extract count/function as a potion?
Everyone keeps saying that the FAQs say that extracts aren't a potion though the extract text says they are. The FAQs say nothing of the sort. They just say that regular potion or alcohol related feats don't work with them without giving a reason. For example the FAQ on Accelerating Drinker doesn't say "No, Accelerated Drinker doesn't work because extracts are not potions." It just says "No."
So extracts cast by drinking them, as if imbibing a potion. That functions in all ways as imbibing a potion, including AoO, except for things the FAQ has said don't work with them.
You are right, that it gives no reason.
Still, if we say that Extracts function as potions, then other abilities would treat them as potions, like the Raging Drunk class feature.
So, we still end up with the question:
When, and how, does an Extract count/function as a potion?
An extract ALWAYS functions as a potion. There is no rule anywhere that ever states otherwise. There may have been some discussion by the dev team that extracts were not potions in threads related to the FAQ but such comments didn't make it into the FAQ or Errata. What they put in the official rules never says that there is a time that extracts aren't used like potions.
So extracts are cast by drinking them as potions, potions which can't benefit from Accelerated Drinker or such like but still potions.
Seems to me that even James Jacobs is convinced that drinking an extract provokes AoOs.
Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
From: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n07z?Designer-flaw-Alchemist-Chirurgeon-cant-u se#35
That, in addition to the arguments in the thread above seem to make it clear that drinking an extract (whether as an infusion or not] provokes an AoO.
This doesn't "break" the alchemist class. Really.
But... the designer of the class, James Jacobs, said that drinking provokes.
QED.
But... the designer of the class, James Jacobs, said that drinking provokes.
QED.
While I completely love this answer, a link to this quote would be fantastic, as irrefutable evidence is always needed in these arguments.
While I completely love this answer, a link to this quote would be fantastic, as irrefutable evidence is always needed in these arguments.But... the designer of the class, James Jacobs, said that drinking provokes.
QED.
Scroll up 3 posts. He did post a link earlier =)
He provided it above.
For what it's worth, people have gotten the impression that I don't want the act of drinking an extract to provoke. That's not the case, actually. I have one alchemist character, but I GM as well, and most of my games have an alchemist in them. I just want to make sure any AoOs I subject my players to are legal.
He provided it above.
For what it's worth, people have gotten the impression that I don't want the act of drinking an extract to provoke. That's not the case, actually. I have one alchemist character, but I GM as well, and most of my games have an alchemist in them. I just want to make sure any AoOs I subject my players to are legal.
Pfft...how are you going to "win" Pathfinder as a GM with an attitude like that!?!
|
|
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
The supernatural ability is preparing the extract. That doesn't provoke.
Drinking it however, does.
Preparing and drinking are all one action. So it either provokes or it doesn't. I'm of the mind that it doesn't because of the general rule that (Su) actions do not provoke unless they say they do, and Alchemy (Su) does not say it provokes.
What if this whole debate is happening because of a missing comma?
"Extracts are imbibed, like a potion." And that sentence is just trying to tell us that you have to drink an extract to get its benefits, and not just pour it all over yourself like an oil.
That wasn't the argument used to support the idea that casting scorching ray don't provoke, as you are casting a spell and making your ranged attack is part of casting the spell?
So the rason why the feats and such for potions wont work on extracts is because a potion is a complete product that is already made and all u have to do is drink it whereas an extract is not a finished product until u use a standard action to "cast" or create the extract and drink in the same action.
one is a finished product that just requires to drink and one isnt because u "cast" or create it inthe same action as drinking it?
Makes sense why those feats or archetypes dont work then. And yes i do believe deinking an extract will cause an attack of oppertunity. Not because u are infusing the potiin with ur extract BUT because u are ALSO drinking a potion which does. I think the reason why it states its SU is so that u dont provoke twice for the standard action of doing 2 things (1 for casting and 1 for drinking if it wasnt SU).
He provided it above.
Whoops - missed that somehow.
|
|
Well, now you are making a case for specific vs general.
Generally, Supernatural abilities do not provoke.
Except, there is nothing that specifically notes drinking an Extract provokes.
This would mean, that without specific noting that it provokes, than we are to go to general as default.
So, without having them count as potions, for at least determining whether they provoke, then their is no reason to assume they provoke.
The supernatural ability is preparing the extract. That doesn't provoke.
Drinking it however, does.
Preparing and drinking are all one action. So it either provokes or it doesn't. I'm of the mind that it doesn't because of the general rule that (Su) actions do not provoke unless they say they do, and Alchemy (Su) does not say it provokes.
What if this whole debate is happening because of a missing comma?
"Extracts are imbibed, like a potion." And that sentence is just trying to tell us that you have to drink an extract to get its benefits, and not just pour it all over yourself like an oil.
That wasn't the argument used to support the idea that casting scorching ray don't provoke, as you are casting a spell and making your ranged attack is part of casting the spell?
It's a completely different circumstance. In the case of scorching ray, both actions provike independently of each other. With an alchemist using an extract, drawing the extract shouldn't provoke by itself. The argument is that the act of drinking the extract mimics another action, which does provoke.
"Preparing and drinking are all one action."
"Casting and attacking with a ray spell are all one action."They seem very similar to me.
You affirm that "drawing an extract don't provoke" as if retrieving an item was an action that don't provoke. What is your basis for that?
Move Action Retrieve a stored item
Attack of Opportunity Yes
An extract is a weapon or weapon like item? No.
It is a spell component? No.It is a stored item? Yes.
Standard Action Drink a potion or apply an oil
Attack of Opportunity Yes
A extract work like a potion, so it reasonable to assume that it provoke.
I see two different actions that provoke a AoO.
I think it would be reasonable to limit it to a single AoO but RAW it seem that they are 2 different AoO for the price of a single action.
|
|
So the rason why the feats and such for potions wont work on extracts is because a potion is a complete product that is already made and all u have to do is drink it whereas an extract is not a finished product until u use a standard action to "cast" or create the extract and drink in the same action.
one is a finished product that just requires to drink and one isnt because u "cast" or create it inthe same action as drinking it?Makes sense why those feats or archetypes dont work then. And yes i do believe deinking an extract will cause an attack of oppertunity. Not because u are infusing the potiin with ur extract BUT because u are ALSO drinking a potion which does. I think the reason why it states its SU is so that u dont provoke twice for the standard action of doing 2 things (1 for casting and 1 for drinking if it wasnt SU).
Honestly I think that they don't work only for balance reasons. Depending on the ability they are the equivalent to half of the Quicken metamagic for those that make it a move action and a full Quicken metamagic for those that make ti a swift action.
Allowing to an alchemist with the right build to use 3 extract in a round without any extra slot cost is unbalancing.
|
|
An extract ALWAYS functions as a potion. There is no rule anywhere that ever states otherwise. There may have been some discussion by the dev team that extracts were not potions in threads related to the FAQ but such comments didn't make it into the FAQ or Errata. What they put in the official rules never says that there is a time that extracts aren't used like potions.
So extracts are cast by drinking them as potions, potions which can't benefit from Accelerated Drinker or such like but still potions.
So, Drunken Rage can be used with Extracts?
This idea that they are treated as potions, except in some cases, is not written anywhere.
You said they function as potions, they provoke, and the FAQ regarding Accelerated Drinker, is just errata.
This means, outside of one case, clarified, they count as, and function as, potions, and traits, feats, and abilities that work with potions, also work with Extracts.
So, Drunken Rage can be used with Extracts?This idea that they are treated as potions, except in some cases, is not written anywhere.
You said they function as potions, they provoke, and the FAQ regarding Accelerated Drinker, is just errata.
This means, outside of one case, clarified, they count as, and function as, potions, and traits, feats, and abilities that work with potions, also work with Extracts.
Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
And ANYONE can give Sean and Jason a nod. That's what the FAQ button is for. Don't be afraid of it; just because you don't receive immediate feedback that the question has immediately been brought to our attention and that we're dropping everything to address the issue immediately doesn't mean that we ignore it.
They do not function as Potions; no where RAW does it ever say the words "function as Potions". They are ingested LIKE potions, but they are not potions themselves; the same way that having Improved Critical with a weapon doesn't give that weapon Keen, nor does having a Keen weapon give you Improved Critical with the weapon.
And, according to Word Of God - James Jacobs, the designer of the class - either drinking them yourself or pouring them into another player's mouth (if they have been Infused), provokes Attacks of Opportunity.
So, Drunken Rage can be used with Extracts?This idea that they are treated as potions, except in some cases, is not written anywhere.
You said they function as potions, they provoke, and the FAQ regarding Accelerated Drinker, is just errata.
This means, outside of one case, clarified, they count as, and function as, potions, and traits, feats, and abilities that work with potions, also work with Extracts.
Intent was that when an alchemist uses an infusion, he can do one of 2 things:
1) Cast the spell as an infusion, then carry it around or give it to someone else to use.
2) Cast the spell as an infusion on a legal target as a standard action (effectively replacing the "drinks the infusion himself" part with "anoints or doses the target with the infusion").
Option 1 above provokes an AoO when you create the infusion, and again when you drink it.
Option 2 provokes an AoO from the alchemist when he imparts the effects of the infusion to the target.
And ANYONE can give Sean and Jason a nod. That's what the FAQ button is for. Don't be afraid of it; just because you don't receive immediate feedback that the question has immediately been brought to our attention and that we're dropping everything to address the issue immediately doesn't mean that we ignore it.
They do not function as Potions; no where RAW does it ever say the words "function as Potions". They are ingested LIKE potions, but they are not potions themselves; the same way that having Improved Critical with a weapon doesn't give that weapon Keen, nor does having a Keen weapon give you Improved Critical with the weapon.
And, according to Word Of God - James Jacobs, the designer of the class - either drinking them yourself or pouring them into another player's mouth (if they have been Infused), provokes Attacks of Opportunity.
Now if that was an actual official rules post, I'd say 'great, problem solved'. However, it's not. By the rules, 'Word Of God' means nothing unless it's in an errata/FAQ post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
Further evidence that the intent for drinking Extracts is to provoke Attacks of Opportunity. And this is the first instance of anything I've found that can allow you to down an Extract as a Swift Action.