Post/Author/DateTime	Post
prawn 02-13-06, 08:28 AM	Well?
HerbalTea 02-13-06, 08:30 AM	Yes.
DragonKing72 02-13-06, 08:42 AM	according to the D.M.'s Guide, it states pretty specifically what an unseen servent can and can't do. You say that it can.....where can I find this info? That's some info I don't have.
HerbalTea 02-13-06, 08:46 AM	I have no Idea - I remember reading it somewhere a while back
orionm42 02-13-06, 09:35 AM	The spell's description says the following: ...It can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like. It has an effective Strength score of 2 (so it can lift 20 pounds or drag 100 pounds). It can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices... Since it can exert up to 20 pounds of force, I would rule it has sufficient strength to open a vial and administer a typical potion (1 ounce). Also, I did not see anything prohibiting it from taking a full round action. As such, I would think it could take the full round action required to administer the potion to an unconscious creature. The only thing that gives me pause is this... It can’t perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 Administering the potion draws an attack of opportunity, which has a DC of 10 plus the damage dealt. I am not sure if this is sufficient to prohibit administering a potion while threatened. Anyway, my 2 cp...I would allow it.
wrecan 02-13-06, 09:57 AM	Administering the potion draws an attack of opportunity, which has a DC of 10 plus the damage dealt. I am not sure if this is sufficient to prohibit administering a potion while threatened. An unseen servant can only be affected by area attacks (and has 6 hp). Thus, its Concentration check for administering a potion will never be above 10 and thus it can be adminsitered. The only thing I think a person threatening a square in which an unseen servant is administering a potion could do is to sunder the potion during the AoO. If the vial is sundered, then the unseen servant obviously cannot finish the action. I see no problem allowing an unseen servant to administer a potion. I think it's a good use of the spell.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 10:12 AM	I'd say no unless the mage had a ranged fine manipulation of sorts. Uncorking the stopper is not exactly a fine manipulation skll but as the description shows it seems more "macro items" like pressures plates and doors, not 1"x1" stoppers. See "Arcane Trickster" for skills I think would be applicable. Also, lifting the prone body of the adventurer/NPC so they don't choke on the potion (try drinking when prone, or against the wall with your head flopping forward) as it is poured over the lips. Again, opening the mouth may qualify as fine manipulation. So I guess the answer is definitely NO without some skills/special abilities that allow one to lift up a body at the waist, lean the head back slightly, open the cork/whatever that stops up the potion (just try movng a potion to the body in a combat environment), opens the mouth and at range - pours the potion down their throat and not the side of the mouth.
wrecan 02-13-06, 11:05 AM	An unseen servant has a Strength of 2 and can lift objects of up to 20 lbs. Unless you are Large-sized or bigger, your head should be manipulable by an unseen servant sufficient to tilt a head so it won't choke on a poison. Also, the unseen servant has sufficient coordination to remove a "lid" from a container. It takes no more coordination to uncork a vial. I see no reason why an unseen servant cannot administer a potion.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 11:44 AM	Even tilting just a person's head makes it difficult. Again try just lifting the head, opening the mouth at the same time, the jaw gets closed by the chest and or shoulders, and then swallowing something. Besides, who's lifting the head while the mouth is being opened and the potion poured? As for Lids, I'd say that is more of the lid of a chest or othr large object. The cork is what, diminuative (the smallest?) while even the lid of a small chest is tiny (in this order, I can't remember which order it really is in, diminuative, fine, tiny, small, etc.). As I said, I would say yes, if there were multiple spells and the mage has fine or diminuative manipulation skills at range, ala Arcane Trickster. But is still doesn't say how you get an unconscious body to swallow when they are prone, even with their head titled.
prawn 02-13-06, 11:47 AM	But is still doesn't say how you get an unconscious body to swallow when they are prone, even with their head titled. I didn't think exactly how the potion was adminstered was covered in the rules, just that it was possible. In the game in question, I think the mage in question uncorked the potion and handed it to the servant who then gave it to the fallen party member.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 11:59 AM	Prawn is beginning to see the light. Yes, it could be possible even without all the other things needed. So what happens? Round 1: Mage casts Unseen servant Round 2: Mage gets potion from backpack and opens cork (risking it being spilled as it glides across a floor where there's a fight taking place. Round 3: Unseen servant gets it to the downed pc and places it down gently. Round 4: Unseen servant gets rock/backpack/whatever and moves it close to head of down character. Round 5: Head of downed character lifted and propped up by Unseen Servant using rock/backpack/whatever. Round 6: Mouth opened and propped to stay that way. Round 7: Potion opened and poured. Round 8: Character gets 1d8+5 HP and regains consciouness Round 9: Character gets up, to possible AoO. Now in rounds 1 to 7, the mage or other caster can't concentrate on anything else if he wants it done correctly. Also, the downed PC, if at negative, starts losing 1 HP/round unless they stabilize. So if they are at -3 or lower, they still most likely die. If not, try to do it yourself using one hand and see how much time it takes, including putting it in a backpack with other things.
kinjojones 02-13-06, 12:24 PM	I've heard tell of unseen servants written in published modules that clean up messes, set tables, and open bottles of wine and serve drinks. So I imagine there's enough precedence to say that an unseen servant can administer a potion. And enforcing the chance that a character chokes or doesn't swallow the potion because they're not sat up properly is pretty lame and downright sticklerish and smacks of a killer DM.
Zetakya 02-13-06, 12:24 PM	I think requiring 8 rounds is somewhat disingenious. I also think you are looking way too much into nitpicking reality at the expense of gameplay. Potion use combines the entire process of using the item. It's a good use of a utility spell and one I would allow, unless the subject was actually face-down. Still nowhere near as good as the "Guided Delayed Blast Fireball" trick with Unseen Servant though.
Andreas0815 02-13-06, 12:26 PM	Oh, come on, this is heroic fantasy. How often has your warrior died of tetanus? I think this is a clever and skillful use of a spell and shouldn´t be hanbdled to striktly. One round to summon, one round to get the potion, open it and hand it over to the servant who can now use his moveaktion(s) to move to the fallen hero. Then one fullround aktion to give the potion to the partymate. RAW.
orionm42 02-13-06, 12:33 PM	But is still doesn't say how you get an unconscious body to swallow when they are prone, even with their head titled. Not sure what your point is here. The rules are clear... A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Mechanics aside, one round is all it takes. Why should it take an unseen servant longer?
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 12:35 PM	As I stated, if the caster in question had fine manipulation at range, no problem. I am also stating that even without the fine skills, it can still be done. It just takes time. I didn't even include the AoO that can occur from both the enemy and a surprised friend to swat the potion vile. As for setting tables, etc., those take time too. As for PCs who have died of disease, they have. The use of the spell is clever but many things are clever. Pulling it off is another thing. Besides, I only took 7 rounds :) The other thing is if the palyers feel they should be able to do it, so should the bad guys. I've noted players hate it when that happens. See, I ran into this problem before with my players and asked them how long it should take. It was players setting things up for the NPCs they were fighting that came up with what I posted. Now, my players think long and hard when I ask them to help with a rule clarification. I use it for or against them as well as the bad guys. Edit: Orionm24, the rules are not clear exactly. While a living person will do what is needed, "programming" in into something that does explicitely what you state is another thing entirely. That's why I differentiate fine ranged manipulation vs gross manipulation.
A_monk_00 02-13-06, 12:39 PM	Prawn is beginning to see the light. Yes, it could be possible even without all the other things needed. So what happens? Round 1: Mage casts Unseen servant Round 2: Mage gets potion from backpack and opens cork (risking it being spilled as it glides across a floor where there's a fight taking place. Round 3: Unseen servant gets it to the downed pc and places it down gently. Round 4: Unseen servant gets rock/backpack/whatever and moves it close to head of down character. Round 5: Head of downed character lifted and propped up by Unseen Servant using rock/backpack/whatever. Round 6: Mouth opened and propped to stay that way. Round 7: Potion opened and poured. Round 8: Character gets 1d8+5 HP and regains consciouness Round 9: Character gets up, to possible AoO. Now in rounds 1 to 7, the mage or other caster can't concentrate on anything else if he wants it done correctly. Also, the downed PC, if at negative, starts losing 1 HP/round unless they stabilize. So if they are at -3 or lower, they still most likely die. If not, try to do it yourself using one hand and see how much time it takes, including putting it in a backpack with other things. Ahh, but here is the kicker. In the spell description it states that the Unseen Servant is 'an invisible, mindless, shapeless force'. The upside of this is that it can do all those steps simultaneously. It can carry the potion, lift the head, open the mouth, uncork the potion, and administer it all in seconds since it doesn't have a humanoid shape. Your argument of 'try this with one hand' doesn't have any validity since the Unseen Servant is a force effect and technically has an unlimited amount of 'hands'. It could hold twenty pounds of sand, one grain in each 'hand'. I don't feel like counting that up, but you get the drift. The only snag you may hit is that the spell description also states that it can perform simple tasks and can only perform one task at a time. It would likely be up to your DM if the task 'administer a potion' could be simple enough and all steps related in a way that the Servant can perform. Anyway, in my opinion, I believe this to be a valid use of this spell.
Andreas0815 02-13-06, 12:43 PM	So, lets see, the fighter attacks: Round 1, he opens the leather strap that is on his swordsheathe (you don´t want to lose the sword while climbing, do you). Round 2, he draws the weapon (i think a combined Dex/Str check, with rustmodifiers if the dungeon has a wet climate). Round 3, he lift it over his head (Str check if twohanded weapon) Round 4, a int check to remember who is the enemy and who is in your party (now you regret it to make int your dumpstat, do you?) Round 5, a wisdome check to see if you hold the sword on the right end, if failed go to round 3 Round 6 the attack roll Round 7, Str check if you let loose of your weapon, mali if you have indeed hit the enemie due to shocking impact. Jup, could be a really fun game to play, and hey, it only took you 6 rounds to attack. If you would be able to attack once a round, the enemy would be able to do it, too. And we really can´t let this happen, can we?
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 12:47 PM	A_monk_00, It is a valid use of a spell. Also, from what you stated, The only snag you may hit is that the spell description also states that it can perform simple tasks and can only perfrom one task at a time. is how my players read it. One thing at a time. Many "simple actions" are actually a set of other actions that may even have actions that need to be completed. The most extreme is "Killing a dragon is an action".
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 12:50 PM	So, lets see, the fighter attacks: Round 1, he opens the leather strap that is on his swordsheathe (you don´t want to lose the sword while climbing, do you). Round 2, he draws the weapon (i think a combined Dex/Str check, with rustmodifiers if the dungeon has a wet climate). Round 3, he lift it over his head (Str check if twohanded weapon) Round 4, a int check to remember who is the enemy and who is in your party (now you regret it to make int your dumpstat, do you?) Round 5, a wisdome check to see if you hold the sword on the right end, if failed go to round 3 Round 6 the attack roll Round 7, Str check if you let loose of your weapon, mali if you have indeed hit the enemie due to shocking impact. Jup, could be a really fun game to play, and hey, it only took you 6 rounds to attack. If you would be able to attack once a round, the enemy would be able to do it, too. And we really can´t let this happen, can we? That's disengenous. I used no checks to determine that. Also note that any mage with a ranged fine manipulation skill can do it as easily as if they were right there. Your example can be used to show why feats don't matter. The difference is you are using a spell that does not convey tactile clues to the user. If you're going to mock me, please do it better. Hey, it's the way I do it. I do not do it for living creatures as the tactile feedback.
AntiDjinn 02-13-06, 12:52 PM	As a table rule I have always allowed healing potions to be poured over wounds rather than drunk if the patient is unconscious. Give the unseen servant Keoghtom's Ointment instead if the DM does not allow what you are suggesting; clearly it should be able to just smear ointment over the subject as this does not require a Healing check or any other skill roll. As far as having to get the throat into position to imbibe a potion, we are not talking about a normal liquor here. This might apply to other types of potions, but a healing potion must be absorbed directly into the body or else it would not work instantaneously. To work that fast modern drugs must be given I.V. and antibiotics and such take hours to work. To work in one round the potion clearly does not have to be processed by the digestive tract so just getting it in the victim by any means should work. And if the person tries to choke on it then the potion should be fixing any damage it causes as it goes.
prawn 02-13-06, 01:02 PM	Thanks for the replies so far. In my game, I ruled it was okay, and that it only took the Unseen Servant a full-round action. I just want to be careful, because letting the servant do this may open up some more grey-area questions later, like: 1. Yes, I took a potion and cast a spell this round, but, the Unseen Servant was the one that gave me the potion, so it was okay. 2. Okay, I instruct my servant to give me a potion if I fall.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 01:02 PM	And AntiDjinn gives another good course of action. That is the best way as that is exactly how Keoghtom's Ointment works. As I said, I allow just about everything. Heck you can destroy a mountain just by throwing pebbles at it. It's just going to take a little time.....
A_monk_00 02-13-06, 01:07 PM	One thing at a time. Many "simple actions" are actually a set of other actions that may even have actions that need to be completed. The most extreme is "Killing a dragon is an action". Yes, simple actions are composed of smaller actions. The least extreme, and actually mentioned in the spell description, is cleaning. Cleaning anything is made up of smaller actions. Example: Let's say you want to mop the floor. To do such, you would need to assemble the required elements, mop, bucket, cleaner, and water. Then, you would need to put the water in the bucket, put the cleaner in the water, and place the mop in the bucket/water. For thoroughness, let's assume you get the water from your bathtub, and the floor you are going to mop is the dining room. You would then need to haul the bucket full of water, with mop, from your bathroom to your dining room. Once you get there you will likely set the bucket down, take hold of the mop, wring it out, and slide it along the floor, thus mopping. To clean the entire floor it takes many repetitions of inserting the mop into the bucket, wringing the mop out, and sliding along the floor. Now, I've taken a relatively simple task and made it fairly involved. Is this too involved for the spell? Not by the fact that it states that it can clean in the description. So, if your DM wants to get very technical, you would need to direct your Unseen Servant through all these actions, since it can only perform one at a time. This, however, seems fairly ludicrous to me since the whole point of the spell is to do tasks that the wizard does not want to do. By directing your Servant through every action of mopping the floor, you may as well be doing it yourself. Edit: I'm really not trying to argue here, just stating the fact that you can't do anything, even the most simple of tasks, without doing something else first. My point here is, that if a DM says no to a relatively simple task that has a very obvious advantage, he must then look at every other mundane task and question if that has similar complexities.
Milandros 02-13-06, 01:28 PM	The question really is, is admistering a potion at range too powerful for a first level spell? Consider the general power level of a 1st level spell. Sleep puts 4HD of creatures into a coup-de-grace possible state. Magic missile does 1d4+1 damage without a chance of missing, more at higher levels. Cause Fear - a creature of 5HD may be taken out of the fight. Shocking grasp - 1d6 damage per level. When you consider (a) the potion is used up just as if it were administered any other way and (b) it's probably going to take at least two rounds, maybe more, of the mage's time to cast, get the potion to the Unseen servant, then for the unseen servant to get across to the downed character and administer the potion, I think it's well, well within the power level of the spell. It's no diferent to the mage getting out the potion and giving it to another PC to carry, except he's carrying it "himself" through the servant and he's got the extra delay in casting the spell in the first place. Besides, it's a reason to actually take the spell, instead of having yet another spell list full of magic missiles and other combat spells.
Epicweaver 02-13-06, 01:42 PM	An unseen servant is an invisible, mindless, shapeless force that performs simple tasks at your command. It can run and fetch things, open unstuck doors, and hold chairs, as well as clean and mend. The servant can perform only one activity at a time, but it repeats the same activity over and over again if told to do so as long as you remain within range. It can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like. It has an effective Strength score of 2 (so it can lift 20 pounds or drag 100 pounds). It can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices. It can’t perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 or that requires a check using a skill that can’t be used untrained. Its speed is 15 feet. The servant cannot attack in any way; it is never allowed an attack roll. It cannot be killed, but it dissipates if it takes 6 points of damage from area attacks. (It gets no saves against attacks.) If you attempt to send it beyond the spell’s range (measured from your current position), the servant ceases to exist. A pretty good read, but I think some people are nitpicking the details a little much (but eh, we're DMs, it's what we do.. ;)). Using Unseen Servant to administer a potion is a very clever use of the spell. It can carry the item, move speed 15ft, and can only be 'hit' with area damage spells. I suppose that the vial could be sundered on it's way, but ultimately I don't think that it needs to be more complicated then that. The range is limited to Close (25ft + 5ft/2 levels).. and the servant can't go beyond it.. I would think it wouldn't take more then a standard action to administer a potion once the servant is within range. I'd also note that uncorking a potion isn't listed on the table of actions... it's either 'retrieve a stored item' or 'drink a potion', so I see no reason to overanalyze the difficulty of a free action task. If a Unseen Servant can 'clean and mend' things, then I don't think that a giving a potion would violate the 'simple task' condition. My core curiousity is this tho, does the unseen servant even provoke attacks of opportunity? Since it's basically invisible, doesn't that prevent attacks of opportunity? Yes, I could see someone spending an action to swing at the floating potion, but I couldn't see giving someone a AoO cause a potion just floated by them.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 01:51 PM	A_monk_00: Again, no arguement. Everything you stated takes time. As was pointed out, an Unseen Servant can only one action at a time. It can set tables, etc., with enough time. I've also stated when I think the spell can be used to work as quickly as as anyone who walks over there and do it themselves requires another Feat. Let's look at how long it takes to do this if a person does it themselves. Round 1: Mage moves towards friend as they get backpack and pulls the correct potion from pack. Faces possible AoO Round 2: Getting down to their level, they grab the friend and prop them up and open mouth. AoO. Round 3: Popping the cork, the mage pours elixer down throat. Possible AoO. Round 4: Friend gets 1d8+5 HP back. Round 5: Friend gets up, facing possible AoO. So it doesn't take quite half as long, 5 rounds to 9 rounds, to get things done. Now I have stated, many times, that they can do it as fast as in person. I'd like to see how long you'd give it to work, using either personally doing it or using magic to do it.
A_monk_00 02-13-06, 02:34 PM	A_monk_00: Round 1: Mage moves towards friend as they get backpack and pulls the correct potion from pack. Faces possible AoO Round 2: Getting down to their level, they grab the friend and prop them up and open mouth. AoO. Round 3: Popping the cork, the mage pours elixer down throat. Possible AoO. Round 4: Friend gets 1d8+5 HP back. Round 5: Friend gets up, facing possible AoO. So it doesn't take quite half as long, 5 rounds to 9 rounds, to get things done. Now I have stated, many times, that they can do it as fast as in person. I'd like to see how long you'd give it to work, using either personally doing it or using magic to do it. You're taking way too long, and that's the simple fact of the matter. A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. If you are more than 5 feet away, you could use a move action to move (at your speed) to the side of the unconsious person. You could then use a standard action to do something else (beside the point, really). On your next turn, you take a full round action to administer the poition, which takes effect immediately. Done and done. 2 rounds of your time. The character you administered the potion to would then act on his initiative (at the end of the round, since he is effectivly joining combat again). Here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/potionsAndOils.htm) are all the rules for potions and oils. Activation is the section that is most pertinent.
orionm42 02-13-06, 02:54 PM	If you are more than 5 feet away, you could use a move action to move (at your speed) to the side of the unconsious person. You could then use a standard action to do something else (beside the point, really). On your next turn, you take a full round action to administer the poition, which takes effect immediately. Not to defend LCD2YOU :D , but I agree that it may take up to three rounds if the servant is more than 5 feet away because retrieving an item is a move action. This assumes the item is stored in the character's backpack. EDIT: Cancel that...I had a brainfart there...forgot you can always swap a move action for a standard action. So two rounds it is.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 02:56 PM	A_monk_00: Ok. I'm taking 5 rounds to your 3. Just getting relevant actions here: Mine: Round 1: Mage (whoever) moves towards friend as they get backpack and pulls the correct potion from pack. Faces possible AoO Yours: Round 1: You could use a move action to move (at your speed) to the side of the unconsious person. You could then use a standard action to do something else (beside the point, really). (Like get the potion out from their bag. What else?) Mine: Round 2: Getting down to their level, they grab the friend and prop them up and open mouth. AoO. Yours: Round 2: On your next turn, you take a full round action to administer the poition, which takes effect immediately. Mine: Round 3: Popping the cork, the mage pours elixer down throat. Possible AoO. Yours: Round 3: Hurt character can get up. Mine: Round 4: Friend gets 1d8+5 HP back. EDIT Belongs here: Addition=> I wasn't explicit as this is when the hurt character "wakes up" on this round. Round 5: Friend gets up, facing possible AoO. I can see one thing that actually makes yours 4 rounds. I disagree on your use of the word "immediate". It is my contention that immediate means "as soon as the potion is consumed" which is at the end of the round. That is why I have an extra round, Round 4, where the character not only gets healed, but wakes up from the unconsciouness caused by dropping to less than 0 HP. So, IMHO, you will take 4 rounds to my 5. Again, my opinion that the potion begins immediately after consumption and the wounded character needs to wake up. Nothing to worry about, as long as it is consistant, even not worrying about the "wake up", across the board. Having differing times between how we do it is not a problem. It is when you, I or someone else applies the rules unevenly. Even the use of "Unseen Servant" is not a real point of contention. We both say that it can be done. I just say that to do it as quickly which is only 1 or 2 rounds more, depending on your POV, with Unseen Servant requires a feat or ability for fine manipulation. So, how long would it take for Unseen Servant to do the same thing?
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 02:58 PM	Not to defend LCD2YOU :D , but I agree that it may take up to three rounds if the servant is more than 5 feet away because retrieving an item is a move action. This assumes the item is stored in the character's backpack. Thanks, sniff, sniff. Just don't defend me. I'll slink off into the corner, unloved, unwanted. Sniff ;)
orionm42 02-13-06, 03:02 PM	Just don't defend me. ;) See my edit to the post you quoted above. That'll learn me! :D
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 03:05 PM	orionm42, Where's the love man? :weep: :D Out of curiosity, how long would you say it takes?
Nitrokitty 02-13-06, 03:11 PM	Wow, I'd hate to be a player in LCD's game. 5 rounds to administer a potion to somebody within your movement range?! With 3 or more AoO's in the process?!?! You must really hate your players. I don't know about you, but in my games, creativity is rewarded. Using an unseen servant to administer a potion is not only creative, but very tactically sound. Likely, whatever caused the fighter to go down is still nearby. Using the US to keep out of harms way is not only neat, it's very intelligent tactics. Why punish them for being smart?
orionm42 02-13-06, 03:21 PM	orionm42, Where's the love man? :weep: :D Out of curiosity, how long would you say it takes? I'm going with two rounds. In the first, the servant moves to the downed character as a move action. The servant than swaps his standard action for a move action to retrieve the potion from the downed character's backpack. In the second round, the servant uses the full round action to administer the potion. I disagree with you here... I disagree on your use of the word "immediate". It is my contention that immediate means "as soon as the potion is consumed" which is at the end of the round. That is why I have an extra round, Round 4, where the character not only gets healed, but wakes up from the unconsciouness caused by dropping to less than 0 HP. I think the character gets healed at the end of the servant's turn. In other words, the PC can act as soon as his initiative comes up again. You might have an argument that the servant needs an additional move action to bend down and recover the backpack...I repeat you might.... :D
Sulaco 02-13-06, 03:25 PM	Prawn is beginning to see the light. Yes, it could be possible even without all the other things needed. So what happens? Round 1: Mage casts Unseen servant Round 2: Mage gets potion from backpack and opens cork (risking it being spilled as it glides across a floor where there's a fight taking place. Round 3: Unseen servant gets it to the downed pc and places it down gently. Round 4: Unseen servant gets rock/backpack/whatever and moves it close to head of down character. Round 5: Head of downed character lifted and propped up by Unseen Servant using rock/backpack/whatever. Round 6: Mouth opened and propped to stay that way. Round 7: Potion opened and poured. Round 8: Character gets 1d8+5 HP and regains consciouness Round 9: Character gets up, to possible AoO. Or the non-pedantic we're here to have fun D&D version: Round 1: hand potion to Unseen Servant Round 2: Unseen Servant moves to fallen companion and administers potion
A_monk_00 02-13-06, 03:31 PM	Not to defend LCD2YOU , but I agree that it may take up to three rounds if the servant is more than 5 feet away because retrieving an item is a move action. This assumes the item is stored in the character's backpack. I was speaking of the character, not the Unseen Servant, administering the potion. I suppose it really depends on if the Unseen Servant has its own initiative or moves on yours. I can see one thing that actually makes yours 4 rounds. I disagree on your use of the word "immediate". It is my contention that immediate means "as soon as the potion is consumed" which is at the end of the round. That is why I have an extra round, Round 4, where the character not only gets healed, but wakes up from the unconsciouness caused by dropping to less than 0 HP. The definition of a potion is that it takes effect immediately. I'll give you that it takes effect at the end of the round, but the healing (and therefore waking) takes place at the end of that round, not the next. By the rules, it would take 2 rounds. If it takes more in your games, that's your perogative. It just seems like an awful waste to spend that much time on such a simple action. Anyway, it's all quite simple. Administering a potion to a fallen companion, Unseen Servant of not, is not a game breaking mechanic. Making it more trouble than it's worth is, well, more trouble than it's worth.
LCD2YOU 02-13-06, 08:08 PM	Wow, I'd hate to be a player in LCD's game. 5 rounds to administer a potion to somebody within your movement range?! With 3 or more AoO's in the process?!?! You must really hate your players. I don't know about you, but in my games, creativity is rewarded. Using an unseen servant to administer a potion is not only creative, but very tactically sound. Likely, whatever caused the fighter to go down is still nearby. Using the US to keep out of harms way is not only neat, it's very intelligent tactics. Why punish them for being smart? Well, if you say so and feel that way, your loss. Just remember, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It is not a punishment as the bad guys are constrained as well and yes, they use potions too. It is consistant. Yes, the bad guys are more thn able to use the same tactics. The reward for creativity in my game is surviving intact even better. As I am a "judge style DM", I present world with bad guys, good guys and everyone in between who do their own thing regardless of what the PCs do, I prefer being impartial. As I also said, I did something like this for the bad guys the PCs ran into. I was saying it would take 4 rounds for US to work. It was my players who howled like there was no tomorrow. So we sat down and with their help, this is what I came up with for potion use. Yes, sometimes it bites them, sometimes it helps them, like when the NPCs try to do the same thing. All that matters is that it is always consistant no matter if it's them or their opponents. The whole thing is that I have 5 rounds to stand up vs 3 rounds for most. The other is that without any special feats or abilities, US takes twice as long, 8 rounds + 1 to stand vs 4 rounds + 1 to stand, though it is still doable. You don't have to use it. If I were a player in your game, I would need to use what you had. If you were a player in mine you'd use what I came up with my group. Besides, quibbling on 3 rounds vs 5 (I still say you forgot the round where the hurt guy gets to wake up making your total 4 rounds to stand but no matter) means we're not far off in the grand scheme of things.
PerennialRook 02-13-06, 10:03 PM	This is so inane that I don't even know why I reply. An Unseen Servant can mend, which implies holding cloth and manipulating a needle and thread simultaneously. I think this covers the fine manupulation prerequisite. Opening a vial does not take 20 lbs of pressure, that's obsurd. So It can open the bottle. It has already been explained that the servant can perform tasks as complex as cleaning without further instruction, thus an order to pour a potion down someone's throat isn't out of the question, and easily simple enough. If your companion has the potion easily accesible (as most adventurers do) you could summon the servant next to your friend and have it perform the task there. Round 1: Cast Unseen Servant and command it to take your potion and quickly pour it down the throat of your friend. It takes your potion. Round 2: Without further intervention from the caster (read: do whatever you'd like) the Unseen Servant moves up to 60 ft. (running) to your fallen comrade. Round 3: The Unseen Servant pours the potion down the characters throat who immediatly heals X damage. The character, who has not yet acted this round, joins the action as normal at the end of the round. How hard was that? I really don't understand where the question comes from. Some of us encourage our players to think outside of the box and use their creativity to improve the game. A mage may in fact have the Unseen Servant follow him around for a number of hours equal to his level ready to pour a potion down his throat if he happens to fall. Though in such a case the Unseen Servnt can perform no other action, and the mage must slow down to let the Servant keep up with him or the spell ends (perhaps with the bottle dropping to the ground and shattering).
Chaser 02-14-06, 02:26 AM	I'm going to take a stab at this, mostly because I don't see much of the RAW or common play practices in LCD2YOU's post. Let's look at how long it takes to do this if a person does it themselves. Round 1: Mage moves towards friend as they get backpack and pulls the correct potion from pack. Faces possible AoO. Well, if your characters store lifesaving potions in their backpacks instead of a more accessible place, that is their fault. It should take no more than a move equivalent to get out something needed in combat. Yes, movement can be hazardous. Plus, strictly speaking, the mage should get within 5' of the victim this round. If he can't, well, time is burning. Round 2: Getting down to their level, they grab the friend and prop them up and open mouth. AoO. This, I would like to point out, is a HOUSERULING. There is nothing crunchy in the rules about potions that even IMPLIES it takes this amount of time. You have to get 1 oz. of a liquid into someone's mouth via a full round action, and that someone has no facing, as there is no facing in 3.5. So, the victim's position has no value in the RAW. Plus, with this round and the next, you are doubling AoO's on the pourer outside the RAW. The bit about 'carefully pouring it down a comrade's throat' in the DMG is clearly the fluffy rationale behind requiring a full-round action, you seem to have taken it as a DM opportunity to consume more time than is given, and to generate an extra attack of opportunity. Plus, potions take effect immediately, the victim is cured at the end of the pourer's actions. This is not a 1-round action we are talking about here, it is a full round action. Extra requirements you add after this are just more DM-generated or DM-sanctioned stumbling blocks outside the RAW, and less fun, to boot. Round 3: Popping the cork, the mage pours elixer down throat. Possible AoO. This belongs in last round's actions per the RAW and is responsible for the extra 'possible' AoO you have generated. This seems, well..., opinions aside, it is outside the RAW. Round 4: Friend gets 1d8+5 HP back. Aah, here you have the victim getting cured 2 rounds after the RAW, and one round after he should in your timeline. Remember, potions act immediately, that would be when administration, or pouring, is done. Round 5: Friend gets up, facing possible AoO. Actually, victim is free to act would be better here, but yes, standing up can be hazardous. Of course, the victim could have acted on his next initiative, maybe way back in round two if it came after the pourer's initiative. This is three rounds later, with the party wizard out of action that whole time. So it doesn't take quite half as long, 5 rounds to 9 rounds, to get things done. Now I have stated, many times, that they can do it as fast as in person. Two rounds, three max if we include victim standing up, and his initiative came earlier in the round than the pourer. This assumes the pourer can be within 5' of the victim at the end of his first round. More if he cannot. I'd like to see how long you'd give it to work, using either personally doing it or using magic to do it. 'Personally' done, and more exactingly, as I gave distances and RAW. This has also come up many times in this thread: As was pointed out, an Unseen Servant can only [edit: 'do' or 'take' omitted] one action at a time. This is patently false, unless there has been errata. The unseen servant can only perform one activity at a time, check your PHB. This is not the same as one action, and in fact does not refer to actions per round. Normal rounds would seem to be the norm for the servant. Given that an unseen servant is NOT limited to 1 action per round, your 9 round timeline for an unseen servant administering a potion is slightly less accurate than your 'mage administering' example.
Chaser 02-14-06, 02:47 AM	I would like to respond to another house rule here. Besides, quibbling on 3 rounds vs 5 (I still say you forgot the round where the hurt guy gets to wake up making your total 4 rounds to stand but no matter) means we're not far off in the grand scheme of things. There is no 'round to wake up'. The PHB ['Stable Characters and Recovery'] p145-6, makes no reference whatsoever to it taking time to wake up. In fact, Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled. Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower. there is no mention whatsoever of an elapsed time between the healing and the character being able again, and a strong implication that there is none. Thus, it is two rounds total, or three if the inititative does not favor the one needing healing, before the character can act again, not 5 [or 4]; and it does matter if RAW or time [like a character's bleeding to death] is a concern of yours.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 07:19 AM	Yes Chaser, Are you saying that a person who is unconscious does not need to wake up? No "house rules" there. I am just keeping it that, as the RRAW states, when a person is reduced below 0 hp they go unconscious. Are you saying that is not correct. I'd say that not having them take sometime to wake up is a houserule. As for the AoO, I have 4 to your 3. The only one I have differently is when I have the person needing to get the other ready. A nearby enemy could Really, I don't see what the big deal is here. I have 5 rounds you all seem to think 3 (but I still say you really have 4 as you are not taking the person "waking up and collecting their bearings") rounds if they are more than 5' away. And no, it is not "2 rounds after they are given the potion". It is immediately after the potion is consumed that they get the HP back and wake up. That happens to be the next round. Also, I am saying that the US can mend things, etc. It takes time. I play in a style that you obviously think is too cumbersome. I think yours doesn't take things into account. I like my way you like your way. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong here?
prawn 02-14-06, 07:39 AM	In my game, the mage already had the servant spell up and running. When the PC fell, the mage handed the servant the potion with orders to give it to the fallen PC. He gave no further instructions and he did something else while the servant was acting. In my game, we have a house rule about waking up if you are asleep and the camp is attacked, but if someone is unconscious because of wounds and is healed above zero, they wake up automatically.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 09:12 AM	Some of us encourage our players to think outside of the box and use their creativity to improve the game. Unfortunately some DMs shoose to punish players that think outside of the box and use their creativity.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 09:14 AM	Unfortunately some DMs shoose to punish players that think outside of the box and use their creativity. Like who? I haven't seen that on this thread.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 09:17 AM	Are you saying that a person who is unconscious does not need to wake up? In D&D? No, there is no "wake up" time. You go from unconscious to firing on all 8 cylinders the moment you go above 0hp in exactly the same manner that you fight and act at full efficiency right up to the moment you slip below 1hp. D&D is an abstract system. Trying to apply things like "wake up time" in order to nake it more "realistic" is like sewing wings on a frog so he doesn't bump his as when he hops.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 09:18 AM	Like who? I haven't seen that on this thread. Did I say it was anyone on this thread?
wrecan 02-14-06, 09:21 AM	Are you saying that a person who is unconscious does not need to wake up? No. We're saying he wakes up simultaneously with the administration of the potion. "Waking up" is not an action; it is merely the description of being no longer in the "unconscious" state. It takes no time and no actions. No "house rules" there. I am just keeping it that, as the RRAW states, when a person is reduced below 0 hp they go unconscious. Are you saying that is not correct. I'd say that not having them take sometime to wake up is a houserule. And I'd say you're wrong. Show me anywhere in RAW where "waking up" from unconsciousness requires an action by the person awakening independent of getting up from a prone position. Really, I don't see what the big deal is here. It's not a big deal. It's just not RAW. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong here? RAW and SRD. They say you're wrong (unless you can show me where it says that waking up is an action separate from getting up). An Unseen Servant lasts 1 hour/level. I think a good use of the spell may be to have an US who follow the party around, carrying a pouch of CLW (or CSW) potions with the instructions to follow the wizard and feed a potion to anybody the Wizard names with the prefix "Servant Heal" (Ie, "Servant Heal Wrecan" would cause the Unseen Servant to feed me a CLW potion). Given the precast US (preferably by scroll), the actions are as follows once a PC falls unconscious... Round 1) PC Falls. Wizard uses a free action to tell US to heal PC (Wizard still gets to act this round). US moves to PC, withdrawing potion from pack. Round 2) US feeds PC potion (Wizard gets to act this round too). PC is immediately awakened from unconscious to awake. Round 3) PC acts from prone position (Wizard gets to act this round too). Without the precast US, the scenario is as follows: Round 1) PC falls. On next action (which might not be until next round, depending on initiative order), Wizard moves to PC while retrieving potion, entering Reach of NPC Round 2) Wizard feeds PC potion (incurring AoO and foregoing all action and being vulnerable from attacks by NPC who downed the PC) Round 3) PC acts from prone position (Wizard gets to act this round too, starting round in reach of NPC). Both take three rounds. The difference? The Wizard has sacrificed two actions and spent three rounds in harm's way. That's a monumental difference. Frankly, I see nothing in the rules that supports your interpretation. The problems with the US healer? 1) The US moves only 15'. This can really slow a party down, although in my experience, most parties only move 20' anyway. (Solution? Have the US ride on a Tenser's Floating Disk, also preferably cast via a scroll) 2) The US is very vulnerable to area attacks. (Solution? Possess multiple scrolls of US.) 3) The potion can be sundered. Although the potion is diminutive, giving it an AC of 14, it only has 1 hp. However, Sundering itself provokes an AoO, which means the enemy probably won't try it unless he is not within a threatened square. Why does enlongating this process hurt PCs more than NPCs? Because most NPCs won't have the resources for this plan. They won't have US scrolls, or an arcane caster capable of casting it. They won't have healing potions. Unintelligent monsters, non-arcane casters and the like can't do this. PCs can do this always. As the DMG states, any house rule usually inures to the detriment of the PCs.
orionm42 02-14-06, 09:22 AM	Unfortunately some DMs shoose to punish players that think outside of the box and use their creativity. Here I go back to LCD2YOU's defense. Sulaco and PerennialRook: Are you saying there is something wrong with a "rules lawyer" style of DMing? I don't think it is in any way "punishing" for a DM to interpret the rules as strictly as he likes. As long as he applies those interpretations equally to PCs and enemies alike.
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 09:28 AM	Sulaco, Of course not. The implications you made with: Unfortunately some DMs shoose to punish players that think outside of the box and use their creativity. then, In D&D? No, there is no "wake up" time. You go from unconscious to firing on all 8 cylinders the moment you go above 0hp in exactly the same manner that you fight and act at full efficiency right up to the moment you slip below 1hp. and finally, Did I say it was anyone on this thread? We all seperate incidents from previous encounters with other DMs and games you've had to endure. Just like this non-sequitor to the post: D&D is an abstract system. Trying to apply things like "wake up time" in order to nake it more "realistic" is like sewing wings on a frog so he doesn't bump his as when he hops. Some like "high fantasy", I'm not one of them. Some say not letting their players do what they want to do is being mean, I do not. Some say the game is abstract and should remain that way, I do not. There is a difference between thinking out of the box and bending the rules on a whim. So I read the rules differently than you, does that mean I am reading them wrong or incorrectly? Have I belittled any one in this thread for not playing the way I do? Have I not said that I do to the NPCs exactly what I do to the PCs? So please, do not insult me again (yes it was an insult even if it was hidden because you think that my way is somehow being mean to the players) by saying it wasn't directed at me.
prawn 02-14-06, 09:30 AM	I guess I don't like it taking many rounds to adminsiter the potion because the character would bleed out in that time. In my game, the character in question was in a pit the other characters couldn't get to, and he would have died if the unseen servant had taken 4 rounds to give him the potion. P
LCD2YOU 02-14-06, 09:32 AM	Here I go back to LCD2YOU's defense. Sulaco and PerennialRook: Are you saying there is something wrong with a "rules lawyer" style of DMing? I don't think it is in any way "punishing" for a DM to interpret the rules as strictly as he likes. As long as he applies those interpretations equally to PCs and enemies alike. Thanks orionm42. I've stated my peace and now I am leaving this discussion. I was getting a little upset that my way of explaining the mechanics behind what I do resulted in a 1 or 2 round difference, depending on how you played it or requiring that one has feats or other abilites to allow things to moves as quickly as one wants in a spell. Ciao
wrecan 02-14-06, 10:39 AM	I was getting a little upset that my way of explaining the mechanics behind what I do resulted in a 1 or 2 round difference, depending on how you played it or requiring that one has feats or other abilites to allow things to moves as quickly as one wants in a spell. I'm sorry you are leaving as I was enjoying the discussion. However, I would like to point out that the problem is not that you aren't allowing the player to do "as one wants" but that you aren't allowing the player to do what RAW clearly allows, combined with the fact that you appear to insist that you are applying RAW. It's one thing to say "I'm houseruling that waking up is an action" It's another to say "Waking up is an action under RAW, although I can't support that argument by anything written in RAW." (The quotation marks are not intended to reflect a direct quote of you, but rather a paraphrase of what appears to be the crux of your argument.)
prawn 02-14-06, 11:05 AM	Okay, I'll throw in my wake-up house rule just to muddy the waters. When the sentries on guard have failed their listen checks and the camp gets attacked, sleepers roll a d8. If they roll an 1, they wake up during the surprise round. The next round, those still asleep roll again. If they roll a 1 or a 2, they wake up. The next round, people wake up on a1,2 or 3. Since rounds equal six seconds, most people will wake up after 24 seconds. This method is a hold over from my second edition game, and I should probably replace it with listen checks with an appropriate DC but we just continue to use it because everybody is used to it. As far as unseen servants, I will allow them to adminster potions as a full round action. I will require a spot check DC 17 or so for enemies to notice it. It will provoke an AoA on the potion for those enemies in reach who make their spot checks. The enemy may then knock the potion aside if they hit AC 20. How does this sound? Back to my earlier possible abuses of the spell: Is the servant still around if you fall unconscious? Can you tell it "give me a potion of healing if I fall" like a first-level contingency spell? Can you abuse the spell by having it give you a potion while you do other things like attack, move or cast a spell?
orionm42 02-14-06, 11:26 AM	However, I would like to point out that the problem is not that you aren't allowing the player to do "as one wants" but that you aren't allowing the player to do what RAW clearly allows, combined with the fact that you appear to insist that you are applying RAW... The problem is that there are different ways to use the RAW. For example, in the situation above, it would be possible using the rules as written to not allow the servant to administer the potion at all. For example, assume a dwarven cleric wearing heavy armor was carrying the cure potion in his backpack. When he falls unconscious, assume he falls flat on his back (on top of his backpack). The DM can argue within the RAW that the unseen servant does not have sufficient strength to get the backpack out from under the fallen PC. Next, assume the PC falls face down or on his side. The DM can use the rules to reasonably argue the servant does not have enough strength to roll the PC onto his back to administer the potion. Similarly, the DM can rule to allow the servant to administer the potion, but say that it takes longer than two rounds (the apparent consensus of the posts above). As I noted above, an argument can be made that getting the backpack out from under the fallen PC could take a move action. The point is, while some DMs may consider these rules applications a stretch or unduly strict, others may see them as reasonable. :)
Feeb 02-14-06, 11:38 AM	Really, what is the point of keeping a player out the action for four rounds(LCD2YOU's example), other than to punish them? Are you trying to railroad the pc's into one specific outcome, are you going for tpk or partial pk? What is the actual motive behind this ruling. D&D is about having *fun*. Is the Player of the pc waiting for his potion having fun? Does s/he enjoy being left out of the action for 4 whole rounds? How does the rest of the party feel about this?
orionm42 02-14-06, 11:49 AM	D&D is about having *fun*. Is the Player of the pc waiting for his potion having fun? Does s/he enjoy being left out of the action for 4 whole rounds? How does the rest of the party feel about this? Agreed...but if you don't like the ruling that the servant cannot or would take longer to administer the potion, the solution is simple. Have one of the PCs do it.
prawn 02-14-06, 11:51 AM	The point was that the character would have died because no PC could get to him in time. I allowed the Unseen Servant to give him a potion for that reason. P
Feeb 02-14-06, 12:02 PM	Agreed...but if you don't like the ruling that the servant cannot or would take longer to administer the potion, the solution is simple. Have one of the PCs do it. Eh, that ruling isn't RAW by any means, even my most liberal interpretation of the rules puts the whole sequence of events at two rounds. The point was that the character would have died because no PC could get to him in time. I allowed the Unseen Servant to give him a potion for that reason. P . Which is admirable. I dislike the killing pc's (happens sometimes, I avoid save-or-die type stuff, but sometimes a pc does buy the farm.) I concede this is a DM style thing, I just can't help but voice my disagreement with the way some posters have adjuncated the event.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 12:13 PM	The problem is that there are different ways to use the RAW. For example, in the situation above, it would be possible using the rules as written to not allow the servant to administer the potion at all. For example, assume a dwarven cleric wearing heavy armor was carrying the cure potion in his backpack. When he falls unconscious, assume he falls flat on his back (on top of his backpack). The DM can argue within the RAW that the unseen servant does not have sufficient strength to get the backpack out from under the fallen PC. Under the RAW a character cannot fall on their back, they simply fall prone. There is no facing in D&D, even when lying down.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 12:26 PM	Some like "high fantasy", I'm not one of them. Neither am I. Some say not letting their players do what they want to do is being mean, I do not. Neither do I. Some say the game is abstract and should remain that way, I do not. Then you are playing the wrong game. There are plenty of RPGs that are not abstract, trying to make D&D into one of them is like trying to fit a stem electric to a Porsche: you might be able to do it but neither the engine nor the car will function and full efficiency. There is a difference between thinking out of the box and bending the rules on a whim. So I read the rules differently than you, does that mean I am reading them wrong or incorrectly? Have I belittled any one in this thread for not playing the way I do? Have I not said that I do to the NPCs exactly what I do to the PCs? There is also a difference between adjudicating the rules effectivley and accuratley and doing so in an absurdly punitive manner. Rather then go to an extreme to make the action ludicrously ineffective just say "no". So please, do not insult me again (yes it was an insult even if it was hidden because you think that my way is somehow being mean to the players) by saying it wasn't directed at me. No it was not an insult and please do not presume to tell me how I feel or what my intentions are. My post was not in response to one of yours, nowhere in said post did I mention you at all. Indeed the fact that you chose to take offense says more about your state of mind than mine. Also, at no point did I use the phrase "being mean" (what with not being a 5 year old and all) so please don't try to trivilialize my posts by suggesting a level of immaturity that is no present.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 12:40 PM	Sulaco and PerennialRook: Are you saying there is something wrong with a "rules lawyer" style of DMing? I don't think it is in any way "punishing" for a DM to interpret the rules as strictly as he likes. As long as he applies those interpretations equally to PCs and enemies alike. On apersonal level yes, I think there is somethign wrong with rules-lawyer DMing cos it is generally less fun, but that is not the issue here. The issue is that the 9-step potion administration scenario is not based in the rules, indeed it is pretty far from it. All that stuff about propping up the head and rousing from unconsciousness is pure house-rules which is like kryptonite to a rules lawyer. As to the "it's okay as long as it applies to NPCs as well" attitude, I don't agree...kinda. What many DMs ignore is the fact that NPCs are disposable. They exist solely to enhance the game in which the PCs are the stars. The DM should have no vested interest in an NPC aside from his story responsibility at any particular moment. The PCs are heroes and protagonists with months, sometimes years, of careful and dedicated play behind them. Treating the PCs as having no more import or valuable than some generic orc who doesn't even have a name is disrespectful to your players and friends. That said I generally adhere to the "good for the goose, good for the gander" philosophy and apply rules and situations equally to PC and NPC alike, but when it comes right down to it I will always err on the side of the PCs. There is no realistic reason within the rules not to allow the Unseen Servant to administer a potion to a fallen comrade and neither is there any reason why it should take 9 rounds to do so. If however I did decide that such an action was unfeesible I would simply say so and not concoct a ludicrously difficult scenario to attempt to justify that descision.
orionm42 02-14-06, 01:39 PM	Under the RAW a character cannot fall on their back, they simply fall prone. There is no facing in D&D, even when lying down. Now that you bring it up, I recall the rule that says characters do not have a particular "face" when fighting (i.e. they have no front or back because they are constantly moving in battle). However, I was unaware that a character does not fall in a particular way. In any event, I will not ask you to site your reference for this. I’ll take it on faith. What is more interesting to me is that you asserted this rule after saying this... Or the non-pedantic we're here to have fun D&D version: Round 1: hand potion to Unseen Servant Round 2: Unseen Servant moves to fallen companion and administers potion To me, it seems the “have fun,” “non-pedantic” style of DMing is grounded in “would it be logical or reasonable that a character can do a particular thing in six seconds, even if the RAW does not technically support it.” For example, your second round seems perfectly logical to me. However, it is against the RAW because administering the potion is a full round action. Hence, the servant cannot move and administer the potion in the same round. Similarly, even though the rules do not strictly define a character as having a “face,” it seems reasonable and logical that an unconscious character must have fallen to the ground in some position. Don’t get me wrong. I clearly believe the servant can administer the potion. I also disagree with any notion it should take more that two or three rounds to complete the process. However, I do think DMs can apply the rules and logic in different ways to achieve strikingly different results. As for this… On a personal level yes, I think there is somethign wrong with rules-lawyer DMing cos it is generally less fun… I would ask, “for whom?” Some DMs really enjoy debating the rules and interpreting them strictly, and some players do as well. While you may rightfully believe some DMs forget the fact that NPCs are disposable, I believe some players forget the fact that the DM is a “player” too. He is entitled to enjoy himself as well, and as long as he maintains the flow of the game, he should be able to apply a “rules lawyer” style if that is the style he enjoys.
wrecan 02-14-06, 01:40 PM	The problem is that there are different ways to use the RAW. I'm not denying there may be multiple ways to read RAW. That doesn't mean that every interpretation is valid. LCD2YOU's interpretation is inconsistent with RAW (which makes it a fine house rule, but not something that should be represented as being consistent with RAW). The DM can argue within the RAW that the unseen servant does not have sufficient strength to get the backpack out from under the fallen PC. So what? Nobody disputes that and it wasn't LCD2YOU's argument. The point is, while some DMs may consider these rules applications a stretch or unduly strict, others may see them as reasonable. :) Whether they are reasonable house rules or unduly strict is another question entirely from whether they are consonant with RAW.
Treetrip Danglefoot 02-14-06, 02:13 PM	See "Arcane Trickster" for skills I think would be applicable. Ranged Legerdemain: An arcane trickster can perform one of the following class skills at a range of 30 feet: Disable Device, Open Lock, or Sleight of Hand. Working at a distance increases the normal skill check DC by 5, and an arcane trickster cannot take 10 on this check. Any object to be manipulated must weigh 5 pounds or less. The only applicable ability of the Arcane Trickster is an individual spell like ability which does not mention or include any other spells. Ergo is has no bearing. Also, lifting the prone body of the adventurer/NPC so they don't choke on the potion (try drinking when prone, or against the wall with your head flopping forward) as it is poured over the lips. Again, opening the mouth may qualify as fine manipulation. This is flavor text. For example, if someone blindfolded themselves (PC) and fought like that for 1 month. Would you give him the Blind-Fight feat for free or congratulate him for roleplaying his next feat selection. The correct answer is that you would congratulate him for the same reason that a fighter who fights solely with a longsword does not gain Weapon Focus: Longsword until he actively choses that feat out of character. There is no mention in the SRD or DMG or PHB that requires you to lift the head, open the mouth, move the tongue out of the way, keep the head propped up, etc etc for two reasons. 1) It negates the necessity of skill checks through adequate description. Meaning that the character's knowledge is irrelevant compared to the players knowledge. If I can describe all the appropriate steps to bandage a wound, why is the fate of my target up to the roll of a die? Also if I cannot adequately describe the manner in which I will open a lock, why should I be capable of it. 2) All difficulties are perscribed by skill DCs. These DCs include all necessary steps to perform an action. The DC for administering a potion is 10+damage dealt during the AoO. This includes the difficulty of lifting the targets head, opening his mouth, keeping the mouth open, uncorking the vial, pour the vial in a steady stream to ensure an adequate amount of fluid fills reaches the target. If a character is incapable or restricted in any of these things then the DC is increased. If the character for instance has only 1 arm, then his DC should increase because he is only half as capable with his hands as a normal character. If the DC is increased beyond 10, then the Unseen Servant automatically fails the check and cannot perform the action. Round 1: Mage casts Unseen servant Round 2: Mage gets potion from backpack and opens cork (risking it being spilled as it glides across a floor where there's a fight taking place. Round 3: Unseen servant gets it to the downed pc and places it down gently. Round 4: Unseen servant gets rock/backpack/whatever and moves it close to head of down character. Round 5: Head of downed character lifted and propped up by Unseen Servant using rock/backpack/whatever. Round 6: Mouth opened and propped to stay that way. Round 7: Potion opened and poured. Round 8: Character gets 1d8+5 HP and regains consciouness Round 9: Character gets up, to possible AoO. Rounds 4-6 are superflous flavor text that does not require a round to accomplish and are inculded as portions of the DC 10 for adminstering a potion. Rounds 1 and 9 are not those of the Unseen servant but that of the caster and the target, and thus are unnecessary to mention. Round 7 and 8 are the same round for the following reason. When a character who is still concsious drinks a potion the hit points are restored immediately. If player 1 drinks a cure minor wounds potion on initiative 20 of round 1, he recieves 1 hitpoint on initiative 20 of round 1. He does not recieve 1 hitpoint on initiative 20 of round 2, or on initiative 1 of round 1. The effect is immediate. Thus if a character were fed a potion on initiative 6 of the supposed "round 7" then he regains the hitpoints on initiative 6 of "round 7". Anything else is the result of a house rule, not the rules as written. The only applicable rounds are rounds 2 (which does not require uncorking), 3 (so long as the target is within the move range of the Unseen Servant, and can be reached within a single or double move action, otherwise a 4th round of additional movement is required), and round 7 (during which the full round action to administer the potion takes place). After the wizard hands the Unseen Servant the potion, it requires two rounds to reach and administer the potion. The now healed target acts immediately on his next initiative turn. If his initiative takes place on 4 and the Unseen Servant's took place on 10, then he acts this round. If his initiaive takes place on 20 and the unseen servant's took place on 10, then he acts next round. However, as suggested in the DMG, the DM may judge this an extenuating circumstance and have the revived player's initiative begin at the initiative count he was revived on rather than his previous initiative. I would rule this way. In the spell description it states that the Unseen Servant is 'an invisible, mindless, shapeless force'. This is one of the important benefits of the Unseen Servant. It is not an invisible humanoid shaped force. It is an invisible shapeless force, comparable to an invisible, semi-intangible ooze. It can shape itself as many appendages in as many shapes as it desires, including those of a garden trowel, a rake, a comb, an egg beater, a weak chair (capable of supporting no more than 20 lbs), a cereal bowl, or even an invisible intangible but perfectly shaped flower. An unseen servant lacks any specific physical layout. I can see one thing that actually makes yours 4 rounds. I disagree on your use of the word "immediate". It is my contention that immediate means "as soon as the potion is consumed" which is at the end of the round. That is why I have an extra round, Round 4, where the character not only gets healed, but wakes up from the unconsciouness caused by dropping to less than 0 HP. This is incorrect. According to your layout of his description you both scheduled the target being fed the potion to begin activity on the round following the administration of the potion. The difference between your layouts is that you got the potion out of the bag as a full round action, while he got the potion out of the bag as a move action. As listed in the SRD, retrieving a stored item is a move action. In this description you are wrong. As I also said, I did something like this for the bad guys the PCs ran into. I was saying it would take 4 rounds for US to work. It was my players who howled like there was no tomorrow. Unless the target was more than 60 feet away from the unseen servant it would take a total of 3 rounds. Additionally the caster would have to be within range of the target (25ft+5/2 levels) meaning a minimum caster level 15 (as his range on the spell is 65 feet, otherwise the unseen servant ceases to exsist when he reaches the spell range). If you're players stated that it did not take long enough then they are wrong, and you must tell them so, explaining as necessary as I have explained it here. All difficulties are pertained in the DC checks, if it were not so PC skills would be overshadowed by player's skills, which would make the game not dungeons and dragons, and also not fun for those with less campaign specific adventuring skills. No "house rules" there. I am just keeping it that, as the RRAW states, when a person is reduced below 0 hp they go unconscious. Are you saying that is not correct. I'd say that not having them take sometime to wake up is a houserule. You are wrong. Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled. Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower. If a character is brought to 1 hit point or above he is fully functional, as though he had never been reduced to 0 or lower. If you require that he spend a round waking up then you are changing current rules. Because if he is unable to act within the full range of his capability in his given situation (current situation detailed in SRD: prone) then he is not acting as though he had never been reduced to 0 or below, and therefor you would not be gaming as according to the rules as written. You would be gaming according to the rules you have agreed upon. That is fully within your range of decisions, but it is not the rules as written. However this is not what you have done with your examples. Your example has listed retrieving a stored item as a full round action, which is actually a move action. Your final round is simply an omitted round from other examples, because it is the action of the character and not the unseen servant. Thus the basis for your additional round is that retrieving a stored item is a full round action, whereas the other posters have labeled it as a move action. The other posters are correct and you are not. There is no actual debate as to anything else. It is the result of a misunderstanding based on verbage, as well as your original example which required 9 rounds, the majority of which were not relevant to dungeons and dragons. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong here? Simply for emphasis on there being a reality in which there are defined causes and effects, and laws separate right from wrong I am responding to this question. The rules do. If you agree to debate on a premise over the rules as written in the SRD and the Dungeons and Dragons handbooks, then those rules are the ones which tell you who is right, and who is wrong. If you want to change them by introducing house rules then you are not debating over the rules as written in the SRD and Dungeons and Dragons handbooks, but over the rules as written by you.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 02:19 PM	I would ask, “for whom?” For me, obviously. That is what the word "personal" means. Who else's opinion would you imagine I am qualified to give?
orionm42 02-14-06, 02:31 PM	For me, obviously. That is what the word "personal" means. Who else's opinion would you imagine I am qualified to give? Touché. However, your initial response to this thread led me to believe you were belittling the "rules lawyer" style in general, thinking it inferior to your own style. Granted, if that is the case, your response is probably the same as above. However, I was just trying to throw a word in for us wanna-be lawyers. :)
wrecan 02-14-06, 03:42 PM	However, I was just trying to throw a word in for us wanna-be lawyers. :) I'm an actual lawyer, and I thought Sulaco's criticism of DM-rules lawyers was on the money. I define "DM-rules lawyer" as a DM who tries to overanalyze a rule to squash PC creativity. I find that 99.9% of the RAW are pretty consistent with one another and do not require an inordinate amount of picayune statutory interpretation. People (not you, by the way) often react to the unexpected with a guttural "No way!" when if they stepped back a moment and thought it out, they'd realize that a creative solution is almost never game-breaking.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 05:29 PM	Similarly, even though the rules do not strictly define a character as having a “face,” it seems reasonable and logical that an unconscious character must have fallen to the ground in some position. Logical, yes, but in terms of D&D rules it is largely immaterial and is thus not covered by the rules. Attempting to apply logic and realism to D&D is a fools errand. I aim for verisimilitude, myself, as it is far easier to achieve, far more satisfying, and is not at odds with the mechanics of the game.
Sulaco 02-14-06, 05:37 PM	Touché. However, your initial response to this thread led me to believe you were belittling the "rules lawyer" style in general, thinking it inferior to your own style. Nope. Some people - both DM and players alike - love rules-layering and rules-heavy games. It works for them and to that I say as long as everyone has fun you are doing it right. The only style of DMing I consider inferior - not just to my own but in a general sense - is any which makes the game less fun. Even then there is no one style that qualifies exclusixely, rather it is just bad DMs collectively who comprise this group be they rules-lawyers, rules-light, adversarial DMs, railroaders, etc.
Chaser 02-14-06, 05:47 PM	...... For example, your second round seems perfectly logical to me. However, it is against the RAW because administering the potion is a full round action. Hence, the servant cannot move and administer the potion in the same round. Sure it can. US can move 5' and perform a full round action. US actually gets normal rounds, with a 15' move speed, as has been said. Similarly, even though the rules do not strictly define a character as having a “face,” it seems reasonable and logical that an unconscious character must have fallen to the ground in some position. More importantly, don't make a situation more complicated than it needs to be, and THEN invent a mechanic to solve the complication. There are no rules for facing, thus, there is no facing in DanD, thus no need to resolve on what side someone fell. There ARE rules for administering a potion to a fallen comrade, follow those if you desire to use RAW. Lastly, if a fallen character is bleeding to death, let the players know what your rules are before they try something they think they understand from the RAW.
PerennialRook 02-14-06, 11:56 PM	I what? This is still being argued? What's wrong with rules lawyers? My dad is a lawyer. I've had dm's that I've hated to game with because they seemed to not know the rules. Rules make the reality of the game. Without rules you cannot make any sort of concrete reality. The rules say that retreiving an item is a standard action and that administering a potion is a full round action. What is the question? Why complicate it? Point me to the rules that show how it takes longer than two rounds for the US to administer the potion. Yeah sure the PC may act that round or the next, but he's healed two rounds after the mage takes the initiative to put our much discussed plan into action. I like to think I have a good grasp of the rules.
prawn 02-15-06, 09:20 AM	People keep posting saying things like "I'm a lawyer" or "My dad's a lawyer." I think calling all this wrangling about the rules "rules lawyering" is giving lawyers a bad name. Perhaps we should call it "rules doctoring" or "rules policing" to give those poor lawyers a break.
orionm42 02-15-06, 09:31 AM	Logical, yes, but in terms of D&D rules it is largely immaterial and is thus not covered by the rules. Attempting to apply logic and realism to D&D is a fools errand. Sorry Sulaco and Chaser...I just couldn't resist. :D .... A creature's space does not have a front, back, left, or right side, because combatants are constantly moving and turning during in battle. Unless a creature is immobile, it effectively doesn't have a front or a left side - at least not one you can locate on the tabletop. Score one for logic and the rules. :)
PerennialRook 02-15-06, 05:11 PM	Prawn, I was just saying my dad is a lawyer to illustrate that I don't have a problem with lawyers. But I do agree, I think the term is a bit of a misnomer. Perhaps "Rules Advocate" would work better?
Chaser 02-15-06, 11:57 PM	Sorry Sulaco and Chaser...I just couldn't resist. :D .... A creature's space does not have a front, back, left, or right side, because combatants are constantly moving and turning during in battle. Unless a creature is immobile, it effectively doesn't have a front or a left side - at least not one you can locate on the tabletop. Score one for logic and the rules. :) Apology accepted, but not needed. The rules are what is interesting in these sorts of discussions. However, this would be score less than 1 for logic and the rules, for a few reasons. No mechanic is given for determining facing in this section. No reason you would need to know facing is given. In fact, this section is about how much space a creature takes up and how generally, THERE IS NO FACING IN DanD. Additionally, the rules for administering a potion to someone who is unconscious take into account the unconsciousness of the victim, so facing is immaterial in this instance. For instance, it's not easier, nor does it take less time, if they fell face up, because such an exception is not mentioned, and, well, you know what I am going to say here. Therefore, while your quote is promising, it does not apply to potion administration. If the rules took that sentence and did something with it, that would be more interesting. IMO, it just points out that if one cannot move, one must be facing a particular way, but no benefit or penalty is listed or referenced. This is because the rules are written for use without facing.
Mock26 02-16-06, 04:56 AM	The answer is a very simple Yes and a very simple No. There have been some very good posts in this thread. There have also been some that are utterly and totally moronic. Some people see this use as playing within the realms of a fantasy gaming system (eg mending is a "fine detail" activity and opening a potion stopper would be no more difficult). Some people can only see the RAW and fail to grasp the concept of fantasy (eg "it doesn't say it could open a vial so it can't!"). As with a lot of discussions on this forum, Side A sees itself as being right, the other side is wrong, and Side A will not be swayed. But, here's the kicker. Side B sees itself as being right, the other side is wrong, and Side B will not be swayed. Whatever a DM allows in his world is Right. Whatever a DM does not allow in his world is Wrong. In my world I would allow this, so it would be Right for me. To LCD, who broke this down into something like 7 steps: Why? Wouldn't "administer this potion" be a simple task that is also just one activity? If you argue that it isn't and that it takes 7 steps, then how would you rule on the mending activity allowed? Round 1. Put needle through cloth. Round 2. Pull thread tight. Round 3. Put needle through cloth. Round 4. Pull thread tight.....? At that rate it would take a few days to sew up a small tear in a cloth. Imagine the process to get it to clean! (1. Brush duster to the left 2. Raise duster 3 inches 3. Brush duster to right 4. Raise duster 3 inches 5. Brush duster to left....) Personally, I would simply rule that "pour this potion down Bob's throat" would be a simple enough action that would take 2 rounds if person is on their back, may 3 if they were on their front. I might also add additional rounds for extenuating circumstances. This is a VERY clever use of a very simple spell. Why "punish" the players by turning it into some multi-step monstrosity of a chore that would make the players throw up their arms in frustration and let the character bleed to death where he lies? Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Mock26 02-16-06, 05:27 AM	Under the RAW a character cannot fall on their back, they simply fall prone. There is no facing in D&D, even when lying down. One of the best quotes, ever! Of course, under the RAW a character could hold a sword by the blade and swing it like a club and it would do the same damage and the blade would not damage the character's hand when he swings it because the RAW does not state which part of the blade causes damage!
Sulaco 02-16-06, 09:30 AM	One of the best quotes, ever! Of course, under the RAW a character could hold a sword by the blade and swing it like a club and it would do the same damage and the blade would not damage the character's hand when he swings it because the RAW does not state which part of the blade causes damage! Yup. Silly, ain't it. One of my favourites is that you need to run in a straight line before attempting a long jump, but nowhere does it state you need to run in teh direction of the jump. You could run stright ahead and then jump 90º to the left or right, or indeed run straight ahead and then jump back the way you came. That's why I believe common sense is one of the DM's best tools (though one I see too rarely used).
Bruunwald 02-16-06, 12:28 PM	Hilariously, everyone is so intent on proving whether or not the unseen servant is physically capable of the task, that nobody thought to check if the task itself is allowable. Now, I can't quote page number, but I am 100% certain that somewhere in the rules it says you can't administer potions to unconscious characters. 100% certain. No, don't argue. It says it somewhere, explicitly. I know, I know. You're saying, but Bruunwald, if you can't quote page number, word count, type or font, date of publication, color of type, and the grade of paper used, then it doesn't exist and you are a fool, open to ridicule and a target for our hatred. Yes, I know. But I am 100% positive it's in there. I'll leave it up to the accusatory among you to prove me wrong by looking through every line of every book until you don't find it. You'll find it, though. Because it's there. And then you'll owe me an apology, and I might or might not accept it. So the answer is no, an unseen servant can not administer a potion to an unconscious character... because nobody can.
LCD2YOU 02-16-06, 12:36 PM	Breaking in for effect. Actually Bruunwald, you can administer to an unconscious person. In the DMG, on the top right side where it describes potions, yes I forget the page, towards the end of the paragraph it says you can. It also states that it is a full round action to do so. So, we are left with does that mean that on the same round of the full round action that the sleeping beauty gets the HP back? Does that mean they get to stand up on the very next round? I still say no, the "immediate effect" happens, next round when the person becomes aware again. They stand up on the next round, facing possible AoO. So, some consensus is 3 rounds to stand up. It seems to be 4 rounds needed to stand up. I have it at five rounds to stand up, from reasons I provided earlier that a few seem to think it's because I suck the "fun" out of things. All of the times to stand are all based on RAW of course. Based on RAW by how they interpret the rules. Like I jhave always stated, as long as it applies equally to all, it doesn't matter, right?
Andreas0815 02-16-06, 12:57 PM	Hilariously, everyone is so intent on proving whether or not the unseen servant is physically capable of the task, that nobody thought to check if the task itself is allowable. Now, I can't quote page number, but I am 100% certain that somewhere in the rules it says you can't administer potions to unconscious characters. 100% certain. No, don't argue. It says it somewhere, explicitly. I know, I know. You're saying, but Bruunwald, if you can't quote page number, word count, type or font, date of publication, color of type, and the grade of paper used, then it doesn't exist and you are a fool, open to ridicule and a target for our hatred. Yes, I know. But I am 100% positive it's in there. I'll leave it up to the accusatory among you to prove me wrong by looking through every line of every book until you don't find it. You'll find it, though. Because it's there. And then you'll owe me an apology, and I might or might not accept it. So the answer is no, an unseen servant can not administer a potion to an unconscious character... because nobody can. ><)))°> (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
Chaser 02-16-06, 02:17 PM	Breaking in for effect. Actually Bruunwald, you can administer to an unconscious person. In the DMG, on the top right side where it describes potions, yes I forget the page, towards the end of the paragraph it says you can. It also states that it is a full round action to do so. So, we are left with does that mean that on the same round of the full round action that the sleeping beauty gets the HP back? Does that mean they get to stand up on the very next round? I still say no, the "immediate effect" happens, next round when the person becomes aware again. They stand up on the next round, facing possible AoO. So, some consensus is 3 rounds to stand up. It seems to be 4 rounds needed to stand up. I have it at five rounds to stand up, from reasons I provided earlier that a few seem to think it's because I suck the "fun" out of things. All of the times to stand are all based on RAW of course. Based on RAW by how they interpret the rules. Like I jhave always stated, as long as it applies equally to all, it doesn't matter, right? "Based" being the operative term here. Actual RAW have been given a few times. Whenever the Unseen Servant is within 5' of the person needing the potion, a full round action is required to administer the potion. The victim gets the healing immediately [that means right then] and is eligible to act on his or her next initiative. This is within the administering a potion to an unconscious person rule: Drinking a potion or using an oil on an item of gear is a standard action. The potion or oil takes effect immediately. Using a potion or oil provokes attacks of opportunity. A successful attack (including grappling attacks) against the character forces a Concentration check (as for casting a spell). If the character fails this check, she cannot drink the potion. An enemy may direct an attack of opportunity against the potion or oil container rather than against the character. A successful attack of this sort can destroy the container. A creature must be able to swallow a potion or smear on an oil. Because of this, incorporeal creatures cannot use potions or oils. Any corporeal creature can imbibe a potion. The potion must be swallowed. Any corporeal creature can use an oil. A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat. Likewise, it takes a full-round action to apply an oil to an unconscious creature. [emphasis added] Likewise, getting healed back above zero hit points has a specific effect: Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled. Healing that raises his hit points to 1 or more makes him fully functional again, just as if he’d never been reduced to 0 or lower. There is no delay in the efficacy of a potion once applied, and there is no 'waking up' action when one is again above 0 hit points ANYWHERE in the rules. You are fully functional, just as if you were never below zero, that is, you do not suffer any effects from having been below zero, like needing to wake up. This means as few as two rounds can accomplish getting the wounded character active again, and longer might be needed if the US is too far away, or if the victim's initiative comes earlier in the round than the US. I invite LCD2YOU to thoroughly back up his opinion on the RAW with less rhetoric and more QUOTED RULES AND MECHANICS.
orionm42 02-16-06, 04:27 PM	No mechanic is given for determining facing in this section. No reason you would need to know facing is given. In fact, this section is about how much space a creature takes up and how generally, THERE IS NO FACING IN DanD. Additionally, the rules for administering a potion to someone who is unconscious take into account the unconsciousness of the victim, so facing is immaterial in this instance. For instance, it's not easier, nor does it take less time, if they fell face up, because such an exception is not mentioned, and, well, you know what I am going to say here. Therefore, while your quote is promising, it does not apply to potion administration. If the rules took that sentence and did something with it, that would be more interesting. IMO, it just points out that if one cannot move, one must be facing a particular way, but no benefit or penalty is listed or referenced. This is because the rules are written for use without facing. With all due respect, I find your logic somewhat flawed. Allow me to paraphrase what I think you are saying. “Because the rules do not define a mechanic for determining which way someone faces when he is immobile, the DM cannot reasonably determine the orientation of an immobile creature.” Similarly, “Because the rules do not specifically list any scenarios where facing might be important, there must not be any scenarios where facing is important.” Finally, “Because the rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character do not reference facing, facing must be irrelevant to the process.” If I have paraphrased correctly, I believe your arguments are false. However, even if I misunderstood the finer points of your arguments, the fact of the matter is, the rules cannot possibly address every situation. That is one of the primary roles of the DM. To quote the DM guide again… Often a situation will arise that isn’t explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved. When you come upon a situation that the rules don’t seem to cover, consider the following courses of action. Look to any similar situation that is covered in a rulebook. Try to extrapolate from what you see presented there and apply it to the current circumstances…. In the quote from page 29 of the DMG, it seems clear that immobile creatures do have a face which can be determined in game. Also, in the scenario I outlined, facing may have an impact on whether or not the unseen servant can recover or administer the potion in a timely fashion, after considering the servant’s strength and the weight of the unconscious PC. Therefore, making a ruling that the servant either can or cannot administer the potion considering these factors seems reasonable and appropriate. Arguing that facing must be irrelevant because character orientation “generally” has no relevance in combat ignores those unusual situations where facing may be or clearly is important.
Sulaco 02-16-06, 04:40 PM	“Because the rules do not define a mechanic for determining which way someone faces when he is immobile, the DM cannot reasonably determine the orientation of an immobile creature.” False. Because the rules do not define a mechanic for determining which way someone faces when he is immobile, the DM can reasonably and easily determine the orientation of an immobile creature if it should ever be necessary to do so, though it rarely should be. “Because the rules do not specifically list any scenarios where facing might be important, there must not be any scenarios where facing is important.” False. Because the rules do not specifically list any scenarios where facing might be important, generally there is little reason to determine facing. “Because the rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character do not reference facing, facing must be irrelevant to the process.” True...somewhat. The rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character do not reference facing because facing should be irrelevant to the process...unless the DM is a dink. ;)
orionm42 02-16-06, 04:56 PM	True...somewhat. The rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character do not reference facing because facing should be irrelevant to the process...unless the DM is a dink. ;) ....or unless the DM is a crazy assss rules lawyer! :D And Sulaco, I think I paraphrased that one incorrectly. However, you caught me before I had a chance to edit it. Here is what I was going to change it to... Finally, “Because the rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character contemplate the fact that the PC is immobile, adjusting the PC’s position to drink the potion must be included as part of the full round action. Therefore, the strength of the creature administering the potion is irrelevant.” Now that one is clearly false as well!! :D
Sulaco 02-16-06, 05:04 PM	....or unless the DM is a crazy assss rules lawyer! :D Well, if facing is really an issue you could always try administering the potion through the, ahem, "back door". :eek:
orionm42 02-16-06, 05:12 PM	Well, if facing is really an issue you could always try administering the potion through the, ahem, "back door". :eek: Perhaps I'll just stick with the oil of cure light wounds.... :thinks: On second thought...
wrecan 02-16-06, 06:26 PM	Quote: Finally, “Because the rules for administering a potion to an unconscious character contemplate the fact that the PC is immobile, adjusting the PC’s position to drink the potion must be included as part of the full round action. Therefore, the strength of the creature administering the potion is irrelevant.” Now that one is clearly false as well!! :D No, it isn't. The rules contemplate a full-round action for delivering a potion to an unconscious person, with no distinction for characters who land face up, face down, or are tied up to a post. Had the rules meant to limit the feeding to people face-up, or disallowed potion-feeders of a certain Strength, it could easily have mentioned it. The inclusion of making it a full-round action easily include the time it takes to position the head appropriately. As LCD2YOU previously pointed out, even people who land on their backs will generally choke on liquids nless their head is carefulyl maneuvered. Therefore, no matter how somebody lands, their head has to be repositioned. This is accounted for in the full-round action. If you were to make a house rule that gives a 50% chance of a character landing face down and then requiring an extra round to feed such a person a potion, you would have the ridiculous scenario in which people who fall on their back magically do so in a manner in which they will not choke on liquids. The house rule would actually be less realistic than RAW.
Chaser 02-16-06, 10:17 PM	Ladies and Gentlemen, Someone seeking to entertain me concerning the RAW and who seeks to have the last word with me recently PMed me concerning this thread. This is an example of an ineffective way to seek to have the last word, but an effective way to entertain: Of course Chaser, I will not respond to you or any of your posts. You read the rules your way and I'll read them my way. Despite your belief to the contrary, your reading of the RAW is no better or worse than mine. I don't have things run concurrently, as you seem to put that is my choice. Do not bother to respond as I am blocking any mail you may wish to send. I am not particulary fond of you or your style. Good day. Name not posted intentionally. This is what an adequate response to such looks like: Thank you for your time and effort.
orionm42 02-17-06, 10:36 AM	No, it isn't... It is false because one thing (adjusting the PC's position to drink the potion being part of the full round action) has noting to do with the other (the strength required to manipulate the body). One determines how long it takes to complete the said action. The other determines whether or not the administering character has the requisite ability to complete the said action. If it were true, it would also be true that a character with a strength of 2 can proficiently use and get the damage bonus from a +2 composite long bow simply because the PC can take the standard action normally required to fire the bow. And on that note, thanks to all for a very interesting discussion! :) Wrecan (and others)...feel free to respond to this post if you like. I'll continue to check the thread. :tiphat:
Chaser 02-17-06, 12:12 PM	It is false because one thing (adjusting the PC's position to drink the potion being part of the full round action) has noting to do with the other (the strength required to manipulate the body). One determines how long it takes to complete the said action. The other determines whether or not the administering character has the requisite ability to complete the said action. If it were true, it would also be true that a character with a strength of 2 can proficiently use and get the damage bonus from a +2 composite long bow simply because the PC can take the standard action normally required to fire the bow. And on that note, thanks to all for a very interesting discussion! :) Wrecan (and others)...feel free to respond to this post if you like. I'll continue to check the thread. :tiphat: I disagree with your bolded statement example, [and therefore with your overall contention because the example fails], because the PHB specifically mentions problems with strength and bows and damage and whatnot: Longbow: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below) but not a regular longbow. Longbow, Composite: You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a –2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost. For purposes of weapon proficiency and similar feats, a composite longbow is treated as if it were a longbow. If I have misunderstood the thrust of your point, let me know.
DaveReaves 02-17-06, 01:04 PM	I'm going to quote one more line from the SRD that I didn't see anywhere in this tread: Not an Action: Some activities are so minor that they are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else. So by RAW we don't need to define every action by its parts (such as "proping up the head" or "uncorking the vial") as those action already have a name and rules associated. As to how fast one could do it, if in his round our wizard uses a [round 1]standard action to cast unseen servant and a move action to retrive a vial of healing potion, the servant acts on his inititive and takes the vial (Pretty sure we can call that a free action) then walk ten foot to the downed comrad then use the "start a full round action" standard action to begin adminastering potion[/round 1]. When the wizard's turn comes around [Round 2] the servant uses it's standard action to "finish a full round action". Our downed friend is now at X HP, is no longer unconsious or helpless but stays prone until he can do something about it (which will be his inititive.) and our round is not even over yet. So, one and half rounds to get your servant to feed the dying man a potion. This is of course distance dependant.
orionm42 02-17-06, 02:08 PM	If I have misunderstood the thrust of your point, let me know. I think you did miss the point. The point of the example was “being able to perform standard actions in general does not give a player the ability to perform all standard actions.” Stated in classic logic format: All characters can take full round actions. It takes a full round action to administer a potion to an unconscious PC. Therefore, all characters can administer potions to an unconscious PC. This statement is clearly false and I believe this is the crux of the argument you were making when you said … The rules for administering a potion to someone who is unconscious take into account the unconsciousness of the victim, so facing is immaterial in this instance. The rules state that it takes a full round to administer a potion to a fallen character. You are arguing (I believe) the full round action contemplates manipulation of the immobile body into position. You then conclude facing must always be immaterial because of this. However, your conclusion does not follow. More specifically, I agree with you that taking a full round includes taking the time necessary to move a face down body into position. However, it does not logically follow that taking a full round grants the servant the strength necessary to move a face down body into position. When the rules state it takes a full round to administer a potion to an unconscious friend, the rules are simply defining the time required to complete the task. However, the task may have other unrelated prerequisites (i.e. strength to move the body) which must be met before the task can be completed. As for this… For instance, it's not easier, nor does it take less time, if they fell face up, because such an exception is not mentioned, and, well, you know what I am going to say here. Here, you are arguing that the unseen servant can administer the potion because it is neither easier, nor harder, to administer a potion if the PC fell face up or face down. I am saying this is false because facing in this instance impacts the difficulty of the task. In other words, I am saying it is harder to administer a potion if the PC fell face down because you first have to roll him over to put him in a position to drink. If you do not have the strength to roll him over, you cannot administer the potion. In summary, your arguments are like saying: All unseen servants can perform full round actions. It takes a full round action to administer a potion to a fallen PC. Therefore, all unseen servants have the strength necessary to administer a potion to a fallen PC. False.
wrecan 02-17-06, 02:18 PM	I agree with you that taking a full round includes taking the time necessary to move a face down body into position. However, it does not logically follow that taking a full round grants the servant the strength necessary to move a face down body into position. Your argument would only be relevant if there was an indication that a creature of Strength 2 lacked the Strength necessary to feed a potion to an unconscious character. I have seen no statement to that effect, nor any evidence for it's truth. Your argument is assuming facts not in evidence. It would be as if I stated "The sky was blue when I proposed to my wife" and you accused me of being a liar because at night the sky is black and I didn't specify what time it was when I proposed. If you can evidence that Unseen Servants lack the Strength to feed potions to face-down unconscious characters of Medium Size or smaller, then I would concede your point. Otherwise you would appear to merely be argumentative.
orionm42 02-17-06, 03:10 PM	Your argument would only be relevant if there was an indication that a creature of Strength 2 lacked the Strength necessary to feed a potion to an unconscious character. I have seen no statement to that effect, nor any evidence for it's truth. I am not being argumentative (at least I am trying not to be). Allow me to clarify. I am not saying "a creature with a strength of 2 lacks the strength necessary to feed a potion to an unconscious character." I am saying, "a character with a strength of 2 may lack the strength necessary to move a face down character onto his back and into a position to swallow the potion." I am also saying "a character with a strength of 2 may lack the strength necessary to pull a backpack (which contains the potion) out from under a character which has fallen on top of it." Please see my original post. To flesh out an example, assume I am a male dwarf weighing 200lbs. I have a strength of 16, and I am carrying a heavy load which adds an additional 210lbs. My total weight when I fall flat on my face is 410lbs. The unseen servant with a strength of 2 can only push or drag 100 lbs. Is that sufficient to roll the dwarf onto his back to drink? I don't know, I am not a physics major. Maybe, maybe not. Similarly, is that strength sufficient to pull the backpack out from under the dwarf if the dwarf fell on top of it? Again, I don't know. Different DMs might rule differently here. But what if that same dwarf were under the effects of an enlarge person spell? That spell increases the dwarf's size and multiplies his weight by 8. That means the dwarf now weighs 1,600lbs, excluding his gear. Can an unseen servant roll him over now? I would rule he cannot. Anyway, I am just saying there are scenarios (as rare as they may be) where the servant couldn't complete the task. Edit: I just noticed you qualified your question by saying... If you can evidence that Unseen Servants lack the Strength to feed potions to face-down unconscious characters of Medium Size or smaller, then I would concede your point. Emphasis added. I will say this as politely as possible: By qualifying your question, don't you think you have already conceded the point that there are scenarios where the servant cannot administer the potion?
wrecan 02-17-06, 07:03 PM	By qualifying your question, don't you think you have already conceded the point that there are scenarios where the servant cannot administer the potion? Not at all because I understand a little thing called "context." In context, this discussion is about an US feeding a potion to a PC under RAW. Unless the OP specifies otherwise, it may reasonably be assumed that a PC is a Small or Medium sized creature. Had we been discussing Enlarged Dwarves, or unconsious Ancient Gold Dragons, the OP would have said so. I clarified the question in my post to you because you seem to have a gnawing desire to ask questions assuming facts not in evidence and... out of context. And lo and behold, your argument has devolved into whether an US can push around Enlarged Dwarves, not something contemplated by the OP. Shall we also discuss whether an US can turn over unconscious Storm Giants and Aboleth? (That was a rhetorical question, by the way.) As for your argument on dragging: A Half-orc PC can weigh 160 lbs. naked, and will often have more than 100 lbs. of gear. A halfling with a 6 Strength can drag only 225 lbs (small creatures lift 3/4 what Medium characters do). A Strength of 6 is actually the default Strength for a halfling PC using the standard point buy system (you start at 8 Strength and halflings have a -2 Strength). Since it is entirely reasonable to think that a 6 Strength halfling may want to feed a potion to his unconscious half-orc companion, one would think that the rules on feeding people potions would have mentioned it if this entirely contempplatable situation had occurred. But the rules are silent on the issue. Actually, they are not. They state: "A character can carefully administer a potion to an unconscious creature as a full-round action, trickling the liquid down the creature’s throat." You claim that this is talking about time and not physical ability, but that's not what a plain reading of the sentence requires. The sentence begins "A character can..." "Can" is a word indicating capacity, not time. Had the sentence been referring to time alone, it would have read "It requires a full round action to administer a potion to an unconscious creature." It did not. The rule as written states that a character -- any character -- can administer a potion to any unconscious "creature" as a full round action. In my opinion, the RAW state very clearly that a potion carefulyl poured down a throat will not choke the person. Presumably, a potion has different liquid dynamics than other fluids. It will not choke you, so long as the liquid can reach "the throat". Obviously, under the RAW, a creature with no throat cannot be administered a potion. A creature whose throat is inaccessible (ie, a bag over the head), cannot be administered a potion. You are welcome to house rule this away and complicate matters with rolls to see if a person falls face-first or face-up. You can require a Strength check to move unconscious creatures. That's your perogative. But the RAW are pretty darn clear to me: there is no Strength requirement. Any character can administer a potion to any throated creature whose throat is accessible to the character with a full-round action. An US, who can perform tasks as if it were a character can also do this with a full-round action. Attempts to unnecessarily complicate these rules are mere house rules and, in my opinion, ill-advised.
talkingbeatles 02-17-06, 07:39 PM	How did a question this simple get four freakin' pages?? Damn, and all I'm doing is contributing to the beast. Why am I still typing?? What am I doing?? Yarrrgg!!! Yeah I'd let the servant do it. The task is simple enough. Of course when it all boils down, it's DM's discretion.
RogueScribner 02-17-06, 11:37 PM	How did a question this simple get four freakin' pages?? Damn, and all I'm doing is contributing to the beast. Why am I still typing?? What am I doing?? Yarrrgg!!! It's certainly made for some interesting reading. ;)
MSW 02-24-06, 05:10 PM	I'd say yes it can, as long as the unconscious person is not the one who cast Unseen Servant. (Because he's the only one that can direct the servant to do something, but if unconscious, he can't do that.)
prawn 02-25-06, 08:31 AM	How does the caster tell the unseen servant what to do? Does it understand every language that the caster speaks? Can you tell the servant "Follow me, and if I fall, give me this healing potion?"
RogueScribner 02-25-06, 04:43 PM	The Unseen Servant will perform whatever action the spellcaster instructs it to do as long as it is something it is capable of doing and the spellcaster is within range during the action.
MSW 02-25-06, 05:12 PM	The Unseen Servant spell is basically based off of Mickey Mouse and the Sorcerers Apprentice. It's the spell Mickey used to make the brooms move the buckets of water around. Basically, it will let you do menial tasks and the Unseen Servant keeps doing it, mindlessly, until you direct it to stop. I'd personally rule that contingencies would be beyond the instructions you could give an Unseen Servant. (Follow me around and if I am knocked out, administer this potion to me...) You can hand one a potion and tell it to go administer it to your friend, thus avoiding having to enter melee range. You could instruct it to follow you around while carrying the potion. But I don't think it would be within the simple nature of the spell to expect the Unseen Servant to have the smarts to understand what you want in following you around and monitoring your health. That's just my opinion, and how I'd rule. Looking at the spell it doesn't specify what it takes to direct an Unseen Servant to do something. (some spells say it takes a free action, or a move action or standard action to direct/redirect the spell, but Unseen Servant says nothing about this.) So I'd say it takes verbal orders from the person who cast it only, in wyatever one language the caster chooses. (the spell says nothing about telepathic links, so tha'ts why verbal.) Depending on the instruction, I'd probably say it's a move action, or a full action if the instructions are lengthy. (a full round is six seconds... if you can tell it what to do in 3 seconds, a move action, else a full round. Arguably, I might allow a free action for a single word command, like "Pull!" assuming earlier you gave the Unseen Servant a rope that triggers a trap with a yank of the rope or something.) Anyway, my point is, only the one that cast Unseen Servant can command it to do something, so if he or she is knocked out, the Unseen Servant can't be commanded to do something different. If it was ordered to follow the caster around, it continues what it was ordered to do, and waits their patiently for more instructions.
Chaser 02-26-06, 01:51 AM	I'd personally rule that contingencies would be beyond the instructions you could give an Unseen Servant. (Follow me around and if I am knocked out, administer this potion to me...) ..... Anyway, my point is, only the one that cast Unseen Servant can command it to do something [edit: one activity], so if he or she is knocked out, the Unseen Servant can't be commanded to do something different [and will not do the next activity in your contingent statement]. If it was ordered to follow the caster around, it continues what it was ordered to do, and waits their [sic] patiently for more instructions. An interesting POV. Ordering the unseen servant to follow you around and apply a potion if needed is the same as ordering it to follow you around, because it follows the first order, its 'one activity'. Perhaps wording would help. How's this for a contingent: "Administer this potion to me if I am knocked unconscious." This might work because the Unseen Servant fails if you send it beyond the spell radius, measured from your current position. There is an implication here that if you do not send it beyond the spell radius, it remains within the spell radius on its own, as long as its speed is sufficient, or your speed is slow enough. Another point to bring up is that many 'activities' can be broken down into small separate tasks, which could necessitate a litany of orders to do one task. The prototypical 'cleaning the floor' example in the spell could be broken down easily into 1] go get the broom 2] go get the dustpan 3]sweep the dirt on the floor into a neat pile 4] sweep the dirt into the dustpan 5] empty the dustpan into the trash (or outdoors) 6] go get the mop 7] and bucket 8]fill the bucket with water... etc. The player and the DM should come up with what each is comfortable with as an 'activity' or 'allowable-complexity task equal to an activity' with what is listed in the spell as examples. I think that the potion contingency is not beyond the scope of the Unseen Servant for several reasons. It could be stated as one task as I outlined above, with the Servant staying close to you by implication, as long as you move slowly enough [you're not sending it away, nor making it impossible for the servant to keep up]. A simple contingency statement could also be within the scope of the 'allowable-complexity task equal to an activity.' Another reason I think the potion contingency is allowable is that it is balanced by the speed factor. The party will travel no more than 60' [running for the speed 15' Unseen Servant] a round to keep this contingency in play, and as little as one round of running by the wizard [potentially 120'] could cause the failure of the plan. Additionally, opening gambits in melee frequently involve area of effect spells, and most of these, trying to wound many in the party, could also quickly spell the doom of the contingency by killing the Unseen Servant. I think I would allow it as long as the player did not ramble excessively in his instructions, and remembered to recover the potion each time he wanted the Unseen Servant to do something else, then reinstruct the Unseen Servant whenever that something else was done. What a great thread.
prawn 02-27-06, 10:19 AM	Thanks for the opinions. The mage in our game casts extended Unseen servant everyday. He's 9th level, so he pretty much has it all day. I want him to have his fun, but since the servant is around all the time, the party tends to lean on it a lot. Walk over there and see if the door is trapped Go bring us that shiny jewel that's on the pedestal Give the fighter a healing potion so that I can keep casting spells this round I feel like the Unseen Servant is doing as much work as the party members! Perhaps he should get XP...