You'd think the potion would just spill out for obvious reasons. On the other hand, considering skeletons shouldn't be able to even move AT ALL with no muscles, having them some how magically absorb the potion after drinking it isn't that far fetched.
No, they aren't drinking it anymore than someone dumping a potion on their torso is drinking it, even if they had a sucking chest wound, slashed throat, or open gut wound and some seeped inside. Similarly, a ghost with a ghost touch mug doesn't count as drinking just because it makes the motions and dumps it through its face.
Skeleton could benefit from an oil though and I don't see why some typically normal potions couldn't be made in oil form.
The rules say that "Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil." Skeletons are corporeal and creatures so skeletons are able to use potions.
This is magic we are talking about, so trying to apply logic to it is just silly.
The rules say that "Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil." Skeletons are corporeal and creatures so skeletons are able to use potions.
This is magic we are talking about, so trying to apply logic to it is just silly.
Sure. And technically that statement is still entirely true because a skeleton can use an oil (which is a potion that is applied). It says 'or' not 'and' or 'and/or'. I would certainly even allow an ooze or slime to 'imbibe' a potion if it absorbed it. I wouldn't allow a creature that had no mouth or other way to imbibe a potion to do so just because it was corporeal (though it could apply an oil).
In this case a skeleton isn't drinking or imbibing. It may be mimicking the action of drinking but it is incapable of imbibing. Just like a person can flap their arms like wings or even look like they're flying, it doesn't allow them to fly. Can they accomplish it another way? Yes, and they can do so in this case as well, with oils.
There will always be judgement calls, but in this case, I think it's a safe one.
I'm going to go with Thorin001. While it is certainly a perfectly reasonable home rule/ruling I'd point out the lack of logic behind even allowing a skeleton to think about ingesting a potion or rubbing an oil on. It has a non-existent Int score and I doubt the 'animating' force in any way gets around that issue by any logic that doesn't circle back to "it's magic". So unless something clearly states otherwise I think we are stuck with "it's magic" and it's a corporeal creature.
And if you're having trouble picturing it, remember that a gaming potion is a tiny amount of liquid (They designed that language a while ago so two PCs couldn't share a potion, each drinking half the bottle.). So imagine the little shot glass of liquid just leaks on the jaw bones and the magic is activated.
If they can drink wine, I don't see why not. (Potions are magical, after all; given their reaction time, it stands to reason that biological digestion is not required.)
Kayerloth brings up a good point. A non-intelligent undead wouldn't be capable of thinking of drinking a potion. An intelligent skeleton, say a Black Skeleton, however would, and I would rule, could.
They can't make the choice, but they could certainly be ordered to do it.
"When you see living people that aren't me, drink this potion of Bull's Strength and attack them" is a perfectly sensible order.
I'd point out the lack of logic behind even allowing a skeleton to think about ingesting a potion or rubbing an oil on.
No one mentioned anything about a skeleton thinking about performing an action. The question is whether it can take an action and if that action has a specific effect. There are intelligent skeletal creatures and I think the OP's question was clearly about skeletal creatures (because it's right in the title of the thread itself), not specifically the Skeleton creature. It is possible you misread or misunderstood. It's also been pointed out that even in the case of a mindless skeletal creature, they can be controlled or commanded to take an action that mimics drinking, such as pouring a mug of ale down their jaw and neck (not throat).
Additionally:
-------------------------------------------------------------
In any case, it doesn't matter that the skeleton 'chooses' to do it, but whether it has the intended and expected effect. A skeleton would likely never 'choose' to bite its tongue, but whether or not it tries or is commanded to do so (in which case it will try to the best of its mindless ability), it does not have the effect that biting one's tongue is typically expected to entail, does it? For instance, if the skeleton's former tongue were in a jar in front of it and it could determine that, it might just pull it out and start chewing on it. Still not considered to have the normal effect that biting one's tongue entails.
Whether a skeletal creature would ever choose to undergo heart replacement surgery doesn't matter, but whether it has the normal effect or not is what's being asked. It doesn't matter that the 'act' of performing the surgery could be done; placing a mask of nitrous or anesthetic over its face (whether it breathes or not), cracking the ribs open, spreading the rib cage open with a spreader. Bringing in a fresh new beating heart and laying it in the chest cavity, massaging it slowly until it beats... then closing the rib cage and... the skeleton sits up and the heart falls out on the floor. It doesn't work on the skeletal creature, even a magic heart (unless the magic specifically says it does).
-------------------------------------------------------------
A skeleton cannot imbibe a potion. Imbibe may be a fancy word for 'drink' but drink is a word that means to take into the mouth and swallow or to absorb (as ground might, when you say "the dry earth drank in the spilled water"),
and 'swallow' is specifically 'to take into the stomach by drawing through the throat and esophagus with a voluntary muscular action, as food, drink, or other substances.' (<----- like a potion).
A skeleton cannot do that, unless it's a specific kind of skeletal creature that can (and there can always be an exception, but again, we aren't talking specific creatures). Just like we would allow a skeleton (the creature) to play a harp or drum, but not use a woodwind instrument. Even though there may be skeletal creatures that can talk (whether they breathe or can draw breath or have vocal cords (probably not, in all cases)), if they can't make wind, they can't blow a wind instrument. Whether they're 'magical' or not or whether the instrument is magical or not (again, unless it says it works some other way).
A skeleton cannot take a potion into its mouth, swallow it down the throat and esophagus or, at the very least what I would require, absorb it into its stomach or other digestive organ (like ooze absorbing a potion).
Just like a player cannot mimic the action of drinking a potion, put it in their mouth and not drink/swallow/imbibe it (the wording) and hold it there in their mouth or spit it back out into the bottle or on the ground because they don't like the taste, and get the benefits of it (unless it is an elixir or potion that specifically says that's how it's used).
I think part of what needs to be considered is that the undead creature it's self is magic. Magic has replaced the function of muscle, sinew and everything else. Any argument you make for them not being able to "drink" could similarly be applied to not allowing them to move and/or grip things. Following the same logic zombies would also not be able to "drink" a potion since they have non-functioning stomachs making it no different then a living humanoid just holding the potion in their mouth and not swallowing.
IMO they should be able to make use of potions since there is nothing in any description that states that they can't. If you need an explanation all I can say is that "it's magic" and I'm not talking about the potion I'm talking about the skeletal undead. To do otherwise is to gimp a creature for no reason other then flawed logic that ignores the fact that we are talking about the physics of a supernatural creature.
If you're having problems with it, then consider the hollywood zombie and the fact that they do not defecate and yet seem to be able to consume brains all day with an insatiable hunger. I'm not sure why that logic is any harder to follow then a skeleton who is literally held together by magic, moves because of magic, and inspite of having no organs of any kind; retains the memories and skills associated with using weapons and armor, can see, hear, and smell.
I suppose strictly speaking, you could rule by the RAW that because undead do not breathe, eat or sleep then they are unable to make use of any consumable item. But that would mean no potions for any undead, even ones that specifically consume their enemies like ghouls and vampires.
Which magic items a monster can use should be handled on a case by case basis.
Just as lots of monsters can't wear magical boots because they don't have feet or wield magical swords because they don't have hands, surely many can't imbibe potions because they don't have a mouth (a jaw bone doesn't count!) and stomach.
A tougher question to answer would be can an octopus/squid-like monster use magical rings, gloves, bracers and boots? It doesn't have fingers, hands or feet but it has plenty of limbs.
Monster descriptions don't list their available magic item slots.
Which magic items a monster can use should be handled on a case by case basis.
Just as lots of monsters can't wear magical boots because they don't have feet or wield magical swords because they don't have hands, surely many can't imbibe potions because they don't have a mouth (a jaw bone doesn't count!) and stomach.
A tougher question to answer would be can an octopus/squid-like monster use magical rings, gloves, bracers and boots? It doesn't have fingers, hands or feet but it has plenty of limbs.
Monster descriptions don't list their available magic item slots.
is a stomach required for using potions?
If it is then it means elementals and most plants also can not use potions even the ones that have hands and mouths (eg water elementals). If a gelatinous cube runs over a potion and dissolves away the bottle that the potion is in I would assume that it would benefit from the potion.
If I only think about living creatures, I can't come up with a single example where it doesn't make sense for it to benefit from a potion. By definition living things consume other things in order to continue living. Even trees consume air, light and water in order to grow and thrive. All without the use of a mouth or stomach.
If it is then it means elementals and most plants also can not use potions even the ones that have hands and mouths.
Sigh! You got the gist of what I was saying -- a means of ingesting/absorbing the liquid -- which usually means a mouth and stomach. There are some weird critters that do it differently.
If you water your potted plant with a potion of invisibility will it turn invisible? Possibly ... but you might have to wait a few days for it to absorb it all!
A skeleton cannot imbibe a potion. Imbibe may be a fancy word for 'drink' but drink is a word that means to take into the mouth and swallow or to absorb (as ground might, when you say "the dry earth drank in the spilled water"),
and 'swallow' is specifically 'to take into the stomach by drawing through the throat and esophagus with a voluntary muscular action, as food, drink, or other substances.' (<----- like a potion).
A skeleton cannot do that, unless it's a specific kind of skeletal creature that can (and there can always be an exception, but again, we aren't talking specific creatures). Just like we would allow a skeleton (the creature) to play a harp or drum, but not use a woodwind instrument. Even though there may be skeletal creatures that can talk (whether they breathe or can draw breath or have vocal cords (probably not, in all cases)), if they can't make wind, they can't blow a wind instrument. Whether they're 'magical' or not or whether the instrument is magical or not (again, unless it says it works some other way).
Potions wrote:
Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion or use an oil.
How that skeletal champion manages to drink potions could almost be considered magical.
Following the same logic zombies would also not be able to "drink" a potion ... But that would mean no potions for any undead, even ones that specifically consume their enemies like ghouls and vampires.
No, LordKailas, you didn't read the post. This isn't about vampires, zombies or ghouls. That 'logic' does not apply here... Because.. Zombies, vampires, and ghouls are not what anyone here considers to be 'skeletal'. Which is the question in the post. Not whether a stomach digests through acids, enzymes, supernatural osmosis, or tiny imps shoveling 'ingested' material into a belly furnace. A skeletal creature doesn't have a stomach or any digestive system or parts. Clearer?
Your argument is akin to someone asking if water elementals can take fire damage because they're water and water puts out fire and you answering no, because fire elementals don't and they're both elementals. They are two separate and distinct 'types of creature' despite having the same 'creature type.'
LordKailas wrote:
Magic has replaced the function of muscle, sinew and everything else.
That's fine, but replacing something is not the same as having something. Replacing a sentry with a security camera may perform the same function, (possibly even better, cheaper, reliably) but that doesn't mean you have a sentry. While 'magic' may allow them mobility as though they had muscles and it may grant them vision and hearing despite the lack of eyes or ears (even better than it would normally be) they do not have muscles, eyes, or ears. If you want to say they can smell and taste despite the absence of a nose, nasal cavities or taste buds and a tongue, you can (and that's not even the issue). It is not even up for debate whether they have sinuses, a tongue, or a stomach.
To make extra clear, it isn't necessarily the absence of lips, or a throat, or a tongue, or a stomach, but the inability to absorb or even imbibe the item, which is how the magical effect is activated.
The presence of a sense of smell (going with your logic) does not mean you can wear a magical nose ring by piercing it through your skull because you don't have a nose (despite both it and you being magic). You still can't use magical earrings without ears. You can't just dangle them off your skull holes, just like you can't benefit from normal magical rings worn on toes or in ears.
LordKailas wrote:
To do otherwise is to gimp a creature for no reason other then flawed logic that ignores the fact that we are talking about the physics of a supernatural creature.
Unfortunately your view isn't supported. Otherwise winged skeletons would be able to fly and retain their breath weapons and Natural Armor bonuses from hide and skin (there might be specific special skeletal creatures that can retain one or more (or even gain some) but not based on just being 'magic' skeletons).
By your logic a skeleton can wear a nipple ring, it can whistle by pursing its lips that it doesn't have, it can lick to the center of a Tootsie pop despite having no tongue, and insert its penis into a vagina (and impregnate its partner with no reproductive organs), all because it has visual and audio awareness of its surroundings. That sounds more like flawed logic to me.
If we were to accept your method, then if you poured a potion into an animated potion vial, the vial is drinking it. I don't think anyone believes the rules, written or intended, are read that way. Even though you're pouring it into the 'mouth' of the bottle. Even if the bottle is 'magically' granted mobility and spatial awareness and perception. Even if that bottle has been granted the miraculous power of speech and the sound comes out of its mouth-hole like 99% of every other creature... it is not imbibing the potion.
LordKailas wrote:
IMO they should be able to make use of potions since there is nothing in any description that states that they can't.
Well, you mean except for the part that says how the item is used and activated.
No, LordKailas, you didn't read the post. This isn't about vampires, zombies or ghouls. That 'logic' does not apply here... Because.. Zombies, vampires, and ghouls are not what anyone here considers to be 'skeletal'. Which is the question in the post. Not whether a stomach digests through acids, enzymes, supernatural osmosis, or tiny imps shoveling 'ingested' material into a belly furnace. A skeletal creature doesn't have a stomach or any digestive system or parts. Clearer?
So, you're saying a stomach is required in order to consume a potion? By that logic (as I stated above) plant an elemental type creatures also can not consume potions.
Pizza Lord wrote:
To make extra clear, it isn't necessarily the absence of lips, or a throat, or a tongue, or a stomach, but the inability to absorb or even imbibe the item, which is how the magical effect is activated.
Where does it state that skeletons are unable to absorb liquids? Bones are porous as a part of white blood cell production. If absorption is how the magic is triggered then it would allow a skeleton, tree and ooze to all consume a potion in a similar manner. All without requiring a mouth or stomach to be involved.
Pizza Lord wrote:
Unfortunately your view isn't supported. Otherwise winged skeletons would be able to fly and retain their breath weapons and Natural Armor bonuses from hide and skin (there might be specific special skeletal creatures that can retain one or more (or even gain some) but not based on just being 'magic' skeletons).
I don't follow. The skeleton template explicitly states that skeletons lose the ability to fly even if the original creature could. It does not however, state that creatures lose the ability to consume potions even if the original creature could.
Pizza Lord wrote:
By your logic a skeleton can wear a nipple ring, it can whistle by pursing its lips that it doesn't have, it can lick to the center of a Tootsie pop despite having no tongue, and insert its penis into a vagina (and impregnate its partner with no reproductive organs), all because it has visual and audio awareness of its surroundings. That sounds more like flawed logic to me.
Since most of this is not covered in the normal rules, it would be a gm call. So far as I can tell skeletal champions are capable of speech even though they completely lack a tongue and lips. So I don't see why they wouldn't also be able to whistle.
Pizza Lord wrote:
If we were to accept your method, then if you poured a potion into an animated potion vial, the vial is drinking it. I don't think anyone believes the rules, written or intended, are read that way. Even though you're pouring it into the 'mouth' of the bottle. Even if the bottle is 'magically' granted mobility and spatial awareness and perception. Even if that bottle has been granted the miraculous power of speech and the sound comes out of its mouth-hole like 99% of every other creature... it is not imbibing the potion.
It all depends on what is required to use a potion. If absorption is required then you are correct, the bottle would fail to consume the potion since its glass can't absorb it. By extension, most constructs also are incapable of consuming potions since they tend to be made out of non-permeable materials. Exceptions of course exist like scarecrows.
I'd say the magic is in the drinking, and not the digesting. A skeleton drinks the potion and the magic works upon drinking. Then the fluid of the potion just runs down and out of the skeleton.
This isn't the Rules forum. In Pizza Lord's campaign I think it's a good bet that skeletal creatures don't drink potions.
For me that's a rabbit hole I'm not about to go down. Skeletal creatures, typically being corporeal, are able to drink potions as per the rules.
But I'll pose a question or two.
What happens when a skeletal creature attempts to drink a potion of cure light wounds?
And what happens when a skeletal creature attempts to drink a potion of inflict light wounds?
Assuming the potions function normally for the creature in question it would be along the same lines as a living creature drinking a potion of inflict light wounds or cure light wounds respectively. One is bad for the creature and the other one heals it.
If you're ruling that skeletons can not activate potions then nothing would happen in either case. Its along the same lines as rubbing an ingested poison on your skin or a PC smashing a potion of cure light wounds over their head. It might feel unpleasant but it won't do anything because that's not how its triggered.
In Pizza Lord's campaign I think it's a good bet that skeletal creatures don't drink potions.
I follow a guideline that specific trumps general. If Humanoid creatures are listed as having to eat, sleep, and breathe, but a specific creature is listed as photosynthesizing, absorbing magical dweomers, or doing three backflips in a row to sustain its dietary needs (replacing eating and drinking), then it doesn't eat or drink (there can always be a notation or exception, like for Outsiders in general where they can if they wish, or just a note that they can still use potions). It doesn't get to benefit from heroes' feast by doing somersaults over the table, nor can it suddenly 'photosynthesize' a potion to count as imbibing it (it can still rub an oil on itself).
Unless a skeletal creature has the ability to eat, imbibe, fly, speak, or breathe, it cannot, because a skeletal creature cannot. The mechanics and rules are written assuming a certain level of common sense, whether they involve physics, theory, or even fantastic magics. We do not need a specific line that states, 'A skeletal creature cannot lick things, because it doesn't have a tongue,' when it obviously doesn't have a tongue. A skeletal creature cannot imbibe alcohol (whether it would get drunk or not), nor could they consume a heroes' feast or goodberry. If a player tells me he's commanding his skeleton to wade into a vat of 100 doses of inflict light wounds potion and to start lapping or slurping it up..., after 1 minute, there's still going to be 100 doses in that vat. At least an animate, severed head could still [drink/imbibe/swallow/take action that would activate potion]; a skeleton, no.
Kayerloth wrote:
What happens when a skeletal creature attempts to drink a potion of cure light wounds?
And what happens when a skeletal creature attempts to drink a potion of inflict light wounds?
Like LordKailas said, nothing would happen (if the skeletal creature cannot imbibe).
The skeletal creature would put it to its lips and it would just dribble down. The same thing would happen if the skeletal creature could imbibe potions in someone's game and it popped the cork with one eyesocket and poured it into the other, even if it ran down the inside of the skull and dribbled out the teeth and jaw exactly like placing it in the mouth-hole. Even if it swan-dived spread-eagle into a pool of magic potions and started talking, breathing, or chewing. It's not going to activate the magic any more than pouring a cure light wounds potion directly onto someone's wound (unless the GM wants to allow it).
The same thing would happen for a 'living' creature that didn't actually imbibe the potion it was floating suspended in. It wouldn't just start regenerating hit points like a bacta tank because it's floating in healing potion. Even though, presumably, potion dribbles, splashes, gets in its mouth, gets absorbed into hair or tear-ducts, enters the bloodstream though a cut on their arm, etc. By the magic activation rules, it isn't imbibing it unless it's imbibing it (a GM can rule that you've drunk enough at any point to count as such). Even if you started drowning in it (meaning it passed your lips, tongue, throat, etc.), that doesn't count as drinking; inhaling, yes, but inhaling a potion doesn't activate it (unless there's a specific creature, potion, or situation where it does.) Yes, you can drown in potion of waterbreathing if you don't imbibe sufficient quantity before inhaling it.
