Further evidence that the intent for drinking Extracts is to provoke Attacks of Opportunity. And this is the first instance of anything I've found that can allow you to down an Extract as a Swift Action.Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
I don't see intent. It doesn't say that the normal rule is that an extract provokes. It just gives an action that doesn't provoke. And as you said, it gives a benefit other than no provoking so I can draw nothing in terms of intent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now there is a giant impression of my forehead on my desk, and splinters in my skin.
I get that wanting an official, written-in-stone ruling would be nice, but how much proof of intent do you need to see before people will stop trying to argue this?
You had the designer of the class rule in. You have this:
Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat.You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion.
which should tell you IMMEDIATELY that if they feel the need to point out that you "no longer" provoke, that everything they list thereafter, at one time, provoked AoOs.
All I see by now is people trying to weasel their way into being able to cast spells (and that's the RAW and RAI intent of the Extracts class feature - to be spells in liquid form for both thematic and mechanical reasons) as both Swift Actions via abilities and without provoking attacks of opportunity, something no other class does, using "not RAW" and "not an official answer" as their excuse, even when the creator of the class has laid down a ruling himself on it.
This is like looking Gary Gygax in the face and saying "my rogue can naturally fly, since there's nothing in the rules that says he can't, and just 'cause you say he can't, it's not official until it's in ink."
I'm cool with powergamers, but this... this is just some of the most unbelievable rules-lawyering I've ever seen in all my years of playing D&D.
I love Pathfinder, but I'm not a fan of an (albeit small) annoying part of the community. Peace - I'm out.
You jumped to a conclusion. Just because an ability says it doesn't provoke, it doesn't mean that it would normally do so without it. You have THREE items that it talks about, and we do know that some provoke. Then those three items can be used in a swift action.
The '"no longer" provoke' part is totally of your adding. What this ability proves is that when using this ability, you don't provoke. It's not proof that NOT using the ability provokes.
I'm glad you can draw RAW from that because I can't even draw RAI from it.
The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes. But we don't know when that sometimes is, only that they are not like potions for Accelerated Drinker. We can extrapolate that to to include the drinking abilities of Drunken Master and Drunken Brute. There is zero guidance on whether an extract functions like an SU ability or like a potion for purposes of provoking.
Sure the intent by the designer was to provoke while drinking, but the intent of the designer for the Sohei Monk was not to be able to use FoB in armor, but he can. What is intended is not always what was written down.
Isn't it funny how some people can consistently fail to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, even when those arguments and the pieces of evidence that support them pile up like a Yellowknife snowdrift?
<shrug>
Isn't it funny how some people can consistently fail to be persuaded by reasoned arguments, even when those arguments and the pieces of evidence that support them pile up like a Yellowknife snowdrift?
<shrug>
If only there was any real evidence other than conjecture. Wonderful, reasoned arguments don't equal RAW. I'm sure people made equally well reasoned arguments for the sohei and other points of contention and where proved wrong. On several occasions, the authors of these rules come on and told us their intent and the actual RAW turned out to not match it.
It's funny people will just take a guess, no matter how educated, and assume they know the answer. <shrug>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really. "just take a guess". <sigh>
Many quotes from the PRD have been posted already.
Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist's fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.
Exhibit one: "potion-like extracts" cast "by drinking the extract".
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.
Exhibit two: This specifies the two ways that extracts are different from potions.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.
Exhibit three: Again, cast by drinking, "as if imbibing a potion", and the text goes on to specify exactly the ways in which an extract is different from a potion... with the notable exception that nowhere does it specify that unlike a potion, drinking an extract doesn't provoke.
Performing a Distracting Act: Some actions, when performed in a threatened square, provoke attacks of opportunity as you divert your attention from the battle. Table: Actions in Combat notes many of the actions that provoke attacks of opportunity.
Exhibit four: It's a pity that alchemists and extracts didn't exist when the table referenced in the CRB was written, or this discussion wouldn't be happening. But nothing suggests - anywhere - that drinking an extract doesn't fall under the same definition of a "distracting act" as drinking a potion.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I put it to you that this hardly constitutes "just taking a guess". The only argument presented to oppose this view is the fact that alchemy is noted as a SU ability, which admittedly doesn't generally provoke AoOs, but there exist numerous specific exceptions, and the general rule for SU abilities takes care to warn that exceptions do exist. Drinking a potion is clearly one such exception, as the exhibits above amply demonstrate. This is further confirmed by the epic feat references above that gives an epic character selecting it the express ability of being able to drink an extract without provoking AoOs. While this epic feat sadly lacks a "normal" line, the strong implication is that drinking extracts normally provokes AoOs. As this corresponds to the evidence from the description of the alchemist class itself as well as to the forum comments of the original designer of the alchemist class, there seems to be *very* little wiggle room here.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, please find in favor of the defendant and admit that drinking an extract does indeed provoke an attack of opportunity, both according to RAW and RAI.
"A guess"???
Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.
Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.
** spoiler omitted **Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
As has been stated, it would only be damning if it had an entry like:
Normal You provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixer, extract, or potion.As it is it only implies that they should. I even agree that extracts should provoke, but that does not mean that is what the rules actually say.
The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.
No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.
Wheldrake, nice summary but you missed the most damning piece of evidence that proves that drinking an extract does indeed provoke.
** spoiler omitted **Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
As has been stated, it would only be damning if it had an entry like:
Normal You provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixer, extract, or potion.As it is it only implies that they should. I even agree that extracts should provoke, but that does not mean that is what the rules actually say.
It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.
Then class abilities that allow rapid drinking of potions without provoking work on extracts too, since the FAQ only applies to Accelerated Drinker.
Then class abilities that allow rapid drinking of potions without provoking work on extracts too, since the FAQ only applies to Accelerated Drinker.No, that is not the rule. That is what people keep saying but it isn't the rule. They are ingested as potions all the time. There is never a time that they are not ingested as a potion. The FAQ only says Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with them. That is it. From that we can infer that other accelerated drinking abilities like Raging Drunk also would not work though that is not RAW since it isn't in the FAQ. There is absolutely nothing that ever says an extract at any time is not ingested as a potion.The problem is the FAQ. Right now the rule is extracts function like potions, sometimes.
I mentioned that in my post. I'm sure they don't intend for it to and we can certainly infer that it shouldn't from the FAQ but that would be RAI not RAW.
It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.
The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?
The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?
It seems strange to me that you are making the gigantic logical leap from the simple one word answer "No" in the Accelerated Drinker FAQ to the conclusion that it means that extracts sometimes aren't ingested as potions and yet you are balking at the relatively clear evidence of Assured Drinker that normally extracts provoke.
Please quote the FAQ and bold the exact words saying the extract is not treated as a potion. All the FAQ says is that Accelerated Drinker doesn't work with extracts.
Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?
No.
It doesn't say "No, because they are extracts not potions" as you are claiming. It just says "No." Period. No matter how many times it gets repeated the FAQ never says or even implies that extracts aren't treated for potions for purposes of drinking them. Yet the Assured Drinker feat clearly implies they do provoke yet you reject that out of hand.
By the way, there is an error in the question -- Accelerated Drinker is a trait, not a feat.
Since the answer is so brief, it is hard to interpret its full meaning. One possibility is that, since drinking an extract is in some ways like casting a spell, you need more than this trait to reduce the effective casting time to less than a standard action. Without that FAQ ruling, Alchemists could reliably use 3/2 extracts per turn as follows:
Turn 1:
Standard action: Draw out and drink extract.
Move action: Draw out another extract.
Turn 2:
Move action: Drink extract in hand.
Standard action: Draw out and drink another extract.
I suspect that the action economy was the primary concern here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one word answer muddied the waters. It used to be you treated the extract as a potion. Now you treat an extract as a potion sometimes. When is an extract like a potion and when is it not?
An extract is never a potion.
Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.
An extract is never a potion.
Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.
An extract is never a potion.
Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.
This thread is getting inane with all the repetitions of "well when does it count as a potion, and when doesn't it count as a potion?" It never counts as a potion, it's just consumed in the same manner.
We have a special ability which specifically allows you to drink an extract without provoking.
We have the creator of the class saying that drinking an extract provokes.
We have RAW saying that drinking an extract is done "as if imbibing a potion."
We have common sense saying that if drinking a potion provokes, making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract would also provoke.
As for Accelerated Drinker and Raging Drunk, these give you optional special abilities that specifically only work with potions. They don't even change the normal mechanism of drinking a potion to make it not provoke, they give you a new separate ability that lets you drink without provoking. Even if you had Raging Drunk, the normal process of drinking a potion provokes, you just have a separate ability which only applies to potions and alcohol that lets you drink as a move action without provoking. Point being, none of these abilities alter the normal process of drinking a potion, which is the process that is referred to in the rules for extracts. The only ability which alters the normal act of drinking a potion is Assured Drinker.
This thread is getting inane with all the repetitions of "well when does it count as a potion, and when doesn't it count as a potion?" It never counts as a potion, it's just consumed in the same manner.We have a special ability which specifically allows you to drink an extract without provoking.
We have the creator of the class saying that drinking an extract provokes.
We have RAW saying that drinking an extract is done "as if imbibing a potion."
Yes you are right. I've been guilty of using the phrases "treated as a potion" and "function as a potion" as well and not clarifying that is only for the purpose of drinking them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.
However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.
Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.
Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.
Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.
However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.
Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.
Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.
Why does it need clarification. The rules say extracts imbibed as if they were potions. Imbibing a potion provokes an attack of opportunity. Therefore, imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. Its that simple.
Were it not for the FAQ saying that you can't use Accelerated Drinker with extracts no one would be questioning that. Some people have somehow gotten from a very simple straight forward FAQ that says you can't use Accelerated Drinker for extracts the notion that they sometimes aren't imbibed as if they were potion.
It needs clarification because there is a general rule about (Su) abilities not provoking, but people are trying to apply the specific potion rule to it. Meanwhile, the whole "imbibed like a potion" could have just been clarification that you actually have to drink the extract, and not pour it all over yourself likean oil.Obviously, the intent was for Extracts to provoke.
However, RAW it probably does need a little bit of clarification. Especially what does and doesn't affect them.
Also, FWIW someone said at one point that imbibing a Mutagen provokes, and I'm almost certain it doesn't. It is a Supernatural ability and doesn't say anywhere about it being imbibed as a potion.
Man, I love the alchemist, but it sure is rules-bloated.
Why does it need clarification. The rules say extracts imbibed as if they were potions. Imbibing a potion provokes an attack of opportunity. Therefore, imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. Its that simple.
Were it not for the FAQ saying that you can't use Accelerated Drinker with extracts no one would be questioning that. Some people have somehow gotten from a very simple straight forward FAQ that says you can't use Accelerated Drinker for extracts the notion that they sometimes aren't imbibed as if they were potion.
Specific trumps general so yeah, people are applying the specific rule rather than the general. As for your argument that "imbibed like a potion" could just mean you have to drink it:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
I think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.
There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.
Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*
There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.
Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*
I second that sentiment. That is a hugely important question that is genuinely unclear.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potionI think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.
It's hard to say if this is rules text or descriptive text. With the FAQ, it's clear that it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion. Without any reason given, who knows. RumpinRufus and Wheldrake put a GREAT deal of significance into the phrase "Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.". To them it's clear evidence and to me it's an ambivalent statement that might just be meant to be fluff.
If that phrase was meant to be rules text it's poorly written. 'Imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity.' That's clear and takes up about the same space.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potionI think the part that says "by drinking it" makes it very clear that it is by drinking it and not pouring it on yourself. The "as if imbibing a potion" explains how one drinks it. They drink it exactly as if they were imbibing a potion. Imbibing a potion provokes and so imbibing an extract provokes.It's hard to say if this is rules text or descriptive text. With the FAQ, it's clear that it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion. Without any reason given, who knows. RumpinRufus and Wheldrake put a GREAT deal of significance into the phrase "Imbibing an extract is done "as if" drinking a potion.". To them it's clear evidence and to me it's an ambivalent statement that might just be meant to be fluff.
If that phrase was meant to be rules text it's poorly written. 'Imbibing an extract provokes an attack of opportunity.' That's clear and takes up about the same space.
As many times as people keep saying the FAQ shows it's not EXACTLY like drinking a potion it never does show any such thing. All it shows is that Accelerated Drinker can't be used with extracts.
Also the text "as if imbibing a potion" is as clearly rules text as text can be. Here is the entire sentence:
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.
The part about requiring drinking is rules, the part about the effects exactly duplicating the spell is rules, the part about the spell only affecting the alchemist is rules. There is absolutely no justification to pull "as if imbibing a potion" out and say that one bit isn't rules but just "fluff".
As an aside this is why I hate is when people try to delineate some text as "fluff" and some as "rules". That is a purely artificial distinction nowhere suggested in the rules themselves. That is a completely different discussion though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, PF should have been designed with "fluff" and "mechanic" language in mind, and have been written with clear delineation between the two. Most things are written concisely enough to understand the RAI and RAW, but not all author's are created equal. I wish they had a strict development/editing position or team to make sure everything was worded the same way to prevent confusion. It should be someone's job to make sure things work within the same framework as every other rule. And if they DO have someone doing this... well... :/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the end of the day, it *is* marginally ambiguous whether drinking an extract does indeed provoke an AoO. This thread will go no further than that. My earlier "rules lawyer" post (exhibit one, etc) summarized all the extant arguments, and basically anybody willing to be convinced was indeed convinced that drinking an extract provokes, and anyone wanting to leverage maximum ambiguity into the really quite plain language of the alchemist rules felt equally justified.
So, for certain, someone flubbed writing the alchemist rules, since this detail is arguably essential to playing an alchemist in combat. A FAQ answer would be helpful. Without a FAQ answer, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and we will have to "expect table variation".
|
In fact, we worked out that (counter-intuitively) it's actually better to move and then drink it, as you could at least get Mobility and be harder to hit when provoking.
Mobility (Combat)
You can easily move through a dangerous melee.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Dodge.
Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
It is only for AoO caused when moving, so it don't work for AoO caused by other sources.
Note that it is not applicable to all movement actions, it is applicable when you move, even if the movement, for some reason, is not part of a movement action.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mythic Ability in the Trickster Path
Assured Drinker (Ex)
No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.
Seems pretty clear from this that drinking an extract provokes an attack of opportunity. If it didn't, the first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary.
We have common sense saying that if drinking a potion provokes, making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract would also provoke.As for Accelerated Drinker and Raging Drunk, these give you optional special abilities that specifically only work with potions. They don't even change the normal mechanism of drinking a potion to make it not provoke, they give you a new separate ability that lets you drink without provoking.
And here is one of the problems: You say that "making the exact same set of motions to drink an extract[/i]" yet a trait that refers to those exact same set of motions works for one and not the other. Doesn't make sense.
By ruling that accelerated drinker doesn't work with extracts they proved that those exact same set of motions is not exact same.
Sure, that doesn't say anything about extracts provoking or not, it just says that some/many/most FAQs are ...not well thought through considering the rules as a whole*
*diplomatic version
There are plenty of FAQ responses that I found unnecessary since the rules explain them thoroughly, but others had enough problems with it they warranted a FAQ. Seems like this falls into the same camp.
Though I wish they would answer the "What does source mean for stacking bonuses" question before literally anything else at this point. So I guess FAQing this is detrimental to said wish. *shrug*
I wish that they use errata to correct errors not to change the rules. Sadly it seems Santa doesn't exist.
@JackofDust: That ability is obscure at best, and it doesn't explicitly state that extracts do in fact provoke attacks of opportunity. You are implying that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances because the ability's text says that they do not when having this ability. However, if they do not provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances, they still would not provoke while under the effects of this ability.
Since the rules for pathfinder do not state that extracts provoke attacks of opportunity under normal circumstances anywhere, including here, it seems that you had it right when you said, "The first part of this ability mentioning an extract would not be at all necessary."
It is in fact, not at all necessary, because regardless of whether you have this ability or not, extracts do not provoke attacks of opportunity.
In a strictly legalistic sense you're correct. However from this ability we can clearly see that the intent is for extracts to provoke attacks of opportunity.