Started playing an Investigator (Alchemical Sciences) and wanted to make sure I'm getting some of the rules right.
1. Was thinking of picking up a familiar (vs archetypes) at some point and use it primarily to feed elixirs I create to allies, and was thinking of the action economy of it. It seems I would have to (1) Quick Tincture, (2) hand elixir to familiar, then (3) command familiar. The familiar would then (1) stride, and (2) feed elixir to ally. Does that look right? Feels kind of a waste of a familiar though since I could simply (1) Quick Tincture, (2) stride, and (3) feed elixir to ally, i.e. do the same without a familiar. Only benefit I see then is if I need to stay at my location for whatever reasons.
2. A couple of familiar abilities don't seem to interact with Quick Tincture RAW. Lab Assistant specifically mentions Quick Alchemy only, while Extra Reagents specifically specifically infused reagents, but Quick Tincture uses versatile vials, not infused reagents. Was wondering if it is intentional for Investigators not to have access to these? (Not a major issue since this is a home game and the GM would allow but just got me thinking.)
3. I noticed that Quick Tincture items only last until end of the turn, while Quick Alchemy items last until start of next turn. Again, I'm taking this as intentional, which means I can't hand an item over to my ally for them to drink on their turn. Hence the whole shenigans in #1 to feed them within my turn. (Familiars, being minions, act on your turn.) Again, just checking to see I interpreted the rules correctly, and wondering if there are other implications.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds about right to me.
1) The order of actions you list would work. I think anyway. Maybe a restrictive GM would forbid the familiar from being able to feed the elixir or even to carry the item. Might need to take valet or manual dexterity ability as a compromise. And yeah, the point would be so that you could stay at your current (safe) location.
2) I expect that this discrepancy is because Investigator is in a later book while Extra Reagents is in CRB. It would be an excessively strict GM that would prevent that from working.
3) I hadn't noticed that, but I expect that this is because the designers didn't want Quick Tincture to overshadow the Alchemist. Not that there is much risk of that considering how limited Quick Tincture is compared to Quick Alchemy in regards to quantity per day, and types of items that can be created. Or it could be that whoever wrote the rules for Quick Tincture didn't reference Quick Alchemy closely enough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just plain doesn't work, Familiars aren't able to use potions or alchemical items because they do not have the Companion Trait.
Furthermore, it also goes onto specify that animals can NEVER "Activate Items" in a manner that suggests is should even override GM discretion. I suppose if you have a Leshy Familiar or another type that's NOT an animal you can bypass that part but it doesn't help regardless due to the lack of the Companion Trait.
This would need a whole new Familiar Ability that carves our exceptions for this but that's homebrew territory, though it would be pretty easy to write up and I see NOTHING wrong with making an option for a player in a home game. Beyond that, it's not even ambiguous in this case, RAW does not permit this.
This just plain doesn't work, Familiars aren't able to use potions or alchemical items because they do not have the Companion Trait.
Furthermore, it also goes onto specify that animals can NEVER "Activate Items" in a manner that suggests is should even override GM discretion. I suppose if you have a Leshy Familiar or another type that's NOT an animal you can bypass that part but it doesn't help regardless due to the lack of the Companion Trait.
This would need a whole new Familiar Ability that carves our exceptions for this but that's homebrew territory, though it would be pretty easy to write up and I see NOTHING wrong with making an option for a player in a home game. Beyond that, it's not even ambiguous in this case, RAW does not permit this.
Nothing except Rule 0 and safety of the players would override GM discretion. If they want animals to activate items, so be it. Keep in mind that unless I am mistaken, the section you quoted is for Worn items. Does it apply to ALL items, or just worn magic items? That makes it ambiguous. Plenty of animals can activate objects through pushing buttons or using levers and pulleys.
If you want to get into house rules to fill in the gaps, there is nothing wrong with allowing an animal to drink an elixir, especially if poured in a bowl. There are plenty of unmodified animals (primates for certain) who could be trained to remove a stopper and drink or pour an elixir out, instead of doing it for them. However, it would likely be too complicated of an activity to have an animal retrieve a vial and pour it down another creatures throat. Oils would be the most reasonable consumable for a familiar or other animal to "activate" if someone wanted to see that happen.
|
Quick Tincture expires quickly because it's intended to be used only by you, as the Investigator in 1e was intended. Investigators are a combat class, learn some formula that can help you hit easier (cat's eye/quicksilver), or defensive formula to make you harder to hit (mistform). Eagle Eye Elixir can help during an investigation when looking for clues as well. And don't neglect Tools. Forensic Dye is right up your alley, Bloodhound Mask can grant you Scent temporarily, and Blanches can help you bypass resistances on the spot. And lets not forget the best alchemical tool in the game, Sovereign Glue.
How did we get to the idea of the familiar drinking the elixir? kuey and I were only having the familiar feed the elixir to a different party member.
|
|
Activation is the part that's the problem, no companion can ever do this, they're explicitly forbidden from doing so and that's the issue, potions are by definition "Activated" when actions are spent to use them either by the creature using it on themselves or by feeding it to another. If equipment has be "Activated" in any way that kills the ability for a Familiar, Animal Companion, Summoned Creatures, and potentially even Eidolons when they drop if they aren't given a carve-out to exempt them from this restriction.
I don't exactly think it makes sense to have this hard restriction in place, especially since things like Manual Dexterity really do feel like they were supposed to open up the things you Familiar can do but... yeah, that's the RAW here.
Fair points on Rule 0 for certain but that's not really part of the actual question here, anyone can ask for a ruling from their GM to ignore that rule but that would fall under "Advice" and not "Rules" questions.
...
2. A couple of familiar abilities don't seem to interact with Quick Tincture RAW. Lab Assistant specifically mentions Quick Alchemy only, while Extra Reagents specifically specifically infused reagents, but Quick Tincture uses versatile vials, not infused reagents. Was wondering if it is intentional for Investigators not to have access to these? (Not a major issue since this is a home game and the GM would allow but just got me thinking.)
...
It is intentional. While it does restrict some options, it also means that the number of versatile vials "stack" with the number of infused reagents that you might get through Alchemist MC or Herbalist.
If you gain infused reagents from more than one source, you use the highest number of reagents to determine your pool rather than adding them together.
----------
You might find these tables handy for planning out your Alchemical Sciences advancement.
• Investigator (Alchemical Sciences)
And for comparison.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Activation is the part that's the problem, no companion can ever do this, they're explicitly forbidden from doing so and that's the issue, potions are by definition "Activated" when actions are spent to use them either by the creature using it on themselves or by feeding it to another. If equipment has be "Activated" in any way that kills the ability for a Familiar, Animal Companion, Summoned Creatures, and potentially even Eidolons when they drop if they aren't given a carve-out to exempt them from this restriction.
I don't exactly think it makes sense to have this hard restriction in place, especially since things like Manual Dexterity really do feel like they were supposed to open up the things you Familiar can do but... yeah, that's the RAW here.
OK. Found it. I was trying to remember where that restriction was printed. I vaguely remember it existing, but wanted to check the exact wording.
And yeah, I'll concede RAW on this. But not RAI. Things like Valet and Manual Dexterity sure look like they should be meant to able to let a familiar feed a potion to someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This just plain doesn't work, Familiars aren't able to use potions or alchemical items because they do not have the Companion Trait.
Furthermore, it also goes onto specify that animals can NEVER "Activate Items" in a manner that suggests is should even override GM discretion. I suppose if you have a Leshy Familiar or another type that's NOT an animal you can bypass that part but it doesn't help regardless due to the lack of the Companion Trait.
This would need a whole new Familiar Ability that carves our exceptions for this but that's homebrew territory, though it would be pretty easy to write up and I see NOTHING wrong with making an option for a player in a home game. Beyond that, it's not even ambiguous in this case, RAW does not permit this.
This is not that clear cut. You have 2 contradictory sentences:
"an animal can never Activate an Item" and "A potion is a magical liquid activated when you drink it".So, what happens when an Animal feeds you with a potion?
The GM can clearly choose one sentence or the other and rule that the potion has or doesn't have an effect. But my experience is that GMs consider that drinking a potion activates it no matter what.
Then, you can argue on the ability to feed someone with a potion. So the GM has to decide when a Familiar has the ability to open a potion and put its content into a hole. A Familiar with Master Form is a Humanoid and as such can do it. Manual Dexterity should also cover that case.
So, overall, it's GM-dependent, but the only way for a GM to entirely forbid it is to consider that a potion may not have an effect when drank, which is quite a crazy ruling.
Actually, after sleeping on it, my point of view has evolved. The rules are "A potion is a magical liquid activated when you drink it, which uses it up[...] You can activate a potion with an Interact action as you drink it or feed it to another creature.".
So, a potion is activated when you drink it, which is what everyone would expect: whatever way the liquid ends up in your mouth, drinking it activates it.
The second sentence is a complement to the first sentence, it gives 2 ways of achieving this goal, but it's not exclusive.
An Animal can't benefit from the second sentence as it would mean the Animal activate the potion. But an Animal can still feed someone with a potion. In that case, the potion will be activated when drunk, so the result is the same.
Conclusion: If a Familiar feeds someone with a potion, it activates the potion.
The only question left is: Can a Familiar feed someone with a potion? And I think feeding someone with a potion enters the scope of Manual Dexterity.
Why are we talking about potions and not alchemical elixirs, which is what Investigators make?