Can You Apply Something to an Item Someone is Holding?

[W E Ray]

One can use Sleight of Hand to attempt an act on someone's person-- steal the arrows from their quiver, apply Sovereign Glue to something they're wearing, etc.

But can one use Sleight of Hand to attempt the same thing on an item in hand -- applying an alchemical regent to a sword or wand or anything else in hand?

And if so, would an Invisible person making the Sleight of Hand check lose Invisibility as if it were an attack?

Thanks!

[Meirril]

So, funny story. According to the RAW for potions and oils you can use them as a standard action. There is no separate proviso for using them against unwilling targets, only unconscious/helpless targets.

However, it also points out that attempting to use a potion or oil creates an attack of opportunity and the item being used can be targeted. The item can be fairly easily destroyed.

Attempting to use potion-like wonderous items and alchemical goods for which there is no existing rules for applying them in combat should follow the rules for potions and oils as a guideline. It should be noted that most alchemical goods that don't have rules to apply them in combat probably take effect over a long period of time. As such, it might not be viable to use items like Alchemical Cement or Alchemical Glue in combat. Go over the idea with the GM before you attempt it. This gives the GM some time to think and let the player know what their thoughts are on the situation.

Slight of Hand would help disguise what you are doing, but depending on what is going on it might not help at all. Trying to apply sovereign glue to a sword in an unsuspecting guard possession isn't exactly easy. It really should require a bit of manipulation of the sword and careful handling of the bottle (unless you don't mind being glued to the bottle permanently), so some negatives seem appropriate. And this would be a skill vs skill, slight of hand vs perception. Considering that this is basically an attack on the weapon (an attempt to render it useless) I'd have invisibility fail. If on the other hand it was an unattended object I'd be ok with invisibility remaining. But that is a GM call, not based in rule.

[W E Ray]

I felt -- as the DM in the situation -- that because my NPC guard was holding an alarm bell in hand, a PC would have to attempt a CMB: Disarm to remove it, not a Sleight of Hand. But that wasn't the PC's idea.

The PC had the brilliant idea of using Alchemical Glue to fasten the clapper in the bell to the bell itself, making it useless. The PC is Invisible.

Because it was an item in hand I felt that it would be an opposed Sleight of Hand vs Perception check and I did not give the +20 bonus for being Invisible -- just ruled that it would be possible to attempt the action.

But my first reaction was that, indeed, such an action would render the Invisible PC visible -- like you felt. The PC disagreed and we couldn't really find any RAW that remotely applied. I allowed it -- it was a brilliant plan, wasn't at all going to break the game or ruin the encounter, and I like it when my Players come up with cool ideas. (Plus, this is in a PbP campaign where it's not as if we're all friends at my house hanging out, rolling some dice -- we're essentially all strangers. Opting on the side of acquiescence will help the game continue.)

I'm content in my ruling.

But I wanted to come here, because, like I said in my OP -- y'all know the rules so much better than I.

Can one use an opposed Sleight of Hand check to apply an oil/potion/alchemical regent, etc. to an item being held in hand? (most likely from Invisibility)

Would doing so dismiss the Invisibility?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Invisibility specifies "Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell." I conclude that screwing around with an enemy's attended objects does break it.