I ran into a situation last night that frustrated one of my players. Basically one of his allies, another PC, was confused and he wanted to feed him a focus cathartic elixir to attempt to counteract the confused condition. But confused means you don't treat anyone as your ally, and this confused person is straight up attacking this guy trying to pour an elixir in his mouth. After a bit of back and forth (maybe an attack roll, etc) I said whatever they want to do, just know that it opens the door for enemies to force poisons into your mouth. Eventually they gave up and just attacked him but the Alchemist player was a little annoyed.
Am I wrong, is the item an oversight, or any other insights into this situation?
Focus Cathartic is intended to work and be usable.
Ruling that you can't use it yourself because drinking an elixir is not Strike or casting an offense cantrip, and your teammates can't feed it to you because you don't consider them to be an ally... is Technically RAW. But also fails the checks in the Ambiguous Rules rule, which is also RAW.
Similarly it can be argued that you can't feed an elixir to an ally - only a potion.
I agree with Breit. Per RAW, Focus Cathartic can't work on a Confused creature, which is in direct contradiction with RAI (as it's rather obviously intended to work on a Confused character). In that case, RAI prevails and you should allow your player to use it somehow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Focus Cathartic is intended to work and be usable.
Ruling that you can't use it yourself because drinking an elixir is not Strike or casting an offense cantrip, and your teammates can't feed it to you because you don't consider them to be an ally... is Technically RAW. But also fails the checks in the Ambiguous Rules rule, which is also RAW.
Similarly it can be argued that you can't feed an elixir to an ally - only a potion.
Wait what do mean you can't feed an elixir to an ally RAW? From Aon;
You usually Interact to activate an elixir as you drink it or feed it to another creature. You can feed an elixir only to a creature within reach that is either willing or unable to prevent you from doing so. You usually need only one hand to consume an elixir or feed it to another creature.
Hmmm... Did they add that at some point? I thought that initially that wording was only in the Potion rules text.
Hmmm... Did they add that at some point? I thought that initially that wording was only in the Potion rules text.
I'm not sure. But it's because of that that I made my ruling. Though you're probably both right, it does bother me to so clearly contradict RAW.
it does bother me to so clearly contradict RAW.
Yeah, I know the feeling.
Which is why I point out that the Ambiguous Rules rule is also RAW.
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW, you would have to Restrain the PC before feeding them the elixir, which could be difficult if you don't have someone good at Athletics in the party. You could just make the PC make an Athletics check against their Fort DC to force them to drink it as part of the activate action. The confused PC would be struggling and attempting to not drink it, so imposing some sort of check makes sense.
We overlooked the rules: Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
So the item works fine. Willing is a player's decision more than a character's one.
Relying on RAW loopholes instead of leaning on RAI is a mistake. One that the Ambiguous Rules rule is trying to correct.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran into that exact situation myself, having the formula ready with Infused Reagents budgeted after a Gibbering Mouther did its thing. I instead threw a bomb to splash the confused character.
-----------------
Even after reading through all this, I absolutely cannot agree that you can feed it to a confused ally.
Conditions like Sickened explicitly impose serious dangers that are often overlooked, and Confused is no exception. Specific beats general, Confused explicitly prevents them from being allies.
While I certainly share the Alchemist frustrations, such as a Feat being Healing Bomb instead of Elixir Bomb (seriously, so many over-restrictive Feat niches it's maddening), that's no excuse to say "this one time the obvious oversight means they wanted the rules to change"
----------------------
While absurdly niche, if I knew I was going to going to face Gibbering Mouthers or other Confuse-happy monsters, I'd grab something(s) w/ the Injection trait:
This weapon can be filled with a liquid, usually an injury poison. Immediately after a successful attack with the weapon, you can inject the target with the loaded contents with a single Interact action. (If the target is willing, the injection takes only 1 Interact action total.) Refilling the weapon with a new substance requires 3 Interact actions and uses two hands.
----------------------
If you need to use a Focus Cathartic for the Confused removal, you do need some way to force it upon a former ally.
The rules are not at all perfect, and to assume Focus Cathartic was intended to be feedable to Confused allies should be a laugh, but I'm out of them atm.
---------------------
Man, if they really leave those over-specific Feats like Healing Bomb or Quick Bomber unchanged for the remaster, it'll take a while for all the salt to wash out.
This got a lot more rant-y than I planned.
Relying on RAW loopholes instead of leaning on RAI is a mistake. One that the Ambiguous Rules rule is trying to correct.
There's no RAW loophole, a Confused character is willing as long as the player is willing. This is RAW, RAI, and so the Focus Cathartic works fine.
Confused explicitly prevents them from being allies.
Willing and ally are not the same. If Elixirs were supposed to work on an ally, it'd state so. There are 2 different terms for 2 different rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Relying on RAW loopholes instead of leaning on RAI is a mistake. One that the Ambiguous Rules rule is trying to correct.There's no RAW loophole, a Confused character is willing as long as the player is willing. This is RAW, RAI, and so the Focus Cathartic works fine.
You are injecting a loophole. The RAI of Confused is that the character does not consider anyone in the party to be an ally and will not be a willing target of any of their abilities or effects. Whether they say 'willing creature' or 'ally' in their Target: line. Either one works. Because those are generally seen as equivalent as far as the other PCs are concerned. I don't expect that the rule and ability writers have been all that rigorous about keeping those concepts separate.
Sure, it clarifies the ruling of this particular item - Focus Cathartic. But what a can of worms it opens up. Have you done any looking around at abilities that this idea suddenly allows to be used in? Scenarios where the ability shouldn't be?
Have you done any looking around at abilities that this idea suddenly allows to be used in? Scenarios where the ability shouldn't be?
For example: Pack Attack
I think Share Rage does the best job of showing how at least a few of the writers consider 'ally' and 'willing creature' to be pretty much equivalent.
You are injecting a loophole.
No, I'm not. I'm reading the rules about willing and apply them as is. In the case of Focus Cathartic, they work wonder and allow RAW to be in line with RAI.
Willing doesn't seem to be a character thing but a player thing, something I can understand. If there was no willing and if it was replaced by ally, then a follower of the Laws of Mortality would not be able to refuse a Heal from a Cleric. So I see an intent: Your allies can't trick/force your character into being a willing target, something very important to a Superstition Barbarian or a Follower of the Laws of Mortality and any other situation where your character position on a specific effect is not the common position.
Anyway, in current situation, you are just straight up making up rules and then complain that they don't work. Maybe you should just apply the rules about willing, they seem to work fine. And applying them to Share Rage and Pack Attack doesn't seem to be the problem you say it is (I hardly see someone Sharing their Rage with a Confused ally, so it should never come up). If you find a situation where willing is problematic I'd reconsider my point of view, but as is it seems fine.
As a side note, your interpretation also raises issue. It means you can't heal a Confused ally, that can straight up lead to a character death. So I think it's safer to apply the RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Willing being a player choice even if the PC is not in any shape to say they're willing or not was also an answer to the extremely loaded issue of "is unconscious willing or unwilling ?".
Exactly. You can Heal an Unconscious character even if they are Confused or Controlled.
Now, I don't say that in the case of the Confused character you should be able to feed them a Focus Cathartic without a check or whatever. It's just that the rules allow you to do so, but the GM is fully allowed to consider there's a need for anything. I was just pointing out that RAW doesn't block the use of the Focus Cathartic.
Edit: The more I look at it the more I think you're the one who opens a can of worms, Breithautptclan, as your ruling of willing creates a lot of issues.
I'm still on the "need to force feed/inject" side.
---------------
Confused
Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 4.0
You don't have your wits about you, and you attack wildly. You are flat-footed, you don't treat anyone as your ally (though they might still treat you as theirs), and you can't Delay, Ready, or use reactions.You use all your actions to Strike or cast offensive cantrips, though the GM can have you use other actions to facilitate attack, such as draw a weapon, move so that a target is in reach, and so forth. Your targets are determined randomly by the GM. If you have no other viable targets, you target yourself, automatically hitting but not scoring a critical hit. If it's impossible for you to attack or cast spells, you babble incoherently, wasting your actions.
Each time you take damage from an attack or spell, you can attempt a DC 11 flat check to recover from your confusion and end the condition.
----------
This is specific trumping general. Even if the player is willing, the Character is Confused.
There's no way I can read that text and allow anything short of restrained force-feeding, ect.
Confused is a SERIOUS condition.
This is not a small affair, a Confused character will shoot their closest allies or ACTIVELY KILL THEMSELF. They will not passively accept a bloody elixir to drink and swallow, FFS, please consider the text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a small affair, a Confused character will shoot their closest allies or ACTIVELY KILL THEMSELF. They will not passively accept a bloody elixir to drink and swallow, FFS, please consider the text.
Death is a much more serious condition if you want my point of view. And even death doesn't prevent a player from choosing if their character is willing or not.
This is specific trumping general.
Not the slightest. The rules are clear: Conditions don't affect willingness.
Also, why are people fighting for a rule that is obviously wrong and then correcting it with the proper rule instead of fighting for the proper rule in the first place?
I'm still on the "need to force feed/inject" side.
The GM can always come up with a specific rule to handle a specific situation, that's rule number 0. Still, I think it pretty much kills Focus Cathartic. Considering how the item is niche and that there's already a counteract check, I'd not add an extra check to just disgust my Alchemist player.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a small affair, a Confused character will shoot their closest allies or ACTIVELY KILL THEMSELF. They will not passively accept a bloody elixir to drink and swallow, FFS, please consider the text.Death is a much more serious condition if you want my point of view. And even death doesn't prevent a player from choosing if their character is willing or not.
This is specific trumping general.Not the slightest. The rules are clear: Conditions don't affect willingness.
Also, why are people fighting for a rule that is obviously wrong and then correcting it with the proper rule instead of fighting for the proper rule in the first place?
I'm still on the "need to force feed/inject" side.The GM can always come up with a specific rule to handle a specific situation, that's rule number 0. Still, I think it pretty much kills Focus Cathartic. Considering how the item is niche and that there's already a counteract check, I'd not add an extra check to just disgust my Alchemist player.
Death leaves the soul, which has agency. Confused is an active disruption of ones ability to see friend from foe.
It's literally conceptualized as a complete loss of control and a violent, paranoid frenzy.
It's absurd to have the player's "I want it" to trump the character's altered mental state. Are the hands of the player reaching down to force their mouth open???
You are being unbelievably and irrationally obstinate here.
If you really think player overrides Confused willingness, what do you say about the Controlled Condition?
Controlled
Source Core Rulebook pg. 618 4.0
Someone else is making your decisions for you, usually because you're being commanded or magically dominated. The controller dictates how you act and can make you use any of your actions, including attacks, reactions, or even Delay. The controller usually does not have to spend their own actions when controlling you.
Are you seriously going to double down and claim that the Player gets to trump all questions of willingness / ally in opposition of being Controlled, or can you admit that Conditions can override the player?
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will saves are often the scariest, and Stupefy is perhaps the most debilitating long lasting condition for any caster. Needing to pass a DC to cast each spell is enough to make them want to go home.
Focus Cathartic is worth the formula for that alone, the item doesn't need to also be a silver bullet for Confusion.
.
Moreover, the Treasure Vault added the Injection Reservoir adjustment that any Alch can slap onto piercing weapons.
While the writer of that item blurb completely forgot about the friendly elixir injections, that's the way to use the Confused remedy side of Focus Cathartic.
Yes, it needs prep, no that's not a bad thing.
While Confused is horrendously severe, it's also disrupted by damage.
The idea of spending the Quick Alch actions and Reagents should not be an automatic choiceless thing.
Hitting the ally with splash, or even an unarmed Strike all trigger that DC 11 check.
Are you seriously going to double down and claim that the Player gets to trump all questions of willingness / ally in opposition of being Controlled, or can you admit that Conditions can override the player?
Yes, I do. This is RAW. If I have a good reason to review the rules I could do it but by default I follow them.
Also, as I stated above, I feel that willing is a player thing, not a character one. And Controlled doesn't remove player agenda.Anyway, it seems that I'm irredeemably irrational and obstinate to you. I don't feel you can properly interact with me.
Are you seriously going to double down and claim that the Player gets to trump all questions of willingness / ally in opposition of being Controlled, or can you admit that Conditions can override the player?Yes, I do. This is RAW. If I have a good reason to review the rules I could do it but by default I follow them.
Also, as I stated above, I feel that willing is a player thing, not a character one. And Controlled doesn't remove player agenda.Anyway, it seems that I'm irredeemably irrational and obstinate to you. I don't feel you can properly interact with me.
Do you honestly think that is how those two Conditions were intended to function? Or do you think it's okay to say "grats you found a RaW loophole, have fun breaking the game"?
-------------------------
You do understand how that ruling completely breaks the Controlled Condition, yes?
As was pointed out, allies and willingness are intertwined, and Share Rage is a perfect textual example of ally and willing target being used interchangeably.
How exactly is a Controlled PC supposed to interact with spell casting at all if the player gets to say "nope" and dictate who is an ally?
FFS, the idea of someone Striding up to a Controlled PC and they willingly open their mouth to accept some sleeping elixir or something is just wild. Or the reverse, the controller ordering the PC to drink a potion and when the Controlled PC pops the cork, it just splashes against their closed lips.
Or the Controlled PC casting an ally-safe AoE spell that does nothing to the party, but somehow hits the big boss.
This may be the most self-contradictory / incompatible ruling that I have ever seen in any forum, post, ect.
.
Don't forget this would go both ways. Any player making use of the Controlled condition essentially has a broken minion that will never function w/ beneficial spells, ect.
---------------------------
I honestly did not expect you to double down there, and it's really done a number on your credibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chill, man. If you are expecting to convince everyone on the internet that you are right, you are going to be sorely disappointed.
If you have made your case to the best of your ability, then that is sufficient. The people at the table are the ones who will make the final call. They are the jury - we are just the lawyers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you honestly think that is how those two Conditions were intended to function? Or do you think it's okay to say "grats you found a RaW loophole, have fun breaking the game"?
Willing is a purely metagamey notion.
For example, you can play a Liberator in PFS, and someone at the table plays a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon. You don't know them at all. And the Cleric casts a spell on you and you don't know what it is because you don't have Recognize Spell and you are supposed to say Yes or No.
Thing is, the player knows the spell and the player makes the choice. It has nothing to do with the character but with the player.
This rule is completely metagamey to me and I apply it because I think it is good for the game (I play quite some PFS I must admit). Bringing logic into Willing will just show how the whole notion isn't holding much water.
Also, Unconscious characters roll Reflex saves. What's good for the game isn't always what you expect.