Does an Alchemist drinking an extract provoke an Attack of opportunity?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Mythic Adventures wrote:

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.

I don't see intent. It doesn't say that the normal rule is that an extract provokes. It just gives an action that doesn't provoke. And as you said, it gives a benefit other than no provoking so I can draw nothing in terms of intent.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

And now there is a giant impression of my forehead on my desk, and splinters in my skin.

I get that wanting an official, written-in-stone ruling would be nice, but how much proof of intent do you need to see before people will stop trying to argue this?

You had the designer of the class rule in. You have this:

Mythic Adventures wrote:

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.

which should tell you IMMEDIATELY that if they feel the need to point out that you "no longer" provoke, that everything they list thereafter, at one time, provoked AoOs.

All I see by now is people trying to weasel their way into being able to cast spells (and that's the RAW and RAI intent of the Extracts class feature - to be spells in liquid form for both thematic and mechanical reasons) as both Swift Actions via abilities and without provoking attacks of opportunity, something no other class does, using "not RAW" and "not an official answer" as their excuse, even when the creator of the class has laid down a ruling himself on it.

This is like looking Gary Gygax in the face and saying "my rogue can naturally fly, since there's nothing in the rules that says he can't, and just 'cause you say he can't, it's not official until it's in ink."

I'm cool with powergamers, but this... this is just some of the most unbelievable rules-lawyering I've ever seen in all my years of playing D&D.

I love Pathfinder, but I'm not a fan of an (albeit small) annoying part of the community. Peace - I'm out.


You jumped to a conclusion. Just because an ability says it doesn't provoke, it doesn't mean that it would normally do so without it. You have THREE items that it talks about, and we do know that some provoke. Then those three items can be used in a swift action.

The '"no longer" provoke' part is totally of your adding. What this ability proves is that when using this ability, you don't provoke. It's not proof that NOT using the ability provokes.

I'm glad you can draw RAW from that because I can't even draw RAI from it.


The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes. But we don't know when that sometimes is, only that they are not like potions for Accelerated Drinker. We can extrapolate that to to include the drinking abilities of Drunken Master and Drunken Brute. There is zero guidance on whether an extract functions like an SU ability or like a potion for purposes of provoking.

Sure the intent by the designer was to provoke while drinking, but the intent of the designer for the Sohei Monk was not to be able to use FoB in armor, but he can. What is intended is not always what was written down.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Isn't it funny how some people can consistently fail to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, even when those arguments and the pieces of evidence that support them pile up like a Yellowknife snowdrift?

<shrug>


Wheldrake wrote:

Isn't it funny how some people can consistently fail to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, even when those arguments and the pieces of evidence that support them pile up like a Yellowknife snowdrift?

<shrug>

If only there was any real evidence other than conjecture. Wonderful, reasoned arguments don't equal RAW. I'm sure people made equally well reasoned arguments for the sohei and other points of contention and where proved wrong. On several occasions, the authors of these rules come on and told us their intent and the actual RAW turned out to not match it.

It's funny people will just take a guess, no matter how educated, and assume they know the answer. <shrug>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Really. "just take a guess". <sigh>

Many quotes from the PRD have been posted already.

Alchemy in the PRD wrote:
Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist's fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

Exhibit one: "potion-like extracts" cast "by drinking the extract".

Alchemy in the PRD wrote:
Extracts are the most varied of the three. 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. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.

Exhibit two: This specifies the two ways that extracts are different from potions.

Alchemy in the PRD wrote:
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 alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Exhibit three: Again, cast by drinking, "as if imbibing a potion", and the text goes on to specify exactly the ways in which an extract is different from a potion... with the notable exception that nowhere does it specify that unlike a potion, drinking an extract doesn't provoke.

Combat in the PRD wrote:
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.

Exhibit four: It's a pity that alchemists and extracts didn't exist when the table referenced in the CRB was written, or this discussion wouldn't be happening. But nothing suggests - anywhere - that drinking an extract doesn't fall under the same definition of a "distracting act" as drinking a potion.

Exhibit five: the quote from James Jacobs I made above, designer of the alchemist class, clearly shows that it is obvious to him that any drinking you do provokes an AoO, be it potion or extract or whatever.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I put it to you that this hardly constitutes "just taking a guess". The only argument presented to oppose this view is the fact that alchemy is noted as a SU ability, which admittedly doesn't generally provoke AoOs, but there exist numerous specific exceptions, and the general rule for SU abilities takes care to warn that exceptions do exist. Drinking a potion is clearly one such exception, as the exhibits above amply demonstrate. This is further confirmed by the epic feat references above that gives an epic character selecting it the express ability of being able to drink an extract without provoking AoOs. While this epic feat sadly lacks a "normal" line, the strong implication is that drinking extracts normally provokes AoOs. As this corresponds to the evidence from the description of the alchemist class itself as well as to the forum comments of the original designer of the alchemist class, there seems to be *very* little wiggle room here.

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please find in favor of the defendant and admit that drinking an extract does indeed provoke an attack of opportunity, both according to RAW and RAI.

"A guess"???

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can stop quoting JJ because it's irrelevant. Even if he created the class and intended for drinking an extract to provoke, the people who actually make the rules could have decided differently.

Until I am told otherwise, I am going with the rule that (Su) abilities do not provoke unless they say they do.


Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.

Assured Drinker wrote:

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.

@graystone:
graystone, I don't know if you're understanding this ability, it does two things, one that's "always-on" and one that takes a use of mythic power. The "always-on" ability makes it so that drinking an extract, elixir, or potion does not provoke, which very very strongly implies that drinking an extract provokes. The second ability, which requires a use of mythic power, isn't really relevant here. If drinking an extract didn't provoke normally, there would be absolutely no reason to specify that with this feat you don't provoke by drinking one.

RumpinRufus wrote:

Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.

Assured Drinker wrote:

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.

** spoiler omitted **

As has been stated, it would only be damning if it had an entry like:

Normal You provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixer, extract, or potion.

As it is it only implies that they should. I even agree that extracts should provoke, but that does not mean that is what the rules actually say.


thorin001 wrote:

The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.

No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.


thorin001 wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:

Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.

Assured Drinker wrote:

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.

** spoiler omitted **

As has been stated, it would only be damning if it had an entry like:

Normal You provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixer, extract, or potion.

As it is it only implies that they should. I even agree that extracts should provoke, but that does not mean that is what the rules actually say.

It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.

No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.

Then class abilities that allow rapid drinking of potions without provoking work on extracts too, since the FAQ only applies to Accelerated Drinker.


thorin001 wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
thorin001 wrote:

The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.

No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.
Then class abilities that allow rapid drinking of potions without provoking work on extracts too, since the FAQ only applies to Accelerated Drinker.

I mentioned that in my post. I'm sure they don't intend for it to and we can certainly infer that it shouldn't from the FAQ but that would be RAI not RAW.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.

The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?


thorin001 wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:


It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.

The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?

Please quote the FAQ and bold the exact words saying the extract is not treated as a potion. All the FAQ says is that Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with extracts.

FAQ wrote:

Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?

No.

It doesn't say "No, because they are extracts not potions" as you are claiming. It just says "No." Period. No matter how many times it gets repeated the FAQ never says or even implies that extracts aren't treated for potions for purposes of drinking them. Yet the Assured Drinker feat clearly implies they do provoke yet you reject that out of hand.


Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

By the way, there is an error in the question -- Accelerated Drinker is a trait, not a feat.

Since the answer is so brief, it is hard to interpret its full meaning. One possibility is that, since drinking an extract is in some ways like casting a spell, you need more than this trait to reduce the effective casting time to less than a standard action. Without that FAQ ruling, Alchemists could reliably use 3/2 extracts per turn as follows:

Turn 1:

Standard action: Draw out and drink extract.

Move action: Draw out another extract.

Turn 2:

Move action: Drink extract in hand.

Standard action: Draw out and drink another extract.

I suspect that the action economy was the primary concern here.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?

An extract is never a potion.

Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.

An extract is never a potion.

Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.

An extract is never a potion.

Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.

This thread is getting inane with all the repetitions of "well when does it count as a potion, and when doesn't it count as a potion?" It never counts as a potion, it's just consumed in the same manner.

We have a special ability which specifically allows you to drink an extract without provoking.

We have the creator of the class saying that drinking an extract provokes.

We have RAW saying that drinking an extract is done "as if imbibing a potion."

We have common sense saying that if drinking a potion provokes, making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract would also provoke.

As for Accelerated Drinker and Raging Drunk, these give you optional special abilities that specifically only work with potions. They don't even change the normal mechanism of drinking a potion to make it not provoke, they give you a new separate ability that lets you drink without provoking. Even if you had Raging Drunk, the normal process of drinking a potion provokes, you just have a separate ability which only applies to potions and alcohol that lets you drink as a move action without provoking. Point being, none of these abilities alter the normal process of drinking a potion, which is the process that is referred to in the rules for extracts. The only ability which alters the normal act of drinking a potion is Assured Drinker.


RumpinRufus wrote:


This thread is getting inane with all the repetitions of "well when does it count as a potion, and when doesn't it count as a potion?" It never counts as a potion, it's just consumed in the same manner.

We have a special ability which specifically allows you to drink an extract without provoking.

We have the creator of the class saying that drinking an extract provokes.

We have RAW saying that drinking an extract is done "as if imbibing a potion."

Yes you are right. I've been guilty of using the phrases "treated as a potion" and "function as a potion" as well and not clarifying that is only for the purpose of drinking them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.

However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.

Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.

Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.


stoolpigeon87 wrote:

Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.

However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.

Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.

Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.

Why does it need clarification. The rules say extracts imbibed as if they were potions. Imbibing a potion provokes an attack of opportunity. Therefore, imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. Its that simple.

Were it not for the FAQ saying that you can't use Accelerated Drinker with extracts no one would be questioning that. Some people have somehow gotten from a very simple straight forward FAQ that says you can't use Accelerated Drinker for extracts the notion that they sometimes aren't imbibed as if they were potion.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
stoolpigeon87 wrote:

Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.

However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.

Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.

Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.

Why does it need clarification. The rules say extracts imbibed as if they were potions. Imbibing a potion provokes an attack of opportunity. Therefore, imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. Its that simple.

Were it not for the FAQ saying that you can't use Accelerated Drinker with extracts no one would be questioning that. Some people have somehow gotten from a very simple straight forward FAQ that says you can't use Accelerated Drinker for extracts the notion that they sometimes aren't imbibed as if they were potion.

It needs clarification because there is a general rule about (Su) abilities not provoking, but people are trying to apply the specific potion rule to it. Meanwhile, the whole "imbibed like a potion" could have just been clarification that you actually have to drink the extract, and not just activate it.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
stoolpigeon87 wrote:

Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.

However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.

Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.

Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.

Why does it need clarification. The rules say extracts imbibed as if they were potions. Imbibing a potion provokes an attack of opportunity. Therefore, imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. Its that simple.

Were it not for the FAQ saying that you can't use Accelerated Drinker with extracts no one would be questioning that. Some people have somehow gotten from a very simple straight forward FAQ that says you can't use Accelerated Drinker for extracts the notion that they sometimes aren't imbibed as if they were potion.

It needs clarification because there is a general rule about (Su) abilities not provoking, but people are trying to apply the specific potion rule to it. Meanwhile, the whole "imbibed like a potion" could have just been clarification that you actually have to drink the extract, and not pour it all over yourself likean oil.

Specific trumps general so yeah, people are applying the specific rule rather than the general. As for your argument that "imbibed like a potion" could just mean you have to drink it:

PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion

I think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.

Silver Crusade

OldSkoolRPG wrote:

Specific trumps general so yeah, people are applying the specific rule rather than the general. As for your argument that "imbibed like a potion" could just mean you have to drink it:

PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
I think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.

Yeah, I was going off of somebody else's quote that had the wording wrong.


There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.

Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*


stoolpigeon87 wrote:

There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.

Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*

I second that sentiment. That is a hugely important question that is genuinely unclear.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:


PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
I think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.

It's hard to say if this is rules text or descriptive text. With the FAQ, it's clear that it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion. Without any reason given, who knows. RumpinRufus and Wheldrake put a GREAT deal of significance into the phrase "Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.". To them it's clear evidence and to me it's an ambivalent statement that might just be meant to be fluff.

If that phrase was meant to be rules text it's poorly written. 'Imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity.' That's clear and takes up about the same space.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Rulebook, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I read this thread and all I see is the Bill Clinton quote, "It depends what the definition of 'is'is."


graystone wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:


PRD wrote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
I think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.

It's hard to say if this is rules text or descriptive text. With the FAQ, it's clear that it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion. Without any reason given, who knows. RumpinRufus and Wheldrake put a GREAT deal of significance into the phrase "Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.". To them it's clear evidence and to me it's an ambivalent statement that might just be meant to be fluff.

If that phrase was meant to be rules text it's poorly written. 'Imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity.' That's clear and takes up about the same space.

As many times as people keep saying the FAQ shows it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion it never does show any such thing. All it shows is that Accelerated Drinker can't be used with extracts.

Also the text "as if imbibing a potion" is as clearly rules text as text can be. Here is the entire sentence:

PRD wrote:
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.

The part about requiring drinking is rules, the part about the effects exactly duplicating the spell is rules, the part about the spell only affecting the alchemist is rules. There is absolutely no justification to pull "as if imbibing a potion" out and say that one bit isn't rules but just "fluff".

As an aside this is why I hate is when people try to delineate some text as "fluff" and some as "rules". That is a purely artificial distinction nowhere suggested in the rules themselves. That is a completely different discussion though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, PF should have been designed with "fluff" and "mechanic" language in mind, and have been written with clear delineation between the two. Most things are written concisely enough to understand the RAI and RAW, but not all author's are created equal. I wish they had a strict development/editing position or team to make sure everything was worded the same way to prevent confusion. It should be someone's job to make sure things work within the same framework as every other rule. And if they DO have someone doing this... well... :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

At the end of the day, it *is* marginally ambiguous whether drinking an extract does indeed provoke an AoO. This thread will go no further than that. My earlier "rules lawyer" post (exhibit one, etc) summarized all the extant arguments, and basically anybody willing to be convinced was indeed convinced that drinking an extract provokes, and anyone wanting to leverage maximum ambiguity into the really quite plain language of the alchemist rules felt equally justified.

So, for certain, someone flubbed writing the alchemist rules, since this detail is arguably essential to playing an alchemist in combat. A FAQ answer would be helpful. Without a FAQ answer, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and we will have to "expect table variation".


In my last game, we treated them similar to spells, but there's no concentration check since they aren't spellcasters. The alchemist would just provoke and there's nothing he can do about it. In fact, we worked out that (counter-intuitively) it's actually better to move and then drink it, as you could at least get Mobility and be harder to hit when provoking. The best we could come up with was "don't stand near badguys when drinking extracts."

Now that I'm looking at the rules again, it does say that by default Supernatural abilities usually don't provoke. What's more, the very next alchemist ability, Bomb, is also Supernatural, also a standard action, and goes out of its way to specify that it does provoke.

So now I'm not so sure on which way it should be. I'm hitting FAQ on this one.

Liberty's Edge

Dispari Scuro wrote:
In fact, we worked out that (counter-intuitively) it's actually better to move and then drink it, as you could at least get Mobility and be harder to hit when provoking.
prd wrote:

Mobility (Combat)

You can easily move through a dangerous melee.

Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.

Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.

It is only for AoO caused when moving, so it don't work for AoO caused by other sources.

Note that it is not applicable to all movement actions, it is applicable when you move, even if the movement, for some reason, is not part of a movement action.

Silver Crusade

He was saying that with Mobility, you move and threaten and get a +4 to your AC. Then you drink the extract when out of range.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
He was saying that with Mobility, you move and threaten and get a +4 to your AC. Then you drink the extract when out of range.

Correct. If an alchemist can't do anything to prevent an AoO from drinking an extract, you may as well move away and get a +4 on your AC vs the AoO.


According to the table at https://secure.paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/DirectAction/creat eNewPost?post=v5748gbin0dop&thread=v5748rzs2rh00#newPost

Actions that provoke AOOs.

"Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil: NO"

"Drink a potion or apply an oil: YES"

"Use supernatural ability: NO"

According to the Alchemist Class descriptions at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist

"An alchemist can create three special types of magical items—extracts, bombs, and mutagens are transformative elixirs that the alchemist drinks to enhance his physical abilities—both of these are detailed in their own sections below."

Here it clearly states that Extracts are magical items. They are also Su abilities. They are NOT potions.

To give you an example from the alchemist ability list, bombs, which are also magical items and Su, and the text for which explicitly states AOO status:

"Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity."

This is a clear example of what the text would say if extracts provoked AOOs, taken from the Alchemist text itself.

Extracts DO NOT provoke AOOs.

You may close the thread now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or you could have chosen not to necro the thread...


Alchy wrote:
You may close the thread now.

"You may close the window I just opened now."


Not only did you necromance an old thread, you're also wrong. You totally ignored or missed:
'An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion' - This provokes an AoO.
You can't use absence of statements as rules. The only "proof" you have doesn't even relate to extracts or potions, it's about bombs. It does in NO WAY prove anything about extracts or potions.

And don't be so nonchalant and say "You may close the thread now".


Quote:
'An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion' - This provokes an AoO.

This does not logically follow.

Nothing ever says that the drinking motion is the thing that makes you provoke for a potion. Nothing ever explains WHY exactly you provoke for ANYTHING. So unless two actions are EXACTLY identical, you can't draw conclusions like this. And they aren't identical here, because different things are being imbibed.

It's entirely hypothetically possible, for example, that potions make you provoke not because of the drinking motion, but because they taste bad. Whereas, also hypothetically, extracts taste like delicious sunshine dust, and thus do not provoke, because you're not distracted by the ickiness.


Crimeo wrote:
So unless two actions are EXACTLY identical, you can't draw conclusions like this. And they aren't identical here, because different things are being imbibed.

As stated by the rules that I quoted, THEY ARE THE SAME.

EDIT: There is nothing that states what "part" of the actions that makes you provoke an AoO (as you mentioned). That only means that we can't argue what "part" of the actions that does, as there is no such thing.
The rules only covers "this action does" and "this action doesn't", it's the entire action that does, not a specific part of it. Your speculations are meaningless, as they have nothing to do with the rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion'

If you are getting hung up on this, perhaps you should read this:

"It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."

Drinking a potion DOES NOT "include retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."

Therefore, when combining ALL of the text regarding an extract specifically, it reads:

"An extract is 'cast' by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion. It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting."

That IS NOT the same as drinking a potion, it simply involves putting it into your mouth, the same as you put potions.. or tacos for that matter.. in your mouth. Furthermore, nowhere in that text does it explicitly state that extracts provoke AOOs.

Extracts are Su magical items, they are not potions. It might seem counter intuitive, pathfinder has many quirks and nuances, but using extracts does NOT provoke AOO.


Again, it doesn't have to explicitly say that it provokes AoO, like it does in the bomb entry, for it to actually do so. The rules about extracts refer to the rules of potions. It doesn't remove the AoO.

Quote:
It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spell casting.

This doesn't prove your point at all. What this means is that you don't have to spend actions to retrive material, just like spells, they're included in the standard action. This has nothing to do with AoO. So what this means is that drinking an extract is the exact same but that you also retrieve the extract with the same action. But the actuall drinking still refers to potions, and that provokes an AoO (please note, retrieving a potion does ALSO provoke and AoO, but as it's part of the same action with extracts, only one AoO is provoked).

Just the same way that bombs and spells work that way, extracts do to. While bombs and spells are explicitly stated to provoke an AoO, extracts are to by 'An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion' which includes the provoking.

Alchy wrote:
That IS NOT the same as drinking a potion
IT IS
Quote:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion.
Alchy wrote:
Extracts are Su magical items, they are not potions.

Sure they're not potions, but in regards of drinking them, they work like potions, as stated by the rules.

EDITED


You are implying an attack of opportunity from a line of text which is at best ambiguous. It does not say "refer to the rules for potions" or any such thing. It simply says that you drink extracts. If you can find a rule that explicitly states that all items which you must drink provoke attacks of opportunity, I will concede the point to you. Until you are able to produce such a rule, you have no ground upon which to stand with your argument. It might "make sense" in an intuitive way, but that has nothing to do with the way that pathfinder rules work.

"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. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not."

They are not potions, though they do behave like potions in many ways. However, It is not even clear that extracts are liquids.

from the potion text

"A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance."

from the extract text

"When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura."

It doesn't say anything about being a liquid, and I'm not trying to make any wild claims that extracts aren't liquids, all I'm saying is that whatever they are, the composition isn't the same as that of a potion.

There is a big difference between taking a sip of something, and having to stop in combat to chug a big ol' hefty potion. While this point might seem to you to be arbitrary for some reason, it simply reiterates the fact that extracts and potions are not the same thing, they are not created the same way, the action required to drink them is different, and basically everything about extracts and potions is different, except for the fact that they must be imbibed through the mouth.

And I realize that this point has been made many times, but if your argument is somehow that drinking extracts IS THE SAME as drinking potions, then the rules for accelerated drinking would work. There is no convincing argument which you can make for the act of drinking extracts being the same as the act of drinking potions in light of the following rule:

"Does the Accelerated Drinker feat allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?

No."

For two actions to be identical, they must be identical. That is simple tautological logic. If drinking an extract is not affected by Accelerated Drinker, then drinking extracts and drinking potions IS NOT THE SAME.

They do not provoke attacks of opportunity until you can find an explicit rule that states that all objects which you drink provoke attacks of opportunity.


Writing "IT IS" is bigger and more capitals does not erase the multiple differences between the two situations that unambiguously make them different.

They involve different types of items. Difference.
One involves a bunch of extra steps. Difference.
Consequently, the drinking is necessarily done faster with elixers. Difference.

Things with lots of differences are otherwise known as "not the same."

And things that are not the same cannot stand in for one another to draw reliable conclusions, unless you can rule out the relevance of the differences. Which you can't. So they're not interchangeable.

Yes you drink it as a potions. Half a dozen other details are not done like a potion. Thus, not enough info. And since being supernatural magic items already has a ruling for it, burden of proof is on you to show some special exception sufficiently.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mythic Ability in the Trickster Path

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.

Seems pretty clear from this that drinking an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. If it didn't, the first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary.


RumpinRufus wrote:


We have common sense saying that if drinking a potion provokes, making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract would also provoke.

As for Accelerated Drinker and Raging Drunk, these give you optional special abilities that specifically only work with potions. They don't even change the normal mechanism of drinking a potion to make it not provoke, they give you a new separate ability that lets you drink without provoking.

And here is one of the problems: You say that "making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract[/i]" yet a trait that refers to those exact same set of motions works for one and not the other. Doesn't make sense.

By ruling that accelerated drinker doesn't work with extracts they proved that those exact same set of motions is not exact same.
Sure, that doesn't say anything about extracts provoking or not, it just says that some/many/most FAQs are ...not well thought through considering the rules as a whole*

*diplomatic version


stoolpigeon87 wrote:

There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.

Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*

I wish that they use errata to correct errors not to change the rules. Sadly it seems Santa doesn't exist.


@JackofDust: That ability is obscure at best, and it doesn't explicitly state that extracts do in fact provoke attacks of opportunity. You are implying that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances because the ability's text says that they do not when having this ability. However, if they do not provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances, they still would not provoke while under the effects of this ability.

Since the rules for pathfinder do not state that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances anywhere, including here, it seems that you had it right when you said, "The first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary."

It is in fact, not at all necessary, because regardless of whether you have this ability or not, extracts do not provoke attacks of opportunity.


Alchy wrote:

@JackofDust: That ability is obscure at best, and it doesn't explicitly state that extracts do in fact provoke attacks of opportunity. You are implying that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances because the ability's text says that they do not when having this ability. However, if they do not provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances, they still would not provoke while under the effects of this ability.

Since the rules for pathfinder do not state that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances anywhere, including here, it seems that you had it right when you said, "The first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary."

It is in fact, not at all necessary, because regardless of whether you have this ability or not, extracts do not provoke attacks of opportunity.

In a strictly legalistic sense you're correct. However from this ability we can clearly see that the intent is for extracts to provoke attacks of opportunity.

101 to 150 of 190 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does an Alchemist drinking an extract provoke an Attack of opportunity? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.