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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

It's pretty underwhelming to have a constant swift action "cast" at all times at higher levels?

I'm with purple dragon. You've lost me. Why if it is underwhelming would you pay 35k for it later?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:

It's pretty underwhelming to have a constant swift action "cast" at all times at higher levels?

I'm with purple dragon. You've lost me. Why if it is underwhelming would you pay 35k for it later?

Because it isn't actually a swift action cast. Since you have to draw the extract as a move action before you can use a swift to drink it.

That still lets you get 2 a round or one and a bomb or attack, but extracts are self-buffs and doing that cuts into your full attacks.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

There's no chance you'll find an alchemist without that feat, it it's allowed for extract.


I've still yet to see that what is being stated as a move action is actually present. An extract is a standard action is now a move action and a swift? We are adding in move actions in but I see nothing that supports this.

All I see is something that was a standard action people are asking if it's a swift. Extracts are pulled out as part of the usage.

So it's nothing written in stone that stops a full attack until I can be shown where a standard becomes a move and swift from a feat that says an action now becomes swift.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

They're proposing the feat lets you draw and drink as a move and a swift as opposed to the 'normal' alchemist way of doing it as a standard, yes.

They're asking this, and they're also asking that it lets you do this without provoking an AoO.

They're saying is pretty underwhelming at high levels.

Low, medium or high level: if no one realizes this feat was just meant for potion, and ultimately it's allowed to go that way, you won't see an alchemist without that feat at any level.


Heh. Soon it will be people complaining it's a "feat tax"

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
There's no chance you'll find an alchemist without that feat, it it's allowed for extract.

There's plenty of must have feats already, this'll just make another one.

That's kind of like saying Tumor Familiar is a must have discovery because it gives you the benefits of A: Alertness, B: Whatever your familiar's bonus is, C: A scouting buddy.

And it does fall off in usefulness once you get your second attack (it's not amazing for natural attackers anyways).

Once 8th level rolls around and bombers can pick up fast bombs, that move action keeps them from nova striking. Natural attackers have the same issue here, and at 8th level, the 5k price tag for a pair of poisoner's gloves is easily affordable. Same for reach alchemist/investigators. Hell, even if your familiar doesn't have hands, it can pick up the extra item slot feat to gain a hand slot for little cost, and have it dual inject you without wasting an action. Hell, have it constantly holding its actions/preparing an action if you want to make sure things go off, keep it in your pocket so no one even sees it. Imagine a reachchemist getting both longarm and enlarge person as a free action before their attack...beautiful.

By 9th level you could pick up 3 different set of poisoner's gloves (which would easily be enough for any real group of encounters) and you're set.

So while PG is pretty nice at early levels, like stated, it drops off in usefulness once poisoner's gloves stop being painfully expensive to you.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
There's no chance you'll find an alchemist without that feat, it it's allowed for extract.

And there is no chance you'll find a fighter without power attack(or equivalent dex feat), a cleric without a holy symbol, a level 5 druid without natural spell, a war priest without fate's favored, or a high level wizard without spell perfection. In what crazy world do you think that this matters? Must take feats exist all over the place.

Quote:
I'm with purple dragon. You've lost me. Why if it is underwhelming would you pay 35k for it later?

I wouldn't pay 35k for a feat which required me to move and swift action to self buff. I would pay 35k for the ability to haste my entire party as a swift. People get what you pay for. In this case you get a strong feat vs a horrifically over powered item. The item wins out hands down. It's both a move and a swift and a standard to buff twice which honestly isn't that good on an alch or investigator since you can literally ONLY SELF BUFF and doing so DENIES YOUR FULL ATTACK. It is mind boggling to me that people think this is too strong.

EDIT: Ok some math for those who just cannot get it. For the sake of argument I'm going to use the great ax half orc investigator because that is the largest disparity I can physically come up with and we'll call it level 6 so people have haste and abilities. At 18 str with power attack.

Guy1: Is an investigator who buffs in combat and uses a round to do so.
Guy2: Is the guy who get's just a full attack.

Guy1: Round 1 drinks enlarge person and moves up. This grants an increase of 5 damage (3d6 is 10.5 vs 1d20 which is 6.5) and no accuracy.
Guy2: Round 1 Quick studies the target moves up and attacks once. This will deal 1d12 + 2d6 (Studied strike) + 7 damage (+1 weapon)

Guy 2 will have a higher to hit by 2 and will deal an additional ~20 damage in round 1. It will take Four rounds for this to even out which is long past the point of a long combat at.

An alch is even worse because unless you are a full melee type the bombs will just do more damage. If you are full melee drinkings self buffs isn't that great unless you can full attack.


Very well. Your boggled mind is noted. But I do think it is overpowered.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

This wasn't meant as a must-take feat. LOL

Inner Sea Gods... Urgathoa... guys, you're really reaching. And the must-take feat examples you gave pale in comparison to PG that works with extracts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have two alchemists and this feat hasn't even been a consideration because worshiping Urgathoa doesn't interest me.

Haagenti & Bharnarol for life!

As N.Jolly stated, Alchemists are already feat-starved anyway.

My level 10 goblin grenadier/winged marauder has:
1) Point Blank Shot
3) Technologist
5) Precise Shot
7) Leadership
9) Extra Discovery

My level 9 lizardfolk vivisectionist/internal alchemist/chirurgeon has:
1) Endurance
3) Power Attack
5) Diehard
7) Improved Familiar
9) Toughness

My goblin has medlances for 500gp (which is funny that people laser-focused on the 35,000 price tag for wizards and ignored that it's only 500 gold for alchemists), so the feat is unnecessary.

My vivisectionist and his tumor familiar both have poisoner’s gloves so the feat is unnecessary.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

...

As others have said above, there's no such thing as pulling an extract out as a move action and drinking it as swift though. They're two separate actions, and extracts need to be combined/created as part of a standard action to be activated.

[citation needed]

Oh, and it needs to be a citation that actually excludes other action costs. A rule saying that you can retrieve and drink an extract as a standard action does not prohibit another rule from allowing you to drink an extract as a swift and a third rule from allowing you to retrieve as a move.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

FAQ:

Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

...unless another FAQ replaces this, it's clear that PG does not apply to extracts.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

FAQ:

Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

...unless another FAQ replaces this, it's clear that PG does not apply to extracts.

And specific beats general.

It's a general rule that extracts require a standard action to use.

It's a specific rule that PG works with potables, which by every definition given applies to extracts as well.

As an aside, I need to add Medlances to my guide later.

Also...

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
This wasn't meant as a must-take feat. LOL

Do you really think any feat was actually designed as a must take feat? Hell, Mark talks about how he's trying to avoid 'feat taxes', and something like that would certainly qualify.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
There's no chance you'll find an alchemist that worships Urgathoa without that feat, it it's allowed for extract.

FTFY ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

FAQ:

Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

...unless another FAQ replaces this, it's clear that PG does not apply to extracts.

Let me repeat.

One rule saying "[action] takes [action cost] to do" does not prohibit another rule coming along and saying "[action] takes [different action cost]".

If a feat was printed that allowed an alchemist to retrieve and drink an extract as a move action up to 3/day, then that would allow the alchemist to drink an extract as a move action up to 3 times per day.

Likewise, if a rule says "you can drink a [category of things which includes extracts] as a swift action", and another rule says "you can retrieve [pretty much anything, which includes extracts] as a move action", then you can retrieve and drink an extract as a move and a swift.

Unless you are trying to claim that that FAQ totally prohibits an alchemist from ever drinking an extract as something other than a standard action, even if a rule explicitly says that they can, then the FAQ isn't relevant. It's stating the normal action cost of drinking an extract. Nothing in the language of the FAQ prohibits another rules element coming in and providing an alternative action cost.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

FAQ:

Alchemist: What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

...unless another FAQ replaces this, it's clear that PG does not apply to extracts.

Turns out spells cast as standard actions cannot be quickened by any means, especially quicken spell or potion glutton. Really dude, this is just reaching.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is pretty clear there are entrenched sides to this, that can only be resolved by a FAQ asserting you can / can not us this feat with Extracts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

EDIT:

Ninja'd. Substantially.

But I'm leaving this here so that everyone can actually see all the relevant rules (and their citations) that go along with all of this, and why those rules are relevant.

Also, several times in a row thereafter to fix coding. Not bad: four errors fixed in four minutes! :D

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

...

As others have said above, there's no such thing as pulling an extract out as a move action and drinking it as swift though. They're two separate actions, and extracts need to be combined/created as part of a standard action to be activated.
Snowblind wrote:

[citation needed]

Oh, and it needs to be a citation that actually excludes other action costs. A rule saying that you can retrieve and drink an extract as a standard action does not prohibit another rule from allowing you to drink an extract as a swift and a third rule from allowing you to retrieve as a move.

This.

Look - you don't like it. That's fine.

But the rules have been cited multiple times, and you've either ignored them in your attempt to prove it's "overpowered" or you're just unaware of how the game works (which is fine - it's a big, complex game and we all are learning new facets of it all the time).

Incidentally, your "lol" and telling others they're "reaching"... just comes off as rude; it may not be intended, but it comes off as arrogant and dismissive, at least over text.

But I'll gladly show you, with links and quotes, why it works this way, if you really want to understand it.

Alchemist

Alchemy (their class feature)

Quote:

Alchemists are not only masters of creating mundane alchemical substances such as alchemist's fire and smokesticks, but also of fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.

<snip>

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>

When an alchemist mixes an extract, he infuses the chemicals and reagents in the extract with magic siphoned from his own magical aura. An extract immediately becomes inert if it leaves the alchemist's possession, reactivating as soon as it returns to his keeping—an alchemist cannot normally pass out his extracts for allies to use (but see the “infusion” discovery below).

An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before becoming inert, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day. Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work—most alchemists prepare many extracts at the start of the day or just before going on an adventure, but it's not uncommon for an alchemist to keep some (or even all) of his daily extract slots open so that he can prepare extracts in the field as needed.

<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.

FAQ

FAQ wrote:

What kind of action is it to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb?

It is a standard action to use an extract, mutagen, or throw a bomb. This action includes retrieving the necessary materials from the alchemist's supplies, in the same manner as retrieving a material component is included in the act of spellcasting.

And Infusion

Infusion wrote:
Benefit: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist’s daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.

All of this points to a singular truth: extracts are items.

It's worth noting, anyone who is worried about Alchemist's extracts being overpowered must (if going by RAW) consider them items, or else you lose the ability to attack the extract with an AoO - something that is a notable "buff" for the alchemist (as you, then, have to attack the alchemist's AC and hp, which is likely much better).

So... what are the rules for items?

Activating a Magic Item:

Quote:
Many magic items don't need to be activated. Certain magic items, however, do need to be activated, especially potions, scrolls, wands, rods, and staves. Unless otherwise noted, activating a magic item is a standard action.

Right here:

Manipulating an Item wrote:

Manipulate an Item

Moving or manipulating an item is usually a move action.

This includes retrieving or putting away a stored item, picking up an item, moving a heavy object, and opening a door. Examples of this kind of action, along with whether they incur an attack of opportunity, are given in Table: Actions in Combat.

Actions in Combat table, includes:

Standard Actions wrote:


Drink a potion or apply an oil

(Which provokes an AoO; this notes that AC is 13, the hardness is 1, and the hp is 1; which means you want to target the potion or oil, not the drinker.)

And,

Move Actions wrote:

Pick up an item (see FAQ)

Retrieve a stored item

Both of which provoke AoOs.

So...

You may:
- retrieve and drink an extract as a standard action {provokes once}
- retrieve an extract from anywhere on your body or storage as a move action (baring specific other things that speed it up) {provokes, if done in combat; useful for having things on-hand to pass out, if necessary}
- dink a <thing> in-hand as a standard action (because it's not "stored") {this provokes; container may be targetd}

Feat

Quote:
You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables as a swift action without provoking attacks of opportunity.

... what does this feat do?

-> change "drink <thing>" action from "standard" to "swift"

... what does this feat not do?

-> change "retrieve <thing>" action

What does this mean?

With this feat, you may:
- retrieve and drink extract as a standard action {this provokes once}
- retrieve an extract from anywhere on your body as a move action (baring specific other things that speed it up) {this provokes if in-combat}
- drink a <potable thing> in-hand as a swift action (because it's not "stored")

Does this make sense?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't really know how you read that faq (I was actually going to bring it up myself) and determined that extracts and mutagents need a move action to take out. They don't, the faq says it's in the standard action used to cast the "spell" just like material components from a mat comp pouch. You don't need to take a move action to retrieve your bat guano to cast your fireball. You don't need a move to ready an extract. It's more of a spell than an item.

If you can't stand that it doesn't take a move to retrieve it, just think of it as a balancing fiat that the devs handed down in book -and- faq. Whether or not potion glutton is too strong, it wouldn't be fair or balanced for the alchemist to need a full round to do all it's spellcasting when it has very limited spellcasting to begin with.

edit- sorry I just re-read the final details of your post and I misread, you didn't say what I thought you said, I'm not sure I agree with you, but I'm not sure I don't either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Tacticslion Pretty much summed up the rules in question. There is literally no question in my mind that if just given the evidence a neutral party who didn't just want to have a gut feeling of not allowing it would say yes it works.

I DO believe that the question of making it a swift to pull it out (as per spell components) is not exactly clear but is likely not allowed because it is both an item and a spell component. That said this question I could see go either way and actually lean toward it's an item since infusion lets you pass it off like one.


Hogeyhead wrote:

I don't really know how you read that faq (I was actually going to bring it up myself) and determined that extracts and mutagents need a move action to take out. They don't, the faq says it's in the standard action used to cast the "spell" just like material components from a mat comp pouch. You don't need to take a move action to retrieve your bat guano to cast your fireball. You don't need a move to ready an extract. It's more of a spell than an item.

If you can't stand that it doesn't take a move to retrieve it, just think of it as a balancing fiat that the devs handed down in book -and- faq. Whether or not potion glutton is too strong, it wouldn't be fair or balanced for the alchemist to need a full round to do all it's spellcasting when it has very limited spellcasting to begin with.

It doesn't require a move action to retrieve + a standard action to drink.

It requires a move action to retrieve and hold (for various purposes), and it would either require a standard action to drink thereafter, or a move action to be handed off, or a full-round action to directly apply to someone else, or whatsoever have you.

However you may retrieve-and-drink extracts as a single standard action, as an alchemist, presuming it's prepared in advance.

Another thing I didn't cover: you may move-action acquire ingredients, one-minute mix ingredients/create extract, and standard action drink extract... or, with the feat you may move-action acquire ingredients, one-minute mix ingredients/create extract, and swift action drink extract. That difference in action could make a huge difference in pre-combat prep, but I do imagine the specific situation that you'd find utility in doing such a thing would otherwise be quite rare... and PCs rarely have that kind of time (meaning mostly it's a tactic for enemies who know the loud PCs are coming).


N. Jolly wrote:
As an aside, I need to add Medlances to my guide later.

I seem to recall that they're already in there N.Jolly.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Let's compare Potion Glutton to the following, which recently came out in the Weapon Master's Handbook.

Cayden Cailean's Blade and Tankard divine fighting technique (fighters or swashbucklers only):
- you lose proficiency with shields
- must be used when engaging with two-weapon fighting i.e. full attack with a rapier or light weapon in one hand and a tankard in the other
- it lets you "drink a potion or other liquid from the tankard or attempt to toss liquid from the tankard as a dirty trick combat maneuver (such as to blind a foe) in place of attacking with it" (no AoO for tossing as a dirty trick, but still an AoO to drink)
- at 10th level, if you sacrifice a fighter bonus feat or swashbuckler deed, you can now also "refill your tankard with a beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial as a swift action" (and the dirty trick gets better)
- combat section of prd says "Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions and swift actions (see below)."

In summary, by foregoing shields and paying an extra feat at 10th level (total of 2 feats), a 10th level fighter or swashbuckler can start a fight with a potion in its tankard and drink it as part of a full attack routine, refill it as a swift action, and if he has improved two-weapon fighting (3 feats total now, and minimum DEX of 17), he can drink another potion in that same round (2 potions total). Granted, you gain a no AoO dirty trick that can last multiple rounds. Oh, and he must wield light weapon and tankard.

That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.

That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.
That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Can you explain?

Unchained rogues are a great dex build, and for martials, you can use certain feats and an agile weapon to get there pretty quick. Combine that to Dex affecting AC, Ref saves, Initiative and Acrobatics, and I'm not so sure this is justified.

STR gets you there right away, but the rest will suck if you dump dex.

Also, which setting book option are you referring to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.
That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Can you explain?

Unchained rogues are a great dex build, and for martials, you can use certain feats and an agile weapon to get there pretty quick. Combine that to Dex affecting AC, Ref saves, Initiative and Acrobatics, and I'm not so sure this is justified.

STR gets you there right away, but the rest will suck if you dump dex.

Also, which setting book option are you referring to?

Dervish Dance. The only dex to damage feat that doesn't require you to metaphorically chop off your left arm. Because it's in a book that the design team can't errata.

Agile is requires waiting for +2 equivalent weapons. That's not "pretty quick".

The urogue is still a rogue. Crappy BAB with no boost and sneak attack is still weak. D8 hit dice and no good save except the least important doesn't help. They're no longer completely and irretrievably useless, but decent front line combatants they're not.

Dex to AC is a lie. Any dex mod between +3 and +12 gives the same maximum AC and it's achieved in mithril full plate. Reflex is the least important save. Acrobatics is a skill almost no one needs. Jump doesn't work and tumbling is just a way to lure rogues into suicide. Ledges come up rarely. Also, if you don't have strength you're under medium or heavy load, which cripples your acrobatics anyways. Maybe if you're around 10 and have a handy haversack you're okay, and unarmored arcane casters and monks might be okay, but if you dumped strength you're not and if you have stuff ready where you can access it in spite of extradimensional space interference you're not. Initiative is useful, but not so much to front liners who are going to delay until after the arm and anvil casters unless they're stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.
That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Can you explain?

Unchained rogues are a great dex build, and for martials, you can use certain feats and an agile weapon to get there pretty quick. Combine that to Dex affecting AC, Ref saves, Initiative and Acrobatics, and I'm not so sure this is justified.

STR gets you there right away, but the rest will suck if you dump dex.

Also, which setting book option are you referring to?

URogue is bad. Agile weapons are terrible (Except agile amulet of mighty fists and GMW which are sadly just worse than guided). It's confusing to me that you actually believe this to be ok. Even in the lowest power games the rogue is worse than the adept, the URogue only barely on par with NPC casters.

That feat chain is horrible. I'm not sure why you'd use it as an example. It's like saying hurtful is overpowered because arcane strike is a swift. Hurtful might be too strong but arcane strike is a pretty underwhelming comparison in terms of outcome.

It's like saying natural spell is over powered because wild speech exists. It might be OP (it's really not), but this is definitively not the reason it would be op.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, celestial mail and celestial full plate are your max dex to AC, and mithril versions of them 2 pts higher.

Celestial Mail is chainmail (+6 AC) with a dex max of +8, for +14 AC, 2 pts higher then Mithral plate.

The key thing for Dex to AC is that it dovetails with dex to hit, dex to damage, is touch ac, and means you have light/no armor, which means maximum movement, AND maxes out your reflex save (str affects no saves, AND Dex is useful with Evasion), in addition to initiative and Stealth and Acrobatics. It also determines your archery to hit, so you're better with missiles...and the TH for missiles is more important then the Str bonus.

All of those are extremely important in their own way. You don't have to dump Str to be effective as a Dex fighter. You just have to emphasize and boost Dex, which increases quite quickly if you do.

As for the other skills...Str boosts even fewer skills then Dex does, and they are even less relevant (climb and swim). Basically, Str gives you TH, DMG, and carry stuff. That's it. If you can get TH and DMg from another stat, and still be able to carry stuff, Str becomes less and less important.

The only saving grace for Str is the exclusive 2h dmg bonus it gets. For any other builds, such as sword and board, 2W, open hand, or one hand, Dex to damage is quite arguably a better all around way to go, if the cost isn't steep.

Mithril full plate also costs 10,500 gp, BEFORE magic. That's a set of +3 armor all by itself...and more expensive then a Haversack. And you still will have slower move.

Basically a Dex build should keep a 13 Str to qualify for Power Attack, and basically that's all that is needed. Dumping down to 10 or 8 or something probably isn't worth the carrying hassle...and that's only if the DM is tracking your loads.

==Aelryinth


Max dexterity to armor is monk or druid. Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped. Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Uh, no?

Mage armor cannot be enchanted. It's a force effect.

There's nothing in the description of wild armor that says 'don't apply max dex to AC or ACP penalties while wild-shaped.' Wherever did you infer that? Because it can't be seen?

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Max dexterity to armor is monk or druid. Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped. Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

wild aemor was errata'd

Also mage armor wouldnt stack with an enhancement bonus to ac right? Mage armour doesn't stack with bracers of armor

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
The urogue is still a rogue. Crappy BAB with no boost and sneak attack is still weak.

You make good points, but Dex builds become a bit more advantageous in certain settings (at sea armor is no good, and several GMs, myself included, do not agree with the 'mithral everywhere' approach).

Also, I think a urogue can still give someone a run for their money in terms of BAB via debilitating injury:

Bewildered: The target becomes bewildered, taking a –2 penalty to AC. The target takes an additional –2 penalty to AC against all attacks made by the rogue. At 10th level and 16th level, the penalty to AC against attacks made by the rogue increases by –2 (to a total maximum of –8).

That's an effective +8 to BAB at level 16, which should bridge the gap.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
That's a three feat chain useable at level 10, only during a full attack, and it provokes an AoO. Potion Glutton is useable at level 1, anytime, without an AoO. I am hoping the devs consider this if they get around to write an FAQ on Potion Glutton, in regards to allowing it for extracts for low level characters.
That just proves that feat chains suck. Also that dex builds aren't allowed to have nice things unless someone sneaks something into a setting book that will never be reprinted.

Can you explain?

Unchained rogues are a great dex build, and for martials, you can use certain feats and an agile weapon to get there pretty quick. Combine that to Dex affecting AC, Ref saves, Initiative and Acrobatics, and I'm not so sure this is justified.

STR gets you there right away, but the rest will suck if you dump dex.

Also, which setting book option are you referring to?

URogue is bad. Agile weapons are terrible (Except agile amulet of mighty fists and GMW which are sadly just worse than guided). It's confusing to me that you actually believe this to be ok. Even in the lowest power games the rogue is worse than the adept, the URogue only barely on par with NPC casters.

That feat chain is horrible. I'm not sure why you'd use it as an example. It's like saying hurtful is overpowered because arcane strike is a swift. Hurtful might be too strong but arcane strike is a pretty underwhelming comparison in terms of outcome.

I thought that Slashing Grace was now the go-to for Dex to damage these days. Sure, you need Weapon Focus & Finesse, so there's a tax, but it's still reachable long before you can buy Agile Weapons.

I'm actually not sure why the Blade and Tankard thing is so bad. The feat tax isn't nearly so bad as it looks, since you're only doing it if you're going for TWF anyway. So it's really 1 feat or deed at 10th level to get swift action refills. You lose shield proficiency, but again - you weren't using a shield anyway.

If you want to do a TWF dirty tricks kind of fighter, it's a pretty cool approach.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the urogue gets a 'reverse boost', by inflicting injury on enemies. He just has to hit with his first attack, and he's not THAt bad with those (although Swords of Subtlety help tons).

===Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ummm, why are we talking about Dexterity options on a thread related to a feat in a splatbook that has absolutely zero relevance as to whether Dexterity options are there or not?

This is a thread about the Potion Glutton feat, which allows you to drink a potion or similar liquid (Extract) as a Swift Action. I don't know about you, but last I checked, Dexterity isn't mentioned anywhere, nor does it have any impact on how the feat functions.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
Basically a Dex build should keep a 13 Str to qualify for Power Attack, and basically that's all that is needed. Dumping down to 10 or 8 or something probably isn't worth the carrying hassle...and that's only if the DM is tracking your loads.

My GM tracks loads. Even horse loads. :) ...but usually only when I play something without STR! :P (joking... even if I have high STR! LOL)

But granted, 13 STR should be enough to deal with most reasonable load, especially at higher levels with a handy haversack / bag of holding.

Random question: how do you carry a bag of holding? (I'm starting a new thread I think... :P sorry to derail... see you on the other side... :P )


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Ummm, why are we talking about Dexterity options on a thread related to a feat in a splatbook that has absolutely zero relevance as to whether Dexterity options are there or not?

This is a thread about the Potion Glutton feat, which allows you to drink a potion or similar liquid (Extract) as a Swift Action. I don't know about you, but last I checked, Dexterity isn't mentioned anywhere, nor does it have any impact on how the feat functions.

Didn't you know pathfinders never derailed a thread or an adventure before? We've hit new territory.

Quote:
Also mage armor wouldnt stack with an enhancement bonus to ac right? Mage armour doesn't stack with bracers of armor
Quote:
Bracers of armor surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the magic to be effective.
Quote:

You imbue a suit of armor or a shield with an enhancement bonus of +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5 at 20th level).

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Quote:
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Actually, celestial mail and celestial full plate are your max dex to AC, and mithril versions of them 2 pts higher.

Heavily debated and contentious thing, so it's best to avoid bringing it up.

Undone wrote:

Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.

Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.

No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5. Neither stack with Bracers of Armor.


James Risner wrote:

Undone wrote:

Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.

Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.

No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5.

When was this errataed or faq'ed.

I ask because that is not the text of wild.

Quote:
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.

It explicitly calls out the armor bonus and enhancement bonus but ignores mentioning the penalties. Unless this was FAQ'ed or errata'ed and the version I have is different then it does not apply anything on the armor while wild shaped except for the armor bonus and enhancement bonus (This includes things like shadow, glammered, resistances, and armor penalties.)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.

Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.

And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.

Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.

And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!

==Aelryinth

You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Undone wrote:

You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Yes, the shirt gets an armor bonus.

That doesn't stack with the separate armor bonus of mage armor. Because two armor bonuses don't stack.

You just get the higher bonus, be it mage armor's +4 or magic vestment's +X.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Undone wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Undone wrote:

Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.

Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.

No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5.

When was this errataed or faq'ed.

I ask because that is not the text of wild.

Quote:
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
It explicitly calls out the armor bonus and enhancement bonus but ignores mentioning the penalties. Unless this was FAQ'ed or errata'ed and the version I have is different then it does not apply anything on the armor while wild shaped except for the armor bonus and enhancement bonus (This includes things like shadow, glammered, resistances, and armor penalties.)

Read what you just quoted.

WHile in wild shape, the armor cannot be seen...but it is still there!
He gets to retain the armor bonus.
He's still WEARING THE ARMOR.
So he has to take the bad with the good. Still has the max Dex. Since he's still wearing the armor, he still has to abide by its limits.
The text of Wild shape does say the armor otherwise loses all properties, and merges with him. Merges with him would remove the Dex limits and ACP...that's not happening here. Wild makes the exception to the Wild Shape rules that he gets to keep the AC...but it no longer merges with him, so he's actually wearing the armor again, albeit invisible.

There's no conflict. YOu're just taking the best interpretation for yourself, which isn't unreasonable, but I'm sure you can see that the language of it would NOT be in balance with intentions.

i.e. it's not a loophole for abusing Dex. you're just reading it wrong.

Ditto mage armor and magic vestment. You can't enhance a force effect, even if it is providing a similar bonus.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Undone wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.

Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.

And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!

==Aelryinth

You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Uh? And you thought they stacked?

Sorry, two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Having your shirt stack with mage armor would be the same as a suit of plate stacking with mage armor.

Doesn't happen.

I thought you knew that, it's basic armor stacking rules. Hence I thought you were trying to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor to reach +9 with no Dex top.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:
Undone wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.

Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.

And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!

==Aelryinth

You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Uh? And you thought they stacked?

Sorry, two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Having your shirt stack with mage armor would be the same as a suit of plate stacking with mage armor.

Doesn't happen.

I thought you knew that, it's basic armor stacking rules. Hence I thought you were trying to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor to reach +9 with no Dex top.

==Aelryinth

In what world, is an armor bonus, and an armor enhancement bonus the same thing?

Grand Lodge

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

Magic vestment is an enhancement bonus to armor. It adds to the armor bonus, it is not its own separate bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:
Undone wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Undone wrote:

Druid with wild armor doesn't apply a maximum dexterity bonus while shaped.

Monk can get magic vestment and mage armor for +9 armor while having 8-10 dex mod.

Actually, they retail all the penalties. Like Max Dex while wild shaped.

No idea what you are talking about on the magic vestment and mage armor. neither go to 9, Mage Armor is limited to 4 and Magic Vestment is 5. They don't stack so with both you have 5.

When was this errataed or faq'ed.

I ask because that is not the text of wild.

Quote:
Armor with this special ability usually appears to be made from magically hardened animal pelt. The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape. Armor and shields with this ability usually appear to be covered in leaf patterns. While the wearer is in a wild shape, the armor cannot be seen.
It explicitly calls out the armor bonus and enhancement bonus but ignores mentioning the penalties. Unless this was FAQ'ed or errata'ed and the version I have is different then it does not apply anything on the armor while wild shaped except for the armor bonus and enhancement bonus (This includes things like shadow, glammered, resistances, and armor penalties.)

Read what you just quoted.

WHile in wild shape, the armor cannot be seen...but it is still there!
He gets to retain the armor bonus.
He's still WEARING THE ARMOR.
So he has to take the bad with the good. Still has the max Dex. Since he's still wearing the armor, he still has to abide by its limits.
The text of Wild shape does say the armor otherwise loses all properties, and merges with him. Merges with him would remove the Dex limits and ACP...that's not happening here. Wild makes the exception to the Wild Shape rules that he gets to keep the AC...but it no longer merges with him, so he's actually wearing the armor again, albeit invisible.

There's no conflict. YOu're...

I found the FAQ. It's interesting because it also implies you get shadow/glam/resists off the armor if it's wild. That's fine by me I did not know they had made that FAQ.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Undone wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

He's thinking you can cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor, and get Mage Armor +5.

Except you can't enhance a spell effect with a spell. Mage Armor is not a suit of armor, it just acts like one. YOu can't magic vestment bracers of armor, either. Providing an armor bonus and BEING a suit of armor or clothing are two very different things.

And if you could do that, why, you could enhance your shield spells, and Magic Vestment your sword for Shield of Swings so it provides more then a +2 bonus!

==Aelryinth

You are enhancing your shirt. It's literally in the magic vestments spell.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Uh? And you thought they stacked?

Sorry, two bonuses of the same type don't stack. Having your shirt stack with mage armor would be the same as a suit of plate stacking with mage armor.

Doesn't happen.

I thought you knew that, it's basic armor stacking rules. Hence I thought you were trying to cast Magic Vestment on Mage Armor to reach +9 with no Dex top.

==Aelryinth

In what world, is an armor bonus, and an armor enhancement bonus the same thing?

It isn't, but the armor enhancement bonus isn't to all the armor and shields you are carrying. It's to a specific suit of armor, clothing or shield. Mage Armor is neither a suit of armor, clothing nor a shield. It's actually a spell effect which grants an armor bonus, so you can't target Mage Armor with Magic Vestments and increase it's AC. You can target some of your worn clothing, but then you have some AC from your clothing and some AC from Mage Armor. Since they are both armor bonuses, they don't stack and you take the highest.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of walking around with a +5 sword and saying that your natural attacks have a +5 bonus because the sword gives an enhancement bonus.

301 to 350 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.