Are These Ideas A Sack of Rats?

[Rachel]

In most cases this is a waste of a standard action but it can be handy sometimes. I would be more hesitant to call someone a cheater. It is a creative use of a power and only borderline useful coming at a cost.

It's "cheating" in terms of the spirit of the game, IMHO.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's "cheating" in terms of the spirit of the game, IMHO.

IMHO it is not.

So the OP can decide what fits his game more.

 

[Colmarr]

A Guardian Druid (who is the party medic) who shifts around pouring potions down the throats of party members (on a regular basis).

Can someone explain to me how this is abusable?

It seems to me to be an entirely inefficient way of using the druid's actions, and it costs gp to boot.

In fact, if the druid's main role is potion delivery, wouldn't the party be better off getting a leader instead?

N.B. I'm saying rules abuse is ok so long as it is inept. I'm just curious whether anyone see any practical problems with the situation.

 

[UltimaGabe]

N.B. I'm saying rules abuse is ok so long as it is inept. I'm just curious whether anyone see any practical problems with the situation.

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm perfectly fine with the Druid's "abuse" in this case, as well as the gnome's "abuse" as well. The way I see it, both of them are doing something so sub-par and situational that, in almost every possible case, they'd be much better off doing something else. If a player wants to spend his standard action to deal some inescapable damage to himself to trigger his once-per-encounter immediate action, go for it.

 

[Jhaelen]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm perfectly fine with the Druid's "abuse" in this case, as well as the gnome's "abuse" as well. The way I see it, both of them are doing something so sub-par and situational that, in almost every possible case, they'd be much better off doing something else. If a player wants to spend his standard action to deal some inescapable damage to himself to trigger his once-per-encounter immediate action, go for it.

The problem is, though, that you're creating a precedent. Unless you don't care about rules being applied consistently you'll have a hard time not allowing a pc wounding himself to trigger a power that would be better than any other option available to him.

I.e. I definitely wouldn't allow it. You cannot use a power to attack yourself.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Can someone explain to me how this is abusable?

You don't think that allowing someone to pour a potion down someone else's throat as a minor action is abusable?

 

[Kingreaper]

You don't think that allowing someone to pour a potion down someone else's throat as a minor action is abusable?

You're the first one to assume it'd be a minor action.

It's a standard action to pour a potion down an unconscious persons throat. It'll be at least a standard when they're moving and fighting.

A move on the part of the person administering it PERHAPS if the person recieving ALSO spends a move/minor. Because, in that situation, you might as well hand them the potion and they drink it themselves (unless they have no free hands)

EDIT and @jhaelen, there's a significant difference between "you take damage" (which you can easily cause, you can deal damage to yourself) and "you are attacked/hit by an attack". Not that that's likely to change your mind, but it is still relevant.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You're the first one to assume it'd be a minor action.

Actually, I was the first to point out that there are no rules for administering a potion to a conscious person. You have two options based on existing rules: minor or standard. Either is valid. In my example, I make the assumption of the one that would be abusable IMO.

It's a standard action to pour a potion down an unconscious persons throat. It'll be at least a standard when they're moving and fighting.

Exactly the key and what I brought up earlier. At least a standard action and I agree it would be more than that, if allowable at all.

The point is that we cannot possibly identify if a rule is abusable or not until we know the rule!

 

[Kingreaper]

Fair point

 

[Gort]

Perhaps not a sack of rats, but a sack of something, definitely.