RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 35 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a debate that's been spinning its wheels for a while now, so I thought I'd make a new thread (some of the issues in the original have already been resolved, so I wanted to leave those out) and see if we can draw enough attention to get a clarification.
Magic oils (like potions) can be created with the Brew Potion feat, and replicate the effect of any spell of 3rd level or lower that targets one or more creatures or objects and doesn't have a range of "personal". Applying an oil is a standard action that provokes AoO's. If the target is an unconscious creature, it's a full-round action instead.
Unlike potions, oils are applied externally by smearing them on the recipient. The person smearing the oil is the effective caster of the spell, while the person/object getting oiled up is the target of the spell.
The above is all explicit in the rules. Below is where the issues start.
#1: What type of action?
In the rules, two action types are listed for activating an oil: first, it says it's a standard action. This is given with no qualifiers (i.e., it doesn't say "applying an oil to XX is a standard action", it just says "applying an oil is a standard action"). Second, it says that applying an oil to an unconscious creature is a full-round action. This one is specific: it doesn't say "unconscious creature or similarly [adjective] target", it just says "unconscious creature".
#1a: My stance has been, up to this point, that the standard action is the general rule, applying to any and every situation except that which is given a special exception (unconscious creature as a target). Therefore, applying an oil to an enemy (who isn't unconscious) falls under that general heading and is a standard action.
#1b: Others have stated that the standard action listing only refers to applying an oil to yourself or your own gear. I would explain why, but no one's told me yet (though not for lack of me asking). My best guesses are wordings from earlier editions, developer commentary that I'm not aware of, or simply wanting/assuming it to be that way and therefore not being able to read the text objectively. I've done some searching for the first two and haven't found anything, but I don't want to assume the latter too easily, so if anyone could enlighten me, that would be great.
But anyway, the first question is "What action is it to apply an oil to an unwilling target?"
#2: How do you resolve an attempt to apply an oil to an enemy?
Nothing in the rules for oils specifies this. My best guess is that you would make a melee touch attack to apply it, and failure would waste the oil (and remember, per the rules, it would provoke AoO's as normal).
Others have suggested that applying an oil to an enemy requires the enemy to be incapacitated to some degree or another (some say grappled, others pinned, others entirely helpless). I have asked for the reasoning/precedent for this opinion, and the closest thing to a reply I've gotten is that "it should be hard".
So the second question is "What must you do to resolve your attempt to apply an oil to an unwilling target?"
Unless we can miraculously resolve these two questions here when the other thread was just spinning its wheels, please click the "FAQ" button on the top-right of this post and see if we can get official clarification.
Thanks everyone!
The devs prefer separate posts for each question. You should do that to make the FAQing more specific.
|
#1b: Others have stated that the standard action listing only refers to applying an oil to yourself or your own gear. I would explain why, but no one's told me yet (though not for lack of me asking). My best guesses are wordings from earlier editions, developer commentary that I'm not aware of, or simply wanting/assuming it to be that way and therefore not being able to read the text objectively. I've done some searching for the first two and haven't found anything, but I don't want to assume the latter too easily, so if anyone could enlighten me, that would be great.
Assuming that you can apply an oil to an unwilling target as a standard action makes no sense whatsoever. It would imply that it's easier to apply an oil to an unwilling target than it is to a helpless one (which takes a full-round action); does that really sound plausible?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Assuming that you can apply an oil to an unwilling target as a standard action makes no sense whatsoever. It would imply that it's easier to apply an oil to an unwilling target than it is to a helpless one (which takes a full-round action); does that really sound plausible?
I'd be completely okay with it taking longer to oil a baddy. I'm not okay with PFS GMs (where this started) using that preference to trump what's written.
Now, if you could bring additional data (such as perhaps developer commentary) suggesting that standard-action activation wasn't supposed to be the default, then enemy-oiling would be left undefined, causing it to be GM's call, and then I'd consider making it a full-round action as well (maybe - I'd have to think on it a bit).
But that's not where we're at. The rules say standard action, and give no qualifiers. The FRA is for a specific circumstance, and the Standard is made as a blanket statement. Until you can invalidate that, then I see no room for calling other rulings anything other than putting the GM's preference above the rules. And in PFS at least, that's completely inappropriate.
Plausibility is sufficient cause for a houserule, or for adjudication of an undefined subject. It is not acceptable cause to simply contradict written rules in PFS.
So if you want to make a case, then make a case about how it is, not how you think it ought to be.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If you want to take a hard line on RAW, there is no provision in the rules for using a potion or oil as a weapon, unlike holy water or lamp oil, for example. Therefore, by a strict reading of RAW, it is not possible.
Could we avoid the "if you don't agree with me, then you have to believe absurdity X" arguments, please?
If you have nothing constructive to add in an effort to uncover the meaning of the rules, then please just FAQ it and move on.
If you want to demonstrate why "applying an oil is a standard action" applies to specific circumstances instead of being a default, then please make your case and I will listen. If the entirety of your case is the "I don't think it's plausible" that you've already voiced, then thanks for the input, and please click the FAQ button.
|
|
The rules for applying oils or drinking potions assume that the character in control of the potion is doing so to himself, his gear, or for an unconscious ally for the benefit of the ally.
Applying an oil to an enemy, whether helpless or not, is outside the scope of how the rules are written. They are a grey area. A PFS GM is totally within the scope of his responsibilities to decide how to handle it. That's true of any grey area.
If push came to shove, the full-round application to an unconscious or helpless creature is closer than the standard action to do so with full and active cooperation, as is implied with the standard action.
Oils and potions are not intended to be used as weapons. If people want to, kudos for thinking outside the box, but that's about the limit of positive response that I can provide for it.
Out of curiosity, is the idea of using poisons or oils offensively stemming from another game?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules for applying oils or drinking potions assume that the character in control of the potion is doing so to himself, his gear, or for an unconscious ally for the benefit of the ally.
Surely you of all people can help me, Howie. You're at least the fourth person to make the above claim in one form or another. But every time (so far) that I've asked how people came to that conclusion - that when the rules say "applying an oil is a standard action", that it really means "applying an oil to yourself is a standard action" - I've been completely ignored.
Please, can you tell me what you're basing this on? I see only two options: either there's something I've missed (developer commentary? precedent elsewhere in the rules? something else?), or people are just not challenging their assumptions and are reading the rules according to their pre-conceived ideas.
If there's something I've missed, PLEASE show me. Link it if it's a post. Quote it if it's precedent in other rules. Walk me through it if it's an argument/logical progression. Show me this one key point, and this issue gets solved. Completely.
If you, or anyone else, can provide just one good piece of data, just one thing to back up the idea that the standard action was only listed in reference to yourself, one idea that doesn't fly in the face of the written rules, then everything else people have been saying would follow naturally from there, and I would no longer disagree with you or Thod or Andrew or whoever else is of the same position. I would amend my position, then go into both threads about this and announce my retraction of my other statements, and I would keep references to your answer to show other people in the future. Please, show me the reasoning!
I do think the devs assume oils are applied to allies, but if the enemy is unconscious I don't see how it is any different than applying it to an object. Neither one can resist. The fact that someone does not like you should not change the application time if they are not conscious.
The only reason I think it is a full round action to apply a potion to an unconscious person is because they have to drink it.
Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.
By default, a potion (and similarly an oil) is a self-applied item. That is the general description. As an exception to that in subsequent text, the specific alternate of applying a potion (or oil) to an unconscious or helpless is described. The alternate use of applying the item to an unwilling target is not listed, so RAW it is not an option.
On another note, oils are designed to be used on an object. The text in the Potions section unfortunately does not come out and say, "oils may only contain spells that target an object." However, it: 1) does explicitly call out objects as the target of an oil; and 2) every oil listed in the random generation table is for a spell that targets an object.
It could be more explicitly spelled out, but a RAW argument can be made that oils are, "potions for objects." RAI is even easier to assert.
It seems that if the intent were to be able to use these offensively, they would've included text about having to make a touch attack, as they've done in just about every other similar instance.
I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other so I'm not going to forthrightly claim anything, but I do not see any reason to assume the above statement is not true.
I can see implementing a potion offensively as part of a dirty trick maneuver.
Or with Beguiling Gift :D
"HERE! Drink this!"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best argument I can make quickly that potions and oils are intended for user benefit only is this:
In the Random Potion generation tables listed in 5-20 to 5-23 of the GameMastery Guide (p124-125), inflict spells are not listed.
I admit this is a highly circumstantial argument and I agree that clarity would be appreciated.
I've seen inflict potions as loot. Also, they're legal according to creation rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see implementing a potion offensively as part of a dirty trick maneuver.Or with Beguiling Gift :D
"HERE! Drink this!"
Or by combining a Greater Steal maneuver with successfully planting a similar item. "We've secretly replaced this hero's regular potions with new Fowlgyr's brand instant ghoul touch crystals."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason I think it is a full round action to apply a potion to an unconscious person is because they have to drink it.
And in turn, I think the only reason it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious person is so that oils won't be "better" than potions. That's the only reason I can think of, given that if the unconscious person suddenly gets petrified and becomes an object, suddenly the same oil can be applied as a standard action. :P
I've seen inflict potions as loot. Also, they're legal according to creation rules.The best argument I can make quickly that potions and oils are intended for user benefit only is this:
In the Random Potion generation tables listed in 5-20 to 5-23 of the GameMastery Guide (p124-125), inflict spells are not listed.
I admit this is a highly circumstantial argument and I agree that clarity would be appreciated.
Were they off undead or dhampir bodies?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Thank you, WRoy, for making a reasoned-out argument. Here's how I'll address it:
By default, a potion (and similarly an oil) is a self-applied item.Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed.
Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).
The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.
Hold it! You bolded the part about potions, but what about oils? Read the very next line, which even gets its own paragraph:
"The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
See that? With potions, the rules state that the caster and target are the same person. With oils, the rules then turn around and specify that they don't have to be the same person. Now why would the rules include a whole separate line to explicitly show that difference, if they were assuming that it would be the same person?
If the caster/target relationship of potions is the reason for assuming self-use, then the fact that oils are specified to work differently actually works against your argument, rather than for it. This is a large part of why I don't think there's an intended assumption of self-use for oils.
Additionally, the rules also tell you what action it takes to apply an oil to an unconscious creature. If the assumption is self-use, then why is that there?
This is as far as I've gotten with anyone on that point, so if you have a rebuttal, I would be extremely interested in hearing it.
That is the general description. As an exception to that in subsequent text, the specific alternate of applying a potion (or oil) to an unconscious or helpless is described. The alternate use of applying the item to an unwilling target is not listed, so RAW it is not an option.
Unless, of course, the "applying an oil is a standard action" (that's straight from the rules) is the default, to which we must revert any time an exception is not specified. My contention here is that, since the listing of a standard action contains no qualifiers (and since, as I've described a moment ago, I don't think any qualifiers are assumed), then it's a default. And the nature of a default is that nothing is then left undefined; anything unspecified goes back to the default.
Now, if you rebut my earlier point about assumed qualifiers, then that causes that line to not be a default, and my whole position falls apart. So that's where you need to hit if you want to crumble my tower. ;)
On another note, oils are designed to be used on an object. The text in the Potions section unfortunately does not come out and say, "oils may only contain spells that target an object." However, it: 1) does explicitly call out objects as the target of an oil; and 2) every oil listed in the random generation table is for a spell that targets an object.
** spoiler omitted **
It could be more explicitly spelled out, but a RAW argument can be made that oils are, "potions for objects." RAI is even easier to assert.
For one thing, the rules explicitly state that "applying an oil to an unconscious creature is a full round action". So that shoots that down right there.
Additionally, exclusion from a random generation table doesn't mean much. After all, lots of spells didn't make it onto that list at all, even though they're totally legal to make into oils (or potions).
To sum up:
• Oils are not just for objects; they're for creatures too, as noted in the rules.
• If "applying an oil is a standard action" is a default, then any situation not explicitly listed (i.e., any situation other than an unconscious target) reverts back to that, keeping the standard action activation time.
• I believe that the rules do not imply any assumption of self-use for oils, for reasons stated above. It is this belief which causes the standard action activation to be a default. If you can refute this one, then everything else goes with it, so I recommend you focus your attention here. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Because as written, offensive use was never considered.
That's quite a claim to make. Consider the requirements that a spell must meet in order to be made into an oil:
• 3rd level or lower• Targets one or more creatures
• A certain max casting time
• Not a range of "personal"
Now, of all spells legal to be made into oils, what proportion do you think are purely offensive versus purely non-offensive?
If the vast majority were self-beneficial, then I could see them assuming self-use but not bothering to saying anything.
But they're not. There are a LOT of offensive spells that are legal to make into oils. Heck, they might even be the majority.
Do you have any idea how huge of an oversight it would be to allow more options that you didn't intend than options that you did?
I'm sorry, but if I've got to choose between an epic fail on the part of professional game designers versus a minor error of interpretation among some gamers, guess which one I think is more likely?
The rules don't mention using oils offensively. That does not mean the devs think it is illegal to do so, but only that such things were not considered when the rules were written. Hopefully this thread will prompt them to add rules for it like they have rules for the other situations.
In short I am not saying the intent is for this to not happen. I am saying it is one of those "I never thought about mentioning that" situations such as applying cleave to mirror image, or how the paladin's lay on hands uses positive energy, but it was not in the book specifically.
PS:Why is my "In short.." longer than the first paragraph.
I guess I should FAQ this now. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So, it would seem the offensive use of potions and oils is much like a coup de grace, and can only be used as a full-round action on a helpless target.
Would you mind sharing how you came to that conclusion? I'd love to see the logical steps that got there, in case I missed something.
So, it would seem the offensive use of potions and oils is much like a coup de grace, and can only be used as a full-round action on a helpless target.Would you mind sharing how you came to that conclusion? I'd love to see the logical steps that got there, in case I missed something.
I would like to hear know also.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules don't mention using oils offensively. That does not mean the devs think it is illegal to do so, but only that such things were not considered when the rules were written. Hopefully this thread will prompt them to add rules for it like they have rules for the other situations.
In short I am not saying the intent is for this to not happen. I am saying it is one of those "I never thought about mentioning that" situations such as applying cleave to mirror image, or how the paladin's lay on hands uses positive energy, but it was not in the book specifically.
PS:Why is my "In short.." longer than the first paragraph.
I guess I should FAQ this now. :)
Heh, if you want to talk about "forgot to mention", have a look at the post of mine directly above yours. Exactly that topic.
|
|
So, it would seem the offensive use of potions and oils is much like a coup de grace, and can only be used as a full-round action on a helpless target.Would you mind sharing how you came to that conclusion? I'd love to see the logical steps that got there, in case I missed something.
The only finding on using potions and oils on other creatures other than the potion holder, refer to unconscious(helpless) creatures(as far as I know). So, as of now, the only way written now that works within RAW, is to use them while the target is in this condition. This seems plausible in that even helpful potions, can be harmful, in certain situations. An example being giving an unconscious Dhampir a potion of cure light wounds.
Hold it! You bolded the part about potions, but what about oils? Read the very next line, which even gets its own paragraph:"The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target."
See that? With potions, the rules state that the caster and target are the same person. With oils, the rules then turn around and specify that they don't have to be the same person. Now why would the rules include a whole separate line to explicitly show that difference, if they were assuming that it would be the same person?
If the caster/target relationship of potions is the reason for assuming self-use, then the fact that oils are specified to work differently actually works against your argument, rather than for it. This is a large part of why I don't think there's an intended assumption of self-use for oils.
It can be read as referring to applying it to an object in your possession which is tantamount to self-imbibing, so it doesn't necessarily go against my argument at all.
Additionally, the rules also tell you what action it takes to apply an oil to an unconscious creature. If the assumption is self-use, then why is that there?
It's listed just the way exceptions to any mechanic are listed, in a subsequent paragraph. The way I interpret the Potions mechanics are:
- General rules in first section, "potions and oils are self-use items that you either drink or smear on your gear, respectively."
- Exception in a followup activation subrules, "you can use this potion or oil on an unconscious or helpless creature, but it takes longer."
The, "apply to a secondary unconscious target," verbage, which is a holdover from 3.0, was probably put in to have an actual rule instead of arbitrary DM fiat that existed in pre-d20 D&D for pouring healing potions down the gullet of your dying companions. That's just hypothesis, however.
Unless, of course, the "applying an oil is a standard action" (that's straight from the rules) is the default, to which we must revert any time an exception is not specified.
Nope, your tower is built on shaky ground. (Bickity-bam, the MF's rubble!)
You're quoting from the activation rules, not the prior section of text that is describing the nature of a potion. You're building qualifiers off the section that's in there to tell you the action economy of what the previous section told you the potion can do.
Granted, the exception mechanic to use the item on a secondary target is at the end of the activation section but one could argue (and I am) that it was purposely put there only because it has a different action economy than the item's general rule of self-administration.
To sum up:
• Oils are not just for objects; they're for creatures too, as noted in the rules. (RAW sure, RAI I disagree.)
• If "applying an oil is a standard action" is a default, then any situation not explicitly listed (i.e., any situation other than an unconscious target) reverts back to that, keeping the standard action activation time.(covered above, it's only a default for action economy, not targetting.)
• I believe that the rules do not imply any assumption of self-use for oils, for reasons stated above. It is this belief which causes the standard action activation to be a default. If you can refute this one, then everything else goes with it, so I recommend you focus your attention here. :) (Refuted as much as I'm going to do on muscle relaxers and with a potential ruptured disc in my neck right now, so I'm claiming victory and running before you can say otherwise. :P)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The only finding on using potions and oils on other creatures other than the potion holder, refer to unconscious(helpless) creatures(as far as I know). So, as of now, the only way written now that works within RAW, is to use them while the target is in this condition. This seems plausible in that even helpful potions, can be harmful, in certain situations. An example being giving an unconscious Dhampir a potion of cure light wounds.So, it would seem the offensive use of potions and oils is much like a coup de grace, and can only be used as a full-round action on a helpless target.Would you mind sharing how you came to that conclusion? I'd love to see the logical steps that got there, in case I missed something.
I addressed a similar stance here. In short (though please read that post too, or at least the relevant part of it), the rules state - without qualifiers - that applying an oil is a standard action. Since no qualifiers (such as "to yourself", etc) are given, the standard action is the default, and any application of an oil that doesn't have an explicit exception reverts back to that standard action.
The only way I can think of to debunk that point (yes, I'm telling you how to debunk my own view) is to show that the standard action has an implied qualifier that restricts it to certain situations instead of being a default. If you can do that, and if the qualifiers that you can show to be implied don't include enemies, then application of oils to enemies is left as "undefined" and is up to GM interpretation.
Have at it! I look forward to your response. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It can be read as referring to applying it to an object in your possession which is tantamount to self-imbibing, so it doesn't necessarily go against my argument at all.
Fair enough. I guess we could call this neutral then, as it would fit whether we were assuming self-use or not.
Interesting idea about a progression from earlier editions. If I followed you correctly, you're guessing that originally potions/oils were strictly for self-use, then enough people had the idea of pouring it down some schmuck's throat that it got added in? If so, that's an interesting thought. If you could show me that such a progression did indeed occur, then I guess I'd have to concede the possibility of that intent, leaving this whole topic in the "fuzzy" category.
-------+-------
Regarding whether or not the standard action is the default, I'm a little confused by your response. It sounds like you thought I was using that to support my idea that there's no assumption of self-use? It was a separate idea, that (assuming you even can apply an oil to an enemy, which is addressed separately) the action would be a standard rather than anything else. I'm not sure I follow your rebuttal, if that's what you were trying to rebut.
Or maybe we agree? Because your bolded summary to the second point at the end of your post does not seem to contradict what I was trying to get at with that idea.
-------+-------
Sorry about your back. :(
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It was the only way that seemed covered in RAW to use them this way. Others are, as said, undefined.
That's what you already said. I was interested in how you got to that idea in the first place. Re-stating your position doesn't clarify anything, I'm afraid.
If it helps organize your thoughts, look at the statements of mine that I referred you to, and tell me which specific parts you disagree with and why.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
It was the only way that seemed covered in RAW to use them this way. Others are, as said, undefined.That's what you already said. I was interested in how you got to that idea in the first place. Re-stating your position doesn't clarify anything, I'm afraid.
If it helps organize your thoughts, look at the statements of mine that I referred you to, and tell me which specific parts you disagree with and why.
Accidentally giving a dhampir enemy npc a cure potion gave me the thought.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The rules don't imply "not for self-use" - but the previously published usage (that I am aware of) definitely waggles its eyebrows in that direction.
I'm assuming that "not" is extraneous? ;)
Anyway, the more I try to get people to discuss this, the more I think that's what it is: tradition and/or assumption. It would certainly explain why the vast majority of people I'm trying to dialogue with keep going in circles of self-repitition, unable to articulate the sources of their ideas.
For whatever reason, people seem to have a hard time with the idea that their understanding of something could possibly be a legacy holdover/assumption and not actual rules (or even current intent, as Pathfinder changed a lot of stuff - sort of like how they announced before the CRB was even released that Flurry of Blows was being married to the TWF mechanic, yet so many people missed that change for years).
Interesting that WRoy - the one to be closest to converting me, at the moment - is actually using legacy tradition as his most compelling argument on the subject.
EDIT: I don't think that most of the oil-eligbile spells are not self-beneficial - but I'm rolling with the argument.
I'm certainly not going to count any time soon! But between inflicts, every single offensive touch spell (of appropriate level), and also ranged spells like charm person, spark, or magic missile; I feel pretty comfortable saying that offensive spells are in the majority.
Whelp, at this point I'm certain that the developers haven't really commented on this. SKR commented in a thread *about* this, but not with an answer to this question.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Whelp, at this point I'm certain that the developers haven't really commented on this. SKR commented in a thread *about* this, but not with an answer to this question.
Would you happen to know where? I'm always on the lookout for developer commentary to store away for future reference. (Check out the link in my profile!)
Interesting idea about a progression from earlier editions. If I followed you correctly, you're guessing that originally potions/oils were strictly for self-use, then enough people had the idea of pouring it down some schmuck's throat that it got added in? If so, that's an interesting thought. If you could show me that such a progression did indeed occur, then I guess I'd have to concede the possibility of that intent, leaving this whole topic in the "fuzzy" category.
Yeah, that's the way it was. (I started out with earlier editions back in `84.) I was just trying to make an educated (medicated?) guess on how the verbage came to be.
Re: what I meant about your standard action comments - taking a standard action is the default for activation time, but that's no basis for determining on what target the item can or cannot be used. The first section of Potions heavily implying they are for self-use (for you or your gear) is what defines the potion/oil's general parameters. Since using it on an unwilling target would be an exception, it is unallowable except by rule 0 due to not being detailed in exception text. Hopefully that makes sense; I think I'm starting to confuse myself. ;)
I FAQd this thread in any case, because it'd be good to see a clear answer.
And I've seen your list, but mine's bigger ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Re: what I meant about your standard action comments - taking a standard action is the default for activation time, but that's no basis for determining on what target the item can or cannot be used.
Mkay, that's what I thought it sounded like you were saying. To clarify, I wasn't trying to use it as such.
@Cheapy: Still "List"able. Thanks.
The only issue with charm person as I recall is "Who is the charmed person friendly towards? The original caster? Certainly not the former holder/hurler of the potion
The person applying an oil is the effective caster
Note that this is different than a potion, where the drinker (target) is always also the caster.
So a potion of charm person would be a great anti-depressant, while an oil of charm person would be great to rub on that beach girl's back instead of lotion. ;)
Kudos to OP for being so polite in all of this.
Another possibly relevant post by SKR
This time about dousing a smokestick in an oil of haste, and activating that under a giant spider.
Even if you can't use them offensively, perhaps you could intimidate a target into self-applying a hostile potion?
I get images for a new PFS character handing out inflict potions and threatening them with his wand of hydraulic push - "It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose!"
It's perfectly reasonable to consider the possibility of an oversight in the rules. Professional Game Designers they are, but they are also human, with page counts and publishing deadlines. Have you seen the errors that went into Ultimate Magic originally? So, mistakes happen. Besides, this section of the rules is almost identical to "the 3.5 edition of the world's oldest roleplaying game" (the difference is a missing bit about concentration, presumably because that's no longer a skill). So we can blame those folks ;-)
There isn't some missing [existing] piece of the puzzle here, the rules just have a hole. It's not a big deal, though.
But until a Paizo representative steps in, the most logical response (to me) seems to be to disallow application of oils to an unwilling target, just as you'd disallow administration of a potion to an unwilling target. The target would have to be knocked out first. And technically, it would seem you can't administer a potion to a willing conscious person, either.
The fact that hostile potions or oils can exist doesn't necessarily directly support using a potion or oil on an unwilling target. It could be sabotage (swap potions of CLW for ILW, or Rusting Grasp instead of Magic Weapon). Or references to popular culture, like WRoy's post...
Oils really should be objects only, but that isn't consistent with the rules. Oh, well.
Edit: Oops!! Flagged now :)