Has potion glutton ever been errata'ed or FAQ'ed?


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think is if a player can show that his interpretation is legal, he should be allowed to play it that way in PFS.

You realize that's an exact description of how it DOES work currently, right? Provided, of course, that we accept that it is the GM who decides what interpretations are and are not 'legal'. Which is very definitely one of those Rules you are supposedly obeying.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CBDunkerson wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think is if a player can show that his interpretation is legal, he should be allowed to play it that way in PFS.

You realize that's an exact description of how it DOES work currently, right? Provided, of course, that we accept that it is the GM who decides what interpretations are and are not 'legal'. Which is very definitely one of those Rules you are supposedly obeying.

+1


CBDunkerson wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I think is if a player can show that his interpretation is legal, he should be allowed to play it that way in PFS.
You realize that's an exact description of how it DOES work currently, right? Provided, of course, that we accept that it is the GM who decides what interpretations are and are not 'legal'. Which is very definitely one of those Rules you are supposedly obeying.

Sure, when it works, that's how.


thejeff wrote:
But mostly, your way of playing is so utterly foreign to me that I have trouble recognizing the game.

It's entirely possible that you and I have profound philosophical differences. As long as neither one of us bullies the other out of the gaming store, I don't have a problem with profound philosophical differences.

Shadow Lodge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, when it works, that's how.

When does it not work?


TOZ wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, when it works, that's how.
When does it not work?

When the GM doesn't accept his interpretation of the rules, I'd assume.

Since he hasn't given any better explanation of what he means by "player can show that his interpretation is legal".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, when it works, that's how.
When does it not work?

When the GM doesn't accept his interpretation of the rules, I'd assume.

Since he hasn't given any better explanation of what he means by "player can show that his interpretation is legal".

Arguing in good faith I assume that Mr. Wilhelm's phrase "player can show that his interpretation is legal". is equivalent to "player can show that his interpretation of an ambiguous rule such as potion glutton is just as valid using plain english or existing FAQ/errata/book text".

I further assumed Mr. Wilhelm meant that if a player did such he should be allowed to use his interpretation of the rules even if the GM usually interprets it differently.

This would apply to something like tiger pounce where the first sentence makes no mention of unarmed strikes and is very useful to a weapon user.

I believe Mr. Wilhelm would say that a PFS GM should if shown that feat allow a player to use it with a weapon to take the power attack penalty to AC instead of to hit, even though many GM's espouse that styles are unless called out differently just for unarmed strikes.

Obviously however the weapon user would not be able to use the second portion as a swift to gain movement unless using an unarmed strike or combat maneuver.

Now if I am incorrect I am sure Mr. Wilhelm will correct me as he should, I am just trying to hopefully get us to a point where we are not talking past one another.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, when it works, that's how.

If you mean "Sure" as in a GM saying "Um, no Wilhelm that isn't how the feat works" and your response is "Sure I'm good with your interpretation".

Then we are in agreement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Covent wrote:
thejeff wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Sure, when it works, that's how.
When does it not work?

When the GM doesn't accept his interpretation of the rules, I'd assume.

Since he hasn't given any better explanation of what he means by "player can show that his interpretation is legal".

Arguing in good faith I assume that Mr. Wilhelm's phrase "player can show that his interpretation is legal". is equivalent to "player can show that his interpretation of an ambiguous rule such as potion glutton is just as valid using plain english or existing FAQ/errata/book text".

I further assumed Mr. Wilhelm meant that if a player did such he should be allowed to use his interpretation of the rules even if the GM usually interprets it differently.

This would apply to something like tiger pounce where the first sentence makes no mention of unarmed strikes and is very useful to a weapon user.

I believe Mr. Wilhelm would say that a PFS GM should if shown that feat allow a player to use it with a weapon to take the power attack penalty to AC instead of to hit, even though many GM's espouse that styles are unless called out differently just for unarmed strikes.

Obviously however the weapon user would not be able to use the second position as a swift to gain movement unless using an unarmed strike or combat maneuver.

Now if I am incorrect I am sure Mr. Wilhelm will correct me as he should, I am just trying to hopefully get us to a point where we are not talking past one another.

That's probably a fairer interpretation. :)

Still, we've all seen plenty of debates on these boards where two (or more) people differ strongly on what the rules text means, even using plain English.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

thejeff wrote:
I further assumed Mr. Wilhelm meant that if a player did such he should be allowed to use his interpretation of the rules even if the GM usually interprets it differently.
Still, we've all seen plenty of debates on these boards where two (or more) people differ strongly on what the rules text means, even using plain English.

This is the part I have an issue. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone if someone can come to a table with their interpretation and force that upon the GM and the other players. If they can't read the sentence and agree with your interpretation, it is improper of you to try to force it upon them.

You isn't specific to anyone in this thread, just the "you" as in the person asserting their interpretation is the only valid one.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
thejeff wrote:

PFS does an enormous amount to limit table variation. Eliminating it is not possible without replacing those GMs with robots, which I suspect would make everyone's experience worse, even if they did interpret all rules exactly the same way.

I find the business case argument uncompelling, since I don't approach the game that way either in PFS or out of it.

Agreed. One should approach PFS, if not with 'meat and potatoes' boring characters, with at least some characters that are straightforward in their interpretation. PFS is not the venue to try broken shennanigans: it's where you go to meet people and have fun, in a respectable, non-disruptive manner. For instance, last time I checked, PFS was still changing relatively major class features such as swapping Brew Potion for Extra Bombs, in the case of Alchemists, and likewise, no Scribe Scroll feat for wizards (I forgot what they get instead...) The point is twofold: 1) PFS is about simplifying the play experience (remembering past lives I seem to remember a concept dubbed "Living Accounting"); and 2) PFS is not above making their own rulings in regards to feats or class features.

As a genuine suggestion: I recommend you petition the powers that be in the PFS campaign to get your clarifications on whether this affects extracts or not. They can full well make up their mind on the issue, failing the divine dev intervention you seek.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
This is the part I have an issue. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone if someone can come to a table with their interpretation and force that upon the GM [snipped the rest for effect! ;) ]

...agreeeeed! GM is the king and his word is final.

If the player wants to be the king, he must become a GM! ;)

More players should try GMing. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
James Risner wrote:
This is the part I have an issue. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone if someone can come to a table with their interpretation and force that upon the GM [snipped the rest for effect! ;) ]

...agreeeeed! GM is the king and his word is final.

If the player wants to be the king, he must become a GM! ;)

More players should try GMing. :)

I think this is the fundamental disconnect in ways of thinking between Mr. Wilhelm and some others here.

One way of thinking is as Purple Dragon Knight says and feels it is rude to argue for or insist on an interpretation of a rule that is different from how the GM interprets it.

The other way of thinking feels that all at the table are equal and the GM is a facilitator, not necessarily more important than any other person. This way of thinking feels it is rude for the GM to not allow a player to use a valid as I described above interpitation of a rule. Even more so in PFS where money is explicitly involved.

This all returns to GM Fiat vs Player agency. I am not going to argue for one camp or another, however I am as I said trying to foster a healthy dialogue.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Let's put it this way Covent: the GM puts all the effort and prep time, often sacrificing his own fun when he would prefer to be a player. Often, he's tired on Friday after a long week of work. The last thing he wants to do is pick fights on rules and argue over creative PC builds.

The best scenario for both GM and players: everyone comes to the table and play the game honestly, and take a conservative approach when the rule is ambiguous. The player with a genuine question on his build puts it simply and openly to the GM, and takes the GM's answer as the rule to go by for that game session.


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

Let's put it this way Covent: the GM puts all the effort and prep time, often sacrificing his own fun when he would prefer to be a player. Often, he's tired on Friday after a long week of work. The last thing he wants to do is pick fights on rules and argue over creative PC builds.

The best scenario for both GM and players: everyone comes to the table and play the game honestly, and take a conservative approach when the rule is ambiguous. The player with a genuine question on his build puts it simply and openly to the GM, and takes the GM's answer as the rule to go by for that game session.

In PFS a player may play the same character with many different GM's and having a character only being able to use his abilities when the GM agrees with you will drive people away from PFS. This would mean less revenue for Paizo, lost from that player and anyone he tells his negative experiences to. This is in the same way bad Yelp reviews hurt restaurants.

Further all PFS GM's are volunteers. IF GM'ing is a burden do not do it, full stop. No gaming > Bad Gaming. I am defining bad gaming as a game where at least one person is not having fun, including the GM.

I also feel the best approach is not to play "conservatively" but to say yes to almost anything unless it negatively affects the fun of someone at the table.

I do agree with you on open and honest communication.


Covent wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Let's put it this way Covent: the GM puts all the effort and prep time, often sacrificing his own fun when he would prefer to be a player. Often, he's tired on Friday after a long week of work. The last thing he wants to do is pick fights on rules and argue over creative PC builds.

The best scenario for both GM and players: everyone comes to the table and play the game honestly, and take a conservative approach when the rule is ambiguous. The player with a genuine question on his build puts it simply and openly to the GM, and takes the GM's answer as the rule to go by for that game session.

In PFS a player may play the same character with many different GM's and having a character only being able to use his abilities when the GM agrees with you will drive people away from PFS. This would mean less revenue for Paizo, lost from that player and anyone he tells his negative experiences to. This is in the same way bad Yelp reviews hurt restaurants.

Further all PFS GM's are volunteers. IF GM'ing is a burden do not do it, full stop. No gaming > Bad Gaming. I am defining bad gaming as a game where at least one person is not having fun, including the GM.

I also feel the best approach is not to play "conservatively" but to say yes to almost anything unless it negatively affects the fun of someone at the table.

I do agree with you on open and honest communication.

In PFS though, those are the rules. When it comes to rules decisions in game, the Judge decides. They should be bound by the actual rules of course, and serious issues can always be elevated to a VO - most likely after the game.

It can't really run any other way in a public game like that. Someone's got to decide. "Every player decides how his own character works and can't be overridden without going to a VO" isn't going to fly. At least problem GMs are easier not to ask back to run things.

In a home game, things are laxer. You can run it however you please. GM is God. Group consensus. A rules expert who makes the calls on rules questions, even when not GMing. I've seen it all.
Generally the GM has at least some extra authority - if only because he knows what's actually going on. In cases where there are weird interactions between a character's abilities or actions and some secret thing an NPC has or is doing, you can't rely on a player as arbiter of what happens. The GM's authority to make rules decisions derives from his duty to determine outcomes. He can delegate or ask advice in at least some cases, but ultimately when your character does his thing, he has to decide what happens.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Covent wrote:
Further all PFS GM's are volunteers. IF GM'ing is a burden do not do it, full stop. No gaming > Bad Gaming. I am defining bad gaming as a game where at least one person is not having fun, including the GM.

It's all great in principle, but you have to keep in mind that not a lot of gaming would happen if the whole table would be happy 100% of the time.

You also have to be thankful for your GM, whoever he or she is, and not adopt a dismissive opinion such as "he chose to be a GM, screw him or her!" Remember that he or she puts a lot of time to prepare that game.

I often find that a lot of GMs are somehow selfless in the sense that they have often less time than most players to devote to prepping games...

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
It only creates table variation if players try to extend the feat to extracts. If everyone took the face value benefit that it applies to potions, then all would be good.

Of course you have to extend the feat to something beyond potions, because it refers to "potions AND other potables". There has to be something that's not quite a potion but that you can drink, that also falls under the purview of the feat.

Alchemist class description wrote:


potion-like extracts
(...)
Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form
(...)
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion

I can't think of anything in the rules more similar to potions than extracts. So if anything qualifies it should be extracts.

The Sword wrote:
Of course because we have since gained a class that casts through potion like extracts some players want to be able to cast as a swift action.

Advanced Player's Guide: 2010

Inner Sea Gods: 2014

Alchemists had been around for four years before Inner Sea Gods was published. The writers of Inner Sea Gods had to have known they existed.

And it's not like the question has never come up before; in 2010 they FAQ'ed Accelerated Drinker. That trait only refers to potions; nothing else.

The Sword wrote:
Table variation invariably comes from those players that want to squeeze the last drop of value from something - or use it in an unforeseen way to break the feat.

Table variation in this case comes from GMs who decide they're a better judge of what a feat should actually have said than the editor of the book.


Don't know how many times we have to note that move+swift to cast is much worse than swift-to-cast.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Is anyone denying that now?


I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.

You mean, other than all the times that they can? Items of spell storing, rods of quicken spell, quicken metamagic, and all of the other items and abilities that only work with spells and not extracts.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
James Risner wrote:
This is the part I have an issue. It is fundamentally unfair to everyone if someone can come to a table with their interpretation and force that upon the GM [snipped the rest for effect! ;) ]

...agreeeeed! GM is the king and his word is final.

If the player wants to be the king, he must become a GM! ;)

More players should try GMing. :)

I mean in home games sure. In PFS if I get the VC or VL to agree with me this is how it works you have to run it that way or cant GM PFS in that area.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Undone wrote:
I mean in home games sure. In PFS if I get the VC or VL to agree with me this is how it works you have to run it that way or cant GM PFS in that area.

LOL! and how exactly is this an incentive for people to volunteer for GMing?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I don't tell my GMs how to run their tables, unless they are specifically breaking the rules. I tell them how I run things and advise them what I think the rules say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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!


The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.

Two extracts isn't the problem, it's when the Alchemist Combines them to drink FOUR extracts a round.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

We can safely assume they aren't solids or gases.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Extracts behave as spells in potion form. Potions are liquids. So if they behave as spells in potion form, they would need to be a liquid.


Quantum Steve wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.
Two extracts isn't the problem, it's when the Alchemist Combines them to drink FOUR extracts a round.

You forgot familiar with poisoner's gloves + combined extracts: 8 per round.

Of course, you would be blowing a lot of high level slots to do this.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

LOL!

"On the 13th day of April, 2016, at approximately half an hour after midnight, the '6-second' adventuring day was born, Quantum Steve his father, and _Ozy_ his mother."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


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.
Undone wrote:
reasonable person

Have you forgotten where we are?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.

??????


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.
Two extracts isn't the problem, it's when the Alchemist Combines them to drink FOUR extracts a round.

Those kinds of Extracts would only consist of (at best) two level 3 "spells," and would cost 2 level 6 Extract slots, which can be used for (most likely) infinitely better things. You don't have a whole lot of those to use, even at 20th level with maximized Intelligence.

Quite frankly, having to burn your highest slots just to do stuff like that isn't particularly OP, especially considering that full spellcasters can do the same, and with even higher level and more versatile spells, too (though they need gold investments to do so).

Then again, this could too. Others mentioned having a Tumor Familiar delivering even more of them through Poisoner's Gloves. Which can be done 1/day. By a Familiar which requires investments. Which costs 5,000 gold (chump change by the endgame, though doubling the cost would allow you more uses per day), and requires your Familiar be able to use Hand slots. Which also costs another 2 level 6 Extract slots per usage. Oh, and your Familiar would be at risk for this very same thing.

So far, I'm failing to see how OP this is, even if towards the endgame when I can, as a Blasting-focused Blood Arcanist, 1-round most CR-relevant encounters with Fireballs and Delayed Blast Fireballs with ease, or dare I mention the ultimate, most overpowered single-target spell that is Battering Blast, dealing over 600 points of Force Damage per round at the endgame, and being able to do either blasting method quite reliably as well.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
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.

Disliking something because it's overpowered is okay.

Disliking something because they think it's overpowered, when there are actually other options that are even more overpowered than that something, and they're allowed, is not.


_Ozy_ wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.
You mean, other than all the times that they can? Items of spell storing, rods of quicken spell, quicken metamagic, and all of the other items and abilities that only work with spells and not extracts.

Let me re-phrase...

If a wizard had a feat that said he could cast two spells on himself in around - at first level at the cost of one feat - would we consider that reasonable?

If your initial reaction is that it is fine then we are playing a very different kind of game. In which case it is likely no one will every convince you to change your opinion.

If you feel it does look more powerful than expected, then consider whether interpreting the feat to include extracts is either advisable or necessary.

I mean, RAW it appears it can be interpreted either way. Without a clear unequivocal mandate for either interpretation. Therefore a judgement call is needed, both from the player who considers taking it, and the GM who decides if to allow it or not.

Finally the clincher for me is that accelerated drinker doesnt allow you to drink extracts as a move action. I see no reason for Potion Glutton to have a less strict interpretation.

One thing being overpowered and legal, does not justify all other overpowered interpretation...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
The Sword wrote:
I don't see why an alchemist should be able to use two extracts in a round when other spell casting classes cannot use two spells in a round.
You mean, other than all the times that they can? Items of spell storing, rods of quicken spell, quicken metamagic, and all of the other items and abilities that only work with spells and not extracts.

Let me re-phrase...

If a wizard had a feat that said he could cast two spells on himself in around - at first level at the cost of one feat - would we consider that reasonable?

If your initial reaction is that it is fine then we are playing a very different kind of game. In which case it is likely no one will every convince you to change your opinion.

If you feel it does look more powerful than expected, then consider whether interpreting the feat to include extracts is either advisable or necessary.

I mean, RAW it appears it can be interpreted either way. Without a clear unequivocal mandate for either interpretation. Therefore a judgement call is needed, both from the player who considers taking it, and the GM who decides if to allow it or not.

Finally the clincher for me is that accelerated drinker doesnt allow you to drink extracts as a move action. I see no reason for Potion Glutton to have a less strict interpretation.

One thing being overpowered and legal, does not justify all other overpowered interpretation...

But you're not a wizard, you're an alchemist. Which is usually only going to have 2 extracts for the entire day at 1st, and they can only be used to buff, not to disable or deal damage, so yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Apples =/= Oranges.

Additionally, Accelerated Drinker *does* have errata/clarification stating that allowing the effect to work on extracts is too powerful for a trait, and Potion Glutton does *not* have such errata or clarification.

If extracts had errata/clarification, that would be a very different story, and they could have changed the wording on extracts rather than changing the trait to prevent any future, similar interactions if that was the concern. They didn't do that.

Instead, they went on to make a 500gp item which duplicates the effects of Potion Glutton except *better*, which unquestionably works with extracts.

Finally, add on top of all of that the fact that GMs and players alike who have actually played with this move + swift extract use are saying it's fine should make you question whether this is even a problem.


Gulthor wrote:

But you're not a wizard, you're an alchemist. Which is usually only going to have 2 extracts for the entire day at 1st, and they can only be used to buff, not to disable or deal damage, so yeah, I'm pretty comfortable with that.

Lots of classes could benefit from multiple buffs in a round, they aren't generally available that way as a feat. Being able to buff each round as well as attack is substantial.

Gulthor wrote:
Apples =/= Oranges.

Arguably many personal spells are more powerful on combat classes than on wizards.

Gulthor wrote:

Additionally, Accelerated Drinker *does* have errata/clarification stating that allowing the effect to work on extracts is too powerful for a trait, and Potion Glutton does *not* have such errata or clarification.

If extracts had errata/clarification, that would be a very...

We can't expect every errata or FAQ to trigger an errata of every similar feat in the game. I mean it would be great, but we can't expect it.

A trait to make something a move action, and a feat to make something a swift action looks pretty in keeping to me. I'm not sure why we need to allow the feat to make a key class ability substantially better. I get how it is nice to be able to cast spells in addition to attacking, but if that is the intention it shouldn't be so ambiguous. I mean a magus has the ability in exchange for a penalty to hit and limited weapon choices, a warpriest can do it a limited number of times per day. It just doesnt seem right that an alchemist can do it as long as he has extracts?

The expansion relys on fitting extracts into the definition of "potable". You can do that, but it seems a fairly convoluted definition. I mean we know the feat is badly written because the normal use isn't even to drink them as a move action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:


Finally the clincher for me is that accelerated drinker doesnt allow you to drink extracts as a move action. I see no reason for Potion Glutton to have a less strict interpretation.

Accelerated Drinker doesn't have the "Or other potables" in its benefits section so using it as a comparison, to me, doesn't seem like sound reasoning. Accelerated Drinker is also a trait and not a feat.


The Sword wrote:
The expansion relys on fitting extracts into the definition of "potable". You can do that, but it seems a fairly convoluted definition.

Wat.

An extract literally falls into almost every definition and implication of a "potable"* it is possible to derive from the English language. A potable is literally "safe to drink" which is exactly what an extract is.

* With exactly one exception: an undead who creates an extract of cure effects.

The Sword wrote:
I mean we know the feat is badly written because the normal use isn't even to drink them as a move action.

This is correct.

EDIT: Adding an asterisk and adding a clarification.


I agree that potable consists of everything safe to drink. By their nature extracts must be potable.

It's just a badly written feat. If you mean extract, say extract, not potable. If they meant it to include extracts they should have specified extracts. It was written after the APG of course.

I use accelerated drinker as a comparison to what the feat does not what it says.

I can't believe that an alchemist should have access to either two extracts a round, or an axtract and an attacks (or other standard action). That is purely based on my experiences and understanding of the game though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Potion, extract, mutagen, elixir, frosty beverage. I guess they could list them all.

Or they could say 'potable'.


The Sword wrote:
If a wizard had a feat that said he could cast two spells on himself in around - at first level at the cost of one feat - would we consider that reasonable?

If your initial reaction is that it is fine then we are playing a very different kind of game. In which case it is likely no one will every convince you to change your opinion.

If you feel it does look more powerful than expected, then consider whether interpreting the feat to include extracts is either advisable or necessary.

I mean, RAW it appears it can be interpreted either way. Without a clear unequivocal mandate for either interpretation. Therefore a judgement call is needed, both from the player who considers taking it, and the GM who decides if to allow it or not.

Finally the clincher for me is that accelerated drinker doesnt allow you to drink extracts as a move action. I see no reason for Potion Glutton to have a less strict interpretation.

One thing being overpowered and legal, does not justify all other overpowered interpretation...

He does have that. It's called Quicken Spell. It's balanced by the factor that it increases the spell level by 4. It also works with all spells, not just spells that work on only himself.

Disregarding that, you're looking at being able to cast both Shield and Mage Armor in a round at 1st level. Fairly powerful defensive-wise, but then all he's left with is maybe one more 1st level spell, and his cantrips. I'm not saying he's going to be useless, but a lot of his potential fire-power is down the drain.

Even at the endgame, you're looking at being able to cast Time Stop in addition to another buff or Delayed Blast Fireball or some other crap, which, by that point, if you aren't doing that, you're gonna die.

Now, re-evaluating Potion Glutton, as a feat, it's balanced by the factor that you must worship a specific deity. If you do not worship this deity, you cannot take that feat, period, end of discussion, and there are no other ways to do so.

And to be honest, if there are going to be Alchemists who worship Urgathoa, they certainly won't be Good-aligned. True Neutral, at best, but the other 3 alignments allowed would be Evil alignments. So unless you're a True Neutral character, Urgathoa is off the table as far as PFS is concerned, and as for home games, your better have a good reason for your GM.

It seems silly to use alignment and deity choice as a means of balance, but look at the Fighter and the Paladin for a moment. The Paladin is infinitely better than the Fighter, even without fighting Evil enemies, due to the factor that it has versatile spellcasting and an immense amount of immunities and defenses that a Fighter would easily succumb to, but that's balanced by the factor that a Paladin must adhere to his alignments, and that some of his benefits of Paladinhood only affected certain alignments, or these benefits no longer appear.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

I agree that potable consists of everything safe to drink. By their nature extracts must be potable.

It's just a badly written feat. If you mean extract, say extract, not potable. If they meant it to include extracts they should have specified extracts. It was written after the APG of course.

But by saying potable, they include not just extracts, but also alchemical remedies and mugs of beer.

The Sword wrote:
I use accelerated drinker as a comparison to what the feat does not what it says.

Let's compare them, and compare to the FAQ.

Potion Glutton wrote:
You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables as a swift action without provoking attacks of opportunity.
Accelerated Drinker wrote:
You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.
FAQ wrote:

Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?

No.

See the difference? Accelerated Drinker talks only about potions, and so it doesn't extend to anything else. Potion Glutton extends to everything that's safe to drink.


I agree with you Darksol. I'd add that the feat is substantially better at lower levels before iterative attacks kick in and at higher level has less impact. Also before the disparity in spell levels grows so big.

It seems that it is just bad across the board, bad for getting the rules wrong, bad for using flavour to limit its use, bad for using non-game terms to define its game mechanics, bad for not clarifying whether extracts can be applied. It would be much better for people to just avoid the feat like Urgothoa's plague.

Ozy - Well they do already list potion and elixir, so adding the word extract would have made life much much more helpful. I'm not sure what people would drink in combat other than potions, elixirs and extracts. I mean are love elixirs so much more common in combat than extracts, to make it worth specifiying elixirs and lumping extracts under portables?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Btw sacred geometry exists which allows you to quicken any spell for free.

I think the sword should just say"i dont like it". Instead of it doesnt work, because it obviously does work.

201 to 250 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Has potion glutton ever been errata'ed or FAQ'ed? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.