|
The infusions reset after the day's rest or when 24 hours passes. That includes those that are able to be used by others, they become inert as the Alchemist resets his daily extracts, or loses them when not able to rest within a given 24 hours.
It is not a potion, it is the Alchemist "casting" the spell to target the imbiber.
Not what infusion say:
Infusion: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
You assume that it inherit the extract limit:
When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below). An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it's not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed.
But "remains potent" isn't the same thing as "exists". Even assuming that the infusion "remains potent" only for 1 day, it still "exist" after that date if not consumed. That piece of the rules really need an explanation on how it work (FAQ or errata.)
Read one way it allow the buying/selling of 24 hours potions that allow easy access to personal only spells for spellcassting service cost (i.e. extremely cheap price), read the other way losing control of an infusion will do permanent harm to a character.Neither option is a good thing.
If "remains potent" is not treated as identical with "exists" for this purpose, then you have opened up a very nasty way to permanently nerf an Alchemist. All somebody would have to do is grab all of the extracts that an Alchemist has prepared and lock them up in a secure place -- then that Alchemist would never be able to prepare any more extracts ever again. Surely that was never intended.
If "remains potent" is not treated as identical with "exists" for this purpose, then you have opened up a very nasty way to permanently nerf an Alchemist. All somebody would have to do is grab all of the extracts that an Alchemist has prepared and lock them up in a secure place -- then that Alchemist would never be able to prepare any more extracts ever again. Surely that was never intended.
Nope only infusions have that caveat. Extracts expire after 24 hours. But if you make an infusion it has to be used to go away.
|
|
Nope only infusions have that caveat. Extracts expire after 24 hours. But if you make an infusion it has to be used to go away.If "remains potent" is not treated as identical with "exists" for this purpose, then you have opened up a very nasty way to permanently nerf an Alchemist. All somebody would have to do is grab all of the extracts that an Alchemist has prepared and lock them up in a secure place -- then that Alchemist would never be able to prepare any more extracts ever again. Surely that was never intended.
Exactly.
Some of us had that discussion already on these boards, there is no RAW answer currently, both reading are valid.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno why I'm wading into this, but here I go.
The reason that Potion Glutton and Accelerated Drinker were unacceptable to function with extracts was that as-written they were essentially quicken spell available at level 1 with no restrictions or prerequisites (we can handwave worshipping Urgathoa for the purposes of this argument, even though I'll argue forever that it was a huge impasse.)
Blade & Tankard, however, is much more heavily gated and restrictive, requiring a much greater investment to be brought online and be effective (either through multiclassing or heavy feat dependency), as well as limiting the way that it can be utilized in combat.
I also think that the idea of a player needing to have encyclopedic knowledge of errata and FAQs in order to cross-reference and check every rule to try and discern the hidden nuances of meaning in new text is unreasonable.
If you were a newer player without a high level of system mastery, what would you think the interaction between Blade & Tankard and extracts would be? Reading it in such a context is the only reasonable way to interpret the ability.
There's no objective evidence to suggest that Blade & Tankard does not and is not intended to work with extracts. Lots of circumstantial evidence, sure, but again, we're talking about abilities that come online at vastly different levels, so comparing them to one another seems misguided.
But if we want to consider circumstantial evidence, shortly after Blade & Tankard was released, Paizo also released a Cayden Cailean-based alchemist prestige class, the Brewkeeper, which draws a clear line between the alchemist, extracts, and Cayden.
Not only that, but the abilities of the Brewkeeper either make the synergy between the two much clearer or muddy the waters further (depending on your position in this argument.)
A brewkeeper can spend 1 minute distilling an extract or spell...
I just felt like voicing I do agree that James uses the line, "there's no such thing as RAW" far to much and far to liberally. For most things there is a RAW, but there are legit times RAW is unclear. All means all and none means none. That's why they errata and change wording rather than just clarifying because the RAW literally didn't convey what they wanted conveyed.
also saying, "extracts are just like potions except these 2 things", and then saying, "extracts don't work for this cause it says potions and didn't include extracts" kinda throws a wrench into the idea that it should be parsed legally but conversationally. Which to me just emphasizes that they created that line and use the line follow the what the rules say to be able to more often have a scapegoat to be in the clear with.
|
|
Really good explanation about my post
You are right. I am assuming that Infusions had the same limit as all the other extracts that the Alchemist had.
I imagine that the Alchemist would cause the Infusion to go Inert when he would use the slot again for the next day. Limiting him to saving the slot for the infused extract would be silly, though RAW can be read strictly to do just that. If he knows who had the infusion and wants to keep it active, I suppose there would be no reason not to.
Would it not depend on what the Alchemist does with the extracts as to how it effects the Infusions, or would the infusions hamper the Alchemist and leave the slots closed until used?
I believe that the main reason for the Infusion is for others to be able to use them, usually when the alchemist hands it to them. Most times, the infused extract doesn't last the day.
My main reason to think that the infusions would switch over is because the Alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day, and when that extract goes inert, it no longer exist as an infusion as well.
Interesting rules clash here.
|
|
Really good explanation about my postYou are right. I am assuming that Infusions had the same limit as all the other extracts that the Alchemist had.
I imagine that the Alchemist would cause the Infusion to go Inert when he would use the slot again for the next day. Limiting him to saving the slot for the infused extract would be silly, though RAW can be read strictly to do just that. If he knows who had the infusion and wants to keep it active, I suppose there would be no reason not to.
Would it not depend on what the Alchemist does with the extracts as to how it effects the Infusions, or would the infusions hamper the Alchemist and leave the slots closed until used?
I believe that the main reason for the Infusion is for others to be able to use them, usually when the alchemist hands it to them. Most times, the infused extract doesn't last the day.
My main reason to think that the infusions would switch over is because the Alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day, and when that extract goes inert, it no longer exist as an infusion as well.
Interesting rules clash here.
You see, the problem is that some of us read the infusion rule as not inheriting the "An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic" part. Instead they read " The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots." as giving the infusion an unlimited duration as that text replace the text about the duration of extracts.
Enough people read it that way that it is a valid interpretation of how it work.Yours is exactly as valid as ours, even a bit more.
The problem is that both interpretations have profound effects in the gaming world.
- With ours the alchemist making infusion can become permanently crippled if the infusion is lost and not consumed.
- With yours the selling of 24 hours "potions" (i.e. infusion) that give access to spell normally not available without the use of wand or scrolls and a large investment in Use Magic Device will become the norm (at least in a consistent world).
As preparing the infusions require little time and can be done in a safe environment, their price would be that of spellcasting services, not that of wands or scrolls.
In theory any city has an alchemist capable to make 5th or 6th level extracts.
Everyone with a shield spell for 10 gp?
Overland flight for 650 gp?
Giant form I for 960 gp?
It is very different if it is "one of our party members, an alchemist, is giving out those spell and losing them for himself for the day" and "the city alchemist has made them for cash".
|
|
Simply put, the Alchemist isn't crafting anything, he is preparing a spell in a very different way than the Wizard and Infusions should not change this. I believe the intent was to allow for the Alchemist to use the Infusion to heal a fellow party member, or have him buffed up a bit for the main battle.
At least, that is how I envision it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, the Alchemist isn't crafting anything, he is preparing a spell in a very different way than the Wizard and Infusions should not change this. I believe the intent was to allow for the Alchemist to use the Infusion to heal a fellow party member, or have him buffed up a bit for the main battle.
At least, that is how I envision it.
The problem with that is that Extracts don't count as spells for any of the beneficial spell things. They can't have Metamagic, they don't get progressed by any non-Alchemist-specific Prestige Classes and they don't count for prerequisites.
People seem to only want them to count as spells over liquids (the latter of which they explicitly ARE) when it's detrimental to the Alchemist.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the Potion Glutton change, the basis for this argument, doesn't say anything about extracts being non-liquids. It just says the feat doesn't work with them. That is a very distinct difference between what what Risner is arguing and what the change actually implies.
The fact that they are not altered by metamagics or even allow an Alchemist to be treated as a spell-caster should be a tip-off here that they are not spells either, nor is an alchemist casting spells. It worked before, but now it explicitly doesn't because they altered the feat to prevent extracts from applying. That's it. It isn't a weird statement about what an extract means, it's just a balance change.
Nothing about them not being a liquid or being a abstract spell in a vial. If they do make the change to this feat to prevent extracts from applying, it isn't proof of this weird spell-not-spell argument, it's just that the devs don't want alchemists consuming extracts faster than a standard action. Which is completely in line with the Potion Glutton change.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a world of difference between, "Text X says this..." and "Text X meant to say this..."
If your argument is that the fighting style allows you to drink extracts... that is RAW.
If your argument is that it is probably an oversight that allows you to drink extracts and that the designers wouldn't want that... then that is RAI.
If your argument is that extracts are not liquid despite them explicitly being liquid because if they are not liquids then the style doesn't do what you think it wasn't meant to do... then that is disingenuous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, the Alchemist isn't crafting anything, he is preparing a spell in a very different way than the Wizard and Infusions should not change this. I believe the intent was to allow for the Alchemist to use the Infusion to heal a fellow party member, or have him buffed up a bit for the main battle.
At least, that is how I envision it.
The problem with that is that Extracts don't count as spells for any of the beneficial spell things. They can't have Metamagic, they don't get progressed by any non-Alchemist-specific Prestige Classes and they don't count for prerequisites.
People seem to only want them to count as spells over liquids (the latter of which they explicitly ARE) when it's detrimental to the Alchemist.
The problem is that Extracts are "Potions unless told otherwise."
And Potions are "Spells cast upon the imbiber."
Therefore, people argue Extracts are "Spells cast upon the imbiber unless told otherwise." And we've been told otherwise that Extracts aren't Spells for things like Metamagic and Item Creation.
While I can see the logic behind it, the problem is that because people see it spelled out that way (no pun intended), they think it's a blasphemous argument, when in actuality it isn't really that far-fetched.
Personally, I think Extracts suffer the same problem of Spell Combat, in that Spell Combat is TWF, but has its own set mechanics that can function independent of TWF (and people still make the connection). Similarly, Extracts/Infusions function as Potions, but have their own set mechanics that can function independent of Potions, which means anything that should work with a Potion, nine times out of ten, needs clarification for Extracts/Infusions, even though we have "Potions unless told otherwise" text.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If your argument is that extracts are not liquid despite them explicitly being liquid because if they are not liquids then the style doesn't do what you think it wasn't meant to do... then that is disingenuous.
There's only one reasonable explanation for this argument...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the theory I like better is they are liquids, just not what that feat is thinking about when it says liquids.
So, you're saying that it's a liquid, but it doesn't say what is not a liquid, so because it doesn't say it's not a liquid, it's not a liquid?
As Lorewalker said, that's not only disingenuous, but it's also the same argument the Ancient Aliens guy gave. And quite frankly, there's a meme that mocks him for his claims.
Unless you're willing to admit that you were told this argument by Aliens, I'd rather think you're better than this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the theory I like better is they are liquids, just not what that feat is thinking about when it says liquids.So, you're saying that it's a liquid, but it doesn't say what is not a liquid, so because it doesn't say it's not a liquid, it's not a liquid?
As Lorewalker said, that's not only disingenuous, but it's also the same argument the Ancient Aliens guy gave. And quite frankly, there's a meme that mocks him for his claims.
Unless you're willing to admit that you were told this argument by Aliens, I'd rather think you're better than this.
He is saying it is liquid... but it's not the liquids we are looking for.
That despite the style allowing all liquids and that extracts are liquids... it didn't intend to allow extracts to be used with the style.
This is very much a RAI assessment.
I think that is the way things would shake out in a FAQ.
But it is definitely not RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Lorewalker: I know what he's saying. Problem is he thinks RAW means a different definition of liquids, which makes no sense because then it discounts the other liquids that would otherwise fall under the very same definition that, by his definition, would be acceptable to have.
The other problem is that the feat says Potions are okay, and then we have Extracts, which are "Potions unless told otherwise," but he says that's no good for the silly reason given above.
@ Cavall: There were other things wrong with the trait (and the feat, I might add) than "Extracts being usable with it." The trait had questionable applications, and the feat was just so horribly written that it was outright broken from the get-go; the way I see it, Paizo decided that while they can fix the issues, they could instead "fix" the "issues", if you know what I mean.
@ James Risner: We're not calling you disingenuous because you disagree, we're calling you disingenuous in relation to the basis of your disagreement, which is akin to Schrodinger's Beverage, in that the Extract is a liquid and yet not a liquid at the same time.
You can't have it both ways, in the same manner that munchkins can't have their cake and eat it too. It either is a liquid, and you treat it like a liquid just like every other object is in the rules, or it isn't a liquid, and therefore you're changing the entire dynamic of how Extracts work, which also means the reference of Potions is akin to how Spell Combat references TWF (in that it's a pointless reference, since all of the mechanics for Spell Combat are already spelled out, and referencing TWF is just added confusion). So, in the spirit of keeping things conservative, it makes the most sense that an Extract is, in fact, a liquid.
If you think the feat wasn't designed to support Extracts, that's fine. But saying that the reason it doesn't support Extracts is because it's not a liquid is just outright false by the physical definition and properties of Extracts, and being akin to Potions (which, by the way, the feat specifically spells out, and as I've said above, Extracts are "Potions unless told otherwise") supports that claim.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The reason it doesn't support extracts is because extracts are not called out and they don't have a gp cost.
The same logic that says extracts work says that elixirs work, poisons work, and all mannar of strange rules interactions work. The rules don't court strange, so when you see strange it's a good bet you are outside the area of "what the rules say".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it doesn't support extracts is because extracts are not called out and they don't have a gp cost.
The same logic that says extracts work says that elixirs work, poisons work, and all mannar of strange rules interactions work. The rules don't court strange, so when you see strange it's a good bet you are outside the area of "what the rules say".
Extracts not being called out doesn't matter, because we already have the catch-all ("liquid") which would otherwise include it, unless it tells us otherwise.
Which, I'll say again, it doesn't. It not being called out works both ways, in that it doesn't call it out as being explicitly used, but it also doesn't call it out as not being usable whatsoever (such as in the case regarding the Feat and Trait options). We have text that mentions liquids being applicable, which Extracts fall under, which means we have more evidence supporting its use with the feat in contrast to evidence that doesn't support it.
Extracts having a GP cost is irrelevant to things you can put in the tankard in question. There's nothing in the feat that says "The liquid must be purchasable, or have a purchase price, otherwise it is not eligible for use with the tankard," or anything similar. Which means this argument is basically a strawman. (I think I used that term right this time.)
Actually, the only other "strange rules interaction" here would be Infusions, which is basically a cousin of Extracts, but the only noted difference between Extracts and Infusions are that one can be used by Non-Alchemists, and the other cannot. They're otherwise identical, which means any argument that isn't Alchemist-related that applies to Extracts also applies to Infusions.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the theory I like better is they are liquids, just not what that feat is thinking about when it says liquids.
Feats don't think, you silly
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason it doesn't support extracts is because extracts are not called out and they don't have a gp cost.
The same logic that says extracts work says that elixirs work, poisons work, and all mannar of strange rules interactions work. The rules don't court strange, so when you see strange it's a good bet you are outside the area of "what the rules say".
Water. No GP cost and not called out. Not supported?
Next argument please.Also, poisons working is not a strange rules interaction. One of the things you can do is splash an opponent with the fluid from the cup... a contact poison would be great for that. You'd have to successfully perform a dirty trick to make it work... but that isn't weird. As its not much different than having a vial of poison and doing the same thing since dirty trick allows you to describe how you are performing it.
Also, also, what the rules say and what the rules mean can be different things. In this case what the rules say disagree with you. What the rules probably mean agree with you... partly... but pretty much only when you say extracts shouldn't work because Potion Glutton was changed and enhancing a (sort of)caster was likely not intended.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Everything you think of in context of a tankard is something with a go cost and intended to be consumed. Potions, beer, wine, and alcohol.
Infusions and extracts are not the first thing thought of when considering drinking a liquid in a tankard. It's something (if previous posts are right) that isn't possible until 14 th level.
I get you don't feel these are important, but I do. I'm also confident should they FAQ the language will need to say extracts if extracts are expected to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything you think of in context of a tankard is something with a go cost and intended to be consumed. Potions, beer, wine, and alcohol.
Infusions and extracts are not the first thing thought of when considering drinking a liquid in a tankard. It's something (if previous posts are right) that isn't possible until 14 th level.
I get you don't feel these are important, but I do. I'm also confident should they FAQ the language will need to say extracts if extracts are expected to work.
Clearly, it isn't, since Lorewalker provided the Water example. An Extract or Infusion, as you pointed out, is a similar instance. It's also a strawman argument, because the feat doesn't care if the liquid in question costs gold or not, so stating that the liquid has to cost gold in order to use it with the feat is misleading.
Yes, they aren't. But the fact of the matter is that they fit the catch-all stated within the feat, which is "other liquids". Whether they're intended to fit within that catch-all or not, who knows. But, since they called out Potions to work with the feat, and Extracts function nearly identical to Potions, I doubt it's far-fetched to state that Extracts don't work with it. If they don't work with it, it certainly won't be because Extracts aren't like Potions, because we have text that says that in most every instance, they are.
As far as having a FAQ that clarifies what an Extract is, and whether you can use an Extract anytime it calls for a Potion, it'd be a good idea. Between the Potion Glutton/Accelerated Drinker debacle, and the arguments we're having with this set of feats, I think having a FAQ that sets the precedent for what Extracts are and when they can be interchanged with certain things (Potions) would reduce the need for threads like these to pop up.
In fact, I suggest you work on that thread right now, and we can have it for the next FAQ Friday.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Darksol (although I don't think you're using Strawman right, a Strawman is to my undestanding when someone decides to argue a point which is not the one you're making because its more easily defeated than the one you're making).
Risner has just sort of invented a reason why it won't work out of no-where from what I can see, I wouldn't call that a strawman so much as clutching at straws rather than admit his argument is a RAI argument not a RAW argument. He is also using second person pronouns, a form of rhetoric making his argument read as though it is the opinion of the reader, not an interpretation he is trying (and failing) to justify. This to my mind another example of him clutching at straws. Example below.
Everything you think of in context of a tankard is something with a go cost and intended to be consumed. Potions, beer, wine, and alcohol.
I don't think that at all, If I'm being honest I think the argument is deeply contrived, but Risner is telling me I do think that. Rhetoric.
Bolding is my own.The fact that they don't have a price doesn't really logically exclude them from being put in a tankard - see water example.
The language including liquids to my mind includes Extracts, as written. I don't expect that this was intended and I believe if there was a ruling on it then it would be changed to not include extracts. That opinion is however immaterial in a discussion of what the rule does now, as written.
EDIT: Bolded something for clarity.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I keep seeing the "water is free" mantra. Considering that I sell a lot of water bottles every week and I pay got water service, plus a water wine skin has a gp cost I don't think that holds water. Pun intended.
Funny in this thread many seems to think if there is errata extracts will be excluded.
I don't get the appeal of interpreting rules outside of the intended interpretation. Is there some need to extend rules into ways not intended instead of ways intended. Especially considering when the FAQ/Errata hits, you will be effected.
Why choose to be selected to change your character later?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you a character in a game of Pathfinder?
Because I've never brought water from one of those.
Because interpreting them as they were meant to be interpreted and reading them as what they literally say are too entirely different things. If we just go round guessing what everyone meant to mean for everything then I suspect you'd see some rather liberal rulings under the mantra of 'I think this is what they meant' an unarguable point. Its not a needed to extend rules as not intended its a need for the rules to do what they say they do.
|
|
Are you a character in a game of Pathfinder?
Because I've never brought water from one of those.
Because most of the time it fall in the all encompassing "cost of living".
In some region it will be free, in others you will pay, and even pay dearly for it. That is how it worked in the middle ages and how it work even today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing the "water is free" mantra. Considering that I sell a lot of water bottles every week and I pay got water service, plus a water wine skin has a gp cost I don't think that holds water. Pun intended.
Funny in this thread many seems to think if there is errata extracts will be excluded.
I don't get the appeal of interpreting rules outside of the intended interpretation. Is there some need to extend rules into ways not intended instead of ways intended. Especially considering when the FAQ/Errata hits, you will be effected.
Why choose to be selected to change your character later?
Real world water and water in Pathfinder are incomparable, meaning your experience in being a water bottle merchant is irrelevant, especially when there are no printed rules in relation to that.
I also keep seeing the "liquid costs GP" mantra. What if I'm a cheapskate and I buy something that costs Copper or Silver, or if I"m an expensive guy and I buy something that costs Platinum? Are you gonna sit there and say they won't work with the feat because they're too cheap/expensive to put in the tankard? You should. And if you don't, then your argument is once again disingenuous.
Additionally, I've already pointed out that it doesn't matter if what you put in the tankard has a GP cost or not, the only thing that matters is that what's being put in the tankard is a Potion or "other liquid", so arguing the other point is still grasping at the straws(-man).
The reason people are assuming an Errata will exclude Extracts is because the odds of Paizo coming along and nerfing options into oblivion is pretty damn good. We also have a historical precedent of them excluding Extracts, which means Paizo will most likely repeat it.
All we're saying is that, in its current printing, it would allow Extracts, because as written, Extracts fall under "Potions" or "Other Liquids". And until they FAQ/Errata the text, that's how it works.
Of course, you don't see it that way, so you won't interpret it the way we do, or see Paizo's exclusion as a "nerfing into oblivion" option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Water is free if you can make a DC10 Survival check. But this discussion is about seven steps away from being relevant to anything.
More interesting question: Is whatever we were talking about actually overpowered or is it just part of a fairly niche alchemist build?
Fairly Niche Alchemist build
|
|
Water is free if you can make a DC10 Survival check. But this discussion is about seven steps away from being relevant to anything.
More interesting question: Is whatever we were talking about actually overpowered or is it just part of a fairly niche alchemist build?
Not overpowered and not particularly interesting for an alchemist, as there is no provision for drawing a infusion or extract (or any other liquid) as a free action. You can refill the tankard "from a bottle or vial as a swift action", but that bottle or vial should get in your hand somehow, and you need 2 hands to do it (one for the tankard, one for the bottle). so unless you are a alchemist with the Vestigial Arm discovery, a Tiefling with a prehensile tail or you get a third manipulative appendage, you will have to drop or sheath your weapon to refill it.
Even if you have the third appendage, unless you can recover the vial/bottle as a free action, you will have to use some action to to get it.For most people it is a once for fight option when you start a battle with the tankard full.
Not "spell combat for alchemist", at most, if you routinely have unused move actions and an extra appendage, it will be 1 standard attack+1 extract/round. Not a full attack +spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"from a bottle or vial as a swift action"Wow, yes. I didn't notice that line. An extract isn't a bottle or vial and you still need to generate the extract with a different action if you wanted to do so.
And neither is a potion, elixir, wine, beer, or other beverage, and yet you normally said those would work with the feat. (Well, Elixir is borderline, but you get the point I'm making, which is this:)
Congratulations, you broke the feat, it doesn't even work as it's intended, because now it only works with two different types of inanimate objects defined in the Core Rulebook's Good and Services table, and not with Potions or "Liquids" like the feat intended to do.
Sarcasm aside, since Extracts function identical to Potions, they would be created similarly to how Potions are created, which means that Extracts are indeed made in vials.
|
|
"from a bottle or vial as a swift action"Wow, yes. I didn't notice that line. An extract isn't a bottle or vial and you still need to generate the extract with a different action if you wanted to do so.And neither is a potion, elixir, wine, beer, or other beverage, and yet you normally said those would work with the feat. (Well, Elixir is borderline, but you get the point I'm making, which is this:)
Congratulations, you broke the feat, it doesn't even work as it's intended, because now it only works with two different types of inanimate objects defined in the Core Rulebook's Good and Services table, and not with Potions or "Liquids" like the feat intended to do.
Sarcasm aside, since Extracts function identical to Potions, they would be created similarly to how Potions are created, which means that Extracts are indeed made in vials.
It work as potions say: "A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper." and that should apply to extract and infusion too, it simply has no provision for quickdrawing the bottle or vial, so it end like the Accelerated Drinker:
You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard action as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.
It work only if you get the potion/extract in your hand with some other action and then you pour it in the tankard using the swift action from the feat.
Not easy to do unless you build for it.
@James : the extract/infusion are prepared in advance. The alchemist need to use a minute to make them. Then he can draw and drink them as a standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"from a bottle or vial as a swift action"Wow, yes. I didn't notice that line. An extract isn't a bottle or vial and you still need to generate the extract with a different action if you wanted to do so.And neither is a potion, elixir, wine, beer, or other beverage, and yet you normally said those would work with the feat. (Well, Elixir is borderline, but you get the point I'm making, which is this:)
Congratulations, you broke the feat, it doesn't even work as it's intended, because now it only works with two different types of inanimate objects defined in the Core Rulebook's Good and Services table, and not with Potions or "Liquids" like the feat intended to do.
Sarcasm aside, since Extracts function identical to Potions, they would be created similarly to how Potions are created, which means that Extracts are indeed made in vials.
It work as potions say: "A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper." and that should apply to extract and infusion too, it simply has no provision for quickdrawing the bottle or vial, so it end like the Accelerated Drinker:
You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard action as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.It work only if you get the potion/extract in your hand with some other action and then you pour it in the tankard using the swift action from the feat.
Not easy to do unless you build for it.
To be fair, you'd have to do that regardless of whether it's an Extract or not, so really, this is a problem that comes from something well before Extracts were actually a thing.
At best, you can get a Handy Haversack that draws things out for you as a Move Action (such as Extracts), which you can then pour as a Swift Action. One other option is Gloves of Storing holding the Extract, which you can draw out as a Free Action, but is limited to only one Extract to refill. That's not including the Cailean Battle Tankard, which can hold up to 6 different liquids at a time, all of which are accessible to the wielder.
Compared to that, taking Poisoner's Gloves to utilize Alchemist Infusions (not Extracts, unfortunately,) allows you to buff yourself in place of attacks made with Touch Attacks, Unarmed Strikes, or Claw/Slam attacks, and it's significantly cheaper, too.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extracts are a subset of the set Liquids.
Liquids are able to be used by Cayden Cailean's fighting style.
Therefore, Extracts are able to be used by Cayden Cailean's fighting style, as the rules stand now. Not Rules As Intended, not an extrapolation, not stretching the feat in any way or making things up because I want this to work.
It's quite literally just what all the words mean in the context of the Pathfinder Role Playing Game.
Everything else about intentions and possible clarification is quite frankly irrelevant to the main question here, which is about how what the rules actually say right now. Argue all you want about feats that are unclear or don't explicitly say what they do, but this one DOES.
TL;DR: *Sobbing* They're LIQUIDS. You DRINK THEM.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat allows other liquids. Extracts and infusions are liquids.
Does anyone disagree with what I have said so far? Gold piece cost doesnt matter, being purple doesnt matter, if it hurts the drinker it doesnt matter, if it maple syrup it doesnt matter.
Any disagreements yet?
Now the feat works with infusions, maple syrup, purple dye, and beer.
Any way to parse this differently?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not agreeing on a straight deduction just means that the other side is wrong
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously this will go on ad nausium.
We can't agree on the meaning in context.
How does any possible context affect the unambiguous wording of the feat? It seems to me that you would like the feat not to work for extracts, because you think that'd be overpowered and/or more powerful than Paizo intended. But rather than arguing that, you're arguing that extracts, which are liquids, are not liquids. It's the same sort of reasoning that led you to claim Potion Glutton didn't work on extracts because they aren't potable, except you have even less of a leg to stand on here. That is why people are calling you disingenuous, and why accusing them of calling you that just because you disagree with them is itself disingenuous.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Possible contexts have affected the unambiguousness of hundreds of FAQ so far. I've no idea why it isn't apparent the rules are never intended to be read in a way devoid of context. They are designed, written, and published to tell more of a story than a legal document. Choosing to read them in a legal way to extract benefits in every corner just leads to disappointment later. It also leads to being unhappy with the publisher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
lol, read the whole thread. Going to favorite this one so I can reference it as that time that James argued that extracts are not liquids even though you drink them. I've seen some doozies for reasoning on this board before but that one takes the trophy I think.
Anyway, am I missing something here? It is a Divine Fighting Technique. Don't you have to be a "cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest who worships a deity" in order to take it unless you meet the Optional Replacement clause? So aside from all of the other requirements that people are talking about to meet the Advanced Prerequisites you would also have to be a "A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler of at least 10th level" that worships Cayden Cailean.
So we are talking about what here? Swashbuckler 10 with a splash of Alchemist so he can drink his extracts quickly while fighting? I mean, is there anyone who is honestly arguing a balance issue exists for this? Hell, even to get the Initial Benefits you would have to have at least one level in Cleric, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Swashbuckler or Fighter and worship Cayden. Thats pretty damned niche.
Also, comparing feats like Potion Glutton et al to this is a practice in futility. Paizo has a track record of nerfing Dex to Damage and has done so with the X Grace feats but hasn't touched Dervish Dance yet. This "issue" would fit that situation.
And outside of actual rules based disagreements we are left with "extracts aren't liquid even though you drink them"?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Grace feats are in PDT books, Dervish Dance isn't under the PDT purview.
The "they are not liquids" is using the same kind of RAW interpretation skills. You can argue they are not liquids because they are described as being like potions but no details as how like plus they are never called out as liquids.
So if someone can assert they are liquids because they are "like potions" then someone else can assert they are not. Neither positions are strictly right, as there are no rules saying they are or are not liquids.