Ok, Vaporous Potion Feat.
Does this feat weaponize potions by forcing the subject to drink them (no save)? That seems very strong... Aboleth's Lung, and I'm sure many others
Why should there be no save?
Java Man wrote: Why should there be no save? Because the feat text doesn't say a thing about the target getting a save?
"On impact, the vial breaks and a cloud of barely visible potion vapor fills the square it lands in (this vapor does not obscure normal sight in any way). If a creature is in that square, it gains the benefits of the potion immediately as though it had imbibed the potion."
So they can't, for example, hold their breath?
Quote: as though it had imbibed the potion When you imbibe a potion you get a save from the spell it contains, and spell resistance applies. So the creature would get a save from the effects of a vaporous potion.
You are assumed to forgo your save whenever you are targeted by a harmless effect that offers a save, e.g. drinking a potion. Even if a cleric comes up and touches you with a CLW, you are offered a save which the game assumes you will reject, and there isn't anything that stops you from rejecting it short of superstitious raging barbarian, but it that doesn't mean you aren't offered the save.
Force someone to breathe an Aboleth's Lung potion and they still get a save, regardless of the form of the effect's delivery.
Hibernate has no save or spell resistance, renders the subject paralyzed for CL minutes...
pad300 wrote: Hibernate has no save or spell resistance, renders the subject paralyzed for CL minutes... The first line of that spell description specifies a 'willing subject' so you can't really use it offensively...
Quote: A creature entering the vapor’s space can hold its breath to refrain from inhaling the potion. Besides the save, if you know of the existence of the cloud created by the vaporous potion, you can negate the effect by holding your breath.
Diego Rossi wrote: Quote: A creature entering the vapor’s space can hold its breath to refrain from inhaling the potion. Besides the save, if you know of the existence of the cloud created by the vaporous potion, you can negate the effect by holding your breath. You can just toss it in a creature's square and the potion affects them without giving them the chance to hold their breath.
AwesomenessDog wrote: You are assumed to forgo your save whenever you are targeted by a harmless effect that offers a save, e.g. drinking a potion. Even if a cleric comes up and touches you with a CLW, you are offered a save which the game assumes you will reject, and there isn't anything that stops you from rejecting it short of superstitious raging barbarian, but it that doesn't mean you aren't offered the save.
Force someone to breathe an Aboleth's Lung potion and they still get a save, regardless of the form of the effect's delivery.
That is my understanding of what happens when one takes a potion, as well... The save still exists, it is just rejected.
I think we covered this ad nauseam in all the Injection/Syringe Spear threads...
pad300 wrote: Java Man wrote: Why should there be no save? Because the feat text doesn't say a thing about the target getting a save? Others have said it already, but this FAQ makes it explicit that potions keep the saving throw of their respective spells, even if the drinker is unsuspecting or unprepared.
alas, the basic Potion rules also state that the imbiber is in full control of the spell, including dismissing it. This killed my plan to use Gaseous Form & Poisoner's Gloves as a great debuff. It still works until they dismiss the spell (wasted action).
Technically, your GM should be asking if you want to save for every single potion you imbibe (unless the spell wouldn't allow a save). Even (harmless) spells allow a save, if a character desires. So... they should be asking, not assuming. Rulings seem to imply a character can just choose to forgo or fail a saving throw whether an effect is harmless or not. Also, since there is no ruling or wording that implies a PC knows in-character that a save has a tag like (harmless) or Ruse or disbelief (though their character might get bonuses if they do make the save, they don't get to know that it's a poison save or a charm save) they shouldn't couch the wording in such a way, ie. They shouldn't say "This is a harmless effect... do you want to make the save?". They should just say, "Are you forgoing the save?"
This isn't usually an issue, but most GMs don't give a character an opportunity to save when a beneficial potion is imbibed (which could lead to half healing for cure potions). While of benefit to the PCs, the truth is that when they imbibe something that may be harmful but they have no reason to suspect otherwise, and the GM does ask, it causes a metagame and OOC reaction that taints the fact that otherwise their character does tend to drink things with trust and acceptance (unless they've specifically brewed or identified the potion themselves).
So not an immense issue and not a Rules failing, but more of an 'This isn't how most games are run and inadvertently gives things away' issue. For instance, if your PC found a potion labeled 'Fly' (it is, but they don't know for sure) and they came to a cliff and drank it... Then the GM says 'Are you going to make a saving throw against this effect?" That will give a player pause and build dramatic tension. Suddenly they're thinking 'Uh oh... if this was poison that's 1d3 Con damage for the next 6 rounds' (the Pathfinder poison spell is nowhere near as scary as 3.x poison) or do they trust this unknown potion to be labeled correctly and risk making a save (which is their right, even though it's (harmless), but they don't know that) ... which if they pass... negates the effect and basically wastes the potion?
Most GMs never consider this and just assume the character is accepting the effects of the potion... even if by the Rules they would get one... the act of imbibing (ie, voluntary, as opposed to being injected or force-fed) is a clear indicator they are forgoing a save.
TL/DR Yes, they are entitled to saving throws BUT the GM should always be asking if they are forgoing a save when they imbibe a potion (or receive a spell) that they aren't 100% sure of (ie. brewed or identified themselves).
In the case of a Vaporous Potion, then most likely anyone in the cloud is going to attempt a save when an enemy hits them with something. By that measure, however, if an ally yells, "Here's a healing potion!" and throws it at you, you should still be asked if you want to attempt a save, because while it's probably safe... maybe that ally is an enemy in disguise, charmed, or is just throwing a potion they thought was cure light wounds but wasn't.
Good argument, sadly it becomes rapidly annoying at a gaming table.
I GMed characters with the ability to reroll one die roll every day before knowing the result. Having the whole table waiting for them to decide if they want to use the ability means that every other character that had to make the same save did need to wait to know what was the result of his save, halting the game. Thankfully they were people that can decide fast, but having a hiccup at every die roll they make become old rapidly.
Asking every time "You want to roll a save?" has the same effect.
I don't know if the increased immersion will compensate for the increased annoyance.
Diego Rossi wrote: Good argument, sadly it becomes rapidly annoying at a gaming table.
...
Possibly, but 'whenever you drink a potion' is not 'every die roll'. I don't know how many potions your entire party are drinking down in a game day but it's highly unlikely it will match the number of dice rolled even by one character in a day.
Even in the case of rerolling the die result once per day, once you've used your 1/day it's not holding anyone up, so it's only an issue if you aren't using it. In which case, why have the ability? But different games and groups are different.
No but unless you have an alchemist in the party, you will be almost always be asking this question when you drink a potion, and that gets compounded when you have one of 30 potions in a sack of CLW potions as some cursed effect and they are just grabbing at random.
A better thing to keep in mind, and even some of the best player protest this, is if they have zero reason to suspect something they are imbibing, or in this case inhaling, then just assume they auto fail the save. If the character has no reason to be suspicious, they would just default, even if the player is a paranoid nutcase.
The FAQ on potions and saves sure implies that you can't be tricked into forgoing the save, or paranoid yourself into resisting a cure.
"Potions: If I drink a potion, do I automatically forgo my save against that potion?
No. Nothing in the potion rules says it changes whether or not you get a saving throw against the spell stored in the potion. Even if someone hands you a potion of poison and tells you it’s a potion of cure serious wounds, you still get a save."
But what is doesn't say is do you get to know that you made the roll (or is it a secret roll)? That said, "secret rolls" aren't really a thing covered by the rules, and thus said table variation.
Well, when you succeed on a saving throw you are aware that you resisted an attack, and if you fail you know you are jacked in some fashion. If either of these occurs right after drinking a potion it would seem kinda obvious, particularly when the expected effect of the potion doesn't occur.
Not necessarily, the effects could be non obvious if you fail, e.g. detect thoughts, but that's not a good potion example. A potion of bestow curse (wisdom) might not let the character realize they have been affected.
What the FAQ says is very clear. Potions do allow saves (if their spell does), what it doesn't cover is when a player voluntarily accepts a spell's effect (ie. forgoes or voluntarily fails a save, which most people think is a thing they can do) such as through their actions like voluntarily imbibing a potion.
It's also from 2012, before the creation of Ruse spells (Ultimate Intrigue, I believe. On phone, can't link easily).
Ruse spells clarify the times when a (harmless) spell, which is mostly what this part of the discussion is about, allows a save; when the character knows or suspects its true nature (which I read as having a reason to be suspicious that it isn't what it's supposed to be). Possibly this only specifically applies to Rused spells, but the wording isn't as specific and seems to be an indication that if a character has no suspicion from a (harmless) effect (or it's origin/caster) they don't get a save.
Obviously this is specifically about creatures voluntarily imbibing things. In the case of Vaporous Potion, if an enemy hits you with the cloud you're probably going to attempt a save. Whereas if an Ally says "This is cure light wounds" and throws a vaporous potion you probably aren't going to attempt one. The GM should still ask, because it is a player's right to get one. After all, that Ally could be an enemy in disguise, charmed, or they don't know what the potion actually is.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
