| 17 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ -- Are spells with a range of personal capable of being made into potions, or not?
Explanation of rationale for the question:
Creating Potions says
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.
However, there are several NPCs listed in various Paizo official books, including the NPC Codex, that have potions of personal spells listed in their stat blocks. This monk from the NPC Codex for example, has a potion of see invisibility listed amongst its combat gear.
Please tap the FAQ button for this, so we can get an answer.
Thanks!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere question: wouldn't the rules from the CRB supercede a freelancer's NPC where he mighted have missed that rule?
You can still make elixirs of personal spells with Create Wonderous Item.
Might as well FAQ it.
While i do hope they will answer that bard FAQ about masterpieces first :P.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of sounding negative, I don't see this question needing a FAQ reply. The rules are clear and I believe the relatively few stat blocks are in error.
I'd expect potions like Shield and Mirror Image to be extremely common if they were legal potion options.
|
There are various incorrect stat blocks spread throughout the books. Stat blocks don't count as rules, although sometimes they help us understand the intent of some vague areas. Even then, they aren't a strong justification.
As it stands, potions cannot be made from personal spells. There isn't a FAQ needed, as the rules are quite clear.
It'd be more like an errata request than a FAQ request. I do agree that you should be able to make potions of personal spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a request for rules clarification, but a request for rules alteration. Rules always supersede NPC statblocks.
Sincere question: wouldn't the rules from the CRB supercede a freelancer's NPC where he might have missed that rule?
You can still make elixirs of personal spells with Create Wondrous Item.
Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in? I get that the rules are the law of the game, but if you are hiring people to create NPCs, shouldn't those NPCs have to conform to the same rules as everybody else? And shouldn't you be hiring people to create them that are pretty darn familiar with the rules? FAQ or errata request I don't care. If the button gets hit enough times, something will be done about it, and I, for one, believe something should be done.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
NPC statblocks have long, in every tabletop RPG, contained rules inconsistencies and suboptimal builds.
They have never been a basis for overwriting rules.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magic 8-ball says...
No response required.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a request for rules clarification, but a request for rules alteration. Rules always supersede NPC statblocks.
According to some folks on these boards, "I don't like this rule, can we change it?" Counts as a frequently asked question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NPC statblocks have long, in every tabletop RPG, contained rules inconsistencies and suboptimal builds.
They have never been a basis for overwriting rules.
Just because something is doesn't mean it is right. Think about actual game play using any of these incorrect NPCs?
GM: The monk swallows a potion, and moves to your exact location.
Player: What? I'm invisible.
GM: Not to him.
Player: What potion would do that?
GM: Potion of see invisibility, obviously.
Player: Huh?! See invisibility has a range of personal, it can't be made into a potion.
GM: Apparently it can, it's right here in the stat block of an official Paizo NPC.
Player: I quit.
Sincere question: wouldn't the rules from the CRB supercede a freelancer's NPC where he mighted have missed that rule?
You can still make elixirs of personal spells with Create Wonderous Item.
It's happened multiple times with multiple authors. No idea of their 'status', but you'll see Designers Jason Bulmahn, Stephen Radney-MacFarland and Sean K Reynolds listed on the book as well as more known Paizo authors in the writing section. It's not like they picked someone off the street or didn't review and edit these NPC's. So I don't agree with you're being dismissive of an example do to it's writer.
As to FAQ/errata... They are pretty much combined anymore. It's not like FAQ are only for clarifying the rules anymore.
As to the OP's question, it's clear that the rules say no personal spells. The question is, how do we treat the printed potions that don't follow the rule. Are they exceptions, errors or simple 'we don't have to follow the rules'?
As to the OP's question, it's clear that the rules say no personal spells. The question is, how do we treat the printed potions that don't follow the rule. Are they exceptions, errors or simple 'we don't have to follow the rules'?
Those are three questions that would be frequently asked when someone encountered this rules anomaly. :)
|
Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in? I get that the rules are the law of the game, but if you are hiring people to create NPCs, shouldn't those NPCs have to conform to the same rules as everybody else? And shouldn't you be hiring people to create them that are pretty darn familiar with the rules?
Take a breath. I think some considerations are in order:
Do editors cost money to hire?
Does extra editing take longer to perform?
How many years has Paizo been releasing new products?
How many authors has Paizo used thus far?
How many editors has Paizo used thus far?
How many new rules have been released?
Does more money mean infallible?
Then, ask yourself these questions:
Are you 100% on the rules yourself?
How much would you charge as an editor/author?
How long would it take you to do this work in comparison?
Have you ever made a simple mistake before?
Paizo, like any other business, has a rigorous quality control process. But it must be reasonably balanced to ensure profit, and human beings are prone to error. Even the Developers of the game have made (and admitted to making) errors in the past. I believe SKR, one of the original Developers, created the monk entry you're questioning. Whether it was his idea, or an editing error, we may never know, but consider everything in the book that was done correctly before pointing out its one or two flaws.
Soymilk contains a small percentage of ground up rodent. Ketchup contains a small percentage of rat droppings. Honda releases faulty airbags. Paizo can release a few errors now and then. As long as we understand the rules ourselves we don't need to flip out over minute errors.
Do editors cost money to hire?
Does extra editing take longer to perform?
How many years has Paizo been releasing new products?
How many authors has Paizo used thus far?
How many editors has Paizo used thus far?
How many new rules have been released?
Does more money mean infallible?Then, ask yourself these questions:
Are you 100% on the rules yourself?
How much would you charge as an editor/author?
How long would it take you to do this work in comparison?
Have you ever made a simple mistake before?
Those are all excellent questions that should also be frequently asked when someone encounters such a rules anomaly. :)
Also, if any of what I posted here seems like a flip out, I would hate for anyone to see what it looks like when I actually flip out. ;)
If a player quit over that I would help him pack. What a minor thing. I mean apparently this same player can Spellcraft potions without a roll, but complains about potion use.
Yeah! Knowing what a potion was without making a spellcraft roll would be a clear violation of the rules!
Edit: Also, hyperbole is a thing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in?
It does. People still make mistakes. The End.
I get that the rules are the law of the game, but if you are hiring people to create NPCs, shouldn't those NPCs have to conform to the same rules as everybody else?
They do. People still make mistakes. The End.
And shouldn't you be hiring people to create them that are pretty darn familiar with the rules?
They are. People still make mistakes. The End.
FAQ or errata request I don't care. If the button gets hit enough times, something will be done about it, and I, for one, believe something should be done.
No. This fish is not big enough to fry. Further, it is a fish that cannot be fried; the rules-violating statblocks have been published. It's too late. Fortunately, referencing the rules - which are brutally clear - these statblocks are revealed to be incorrect. Simple.
Moving forward, it is impractical to imagine no statblock will ever have an error in it. That this is you pet peeve doesn't change that no amount if editing passes will guarantee perfection. That's reality.
Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in?It does. People still make mistakes. The End.
I get that the rules are the law of the game, but if you are hiring people to create NPCs, shouldn't those NPCs have to conform to the same rules as everybody else?They do. People still make mistakes. The End.
And shouldn't you be hiring people to create them that are pretty darn familiar with the rules?They are. People still make mistakes. The End.
This is a trilogy? There's three pretty quick "the ends" and the theme of each story is the same: "people make mistakes."
It's possible I made a mistake in thinking this should be FAQ'd, but people make mistakes. The End.
Whatever you do, don't click the FAQ button on the original post.
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is relevant to note that (to the best of my knowledge) none of the rulebooks that these statblocks come from have ever been reprinted; thus, none have ever received errata. If they do, it is likely that the incorrect potions will be replaced; see the example below.
(Example) The one time that such potions have appeared in a source that has since been reprinted - Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition - the incorrect potions were removed and replaced with a wand of one of the spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ -- Are spells with a range of personal capable of being made into potions, or not?
Explanation of rationale for the question:
Creating Potions says
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.However, there are several NPCs listed in various Paizo official books, including the NPC Codex, that have potions of personal spells listed in their stat blocks. This monk from the NPC Codex for example, has a potion of see invisibility listed amongst its combat gear.
Please tap the FAQ button for this, so we can get an answer.
Thanks!
NPC's have mistakes all the time. Many casters don't have spell component pouches, but I don't think it is worth an FAQ for that either. We already know the answer. The NPC's are wrong. They might eventually go back and fix those NPC's if they are reported depending on what book they are end, but I am sure they won't be changing the personal potion rule.
Glibness(just one example) FTW is not going to happen in potion form. There is even an FAQ that is making them consider taking the ability from alchemist because they said it was a loophole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sincere question: wouldn't the rules from the CRB supercede a freelancer's NPC where he mighted have missed that rule?
You can still make elixirs of personal spells with Create Wonderous Item.
Yes the rules trump NPC's, even if they are made by Paizo staff. NPC stat blocks do not create new rules.
NPC statblocks have long, in every tabletop RPG, contained rules inconsistencies and suboptimal builds.
They have never been a basis for overwriting rules.
Just because something is doesn't mean it is right. Think about actual game play using any of these incorrect NPCs?
GM: The monk swallows a potion, and moves to your exact location.
Player: What? I'm invisible.
GM: Not to him.
Player: What potion would do that?
GM: Potion of see invisibility, obviously.
Player: Huh?! See invisibility has a range of personal, it can't be made into a potion.
GM: Apparently it can, it's right here in the stat block of an official Paizo NPC.
Player: I quit.
That is a GM issue also. If he doesn't know enough to correct that on the spot.
"Apparently it can, it's right here in the stat block of an official Paizo NPC." is a terrible defense.
At the end of the day it falls on the GM to fix mistakes that he knows about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For everyone who insists that NPC stat blocks should be ignored when they don't seem to match the rules, and that there's no chance the published rule could be changed, Flurry of Blows says hi. :P
Glibness(just one example) FTW is not going to happen in potion form. There is even an FAQ that is making them consider taking the ability from alchemist because they said it was a loophole.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant or not, but Alchemists don't get Glibness. It's bard-only. In case anyone reading this gets worried, the FAQ mentioning that Alchemists may be errata'd is two-and-a-half years old at this point. They still might choose to errata the APG, since the third printing is yet to be released, but it seems a little unlikely at this point.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except the FAQ should not be used to request rules changes (actually, per forum guidelines, they shouldn't be requested in this manner at all "FAQ this" is in violation of the rules).
You literally quoted the rules text that answers your question.
Question answered.
Q: "Are spells with a range of personal capable of being made into potions, or not?"
A: "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."
Done deal.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Shouldn't anything that is published by Paizo undergo a rigorous enough editing standard that things that clearly break the rules don't make it in?
Rules things yes.
Supplements like Adventures and NPC stat blocks are never written by the developers. They are written by you and me, submitted to Paizo, and mostly audited for formatting errors not rules errors.
A book of NPCs will have hundreds if not thousands of errors. Some like this where the writer thought it worked that way and others simply match errors (too few or too many skills).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two off the top of my head being a Ghoul Barbarian that benefits from Rage (undead are immune to mind affecting effects, including Morale bonuses) and Auren Vrood of Carrion Crown not being able to cast his main spell (Circle of Death) due to his PrC eating more caster levels than the writer thought. It happens.
Undead can rage now, by the way.
I'd heard about that, but I'm not sure what book it was. Recent, I think?
|
|
NPC statblocks have long, in every tabletop RPG, contained rules inconsistencies and suboptimal builds.
They have never been a basis for overwriting rules.
Just because something is doesn't mean it is right. Think about actual game play using any of these incorrect NPCs?
GM: The monk swallows a potion, and moves to your exact location.
Player: What? I'm invisible.
GM: Not to him.
Player: What potion would do that?
GM: Potion of see invisibility, obviously.
Player: Huh?! See invisibility has a range of personal, it can't be made into a potion.
GM: Apparently it can, it's right here in the stat block of an official Paizo NPC.
Player: I quit.
The player quit because he encountered an alchimist or npc with an alchimist friend? Or that an npc can do something he didn't know was possible? Or he decided he couldn't keep ooc knowledge from hurting the game? Who says someone over the past few thousand years or more in all the planes of existence didn't find a way to make a potion of see invisibility.
Edit: I lost a PC to that circle of death spell. I blame the negative level I had, not the npc stat block.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So an android doesn't benefit from rage but an undead android does...
Unless the android takes a feat.
Because PCs spend feats for s**&, NPCs get it for free.
Weird. I was about to say how awesome undead bloodrager NPCs are now, but...
As far as I know, Bloodrage doesn't count as raging for the purpose of that "ability".
For everyone who insists that NPC stat blocks should be ignored when they don't seem to match the rules, and that there's no chance the published rule could be changed, Flurry of Blows says hi. :P
That is a different situation. This rule just like the missing spell component pouch will not result in the rule being changed.
I'm not sure if this is what you meant or not, but Alchemists don't get Glibness. It's bard-only. In case anyone reading this gets worried, the FAQ mentioning that Alchemists may be errata'd is two-and-a-half years old at this point. They still might choose to errata the APG, since the third printing is yet to be released, but it seems a little unlikely at this point.
Glibness(just one example) FTW is not going to happen in potion form. There is even an FAQ that is making them consider taking the ability from alchemist because they said it was a loophole.
I was making two different statements. One was that spells such as glibness are one reason while personal spells will remain out of the reach of potions.
My other point was that the FAQ on alchemist was saying that allowing alchemist to pass personal spells around is something Paizo has said was a loophole they might stop.
For everyone who insists that NPC stat blocks should be ignored when they don't seem to match the rules, and that there's no chance the published rule could be changed, Flurry of Blows says hi. :PThat is a different situation. This rule just like the missing spell component pouch will not result in the rule being changed.
Flurry of Blows (simplified) timeline
1) The rule says "this"
2) Players: But, all these stat blocks (as well as other supporting details)
3) After consideration, rule changes
Seems similar to the first two steps, so far.
For everyone who insists that NPC stat blocks should be ignored when they don't seem to match the rules, and that there's no chance the published rule could be changed, Flurry of Blows says hi. :PThat is a different situation. This rule just like the missing spell component pouch will not result in the rule being changed.Flurry of Blows (simplified) timeline
1) The rule says "this"
2) Players: But, all these stat blocks (as well as other supporting details)
3) After consideration, rule changes
Seems similar to the first two steps, so far.
You know what the difference is? The monk rule change looked at ambiguity of Flurry of Blows and how it interacted with two-weapon-fighting. Whether it was actual two-weapon fighting, simulated it in terms of bonuses, and how that worked. Did the monk need two weapons besides his unarmed strike? Could he take TWF feats? How does it work if he only has one arm/limb/head to attack with? Those are interesting questions that could be answered differently depending on a rules interpretation.
There is zero ambiguity in "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions." None. There is nothing there to indicate that personal spells can be made into potions in any way shape or form. This isn't a question of implementation due to vague, incomplete, or implicative wording. There is no ambiguity here whatsoever. This is asking for errata not a rules clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rule itself is perfectly clear. But having official products consistently ignore the rule creates ambiguity that wouldn't otherwise exist. A major part of the design philosophy of 3rd edition was that everyone was playing by the same rules, and people have become used to it. Having an NPC or monster whip out a magic item that the rules say can't exist causes sufficient ambiguity that while "can personal range spells be made into potions?" may not merit a FAQ response, "The rules clearly state that personal range spells can't be made into potions, yet our group keeps running into NPCs that have them. Are we misunderstanding the rules, or are all these NPCs being printed with fundamental errors?" does merit a response.
No. This isn't remotely in question
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The APs do this regularly. I don't understand the rule, at least, not in every case. Disguise self, for example, really makes sense as a potion. Eh, no big deal for me or the guys I play with.
Well , honestly i see no issue in just giving the PCs the power to make/buy these , yes some people will be able to get some great self buffs... and so what? So can the NPCs now.
One way or the other , i for sure wouldnt say that only the NPCs could get them , either both would be able or i would actually spend the time making sure said NPCs didnt have any.