|
except it doesn't say extracts, and doesn't say whether the elixir is the alchemist elixir or the wondrous magical items like elixir of water breathing.
I'm pretty sure the intent is not to give alchemists free , no level increase quicken spells and since some of the clauses are vague... hell to the no.
|
|
The intent of pummeling style was not to allow full pummellancepounce on release either but by RAW that's what it did. In society we play by RAW.
Scenarios are run as written. DMs are to interpret rules with common sense.
The leadership of this organized play community assumes
that you will use common sense in your interpretation of
the rules.
RAW is vague here. "other consumables" is entirely the DMs call. Another ability allowing you to do the exact same thing was clarified not to work with alchemists extracts/infusions.
|
I think there are 2 separate issues here.
How fast can you drink an extract?
RAW as a swift. It's a potable (i.e. you can drink it) Thus, if you have it in hand it's a swift to chug it down.
Accelerated drinker specifies a potion, while it is comparable it does not go as far as potion glutton which specifies potion, elixir, or other potable (drinkable) an extract is drinkable so potion glutton as written applies.
How fast can you make an extract?
It is part of the standard action of consuming an extract (draw, activate, and drink in a standard). Here's where the debate actually lies. I think as written Potion Glutton doesn't affect the speed at which you draw/activate the extract. Since we are taking away the drinking part (a standard action by itself) I'd say it leaves a move action to draw and activate.
So it would take a swift and a move to drink an extract instead of a standard. This leaves it slower than Quicken spell but fast enough you could by quaff two extracts in one round, or one in a round and still have a standard.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a short term solution, go to your VO and ask.
VOs, unfortunately, are not rules sources. Some of them have pretty bad rules understandings. I think there are a couple of threads on these boards about some pretty bad rules interpretations provided by some VOs.
Overall, unfortunately, as written, Potion Glutton should let an Alchemist create and drink an extract as a swift action, since the FAQ on extracts says that mixing and drinking are all part of the same action.
Do expect our old friend, Table Variation, to come visit. At least until our older friend, Rules Clarifications, comes to call, and (possibly) rules that extracts are not affected by Potion Glutton.
|
|
They might reflexively rule that it doesn't work on alchemist extracts
And then they might thoughtfully and reasonably rule that it doesn't work on alchemical extracts, based on their not being included in the feat, as well as previous rulings around similar abilities, as well as the idea that giving the alchemist 5 spells in a round.
|
|
Stuff in response to my stuff.
1. I actually do know most of that, I hadn't slept in a while and was going off the action economy described further upthread while being lazy to double check myself. Yes, extracts are created in advance and take a minute to prepare and yes casting is done by drinking the potion.
2. I guess what I was saying is the debate is whether or not drawing the extract is part of drinking it since drinking is casting. As actually drinking the extract is a defined action.
Options as I see them -
a. Since the draw and drink are linked as a standard action, the normal action economy for simply drinking a potion, which has now been sped up to a swift, you can draw and drink as a swift.
b. Drinking the extract is now a swift (instead of a standard), but in no way helps you get the extract into your hand. It's still a move to draw an extract.
My personal reading is b. since it doesn't mention helping you draw any potables faster, you still need to expend an action to draw it. (and yes, I know this matches what James said, and agreed with in my original post)
Edit: my edit was Ninja'd
|
|
This is actually what I said my interpretation was, in my first post in the thread.b. Drinking the extract is now a swift (instead of a standard), but in no way helps you get the extract into your hand. It's still a move to draw an extract.
My personal reading is b. since it doesn't mention helping you draw any potables faster, you still need to expend an action to draw it.
I know was editing my post to reflect that in fact as I realized it looked like I didn't after reading it.
To me at least, it breaks down as follows. There are four actions to consider here.
1. Drawing a potion is normally a move action.
2. Drinking a potion is normally a standard action.
3. With Potion Glutton Drinking a potion or extract (I agree this includes extracts, though I know some do not) is a swift
4. The act of drawing and drinking an extract under normal circumstances is a standard.
Now, one side in this debate seems to (and if I am wrong please let me know) postulate that you can split up #4 into
4a. Draw an extract
4b. Drink an extract
And that since 4b is a swift action(with potion glutton), 4a is either included in 4b or is a non action/free action
The problem to me is, to "use" an extract is clearly defined as as standard action, using includes drawing and drinking, and just because the drinking part has been shortened, doesn't mean the draw part is as well.
Undone, your interpretation is certainly valid, but as far as i can tell it makes more assumptions than the other interpretation (that potion glutton does nothing to help you get an extract into your hand any faster). regardless, the feat certainly has the effect of allowing you to imbibe two extracts (for up to four effects) in a single round because, no matter how BigNorseWolf feels about it, extracts are indeed potables.
but as far as the OP is concerned, it is definitely worth it because it doesn't have to cause issues.
|
|
You are not casting 5 spells in a round.Can you give me a good reason to disallow this combo, in keeping with the "run-as-written" directive in PFS?
As quoted above. Scenarios are run as written. Rules are interpreted by common sense. An entire keg of beer is potable. Lake Huron is potable. Surely you can't glug one of those in a round?
From a technical standpoint the game doesn't have a definition for potables. A VERY similar ability was ruled not to work with extracts not for any physical reason, but because a swift action infusions would be overpowered, particularly with a hand hand tentacle setup where you're a 1 man beer pong team)
Extracts and infusion rules work more like spells than they do like potions and elixirs.
Keep in mind that even though he flat out stated he knew what the intention was, Mike Brock still didn't ban the Mysterious Pistolero combo, and instead simply warned players that they wouldn't get to retrain out when the loophole was inevitably errata'd.
It wasn't errata'd it was clarified. Either the argument to close that loophole was already there, i should take a trip to vegas, or the design team is cribbing my notes. (I'm going with the first one)
Doing so firmly set the precedent that we run the rules as they are written, even if we think it goes against blatantly obvious intention.
As written there's no game definition of other potable. PFS precedent is that "other thing at dms option" means something between "expect table variance" and "Oh hell to the no"
Also, I'm not sure how you're arriving at five a round; most I can come up with is four, using the Combine Extracts to combine four lower-level extracts into two higher level ones, then drink one as a swift, and the other as a standard. Even if you started with two in hand, you still run out of actions after drinking two, since you can't use your move action to drink one.
Potion glutton to drink a combined extract as a swift, accelerated drinker to drink a potion as a move, a standard to drink a combined extract as a move.
|
|
From a technical standpoint the game doesn't have a definition for potables. A VERY similar ability was ruled not to work with extracts not for any physical reason, but because a swift action infusions would be overpowered, particularly with a hand hand tentacle setup where you're a 1 man beer pong team)As written there's no game definition of other potable.
If the game doesn't have a different definition for a word it defaults to the English definition of the word. To that end, potable means safe to drink, suitable for drinking, or drinkable. An extract is potable you drink it, as written it meets the requirements for potion glutton.
As for the other ability, it specifically defines the scope of what it works with potions, only potions. Potion glutton despite the name is less restrictive.
Potion glutton to drink a combined extract as a swift, accelerated drinker to drink a potion as a move, a standard to drink a combined extract as a move.
Sorry, but how did you get the potion and the first combined extract into your hand? Assuming you started with both in hand you gave up a move and a standard the round before to do so (bringing your action economy down to basically where it would have been just using combined extracts). Additionally, you've added a trait on top of the feat to drink a potion, after specifying that extracts work like spells not potions. (Thus, by your definition, a potion isn't a fifth spell, so you're still at 4).
|
|
If the game doesn't have a different definition for a word it defaults to the English definition of the word. To that end, potable means safe to drink, suitable for drinking, or drinkable. An extract is potable you drink it, as written it meets the requirements for potion glutton.
From a rules perspective an extract is more like a spell than a potion. Its a spell with some funny flavor around it.
Sorry, but how did you get the potion and the first combined extract into your hand?
You walk through the dungeon like that. Or at the party with a beer mug in hand for the social scenarios. Doing those before the fight doesn't mess with your action economy.
you've added a trait on top of the feat to drink a potion, after specifying that extracts work like spells not potions. (Thus a potion isn't a fifth spell so you're still at 4).
Ok, fine, FOUR spells then, twice what you would fire off with quickenspell.
|
|
From a rules perspective an extract is more like a spell than a potion. Its a spell with some funny flavor around it.
Whether an extract is more like a spell or not isn't a question that informs any part of the way the feat works. The only thing that matters is that it is potable. It is undeniably something you drink.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
Ok, fine, FOUR spells then, twice what you would fire off with quickenspell
I agree but to do so you need to add in another ability that other casters don't have access to. Either 10k gold in Admixture Vials, or a for lack of a better term meta-magic feat that allows you to combine two low level extracts into 1 higher level one (up 2 steps). Yes, you can get to 4 spells in a round, at the cost of investing in the ability to do so. Not to mention unlike most quickened spells that you would see from a caster, the target is strictly limited to 'self' for the Alchemist.
Also, there is at least one way to cast 3 spells in a round (though it takes a PrC and only works once a day and won't happen in the traditional PFS scenario levels)
|
|
So "as if imbibing a potion" isn't potion like enough for the accelerated drinker trait, but " or other potables" is potion like enough for this feat?
Potability has nothing to do with it being a potion or not, or with it being potion like- I simply pulled one of various lines where it say you drink the extract. Potable simply means you can drink it. I'm not sure what the connection you are trying to make is.
|
The definition of potable is drinkable. You drink an extract. This is not subject to table variance except in the case of jerk DM's. The move action may be subject to variance but the only reason to rule drinking an extract as a swift out is basically to be a jerk because you think it's "Unbalanced." I can't say the animal companion doesn't follow because it's "Scared" since I think they're unbalanced and doing so would make me a jerk. There are a ton of things which are unbalanced in PFS. GM's need to get over it because ruling things don't work because they dislike them really ruins characters.
This feels very harsh and unnecessarily inappropriate for this conversation. There is probably a much better way to word this argument. Just my opinion.
====================
Here's my take on this, after reading the thread and thinking on it.
Since we are on the topic of RAW, let's start here, bolding for emphasis:
You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables as a swift action without provoking attacks of opportunity.
And the conflicting text, Bolded:
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.
So here are the two things to note:
DRINKING with Potion Glutton is a Swift Action
Using an extract requires DRAWING AND DRINKING
Since Potion Glutton, as written, is missing those two little words (Draw and) the two actions are NOT the same. Therefore, Potion Glutton DOES NOT WORK on extracts in this fashion. You would have to draw the extract as a move action, and drink it as a swift.
However, you're not completely shut out from going bananas with this, all you Swift Action Extract Chuggers! ^.^!
If you are already holding an extract or potion at the start of your turn, you can spend your Swift to Potion Glutton it, then spend your standard action to Draw and Drink your extract. But this is the best you're going to get. Hey, at least it's something, right?
I hope I helped.
|
Quicken spell and Potion Glutton are not equivalent. Quicken Spell specifically calls out "Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a swift action." Casting a spell includes drawing the materials. It is a feat written specifically to apply to casting a spell, and it goes on to specify anything with a casting time* less than or equal to 1 full round can be quickened.
Potion Glutton was not written specifically to apply to extracts (or it would say so). The action it changes (drinking something) does not normally allow drawing the item. If the feat specified using an extract or if the FAQ had defined drawing an extract as not an action or a free action it would be different. As is, it's down to table variation, at the least, and in that situation I think you're better off assuming the more restrictive version, which itself is potentially unbalanced and likely to be removed if there ever is an FAQ.
*EDIT: Changed action to casting time in the section about Quicken Spell to avoid confusion.
|
|
I would not put any stock on the drawing part being a limitation. Bomb happy alchemists can walk through the dungeon with a potion in each hand with little problem, and others can just grow extra limbs.
I wasn't necessarily calling the drawing part a limitation. It was more or less to emphasize that the two actions were not the same thing; therefore making the standard method of imbibing extracts not applicable to the Potion Glutton Feat.
just so we're actually clear, you're still making the assumption that the words "use" and "drink" are intended to mean the same thing. your argument isn't RAW because the rules AS WRITTEN say the "using" an extract includes retrieving it and drinking it. so clearly, "using" includes "drinking", but "drinking" does not include "retrieving". they're both part of "using".
can you make an argument that doesn't require you to assume that "use" and "drink" are intended to mean the same thing?
edit: and hopefully before you bring quicken spell up again...
Casting a quickened spell is a swift action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. A spell whose casting time is more than 1 round or 1 full-round action cannot be quickened.
and we know the act of "casting" a spell includes retrieving your material components, so it is unaffected by your assumptions.
so you can't? you can only argue that they intended "use" and "drink" to mean the same thing? that's not RAW.
|
In terms of retrieving it based on quicken spell's actual function if you can drink an extract you can retrieve it due to the FAQ stating that extracts are equal to alchemist spell components.
The FAQ doesn't state that extracts = spell components. It is drawing an analogy between the materials used in an extract and the spell components, but not a direct equivalence.
I think that this is at the crux of the difference in interpretation. You seem to be coming at it from the standpoint that "extracts are spells, but fluffed so that you drink them". I come at it from the standpoint that "extracts are these things that you drink, and then magic happens". The difference between those two is that the first interpretation makes the spellcasting function primary, and so brings in all kinds of implications derived from the magic rules. The second
For instance, I don't have the slightest idea why "Quicken Spell" is relevant to this discussion at all. You keep bringing it up, and I don't know why, because we aren't talking about spellcasting or metamagic feats.
|
|
Let's put it another way.
If there was a feat called "Think Fast" that let you throw anything you had in your hands at an opponent as a Swift Action, is there a legitimate argument that an Alchemist could throw an unprepared bomb as a Swift Action because drawing and preparing the bomb are part of the normal standard action of using alchemists bombs?
|
|
Let's put it another way.
If there was a feat called "Think Fast" that let you throw anything you had in your hands at an opponent as a Swift Action, is there a legitimate argument that an Alchemist could throw an unprepared bomb as a Swift Action because drawing and preparing the bomb are part of the normal standard action of using alchemists bombs?
legitimate argument yes, absolute certainty no
