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

[cavernshark]

Jack of Dust wrote:

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.

Actually, in a strictly legalistic sense, he's not correct at all. In a strictly legalistic sense, the text is silent on whether or not the act of imbibing an extract provokes.

The only things we know are:
1) The act sort of resembles spell casting, but isn't exactly.
2) The act sort of resembles drinking a potion, but isn't exactly.
3) It always takes a standard action.
4) There's explicit references to provoking in other parts of the Alchemist text. We can infer it's absence in extracts is intentional, but we can't prove it.
5) There's explicit references to an intent to provoke in subsequent books. We can infer it clarifies the original power, but we can't prove it.

So, the actual answer here is expect table variation until someone on high clarifies. For what it's worth, I'm in the "extracts provoke" camp because they're more like casting than anything, but I can see the counter argument. But let's not all pretend on either side that the argument is crystal clear. It's not, and it's a disservice to everyone to say otherwise.

[Melkiador]

If it weren't for Assured Drinker, I'd say no.

[Jack of Dust]

Shame Alchemists don't get concentration check to avoid attacks of opportunity. I would enjoy effectively drowning them in their extracts by making them fail the check.

[Melkiador]

Being an armored, ranged and dex-based class with access to effects like blur, the alchemist shouldn't have to worry too terribly much about the AoO.

Note that despite not having proficiency, there is no penalty for an alchemist using a masterwork or magical buckler or small shield.

[Berti Blackfoot]

If there's no concentration check possible, and there's no AOO, then it would be completely unbalanced.

I think not only do they provoke, but also part of the reason that drawing and drinking is all one standard action, so it only provokes once. Same goes for drawing, mixing, then throwing a bomb. One action so it only provokes once. Otherwise, GMs would rule drawing the elixir is a move action, drinking it a standard, and both provoke.

But I hit FAQ because the rules don't actually say. But I agree with Jack of Dust that the wording of Assured Drinker implies that it does provoke without it (or at least, whoever wrote Assured Drinker thought that).

Though I think it's not a big deal, as Melkiador says you can wear armor, they can't interrupt your drinking like a spell, opponents cannot use spellcraft to figure out what you are doing and dispel it before it takes effect, you can drink while silenced, etc etc.

[thejeff]

Melkiador wrote:

Being an armored, ranged and dex-based class with access to effects like blur, the alchemist shouldn't have to worry too terribly much about the AoO.

Note that despite not having proficiency, there is no penalty for an alchemist using a masterwork or magical buckler or small shield.

Unless you're playing an armored, self buffing, Hyde style alchemist.

[Shroud]

Assured Drinker pretty much solidifies the rule that drinking an extract provokes AoO.

We (because we use common sense) have always played it that way from day one anyway. However, as a house rule, we use Sleight of Hand instead of a Concentration check in order to "drink defensively". It just makes a bit more sense to us since you are trying to conceal your action instead of focusing your mind. We also allow a sleight of hand check to drink a potion for anybody, so it gives everyone a reason to invest a few points there. We just set the DC the same as casting a spell of the same level for game balance.

[nicholas storm]

Shroud wrote:

Assured Drinker pretty much solidifies the rule that drinking an extract provokes AoO.

We (because we use common sense) have always played it that way from day one anyway. However, as a house rule, we use Sleight of Hand instead of a Concentration check in order to "drink defensively". It just makes a bit more sense to us since you are trying to conceal your action instead of focusing your mind. We also allow a sleight of hand check to drink a potion for anybody, so it gives everyone a reason to invest a few points there. We just set the DC the same as casting a spell of the same level for game balance.

If assured drinker were a feat, I would be inclined to agree with you. I don't take anything published in mythic adventures as applicable to anything else in non-mythic pathfinder.

[nicholas storm]

In my opinion, there is nothing in the rules that will convince people to switch sides in this argument. The only way people will switch sides is if the design team releases a FAQ on this.

[nicholas storm]

The thing about extracts that annoys me is that the alchemist gets the worst ruling in every respect -

1) Extracts aren't spells, so they have no caster level. They don't qualify for arcane strike or for crafting feats.

2) Drinking an extract is like a potion, but you can't benefit from accelerated drinker and probably potion glutton (though there is no official ruling on this).

3) Extracts are a supernatural ability, but because of fluff text, those here in the thread say they should provoke opportunity attacks.

I think instead of doing a FAQ on this issue, the developers should tackle the whole of what extracts are and define all of it.

[Crimeo]

An indirect implication in an obscure optional ruleset ability is pretty weak. Should really have more clarification than that.

[nicholas storm]

Saying that extracts are like potions opens the door for this line of thinking:

Really what is the difference between drinking an infused extract and a potion - nothing. So there is really no basis for denying accelerated drinker from working with infused extracts (other than balance).

This is the problem from having a cobbled up rule set. Things cease to make sense.

[Baumfluch]

I dont really get the Problem, raw is 100% clear.

Alchemist uses the Action: use SU(alchemy).
The SU tells us drinking the Extrakt behaves "in many ways like a spell in potion form". so in what ways?

The setences
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell [...]"
clearly refers to the way the Magic is unbound, since it discribes how the spell is dublicated after drinking.

the rules for the act of DRINKING an extract are DIFFERENT compared to potions, as the next sentence Shows.

"An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard Action"
this is a significant difference, because drawing AND drinking ist ONE Standard Action, unlike potions. Drawing a potion is a move Action (Retrieve a stored item), and drinking is a Standard Action(drink a potion).

Already the action sequence isnt the same, so 100% sure you are not performing the action "drink a potion", because this wouldnt include the act of drawing the extract, whilst drinking an Extrakt is a Standard Action that includes the act of drawing it. Extrakts behave in many ways like potions, but not in the way how to use them, since the more specific rule tells us here, that it works different.

therefore you perform: use SU(alchemy). the extrakts way of unbinding ist Magic behaves like a potion, but Action and Action sequence to perform it ARE NOT the same as drinking a potion. Since we now know its the Action "use SU", we know that it doesnt provoke aoo, as long as the SU doesnt say it.
Alchemy doesnt say it provokes, so it doesnt.

You defenetly can argue that this might not be intended, or should be houseruled, but RAW we have a clear Statement wich makes a different between drinking potions and extracts, so you cant argue its the same if its not even the same Actions.

sorry for bad english

[dragonhunterq]

Actually RAW is clear, but in the opposite direction Baumfluch. When a rule tells you an action is "like" something else you default to the rules for that like action except where it states otherwise. If you don't follow that principle you have no way of knowing which aspects are "like" and which are not.

You follow the rules for drinking a potion except where it states otherwise. You get to draw it without taking an additional move action, because it tells you you can. You provoke because it doesn't tell you that you don't.

The rules for drinking a potion supercede the rules for (Su) abilities. (Su) is the general rule, the rule on treating it like a potion is a specific change that arises after the part telling you it is (Su).

[thejeff]

I'd say that since there are people on both sides arguing the RAW is clear, that's a pretty good sign that RAW isn't clear.

[Baumfluch]

dragonhunterq wrote:

Actually RAW is clear, but in the opposite direction Baumfluch. When a rule tells you an action is "like" something else you default to the rules for that like action except where it states otherwise. If you don't follow that principle you have no way of knowing which aspects are "like" and which are not.

You follow the rules for drinking a potion except where it states otherwise. You get to draw it without taking an additional move action, because it tells you you can. You provoke because it doesn't tell you that you don't.

The rules for drinking a potion supercede the rules for (Su) abilities. (Su) is the general rule, the rule on treating it like a potion is a specific change that arises after the part telling you it is (Su).

cant agree. Never ever ever does alchemy tell you taht extracts are "like" potions . it does say "IN MANY WAYS" they "BEHAVE" the same.

In wich ways specificly Needs to be cleared by the written rule.
And one sentence later the SU explains how drinking an Extract works. and thats NOT the same as drinking a potion, because the rule describes a Standard Action including the act of drawing and drinking.
"in many ways" is not equal "they always behave like potions".
if the more specific rule (alchemy) tells you that you that you draw and drink it in 1 Action, thats NOT the same as potions, because they require 2 Actions for the same acts. so in the manner of how to drink: extracts != potions.
you said "you default to the rules for that like action except where it states otherwise". here is where it states otherwise. 1 Action instead of 2 Actions. 1 Action, cant be the same as 2 Actions. so its an own Action, defined by the alchemy SU.
e.g. in the manner how an extract unfolds its Magic: extract = potion.
in many ways doesnt mean in every way. here it doesnt state otherwise, so its the same.

weather an enemy is allowed to make an AAO depends on the Action YOU take.
you perform an Action that includes drawing and drinking an extract.
This Action CAN NOT be the "drink a potion"-action (wich provokes)since "drink a potion" doesnt include pulling out an item. This should be clear because the acts you do dont fit into this Action. so it needs to be another action. and that can only be the "use SU"-Action, because alchemy is a SU and doesnt tell you that you actually perform another specific action. a SU is a std Action that doesnt provoke unless stated elsewise.

besides that, the argumentation that some potion feats/traits dont work for extracts doesnt fit here. those feats/traits are a more specific rule and have a precise scope: the scope is "potion". Example: accelerated drinker.

Quote:

You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard action as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.

is an extract a potion? no it isnt. is it in the scope of the trait? no because its not a potion. just like an elixir would also not be in the scope of this trait, because its an elixir and not a potion.

can a drunken master use accelerated drinker for drinking alcohol? no, because alcohol isnt a potion aswell. you have the "fast drinker" feat for that.

if you argue like that you can say "a short bow behaves in many ways as a longbow", so if i have weapon Focus for shortbow, it also works for longbow.

i agree that logically it sounds weird because in both cases you drink a liquid from some sort of a bottle, so it should behave the same. but when the rules say it doesnt -> it doesnt. its and Abstract System.

[Matthew Downie]

thejeff wrote:

I'd say that since there are people on both sides arguing the RAW is clear, that's a pretty good sign that RAW isn't clear.

RAI is fairly clear, though, since the developers have provided multiple indications that they think it does provoke.

[Melkiador]

Matthew Downie wrote:

thejeff wrote:

I'd say that since there are people on both sides arguing the RAW is clear, that's a pretty good sign that RAW isn't clear.

RAI is fairly clear, though, since the developers have provided multiple indications that they think it does provoke.

The only indication I've seen is assured drinker.

[Matthew Downie]

Melkiador wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

RAI is fairly clear, though, since the developers have provided multiple indications that they think it does provoke.

The only indication I've seen is assured drinker.

Plus the guy who designed the class said it provokes.

[Gisher]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Melkiador wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

RAI is fairly clear, though, since the developers have provided multiple indications that they think it does provoke.

The only indication I've seen is assured drinker.

Plus the guy who designed the class said it provokes.

Do you happen to know where that quote can be found?

[Matthew Downie]

I was referring to this link from earlier in this thread - but looking at it now, it's probably not going to convince the die-hards, since it concerns infusions rather than extracts in general.

[Gisher]

Matthew Downie wrote:

I was referring to this link from earlier in this thread - but looking at it now, it's probably not going to convince the die-hards, since it concerns infusions rather than extracts in general.

Thanks, I missed the link before. I hadn't heard about that second option of anointing or dosing another creature with the infusion. I'm not sure where those rules are located.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

It seems ambiguous to me. At first glance, the answer appears to be yes, since the class ability says that extracts are drunk like potions. Drinking a potion provokes. However, unlike drinking a potion, an alchemist can get an extract out and drink it in one standard action, or if he has the infusion discovery, can get it out and use it on an ally as a standard action. I've determined this by reading the various threads on the subject that a search of this forum has turned up.

From what I can see, there's been a lot of assuming that extracts share the property of potions that drinking them provokes. And I would assume this is the case for a non-alchemist drinking an extract, since they don't have the class feature Alchemy in which alchemists get to draw and drink extracts as a single standard action.

Yet, it seems unclear. Does anyone have a firm indication that it does provoke, other than the inference that it's like a potion and provokes because drinking a potion does?

No FAQ required. Drinking extracts provokes attacks of opportunity just like drinking a potion.

[Gisher]

Thank you for the non-FAQ!

[plaidwandering]

it's just like drinking a potion except when its not just like drinking a potion! wheeeee

[Drahliana Moonrunner]

ElementalXX wrote:

Well it seems that alchemist so much needs some sort of teleportation

Or those magic three words... "5 foot step". His situation is no different than any spellcaster applying a self buff.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

Thanks for answering, although I wish it had been a FAQ, and further wish it had clarified in what ways drinking an extract is like a potion, and in what ways it is not. I'll just save a link to this post for myself.

[Gisher]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Thanks for answering, although I wish it had been a FAQ, and further wish it had clarified in what ways drinking an extract is like a potion, and in what ways it is not. I'll just save a link to this post for myself.

Now that the provocation issue has been settled, is there another issue that is unclear?

[Scott Wilhelm]

It was surprising to see this thread I posted to rise from the grave. I'm gratified to see that I nailed it first page 2 years ago.

[Squiggit]

Clarification is nice, but I have to agree that extracts are really badly written and it's kind of a mess insofar as how they only seem to count as something when it's to their detriment.

[_Ozy_]

Gisher wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Thanks for answering, although I wish it had been a FAQ, and further wish it had clarified in what ways drinking an extract is like a potion, and in what ways it is not. I'll just save a link to this post for myself.

Now that the provocation issue has been settled, is there another issue that is unclear?

Well, all of the magic items and feats that say they work with potions, and some even say 'or similar potable items'.

Things like:

Sipping jacket,
Accelerated drinker,
etc...

Furthermore, drawing and drinking an extract is a standard action, whereas pulling out a potion and drinking it is a move + standard, so clearly there are indeed differences.

[Paladin of Baha-who?]

_Ozy_ wrote:

Gisher wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Thanks for answering, although I wish it had been a FAQ, and further wish it had clarified in what ways drinking an extract is like a potion, and in what ways it is not. I'll just save a link to this post for myself.

Now that the provocation issue has been settled, is there another issue that is unclear?

Well, all of the magic items and feats that say they work with potions, and some even say 'or similar potable items'.

Things like:

Sipping jacket,
Accelerated drinker,
etc...

Furthermore, drawing and drinking an extract is a standard action, whereas pulling out a potion and drinking it is a move + standard, so clearly there are indeed differences.

Right, also, is drawing and drinking an infused extract a standard action for anyone, or just for alchemists, or just for the alchemist who made it? The Chirurgeon archetype can draw and administer a Breath of Life extract to a character who was just struck down as a full-round action. Does this same action economy apply for any infused extract? Is there a way for an alchemist to administer an extract to a non-unconscious (or dead) character? If so, what action does that take?

[nicholas storm]

Also, I can see no justification to say that an infused extract should not work with accelerated drinker.

[Gisher]

So... lots of questions. :)

[thorin001]

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

It seems ambiguous to me. At first glance, the answer appears to be yes, since the class ability says that extracts are drunk like potions. Drinking a potion provokes. However, unlike drinking a potion, an alchemist can get an extract out and drink it in one standard action, or if he has the infusion discovery, can get it out and use it on an ally as a standard action. I've determined this by reading the various threads on the subject that a search of this forum has turned up.

From what I can see, there's been a lot of assuming that extracts share the property of potions that drinking them provokes. And I would assume this is the case for a non-alchemist drinking an extract, since they don't have the class feature Alchemy in which alchemists get to draw and drink extracts as a single standard action.

Yet, it seems unclear. Does anyone have a firm indication that it does provoke, other than the inference that it's like a potion and provokes because drinking a potion does?

No FAQ required. Drinking extracts provokes attacks of opportunity just like drinking a potion.

So, is this a rules clarification (FAQ) or not?

[wraithstrike]

thorin001 wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

It seems ambiguous to me. At first glance, the answer appears to be yes, since the class ability says that extracts are drunk like potions. Drinking a potion provokes. However, unlike drinking a potion, an alchemist can get an extract out and drink it in one standard action, or if he has the infusion discovery, can get it out and use it on an ally as a standard action. I've determined this by reading the various threads on the subject that a search of this forum has turned up.

From what I can see, there's been a lot of assuming that extracts share the property of potions that drinking them provokes. And I would assume this is the case for a non-alchemist drinking an extract, since they don't have the class feature Alchemy in which alchemists get to draw and drink extracts as a single standard action.

Yet, it seems unclear. Does anyone have a firm indication that it does provoke, other than the inference that it's like a potion and provokes because drinking a potion does?

No FAQ required. Drinking extracts provokes attacks of opportunity just like drinking a potion.

So, is this a rules clarification (FAQ) or not?

It is an official ruling. In the past they would say "no FAQ required" and the community would be lost as to which side had the correct answer so now they just say which answer is correct without going into the explanation that FAQ's tend to get.

[graystone]

thorin001 wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

It seems ambiguous to me. At first glance, the answer appears to be yes, since the class ability says that extracts are drunk like potions. Drinking a potion provokes. However, unlike drinking a potion, an alchemist can get an extract out and drink it in one standard action, or if he has the infusion discovery, can get it out and use it on an ally as a standard action. I've determined this by reading the various threads on the subject that a search of this forum has turned up.

From what I can see, there's been a lot of assuming that extracts share the property of potions that drinking them provokes. And I would assume this is the case for a non-alchemist drinking an extract, since they don't have the class feature Alchemy in which alchemists get to draw and drink extracts as a single standard action.

Yet, it seems unclear. Does anyone have a firm indication that it does provoke, other than the inference that it's like a potion and provokes because drinking a potion does?

No FAQ required. Drinking extracts provokes attacks of opportunity just like drinking a potion.

So, is this a rules clarification (FAQ) or not?

No, it saying that they work EXACTLY like drinking a potion except when it doesn't. As that was totally clear, no official response was needed...

It's not like anyone needs to know when it is or isn't treated like one and totally explains why Accelerated Drinker doesn't work since it's "just like drinking a potion".

PDT: While I'm glad you clarified it "provokes attacks of opportunity", the reason given doesn't make much sense as it's a different enough action to be treated as something other than "drinking a potion" for other parts of the rules. As such, it's not clear or obvious from just reading the rules what kind of action it is. This means an actual FAQ entry wouldn't be a bad idea. I think it'd be even better to have an clarification on when it is or isn't a potion for the other rules elements of the game.

wraithstrike: Without an official FAQ, even if a non-FAQ if official, are people really going to find it hiding in a thread instead of it's being on the FAQ page? just for ease of use, it should be a FAQ.

[HoloGnome]

Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Does anyone have a firm indication that it does provoke, other than the inference that it's like a potion and provokes because drinking a potion does?

SKR answered the question about extracts/bombs/mutagens and AoOs here:

They provoke.

Also, on a related note, the APG FAQ has answered the question about alchemist/accelerated drinker not working. Logically, the ruling should be the same for potion glutton and archetypes that try to modify drinking speed. And, remember that preparing extracts involves more than just drinking, so there is no way to sub-parse the drinking part of the action.

I agree that the wording of potion glutton, for example, could be more clear re: "other potables" and also that it would be a simple matter to amend the accelerated drinker FAQ to include potion glutton and archetypes, but the interpretation seems clear, and again, is part of a hybrid action in the case of the alchemist.

And, even though alchemists brew mutagens in advance and the class descriptions says that it is a standard action to "drink a mutagen," the required standard action to "use" (retrieve and drink) has been FAQ'd here: Extract/Bomb/Mutagen Action. Therefore, mutagens are also not going to be covered by accelerated drinking and will provoke, as do bombs and extracts (where bombs would also provoke from adjacent squares because they are ranged attacks, regardless of any effect of retrieval, preparation, etc.).

I hope this info helps. There have been various RAW discussions about feats like potion glutton vs. alchemist that, to me, mostly point to a need for slight wording or FAQ updates, as above, rather than anything that would modify alchemist extracts or mutagens.

[_Ozy_]

? Bombs don't provoke twice, just once for making a ranged attack.

[HoloGnome]

Correct - there is only 1 AoO and my comment was just saying that EVEN IF the combined standard didn't provoke, an adjacent ranged attack would. But, in the case of the alchemist, it's not because of a ranged attack. The bomb provokes because of retrieving, mixing AND throwing - a combined standard action that provokes per the class text.

Conversely, under normal circumstances, if a PC is standing next to an opponent, retrieves some stored acid from their regular pack and throws it, that PC will provoke twice vs. combat reflexes - once for retrieving and once for the ranged attack.