Undone's page

Organized Play Member. 2,654 posts (2,665 including aliases). 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 7 Organized Play characters.


1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's brilliant, funny, and an accurate description of mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Undone wrote:
You mean the point where they were clearly wrong

No. We were very clearly right. From a raw perspective a dex bonus is, gasp, a bonus. Your dex bonus is the source of your bonus. From a power perspective stat stacking is insanely good. When raw and whats reasonable for the game agree there is no other answer.

So with that track record in mind please pause, think, and listen rather than needlessly insult.

Once again there are still bestiaries with antipaladin grave knights and oracle liches with cha to saves twice along with the half a dozen errata'ed feats which prove that it DID in fact work at one point they simply changed the stance they had on it errata was issued and enemies STILL have this functioning on undead.

They had reached a point where such errata is needed to prevent absurd stat stacking and that's OK but acting like it was always that way is simply wrong considering the undead they STILL let stack it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Undone wrote:
I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.

And stat stacking.

You mean like every time the RAI/Less power crowd was right?

You mean the point where they were clearly wrong and they literally subverted the ruling the next day by publishing undead monsters which were stat stacking? the RAI/Less Power crowd has gotten a bunch of things nerfed because they didn't function RAI but that doesn't mean they were right (It's actually a pretty clear indication they were wrong since errata was required) it just means they complained loud enough to get something nerfed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:

The most contentious question is definitely targeted spells.

Even the most conservative readers could be convinced that EFS can cause an attack roll to fail, but some people want spell casters to be immune from absolutely everything.

No I want things to be consistent. EFS can just be banned if you don't like the result but immediate actions being able to interrupt things is somewhat important to other effects like a few immediate action attacks which can disrupt spell casting. If PFS has a problem with EFS ban it for frick sake don't claim it doesn't work that way. Same thing with haste, teleport, or literally any other encounter or mod breaking spell.

This is like the argument that "Free actions can't be done outside of your turn" when at the time they fairly obviously could until errata stated they could not resulting in multiple other feats and abilities being errataed. The same thing happened with the "You cannot stack stats" debacle because the day after they put that out even THEY demonstrated a lack of understanding what the rule meant by publishing an anti paladin grave knight with cha to saves twice. This is after the errata that forced them to errata several other feats and abilities.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's funny people want this to not work. I honestly feel like it's the same crowd that didn't want pummeling lances, spirited charge barbarians, Sacred fists in full plate, or any other of things they considered "Over powered" because they weren't RAI.

In this case it's clearly RAI that EFS protects the caster and bounces an effect but because GM's hate it they are performing mental gymnastics to try and negate it. Please continue to FAQ this so that they can make EFS hilariously solid so that no one can attempt to say "You can't actually use that because I hate it so I'm going to claim it doesn't work how it clearly works".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:
Undone wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Undone wrote:

I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions.

And I think this is exactly wrong. The Super actions are readied actions, not immediate actions, because they are explicitly capable of time travel, which is not a power given to immediate actions.

Readied actions can't do that. They simply stop an action from happening or interrupt it mid execution. Readied actions do not cancel the effect after it has happened like an immediate action can (hero's defiance, stone shield).

Hero's Defiance has a trigger condition that allows it to supersede general rules: "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points..."

Stone Shield is a spell that is in contention as it does not outline any conditions. It's being used as the basis of the FAQ request. FAQ request here

Just as a point of note. That isn't a special exclusive condition exceeding normal conditions, it is actually a limiting condition which prevents you from using it as a normal immediate action. The existence of the phrase "The instant before you are reduced to 0 or fewer hit points" means that there is an instant, a TIME if you will when you are about to be reduced to 0 or fewer hit points, which as I've stated before is a subset of ANY time similar to how the most frequently asked question to microsoft is which key is the any key.

This thread feels like that microsoft FAQ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's better to think of immediate actions as Super actions or ultimate actions. Due to the timing of "Any time" whenever another action in the game NO MATTER WHAT ACTION IT IS could take place that action takes place at some time (Counter spelling, more restrictive immediate actions like hero's defiance, exct) immediate actions can be taken.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I can time travel to any time in 1881.

When should I time travel to so that there is no president of the united states? I want to arrive after Rutherford B. Hayes is president but before James A. Garfield is President.

Just go to the oath ceremony of James A Garfield before he accepts.

That is the point after you've been targeted and before that is resolved.

Lots of games have this meta timing concept, even pathfinder has this concept in a lot of effects. Some effects don't list any timing restrictions so it seems more than reasonable they can operate in the same points of time that all the effects with no timing restrictions.

This might be the funniest correct answer I have ever seen.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Quintain wrote:
Since the spell doesn't say that you interrupt anything, you can do it at any time, but you cannot do it to affect an attack upon you unless you take the immediate action prior to the attack.
I don't agree, can you please click on my FAQ post in this.

I feel like his argument is similar to the aqueous sphere+Hideous laughter interaction. "It doesn't explicitly say you drown!" but you do because you are laughing under water. People don't always know the implications of rules they create but that doesn't mean they function differently.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It looks like it was supposed to be "when you're caught in a tunnel collapse you man...." but became one stop shopping for swift action nyah nyah can't hit me!"

The flavor of things has little to do with the mechanics. I could pick 20 feats which say they do something different than they do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Feather fall is an immediate action. It interrupts falling.

Immediate actions can be used at any moment before it is too late and the effect has finished.

Until that ray hits you you can EFS.

Once dispel magic has a target you can EFS.

This isn't so much a raw question it's a "I really hate EFS so I don't want it to work that way" question because your method basically nullified a really common no questions level 1 core spell which has been adjudicated the same way since many editions ago.

In example A you are playing it correctly.

In example B you are playing it incorrectly.

Quote:

Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time—even if it's not your turn. Casting feather fall is an immediate action, since the spell can be cast at any time.

Any time means any time. If there is a moment in the sequence of events where a target has been selected that is part of "any time" because any time is tautologically any time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This in no way is a justified loss of class features. You didn't kill her and failing to save someone is not grounds for any cleric to lose their powers. Otherwise every cleric would lose powers every second due to someone dying somewhere they didn't save. In fact higher level clerics with fast travel methods instantly result in power loss due to failing to scry, travel, and save those in danger by said logic.

You only lose your powers if you do something consistently which violates your alignment and shifts it away, or if you violate the CoC for your god. Assuming generic good aligned deity X you pretty much lose your powers if you cull children, engage in theft, or other serious evil acts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blakmane wrote:

Undone almost has it but not quite.

Undone wrote:
It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.

While this is true, the mistake is to assume that past results are an indicator of future random luck. It's perfectly believeable for a player to have a strong set of very lucky rolls --- but assuming no other factors e.g. dice weighting are involved this player is no more likely to continue this streak than anybody else.

The correct response is to do nothing or, at most, swap his dice.

A reasonable solution but the person I was referring to has maintained his percentage of going first wins of 55% for over 4000 professional matches of magic. It's not how he rolls dice, it's not how he flips coins, there are just a small number of really lucky people read up on Timothy Dexter. The stuff he did was outright crazy and made less than zero sense since half the time the thing he exploited hadn't happened at the time he made a terrible choice. (He sent coal to a coal mining region for god sake, they had a strike less than a week before it arrived!)

I'm not saying he is that lucky what I'm saying is that if swapping dice, using a roller, or whatever doesn't work just let it go and accept you have a prodigy.

EDIT: to add to the answers given earlier.

Go to a casino.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashram wrote:

Either every set of dice you give him are jacked/cooked, he has a secret way of rolling dice to get the result he wants, you guys have some massive confirmation bias and are ignoring his poor rolls, or this dude has magic powers.

In any case, I smell BS.

Not true. There's a magic pro who rolls on screen with thousands of people watching who according to professional stats has won 55% of his rolls/coin flips in professional play. A small number of people are just flatly lucky. Just like a small number are flatly unlucky. I know two people who no matter what dice you give them they roll sub 10 over 60% of the time, we know because we kept track of all roles for all 8 sessions in a month.

It's not always confirmation bias, magic, or whatever. Stats state that a small number of people will deviate 1 SD from the norm and a tiny amount 2 SD's. He just happens to be rare.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or alternatively let it work as written realizing that wizards, clerics, and druids are straight up better than it with nothing but the core rule book.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary said wrote:
po-ta-ble adj: drinkable
It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.
Thank you. I have suddenly realized the feat is well balanced thanks to your insight.

This is the rules forum. We don't argue what's balanced. We argue RAW.

By raw wizards get new spell levels at 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17. That doesn't make the spell levels associated with those levels any less broken, but no one argues they don't get them.

Also for those who think this feat is horrifyingly OP I assume you believe the WP to also be broken beyond words since it already has this feat as a class feature starting at level 2.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Has anyone considered an alchemist with the enhance potion discovery with Potion Glutton? *this* would be a legal way to get your multiple spells off per round I think...

It's already a way to get multiple extracts a round.

You've yet to refute that extracts are potable and every argument you've made amounts to "It's op look over here!".

Here's a simple guide to if PG lets you drink as a swift.
Potable is drinkable.
Therefore if it is drinkable you can drink it as a swift.

Can you drink it?

Yes -> PG lets you do it as a swift.
No -> PG does not let you do it as a swift.

Do you drink extracts?

Yes -> It's in the description of alchemy that they must be drank to take effect.

Can you present any rules which refute this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Undone wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Undone wrote:

Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.

Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.

No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5.

When was this errataed or faq'ed.

I ask because that is not the text of wild.

Quote:
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
It explicitly calls out the armor bonus and enhancement bonus but ignores mentioning the penalties. Unless this was FAQ'ed or errata'ed and the version I have is different then it does not apply anything on the armor while wild shaped except for the armor bonus and enhancement bonus (This includes things like shadow, glammered, resistances, and armor penalties.)

Read what you just quoted.

WHile in wild shape, the armor cannot be seen...but it is still there!
He gets to retain the armor bonus.
He's still WEARING THE ARMOR.
So he has to take the bad with the good. Still has the max Dex. Since he's still wearing the armor, he still has to abide by its limits.
The text of Wild shape does say the armor otherwise loses all properties, and merges with him. Merges with him would remove the Dex limits and ACP...that's not happening here. Wild makes the exception to the Wild Shape rules that he gets to keep the AC...but it no longer merges with him, so he's actually wearing the armor again, albeit invisible.

There's no conflict. YOu're...

I found the FAQ. It's interesting because it also implies you get shadow/glam/resists off the armor if it's wild. That's fine by me I did not know they had made that FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.
That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Can you explain?

Unchained rogues are a great dex build, and for martials, you can use certain feats and an agile weapon to get there pretty quick. Combine that to Dex affecting AC, Ref saves, Initiative and Acrobatics, and I'm not so sure this is justified.

STR gets you there right away, but the rest will suck if you dump dex.

Also, which setting book option are you referring to?

URogue is bad. Agile weapons are terrible (Except agile amulet of mighty fists and GMW which are sadly just worse than guided). It's confusing to me that you actually believe this to be ok. Even in the lowest power games the rogue is worse than the adept, the URogue only barely on par with NPC casters.

That feat chain is horrible. I'm not sure why you'd use it as an example. It's like saying hurtful is overpowered because arcane strike is a swift. Hurtful might be too strong but arcane strike is a pretty underwhelming comparison in terms of outcome.

It's like saying natural spell is over powered because wild speech exists. It might be OP (it's really not), but this is definitively not the reason it would be op.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Ah! I forgot the Masterwork.

That ups the Great Axe DPR to 52.76 assuming Dex 14, Come And Get Me, Furious Focus, Improved Critical, and Reckless Abandon. The Falchion version is 53.63 DPR. That goes up by almost 14 points if they've got Dex 16.

That drops killing it to 7 rounds (5 with Dex 16).

The Barbarian will get hit every time, and has his DR reduced by 4, so he likely won't last that long, but I think those numbers make the point of why a Barbarian is useful in this instance.

Just as a point of note he keeps his gear besides his weapon if he is smart enough to enlarge with a long spear/glaive. Turns out just having a reach stick lets him full attack with haste and such giving him a great to hit. Hurtful also helps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Castilonium wrote:

Let me guess, you guys are playing Way of the Wicked, book 4. I asked this very same question back in November, and answers were just as muddled as the ones in this thread. In order to beat a dragon with AMF, either you need a buffed up gunslinger (nonmagical ranged touch attacks) who doesn't get beelined in the first round by the dragon, or you need to kill the dragon with trickery outside of actual combat.

P.S. some math. It would take 18 5d6 snowballs, or 56 total full attacks from lantern archons on average to kill an ancient copper dragon.

May I just say it only takes 2 rounds from a raging barbarian when he crits with a great ax. If the characters are well built enough an AMF is merely a debuff. Archers also can easily kill it in 2 rounds especially with clustered shots.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion Pretty much summed up the rules in question. There is literally no question in my mind that if just given the evidence a neutral party who didn't just want to have a gut feeling of not allowing it would say yes it works.

I DO believe that the question of making it a swift to pull it out (as per spell components) is not exactly clear but is likely not allowed because it is both an item and a spell component. That said this question I could see go either way and actually lean toward it's an item since infusion lets you pass it off like one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

FAQ:

Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

...unless another FAQ replaces this, it's clear that PG does not apply to extracts.

Turns out spells cast as standard actions cannot be quickened by any means, especially quicken spell or potion glutton. Really dude, this is just reaching.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
There's no chance you'll find an alchemist without that feat, it it's allowed for extract.

And there is no chance you'll find a fighter without power attack(or equivalent dex feat), a cleric without a holy symbol, a level 5 druid without natural spell, a war priest without fate's favored, or a high level wizard without spell perfection. In what crazy world do you think that this matters? Must take feats exist all over the place.

Quote:
I'm with purple dragon. You've lost me. Why if it is underwhelming would you pay 35k for it later?

I wouldn't pay 35k for a feat which required me to move and swift action to self buff. I would pay 35k for the ability to haste my entire party as a swift. People get what you pay for. In this case you get a strong feat vs a horrifically over powered item. The item wins out hands down. It's both a move and a swift and a standard to buff twice which honestly isn't that good on an alch or investigator since you can literally ONLY SELF BUFF and doing so DENIES YOUR FULL ATTACK. It is mind boggling to me that people think this is too strong.

EDIT: Ok some math for those who just cannot get it. For the sake of argument I'm going to use the great ax half orc investigator because that is the largest disparity I can physically come up with and we'll call it level 6 so people have haste and abilities. At 18 str with power attack.

Guy1: Is an investigator who buffs in combat and uses a round to do so.
Guy2: Is the guy who get's just a full attack.

Guy1: Round 1 drinks enlarge person and moves up. This grants an increase of 5 damage (3d6 is 10.5 vs 1d20 which is 6.5) and no accuracy.
Guy2: Round 1 Quick studies the target moves up and attacks once. This will deal 1d12 + 2d6 (Studied strike) + 7 damage (+1 weapon)

Guy 2 will have a higher to hit by 2 and will deal an additional ~20 damage in round 1. It will take Four rounds for this to even out which is long past the point of a long combat at.

An alch is even worse because unless you are a full melee type the bombs will just do more damage. If you are full melee drinkings self buffs isn't that great unless you can full attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Undone wrote:
For a mere 35k anyone can possess

You lost me right there. The feat is available to level PCs with 100gp of mundane gear.

Also in the news, "For a mere 25k anyone can possess a ring of evasion!"

The feat is good at low levels, that's already been stated. It's pretty underwhelming as a feat slot later and I'm quite comfortable with feats that start strong and taper off.

I understand you probably play most of your games in low levels where 18 str and power attack rule most games but honestly even that should be ruled by magic with or without PG. The only reason it isn't is because most parties find "I color spray it. I command the undead legion of enemies you sent at me to kill the other undead legion. I have invisibility and thus am a better rogue than the rogue." To be less engaging game play than rolling D20's for attacks.

While I appreciate that style of gaming (I've got a fair number of barbarians myself.) I don't see why people who like that kind of gaming cannot understand that just because it looks too strong to you doesn't mean it's remotely strong. It just means it's in the giant class of abilities which is stronger than 18 str and power attack but weaker than 9 levels of spell casting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Thanks Ascalaphus. Drinking a potion usually provokes. Potion Glutton removes the AoO. This is thus getting more broken by the minute: removal of AoO to drink an extract + drink as a swift. Seems broken for extracts, especially since the language of Alchemy states that drawing and drinking is a standard action. If the feat would have had a second sentence along the lines of "and you can imbibe an extract as a standard action that does not provoke and AoO" I could live with it...

Once again, as I said. Even given the most generous interpretation of strict raw this falls about on low tier 3 in terms of power. It's so low it doesn't even register on my personal power gaming sense because we have an entire class with this ability and it's neither OP nor UP. Rather swift action buffing (Which is the actual ONLY possible use for this power) Exist on the WP, the barb, the inquisitor, and so on.

For a mere 35k anyone can possess this power for level 3 and lower spells during the points in the day it matters. Swift action buffs are required for front line types to be more than just caddies for their god like caster overlords after 2nd level.

Potion glutton even when used as RAW is not over powered even if it was literal quicken instead of literally just being fervor. Especially at higher levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

There's also this:

Fast Drinker
You swiftly guzzle spirits to draw forth ki.
Prerequisites: Con 18, drunken ki class feature.
Benefit: Drinking strong alcohol to gain temporary ki, takes a swift action rather than a standard action.

...so, if you need a feat to drink alcohol as a swift, don't you think that Potion Glutton which lets you drink potions, elixirs AND alcohol (without the nasty CON 18 PREREQ!!) is more than balanced already, without extending it to EXTRACTS.. hmm?? ;)

I mean trap feats are traps?

This feat is a trap saying that PG is strictly better than FD is like saying great fortitude is better than endurance. It's a really low bar.

That feat is straight up a trap and really doesn't need to exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Undone wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Undone wrote:

How you ask? Disjunction.

Oh they aren't high enough level.
Become large/huge. An AMF only effects things entirely within the field.
Can I get a source on that?
Quote:
The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
In the context of pathfinder within means completely within. I forget which FAQ it was but basically within is synonymous with completely within. While "In" is partially within or completely within.

I'm sorry but I do not find that to be a convincing argument.

Admittedly it still leads to weird situations of "What happens to characters only partially inside an Antimagic Field?", which is what got the spell changed for dragons so that they would be completely covered by the spell.

Your solution is easier to adjudicate, but I don't find your argument to be reasonable evidence to arrive at your conclusion.

The spell never got changed for dragons to my knowledge. It just isn't good for them because it doesn't encompass their entire form. They pick a square on the mini and the party avoids it. At least using the FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Undone wrote:

How you ask? Disjunction.

Oh they aren't high enough level.
Become large/huge. An AMF only effects things entirely within the field.
Can I get a source on that?
Quote:
The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.

In the context of pathfinder within means completely within. I forget which FAQ it was but basically within is synonymous with completely within. While "In" is partially within or completely within.

There is also the bizarre FAQ which makes no sense and basically amounts to "It's too powerful so it doesn't work" which states that an AMF never effects more than 21 squares with 1 square as the center of a 10 foot emanation. Most people ignore this FAQ because it's weird and makes it so a dragon cannot benefit from circles of protection because they are too big to be in it.

EDIT: At higher levels summon dozens of shadow demons. TK rocks at it. Enough TK's a round will kill it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How you ask? Disjunction.
Oh they aren't high enough level.
Become large/huge. An AMF only effects things entirely within the field.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Undone wrote:
reasonable person
Have you forgotten where we are?

You make a valid point. Even if it said "Extracts can be both drawn and drank as a swift action" People would argue it's 2 separate swift actions since it lacks the word single.

People dislike things above what they consider the power threshold. Heck I know a gm who won't allow archery in his game (Literally all archery feats are banned) but who allows wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:
DrakeRoberts wrote:
All this pfs talk is very much off-topic. Ascalaphus makes a well-written logical argument. So far most counters I've seen are either 'Its too powerful with extracts", or "It's not fair", or "I don't like it...", so much as I can tell. Did I miss any arguments against extracts more comparable to the logic posed by Ascalaphus? If so, can we compile them in a post so we can get back on topic? Thanks!
A potable is a drinkable liquid. It could be argued that, while an extract is certainly drinkable, it is never defined, anywhere in the Alchemist Class Description, as a "liquid." We don't know what it is, only that it is magic.
A potable is a substance that is safe to drink. The term liquid does not appear in the definitions Google turns up. An extract is both drinkable and safe even if you want to put forth the ridiculous claim that drinkability does not imply liquidity.

Comment's like QS made just make me laugh. If any reasonable person was asked "If the definition of potable is drinkable (It is), that means an extract is potable if it must be drank to take effect (it does)" I'm fairly sure that's the literal definition of a tautology.

You can make a lot of arguments but it doesn't qualify is simply disingenuous anti-powergamery sentiment, even though as I mentioned it's not really power gaming in the first place.

Now argument "It was never intended" is probably pretty valid but this is the rules forum. RAW is all that matters. RAI pretty much doesn't matter.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite part was when people were arguing that the definition of potable being drinkable doesn't matter because it would be too strong, or possibly the part where something that increases your personal stats after being drank wasn't something which is drinkable followed by using the logic "It's not drinkable because it's over powered!" followed by the logic "It's not over powered because it's not a swift, it's also a move!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:


PS: I'm not sure if everyone realizes that with Potion Glutton feat and Accelerated Drinker trait you can drink three potions per round (swift, move and regular standard... assuming you find a way to draw that third potion as a free action... 'one' glove of storing is a way... various prehensile tail racial traits is another... then there's monkey belt if your GM allows you to draw items with it). Three potions on the first round is some serious buffing power!

Here's the core issue. If I made a feat which read "You can drink 3 potions a turn" With no prereq's It would still be weak. It's like crossbows. Even if you dramatically buff it the action is still weak.

When something is 5 steps forward it seems broken, unfortunately what is stepping forward is 15 steps behind.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I am more than happy to kill some power gaming dreams by hitting that FAQ button. We all know what the answer from the team is going to be, but if you want it official, I'm happy to oblige.
Implying power gamers would waste their time with the alchemist.

This is what really irks me. People assume power gamers would waste time trying to power game non summoner/non full caster characters. 100% of the most powerful builds have 9 levels of prepared spell casting. The effective level 10 arguement becomes a lot less effective when you realize level 15 casters can spell perfect, use quicken metamagic rods to generate 13th effective spell levels. Honestly I feel like people who consider this power gaming simply do not understand what real power gaming is.

Power gaming is CoDZilla.
Power gaming is conjuration/divination wizard 20.
Power gaming is Witch with the slumber hex.
Power gaming is Shaman with infinite spell access.
Power gaming is an occultist arcanist.
Power gaming is Psychic.

Those spell casters who get full spell progression, prepared casting, and a deep spell list along with powerful class features.

If it has 6 levels of spell casting and isn't the summoner (Chained) there's no point in having it on the list of power gaming classes. Optimizing something isn't automatically power gaming. Every time you select the great sword over the great ax you are optimizing. Power gaming implies you are doing everything in your power to break the game. Selecting another class means by default you aren't power gaming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
"This feat doesn't do what it plainly says it does, because I don't like the consequences" is wishful thinking.

What is wishful thinking is to try to use semantics to modify your character's class abilities with a feat that's clearly meant to allow a PC to drink a potion faster.

We can clearly see in this thread who is usually a player and almost never a GM.

I have played 1 game in the past 12 months and GM'ed 2 full APs as well as my home game.

A more accurate position is we can see who plays in lower power games vs higher power games.

To me this is just another tool non 9th level casters can have to act like they are important after 4th level when in reality they aren't telling reality to sit down and shut up they are merely self buffing. To others "OMG BROKEN".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Paizo makes no errors and RAW is god. Remember that!

==Aelryinth

The meaning of the feat is quite clear. Extracts are potable, and are also the thing most similar to potions in the game. So it definitely applies.

Should it apply, is an entirely different issue. You think it shouldn't, because it would be OP. I can appreciate that point, and I think it's very likely that the feat will change if ISG gets a reprint.

But right now, the rule is clear, even if you think writing it that way was a mistake.

I mean it's very clear that the definition of potable is drinkable.

Extracts are required to be drank to function.
Therefor we can conclude extracts (well most) are safely drinkable.
It would be kind of silly to try and come up with an alternative explanation of what the feat actually does.

Obviously FAQ could correct this but as written it does this. I was curious if it was changed.


37 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or does it still by raw allow investigators and alchemists to drink as a swift?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
I wouldn't recommend it for every party, but I think it compares pretty favorably to a rogue if we're talking core four as roles.

I'd just like to say that this statement is how you know a class has major deep issues which cannot be resolved through builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The existance of this feat creates it's metamagic rod and lets it be used for spell perfection. This is a terrible terrible mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It appears they nerfed it into oblivion. Rest in peace's Warpriest. You will be missed.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:

I feel like these need reposting

Good is not Soft
Good is not Nice

Posting links to TVTropes is an evil act. You fall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
And I'm pretty sure few would agree killing some of the fiends in Wrath of the Righteous would at the very least be tragically ignorant if not outright evil.

To be completely honest the whole redeeming evil outsiders is mostly fan service considering that the method of creating an evil outsider is the coalescence of evil souls they are literally evil incarnate. Pathfinder has a very white and black morality when it comes to Evil vs Good in terms of outsiders.

Killing evil outsiders is according to the gods intrinsically good based on the gods themselves.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nearyn wrote:

"...about the Torag Paladins thought..."

"oh don't even get me started on that clusterf**k!"

Those half elves don't all come from humans.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
LrdHades wrote:
Paladin says it is execution and is totally in his rights to do without issues to his alignment or Paladinness.

A paladin of Torag can only fall if he spares them. Give no quarter to evil and take no prisoners of war.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Reach Weapons - Especially enlarged always draws questions.
Summons - If they can't understand you they just attack. Speak celestial and Terran please (or if they speak common).
Squeezing in general.
Light and darkness levels.
The magic system in general to newer players.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
If someone had read off the feat to me as you quoted it, they wouldn't be using that feat at my table.

I have the book and it'll be with me. I prefer the format of d20pfsrd to AoN. I'm fully aware they can't use deity trademarks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:
Unless the rule has been changed recently, Potion Glutton doesn't let you drink extracts any faster.

It does. There's really no question on the RAW of it but a lot of people think it will be errataed because of how powerful it is.

Quote:


Potion Glutton
You gulp down potions with unsettling speed.

Prerequisite(s): Worshiper of a god of gluttony, disease, and undeath.

Benefit(s): You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables as a swift action without provoking attacks of opportunity.

Normal: Drinking potions is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity.

Quote:

po·ta·ble

ˈpōtəbəl/Submit
adjectiveformal
safe to drink; drinkable.
Quote:
Like an alchemist, an investigator prepares his spells by mixing ingredients and a tiny fraction of his own magical power into a number of extracts, and then effectively casts the spell by drinking the extract. These extracts have powerful effects, but they are also bound to their creator. Extracts behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by dispel magic and similar effects, using the investigator's level as the caster level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BartonOliver wrote:
I actually liked Torch, sure he jerked you around, but in my mind no more than Valsin sends you in unprepared, or Dreng wakes you in the middle of the night.

Dreng was hilarious and depended on the society like a crutch. Torch could easily have henchmen #33 perform the task but instead jerks you around because he can.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brigg wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Expect GMs to be very strict about following the rules with this one, though, because it feels like an exploit even when run legally. They will probably demand to see the ISG book or PDF to make sure you're allowed to use it, and to verify the exact wording of the rules.

A great way to prepare for GM questioning is to be a step ahead. Keep printouts of the specific pages and sections that each character utilizes. Have them ready to present if there is any question of the legality of your character's actions.

This also helps keeps the action going; preventing having to leaf through books and such during the session.

I have a druid with 20+ pages of printed creatures for summoning, wildshape forms + Spells. I'm fairly prepared as long as I know how they function before the game it should be fine. My the only point that will matter in terms of explaining how things work will be the explanation of how extracts can be used as a swift.("Extracts behave like spells in potion form") Which is the really powerful part of this feat.

1 to 50 of 317 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>