I'm not sure what people would drink in combat other than potions, elixirs and extracts.
A hasty list:
- Ale
- Booze
I mean are love elixirs so much more common in combat than extracts, to make it worth specifiying elixirs and lumping extracts under portables?
Yes. While a potion is a very specific kind of magical item, an elixir is a very, very different kind.
They each have different feats to create, different functions when made, and different "styles" in their application.
By splitting the wording and including two very different kinds of magic items, you show, by implication, "No, we really, really mean even very different kinds of magic items." when you add, "and other potables" to the sentence.
EDIT: coding fix, and some visual sprucing
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that it is just bad across the board, bad for getting the rules wrong,
The "Normal" reminder text is unfortunate, and should be amended.
bad for using flavour to limit its use,
That applies to every deity-specific feat though. Personally I like the idea of there being deity-specific feats, but they make more sense for explicitly magical acts that a deity might nudge along, than for mere physical aptitudes.
Not to mention that this feat would have also fit in nicely with Cayden Cailean.
bad for using non-game terms to define its game mechanics,
In this case that was sort of inevitable; they could have said "anything you can drink" and it would still not be a game term. There isn't a game term that describes all the different things you can drink.
bad for not clarifying whether extracts can be applied.
Meh. Potables is clear enough for me.
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?
There are also alchemical remedies such as Antitoxin, food and drink like wine and soup, and a whole lot of wondrous items that are meant to be drunk but aren't potions or elixirs; such as a Drinking Horn of the Panacea, a Flask of the Reaper, Nectar of the Gods, or several others.
Yes but players generally don't drink soup or vodka in combat unless there is a good reason for it. So it makes sense to lump them under potables. Alchemical remedies would, sure, but they cost money just like potions, and are still relatively rare in combat.
At this point I'm repeating the arguments that wiser players than I have said. I like others believe potables in this case to mean beverages, as is its common use. I mean we don't have potions or extracts in real life so using a non-game-mechanic to describe game terms doesn't really work for me,
Anyway, tables can run it how they personally want to run it. It's not for me or my table though. Even were it not for the deity restriction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but players generally don't drink soup or vodka in combat unless there is a good reason for it.
... just like extracts.
So it makes sense to lump them under potables.
... just like extracts.
Alchemical remedies would, sure, but they cost money just like potions, and are still relatively rare in combat.
Only for certain groups. Many find them invaluable and use them all the time.
At this point I'm repeating the arguments that wiser players than I have said.
But they don't address the language at all. This entire argument appears to be a gut-feeling kind of thing, and comparing a supposed-to-be-less-powerful-trait to a supposed-to-be-more-powerful feat.
I like others believe potables in this case to mean beverages, as is its common use.
Yet potions and elixirs and alchemical items are all found within the same parameters (as are other magical items).
Again, though, extracts would fall under that definition.
I mean we don't have potions or extracts in real life so using a non-game-mechanic to describe game terms doesn't really work for me,
Anyway, tables can run it how they personally want to run it. It's not for me or my table though. Even were it not for the deity restriction.
That is fair.
EDIT: For some visual clean-up. Weird coding happens sometimes.
The problem with using the term "potable" is that its application is subjective (as the term, according to google, means "safe to drink").
If you have a creature which absorbs specific kinds of damage, for example, it could be perfectly safe for that creature to drink an Alchemist's Fire or Alchemist's Acid and be just fine. In normal cases, it's not potable, but in that instance, it is.
Or hell, let's take the Plague Bringer archetype for Ratfolk Alchemists. It can create a Plague Vial, which holds a disease strain. This is perfectly safe for the Ratfolk to drink, which means that the Plague Vial, to the Ratfolk Alchemist, is potable. Whereas for another creature who drinks it, it is not safe. In fact, they end up puking their guts out for an entire hour unless they make a Fortitude Save.
It makes no sense to make a subject potable (and therefore usable with the feat) in one instance, and yet in another it's not (and therefore not usable with the feat). If you look at "potable" subjectively, then the GM had to take into consideration what each "liquid" does mechanically, and determines whether that effect is hostile to the consumer or not, which can slow down the game and probably result in paradoxes. If you look at "potable" objectively (as the rules should require), then certain things either do, or do not work, full stop, and shouldn't be subjective as I've mentioned in a couple examples above.
In short, it's a catch 22. Potable is either subjective (which means table variance will occur), or it's objective (which means subjects that would normally be helpful for you and not helpful for others would not be usable with the feat), and quite frankly either way just plain sucks at a PFS table.
Tacticslion. I don't disagree with your logic.
However I do disagree with the idea that allowing someone to drink a cup of hearty chicken broth in combat is of comparable value to someone drinking an extract of Mislead or monstrous Physique.
Though your point is taken.
I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that elixirs are called out because they are a different item type to potions. They are effectively the same as potions in effect just not in the manner or of their creation. Usually because their effect does not correspond to a specific spell. But that's not a major point.
Extracts on the other hand take different action lengths to use (standard to draw and drink), are free, are replenishable every day, can include effects up to 6th level, and are a major class ability.
So for those reasons, not being specific about the chicken soup is fine, but not being specific about the extracts is a major issue for me.
A rule clearly allowing something is not the same as needing to use interpretation, logic and assumption to justify something working - particularly if common sense and comparable abilities don't seem to fit.
I would fully support any PFS GM in not allowing the feat to extend beyond its face value power of potions, elixirs and beverages. Then again some might. If you read back through the thread there are enough dissenters - a lot of whom are long term GMs / players - that there can be multiple interpretations.
I don't just think it is poorly designed though. I think that the fact that it is just plain incorrect in the rules means any extrapolation along lines of logic should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I mean if a feat was released that said bards can cast spells as a swift action. And in the Normal section, said "Bards casting spells is a move action" we would probably treat the feat with some scepticism. In essence that is exactly what has happened here if we draw the conclusion that potables does include extracts.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an argument I haven't seen yet;
Potions require a move action to retrieve and a standard action to drink.
Extracts require a standard action to retrieve AND drink.
The Potion Glutton feat reduces 'drink time' to Swift... but for extracts we don't actually KNOW the 'drink time'. Just that it is some subset of a standard action, with retrieving the extract being the rest of the time. So even if we accept that the 'drink time' of an extract should be reduced to swift, that would not mean the standard action becomes a swift action because Potion Glutton does nothing to reduce the 'retrieve time'.
Thus, it might be reasonable to rule that Potion Glutton allows an extract to be retrieved as a move action (like a potion) and drunk as a swift action... but allowing retrieval AND drinking as just a swift action is not appropriate / consistent with the feat. However, this would clearly be in the realm of individual GM interpretation and thus potentially a problem for PFS play. Indeed, given the lack of a 'retrieve vs drink' action breakdown for extracts there is no way to avoid table variation on this issue for PFS.
Of course, we also know that the game developers who introduced Potion Glutton never intended it to be used with extracts. They COULDN'T have... because extracts didn't exist yet.
Thus, the question becomes whether it is 'reasonable' to extend this feat to cover the new game feature. From a 'mechanical logic' standpoint it makes sense that a feat which allows drinking A, B, and C faster should also allow drinking D faster. However, from a 'game balance' view the ability to swiftly drink extracts clearly increases the overall benefit of the feat significantly (though much less so if we properly account for extract retrieval separately). I don't think move + swift would be unbalancing, but it is all GM house rule territory. There is no clean / unambiguous way to apply Potion Glutton to extracts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have yet to see a single person who has argued in favor of the feat believe that the entire action would be reduced to a swift. We have 6 pages of, "but it's swift+move, not swift."
And please stop trying to claim that Potion Glutton pre-dates the Alchemist. The Advanced Player's Guide was one of the very first supplemental books released under the Pathfinder brand. The Alchemist has been around since 2010.
EDIT: And it has been clarified that you can draw an extract as a move action if desired, which is how you can hand out infusions.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would fully support any PFS GM in not allowing the feat to extend beyond its face value power of potions, elixirs and beverages.
Bold mine.
See, here's the problem: no one, in this entire thread, has come up with a word that references "potable" that does not also apply to extract.
A rule clearly allowing something is not the same as needing to use interpretation, logic and assumption to justify something working - particularly if common sense and comparable abilities don't seem to fit.
There's a problem here - the logic is backwards.
Compare this:
If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. You can reduce these penalties in two ways. First, if your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. An unarmed strike is always considered light. Second, the Two-Weapon Fighting feat lessens the primary hand penalty by 2, and the off-hand penalty by 6.
... with this ():
Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. Because such objects are not designed for this use, any creature that uses an improvised weapon in combat is considered to be nonproficient with it and takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with that object. To determine the size category and appropriate damage for an improvised weapon, compare its relative size and damage potential to the weapon list to find a reasonable match. An improvised weapon scores a threat on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a critical hit. An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet.
... and this:
Foes are surprised by your skilled use of unorthodox and improvised weapons.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised melee weapon. Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.
Normal: You take a –4 penalty on attack rolls made with an improvised weapon.
So, for the cost of exactly one feat, instead of being entirely unarmed (and forced to deal 1d3+STR non-lethal damage plus a -4 penalty) or suffer a -4 attack penalty, you can take your own prisoner's chains and a heavy rock and deal 1d8/1d6 damage a round at -4, or just straight up 1d10+STR at no penalty, while everyone else... can't.
Now, of course, Two Weapon Fighting specifies it only works with weapons... but improvised weapons "are not designed for this use" - so are they still weapons?
By every conceivable definition, yes. By the name, by the rules, by the feat itself, they are weapons, and you can wield them.
The problem is,
A rule clearly allowing something is not the same as needing to use interpretation, logic and assumption to justify something working - particularly if common sense and comparable abilities don't seem to fit.
... says, "You can't use logic to know what a feat says, even when a feat directly says something that, by all definitions, meets the criteria." because, by every definition, extracts meet the criteria.
If a word means something, unless the rules clarify it's something other than that thing, that's what the word means.
This isn't using "interpretation" any more than, say, using "interpretation" to understand the sentences, "An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage." - I don't need to ask what the word "represents" means, nor "opponent" nor "result" even though none of these are defined terms - it's merely reading English.
Now, it's true, English is a sticky wicket, often and always, and can and will play tricks with you... but this is not that thing.
Again, let me point this out: I have zero interest in playing an alchemist any time soon, with or without this feat. Urgathoa is really dumb and I dislike most things about her.
I'm not looking to gain an advantage - and if I was, it'd be one that I would likely never use.
But I have a player who plays an alchemist. If that player wants to take this feat (after meeting the prerequisites) I'm more than happy to allow that (even though I find it unlikely); and I'll happily allow it's full use, according to the language as it's written, because that's how the rules work.
There is a bad line that can't be followed as-written, because it's an error - and a clear one. That's undeniable, and accepted.
But that there is an error in the part of the wording that doesn't even reference what the feat does is immaterial to what the feat actually does.
EDIT: I'd given an unarmed damage (1d4 instead of what it should be, 1d3) too much damage and hadn't clarified that it's non-lethal. Those are now fixed. I also added an "s" because I had a number disagreement (I'd said "sentence" when I clearly quoted three of them). Whoops! Also fixed. :D
I'm not sure what people would drink in combat other than potions, elixirs and extracts.A hasty list:
- Ale
- Booze
I mean are love elixirs so much more common in combat than extracts, to make it worth specifiying elixirs and lumping extracts under portables?Yes. While a potion is a very specific kind of magical item, an elixir is a very, very different kind.
They each have different feats to create, different functions when made, and different "styles" in their application.
By splitting the wording and including two very different kinds of magic items, you show, by implication, "No, we really, really mean even very different kinds of magic items." when you add, "and other potables" to the sentence.
EDIT: coding fix, and some visual sprucing
Here is the shoehorn that elixir of love was put into wonderous items with!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, been reading up on the Potion rules. Something I had overlooked is that the Attack of Opportunity generated by normally drinking a potion can be directed at the potion itself, rather than at the drinker, which can deny use of said potion. Given the absolutely shoddy potion stats (AC13, hardness 1, HP 1, break DC 12), I really need to start doing this every time an opponent tries to drink a potion...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, been reading up on the Potion rules. Something I had overlooked is that the Attack of Opportunity generated by normally drinking a potion can be directed at the potion itself, rather than at the drinker, which can deny use of said potion. Given the absolutely shoddy potion stats (AC13, hardness 1, HP 1, break DC 12), I really need to start doing this every time an opponent tries to drink a potion...
That's why I groan every time PFS goons have scripted tactics to drink potions if they get scratched up a little.
Not only can they not afford those actions (while getting hammered by PCs), the chance of pulling it off are is small.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why I groan every time PFS goons have scripted tactics to drink potions if they get scratched up a little.Not only can they not afford those actions (while getting hammered by PCs), the chance of pulling it off are is small.
So it's scripted, huh? I always figured that was just the GM going easy on us.
|
|
I have yet to see a single person who has argued in favor of the feat believe that the entire action would be reduced to a swift. We have 6 pages of, "but it's swift+move, not swift."
That's simply not true. Indeed, there have been claims that with Potion Glutton and Accelerated Drinker (ignoring the FAQ) someone should be able to drink three extracts in a round (standard + move + swift)... which isn't going to work if you need to retrieve one or more of those.
And please stop trying to claim that Potion Glutton pre-dates the Alchemist.
Mea culpa. I had seen that stated earlier in the thread without contradiction and didn't think to double check it.
EDIT: And it has been clarified that you can draw an extract as a move action if desired, which is how you can hand out infusions.
Good. Where please?
|
|
Wow, been reading up on the Potion rules. Something I had overlooked is that the Attack of Opportunity generated by normally drinking a potion can be directed at the potion itself, rather than at the drinker, which can deny use of said potion. Given the absolutely shoddy potion stats (AC13, hardness 1, HP 1, break DC 12), I really need to start doing this every time an opponent tries to drink a potion...
If people insist that Extracts are potions, does that mean I can target my AoOs at Extracts too? do alchemists normally need to make Concentration checks to 'cast' i.e. 'drink' an Extract? finally, are all Extracts consumed, or some of those applied like oils over the body (Extracts are seemingly all in the self-buff category in the end; sorta disappointing IMO, as I would have envisioned, originally, that the alchemist class could have replicated 'fireball' by way of 'thrown extract' or special bomb...)
If people insist that Extracts are potions,
Has anyone actually made this assertion?
If so, they're wrong.
We have a trait that specifies that they are not included under "potions" they aren't created like potions, and they don't cost money like potions.
What we do have, however, is extracts as equating to potables, which, if anyone don't consider in-game extracts potable, than they either don't know the normal meaning of that word, or they likely don't know what an in-game extract is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really. Usually you get "when X reaches 15 hit points..."
It's "scripted" but nothing in a script ever goes right. Let's be honest. What we have in out heads and the realities are so different.
A lot of GMs forget that the monsters / bosses down in the dungeon can make perception checks too; it's a byproduct of the 'room by room' description setup of a module. While it makes things easier for a GM to run things, and that's great, it shouldn't mean that the enemies are in a stasis field until the PCs open the door.
For instance, if you have a gunslinger in your party that is not using oil of silence, by the time you reach the next encounter ALL those guys should be done drinking potions up front. It's like a big "honey!!! I'm home!!!" (read: "boss!!! start buffing!!!")
|
|
If people insist that Extracts are potions,Has anyone actually made this assertion?
If so, they're wrong.
We have a trait that specifies that they are not included under "potions" they aren't created like potions, and they don't cost money like potions.
What we do have, however, is extracts as equating to potables, which, if anyone don't consider in-game extracts potable, than they either don't know the normal meaning of that word, or they likely don't know what an in-game extract is.
Understood, but I've seen a lot arguments made because of the 'potion-like' description under the Alchemy class feature.
If people insist they are 'potion-like' and alterable by way of potion feats, I could see GMs insisting that they can be AoO'ed like potions...
I have yet to see a single person who has argued in favor of the feat believe that the entire action would be reduced to a swift. We have 6 pages of, "but it's swift+move, not swift."That's simply not true. Indeed, there have been claims that with Potion Glutton and Accelerated Drinker (ignoring the FAQ) someone should be able to drink three extracts in a round (standard + move + swift)... which isn't going to work if you need to retrieve one or more of those.
And please stop trying to claim that Potion Glutton pre-dates the Alchemist.Mea culpa. I had seen that stated earlier in the thread without contradiction and didn't think to double check it.
EDIT: And it has been clarified that you can draw an extract as a move action if desired, which is how you can hand out infusions.Good. Where please?
I could be wrong, but I believe it's considered covered under manipulate an item (specifically Retrieve a Stored Item).
I vaguely recall a discussion where Mark Seifter mentioned something about this, as well, but... I'm really not finding it at present. Sorry for my lack of Google-Fu! >.<
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do provoke AOO just like potions. It was clarified in a forum thread by the PDT on the issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They do provoke AOO just like potions. It was clarified in a forum thread by the PDT on the issue.
[citation needed]
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.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.
Funny, I'm having trouble finding a definition on Google that doesn't include the term liquid.
potable(noun): a liquid that is suitable for drinking; especially an alcoholic beverage
potable(noun): Usually, potables. drinkable liquids; beverages.
potable(noun): any liquid suitable for drinking
potable(noun): Any drinkable liquid; a beverage.
Oh, here's one
potable(noun): A beverage, especially an alcoholic beverage:
No, wait
beverage(noun): a drinkable liquid
It's worth noting that potable is used as a noun in the feat in question, so the adjective form of potable would be a completely different word and its definition irrelevant.
"If the definition of potable is drinkable (It is..."
...not the definition of the noun: potable.
"No FAQ required. Drinking extracts provokes attacks of opportunity just like drinking a potion."
Can you "drink" a non-liquid?
Drink - beverage or liquid
Drink - to consume (a liquid) through the mouth... to take in (a liquid); to suck up; to absorb; to imbibe
Of course, it also has the "take in" that is associated with senses or inhalation, however...
Alchemy notes,
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.
<snip>
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.
... which means that it is drunk, as if imbibing a potion; which, given that it behaves "like spells in potion form" and is "imbibed" - you know, drunk, which means it is, by default, a liquid.
... of course, that makes it a potable... which is "Good for drinking without fear of poisoning or disease." so if you can drink a non-liquid, anyone that asserts that extracts "aren't liquids" (which really makes little sense from any sort of context) can still be pointed toward potable as being that thing.
So... it's still a potable, and the only thing you gain by defining extracts as "not liquid" is that the feat becomes even more powerful... >.>
To mind mind it doesn't work because it can't be trusted. It is based on the premise that drinking a potion is a move action. If you assume that is a typo, how can you base logic on any of the rest of the feat?
|
|
There's also this:
Fast Drinker
You swiftly guzzle spirits to draw forth ki.
Prerequisites: Con 18, drunken ki class feature.
Benefit: Drinking strong alcohol to gain temporary ki, takes a swift action rather than a standard action.
...so, if you need a feat to drink alcohol as a swift, don't you think that Potion Glutton which lets you drink potions, elixirs AND alcohol (without the nasty CON 18 PREREQ!!) is more than balanced already, without extending it to EXTRACTS.. hmm?? ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are we sure this wasn't answered during a SNL skit featuring Potent Potables?
To mind mind it doesn't work because it can't be trusted. It is based on the premise that drinking a potion is a move action. If you assume that is a typo, how can you base logic on any of the rest of the feat?
Easily: because the error doesn't actually affect what the feat does. In fact, it has no effect on what the feat does - it merely refers (poorly) back to other rules.
Beyond that, barring psychic abilities, prophetic revelation, or similar effectively unknown abilities (or just, you know, the direct input of the author), it is impossible to say if the premise of the feat is based on the error, or the error happened regardless of the premise of the feat.
Easy method of creating such an error (that happens to me all the time, as I'm ADD): you're writing about one thing, and thinking about another (this is especially true with hard deadlines and pressure-time type stuff). As you write, you start type something out that seems to make total sense (and does), and you get distracted in the middle of doing so - perhaps by a sudden buzzing fly, or an itchy nose, or a friend asking you a question, or an alarm going off, or just your own thoughts - and finish the sentence (or simply meld parts of the sentence) with your other thought-process. If that particular distraction has not been taken care of, you look it over, it reads in a sensible manner* then it seems pretty solid, even when it has errors.
If there was an obvious error within the text of what the feat does, something like, "... and other potatoes." or "... and other portals." or even, "... and other potebal." than this would be an extremely valid argument to take, as, obviously, both potions and elixirs are neither potatoes nor portals, and the last is a spelling error, but provides enough uncertainty to the intent to cause question.
But again - this isn't any of those.
This reads much more like,
Writer Gotta get this stuff done. Okay, first the Urgathoa thing, then the movement thing.Keyboard "Clack-clack"
Text Drinking potions is a
Coworker (from across the way) "You finished that move thing yet?!"
Writer Ah! Gotta hurry!
Keyboard "Clack-clack"
Text move action that provo
Writer "I'll get it as soon as the Urgathoa feat is done!" Let's see, where was I? Oh, yeah, "that provokes..."
Keyboard "Clack-clack"
Text provokes attacks of opportunity.
Writer *swift read, no glaring errors, click Submit* Now to that other thing...
I mean, this happens all the time - sometimes more than others. Simply perusing my posts will easily show you how much I make the error, but basic communication still happens.
But that said, the error doesn't even impact the feat itself. At all.
*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If people insist that Extracts are potions,
They are like potions. They're based on, but different from, potions. So for questions where there is no extract-specific rule, refer back to the potion rules.
does that mean I can target my AoOs at Extracts too?
Yes.
do alchemists normally need to make Concentration checks to 'cast' i.e. 'drink' an Extract?
No. Neither does anyone need to for drinking potions.
finally, are all Extracts consumed, or some of those applied like oils over the body
They're all imbibed. What exactly you're supposed to do with alchemist extracts that don't target people is an ongoing mystery. Those tend to be the result of sloppy writing, where a spell fits the flavour of alchemists but the writer doesn't consider this point.
|
|
Thanks Ascalaphus. Drinking a potion usually provokes. Potion Glutton removes the AoO. This is thus getting more broken by the minute: removal of AoO to drink an extract + drink as a swift. Seems broken for extracts, especially since the language of Alchemy states that drawing and drinking is a standard action. If the feat would have had a second sentence along the lines of "and you can imbibe an extract as a standard action that does not provoke and AoO" I could live with it...
Thanks Ascalaphus. Drinking a potion usually provokes. Potion Glutton removes the AoO. This is thus getting more broken by the minute: removal of AoO to drink an extract + drink as a swift. Seems broken for extracts, especially since the language of Alchemy states that drawing and drinking is a standard action. If the feat would have had a second sentence along the lines of "and you can imbibe an extract as a standard action that does not provoke and AoO" I could live with it...
No it doesn't.
There was a link to a PDT statement in this thread (which I specifically requested) that says drinking Extracts provokes as if you were drinking a potion (meaning they can instead strike your Extract and destroy it, if they so desire).
The ability to drink them as a Swift Action doesn't reduce the factor that it provokes because of the kind of Action it is (drinking a potion). This is like saying the movement from Quick Runner's Shirt does not provoke because you take the movement as a Swift Action; that's blatantly false. You can't just take the rules of something like spellcasting and apply it to potions just because you think it should thematically make sense.
The only reason Quickened Spells do not provoke in comparison to spells cast normally is because they specifically state that they don't provoke. If that clause did not exist, every spell being cast would provoke, Quickened Spells included, and quite frankly that should be a balancing factor enforced for spellcasters (Quickened Spells should still provoke).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FWIW, the core line has already assigned the power level of swift action potion drinking at:
1) Mythic
2) Requiring selecting a specific talent (Assured Drinker)
3) Requiring you to spend a mythic point.
FWIW, the core line has already assigned the power level of swift action potion drinking at:
1) Mythic
2) Requiring selecting a specific talent (Assured Drinker)
3) Requiring you to spend a mythic point.
So that means power creep, no?
Since Potion Glutton is better in all ways compared to that method.
FWIW, the core line has already assigned the power level of swift action potion drinking at:
1) Mythic
2) Requiring selecting a specific talent (Assured Drinker)
3) Requiring you to spend a mythic point.
Actually, it's an invalid comparison to Potion Glutton.
The actual ability, says,
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.
This grants:
- no one can stop you from imbibing in combat- you don't provoke AoO while drinking elixir, extract, or potion
- swift action to retrieve and drink elixir, extract, or potion
The first one is entirely surpassed by anything granted by Potion Glutton, and the last is incomparable - it is, instead, comparable to,
As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to draw a thrown weapon or alchemical item and make a ranged attack with it. This attack doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. When making a deadly throw, roll twice for the attack, take the higher result, and add your tier to the roll. If the attack misses, the weapon or alchemical item lands adjacent to the target, regardless of the range.
... which is a very different category than, "If you're already holding <a specific set of kinds of items>, you can use it as a swift action" which is what Potion Glutton permits.
Of course, the core line also has defined what's Mythic... a (maybe) heightened hideous laughter spell (though the caster level is not specified). :/
((Though, to be fair, it does, at least, also allow you to affect a burst radius when not in combat. So that's nice.))