so you can't? you can only argue that they intended "use" and "drink" to mean the same thing? that's not RAW.Uh, again:
An extract is "cast" by drinking it, as if imbibing a potionThe rules do, in fact, define "using" an extract as "drinking" it, so yes.
incorrect. the rules define "using an extract" as including both retrieving and imbibing the extract. a feat that affects how quickly you do the drinking part doesn't affect the retrieval part. using includes drinking (as well as retrieval). drinking does not include retrieval.
|
...is no more valid than me claiming that an alchemist also has to sing "I'm a little teapot" before drinking an extract in order to cast it.Only if they are a halfling alchemist that is, in fact, short and stout.
Also, dwarven alchemists though they tend to be slightly less short they also tend to be more stout.
|
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.You'll note that the definition of how an extract is "cast" (by drinking), and the fact that an alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a single standard action, are in fact two completely different statements. The second bolded sentence makes no reference to being necessary to "cast" the extract, and does not retroactively change the definition earlier in the paragraph.
It doesn't matter how the alchemist drinks the extract; if he drinks it, it's "cast", end of story. Since he can clearly drink the extract using Potion Glutton, doing so means he "casts" the spell.
I did not in any way, shape, or form debate that drinking an extract "casts" the spell.
I also did not say he "couldn't drink it with Potion Glutton at all".I did say he can not draw and drink as a swift action.
Potion Glutton says drink.
Extracts say draw and drink.
Not the same action.
Ergo, Potion Glutton does not apply to stowed extracts.
At the end of it all, you're still getting your extract at Move + Swift, still keeping your Standard Action. So the feat is still doing what it's supposed to be doing.
This is, however, the point where we may need to get an FAQ on this. Because as long as two different people are reading two different things, this is just going to keep going in circles.
|
|
Nah, it's cool, man. I was beginning to think both of us were reading each other's points wrong. It's why I bolded the words I did in my previous post. Not as a hard "Grar why don't you get it!?"; but as a "This may explain more clearly what I meant to say in the first place."
Tone is hard to detect over forums sometimes. x.x
|
|
I don't want to sound like "THAT GUY", but did my breakdown of the RAW a few posts back get completely overlooked? Because it's starting to feel that way...
If it makes you feel better, I read it ...
I was trying not to get into the actual debate because I don't think "potable" is as clear cut as some seem to think given that the dictionary definition of potable might be a bit off for a substance that generates nausea if drunk by anyone other than the alchemist, and gets us into weird corner-case situations like doing shots of cyanide-infused mercury because you're immune to poison or drinking a vial of acid because you're an unscarred tiefling with acid resistance 7...
... and I don't really have the mental bandwidth this week to keep following the argument or to try to defend my use of oxford commas in a run-on sentence.
-TimD
Of course, it doesn't help matters that we have people such as cuatroespada, who continue to insist that simply drinking the extract isn't enough, despite the Alchemy class feature clearly stating it is. I guess I just kinda rolled your argument into his; my apologies for the confusion.
at no point did i insist that simply drinking the extract isn't enough to gain its effects. i insisted that one still had to get it into their hand at some point with something other than the swift action that Potion Glutton lets you use to drink it because no matter how you argue it "drink" and "use" do not mean the same thing in the context mentioned. you assumed a bunch of other stuff making an ass out of yourself (and possibly me, which i don't appreciate). we actually agree about how it works; i was arguing with someone else before you jumped in to disagree with something i said when you clearly didn't understand what i meant.
the first comment you quoted was a direct response to the post before it where Undone failed to provide such an argument as i had asked him to in the post right before his. my mistake was not reading who the next response was from and assuming you were Undone. it's not really relevant though because your argument that "use" and "drink" were intended to mean the same thing in this context is still flawed. you were factually incorrect in implying that Potion Glutton's use of the word "drink" meant the same things as the use of the word "use" in the FAQ. that "drinking" is all that is required to gain the effects of an extract is an entirely different argument and just as irrelevant as it is different.
the issue wasn't in how we define "use". the issue is that you think that if you CAN use two words to mean about the same thing, the devs must have intended that, but that argument is about the intent of the devs not the words written on the page. if the two words are different, the meanings are different even if the difference is so slight as to generally not be an issue. "use" and "drink" are different enough, and any implication that they must mean the same thing is an assumption on your part. they COULD be intended to mean the same thing, but we'll never know that so it doesn't matter. as far as we KNOW, they don't.
you did make an ass of yourself (i may have done the same), but i didn't misunderstand you at all. your argument is flawed; we just happen to be on the same side of the debate. but i still take issue with your flawed argument.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
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.
If this is not the intent or not considered acceptable it should be errataed.
You want to play the RAW game then. I would then argue that since extracts are poisons to anyone but alchemists, that they are not potables, and by RAW, not eligible for that feat.
Invoking RAW without regard to context, is like invoking the Bible... it's a sword that usually swings both ways.
Extracts aren't poisonous to other people. You're mixing them up with mutagens.
The feat is also really high up there on the "obviously going to be erratad" list, so don't be surprised if suddenly it's not working the way you wanted it to.