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


Rules Questions

351 to 400 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
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...

I quite like it too. This guy will never be unarmed in a tavern. He will give a whole new meaning to "double fisted". :)


Snowblind wrote:

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.

It's more like casting barkskin (which grants an enhancement bonus to natural armor) while you have no natural armor and then casting another spell that grants natural armor: I can't imagine anyone would say they wouldn't stack.

Armor bonuses and enhancement bonuses to armor are separate sources of AC and stack.

So if you cast Magic Vestment on an article of clothing that has a +0 armor bonus in order to gain a +(x) enhancement bonus to armor, it should stack with something that provides an armor bonus.


Snowblind wrote:


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.

In no way is this true.

The bonus to attack and damage rolls is +5 from the sword to the sword. The only way this would be similar is if you had swords for arms which were +5 and a natural armor amulet in which case the enhancement wouldn't stack because its the same type of bonus, enhancement. Enhancement is a separate type of bonus on the bonus table.

Grand Lodge

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

For an example.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

I have a bard in my game who has a bit of money to spend. She buys a set of bracers of armor +3 and a suit of +3 leather armor. If the bard wears both at the same time, the armor bonus from the bracers (+3) overrides the armor bonus from the leather armor (+1). Our question is, does the +3 enhancement bonus from the armor still get applied for a total of +6, is it subsumed by the magic of the bracers, or is it just ignored completely? Since the enhancement bonus and armor bonus are different types of bonuses, the bard thinks her total Armor Class bonus should be +6.

The magic leather armor’s +3 enhancement bonus applies to make the armor’s armor bonus bigger (+4 in this case). The example character uses only the larger armor bonus (+4) when wearing both the armor and the bracers.
The overlapping +3 bonus from the bracers is still there, however. (It is just irrelevant most of the time.) If something bypasses the +4 bonus from the magic armor, the bracers might still prove effective. For example, an incorporeal touch attack bypasses the whole armor bonus from the magic armor. Since the bracers provide a force effect, they protect the bard against the incorporeal touch attack. The example character still has a +3 armor bonus against the incorporeal touch attack.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gulthor wrote:
It's more like casting barkskin (which grants an enhancement bonus to natural armor) while you have no natural armor and then casting another spell that grants natural armor: I can't imagine anyone would say they wouldn't stack.

Most natural armor bonuses do NOT stack.

Quote:
Armor bonuses and enhancement bonuses to armor are separate sources of AC and stack.

True.

Quote:
So if you cast Magic Vestment on an article of clothing that has a +0 armor bonus in order to gain a +(x) enhancement bonus to armor, it should stack with something that provides an armor bonus.

No. You can cast Magic Vestment on regular clothing to give it an armor enhancement bonus. However, that does not then stack with actual armor (magical or otherwise). Had you cast the Magic Vestment on non-magical armor then the armor and armor enhancement bonuses WOULD stack, but on two separate items they do not.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

For an example.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

I have a bard in my game who has a bit of money to spend. She buys a set of bracers of armor +3 and a suit of +3 leather armor. If the bard wears both at the same time, the armor bonus from the bracers (+3) overrides the armor bonus from the leather armor (+1). Our question is, does the +3 enhancement bonus from the armor still get applied for a total of +6, is it subsumed by the magic of the bracers, or is it just ignored completely? Since the enhancement bonus and armor bonus are different types of bonuses, the bard thinks her total Armor Class bonus should be +6.

The magic leather armor’s +3 enhancement bonus applies to make the armor’s armor bonus bigger (+4 in this case). The example character uses only the larger armor bonus (+4) when wearing both the armor and the bracers.
The overlapping +3 bonus from the bracers is still there, however. (It is just irrelevant most of the time.) If something bypasses the +4 bonus from the magic armor, the bracers might still prove effective. For example, an incorporeal touch attack bypasses the whole armor bonus from the magic armor. Since the bracers provide a force effect, they protect the bard against the incorporeal touch attack. The example character still has a +3 armor bonus against the incorporeal touch attack.

That's a good, clear, relevant example. I'll concede that I got the ruling wrong, there. Thanks for that. This has never come up in one of our games, but I could see that argument for it; this clarifies the distinction nicely.

Manly-man teapot wrote:
Go read the f+!+ing rulebook instead of posting your wishful thinking.

Whoa, there. Unnecessarily hostile much?

Liberty's Edge

Ascalaphus wrote:


According to the dictionary, it's anything that's clean and safe to drink.

Who cares about what the dictionary thinks.

Here's how RAW describes extracts: "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."

i.e. They work exactly like potions except without the 3rd level spells cap that potions normally have.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alan_of_Q wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:


According to the dictionary, it's anything that's clean and safe to drink.

Who cares about what the dictionary thinks.

Here's how RAW describes extracts: "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."

i.e. They work exactly like potions except without the 3rd level spells cap that potions normally have.

Except for all the other ways they're not like potions.

Most obviously, they only work for the alchemist without the infusion discovery.

Liberty's Edge

This post seems off-topic. But I'll bite:

CBDunkerson wrote:
Gulthor wrote:
It's more like casting barkskin (which grants an enhancement bonus to natural armor) while you have no natural armor and then casting another spell that grants natural armor: I can't imagine anyone would say they wouldn't stack.

Most natural armor bonuses do NOT stack.

Quote:
Armor bonuses and enhancement bonuses to armor are separate sources of AC and stack.

True.

Quote:
So if you cast Magic Vestment on an article of clothing that has a +0 armor bonus in order to gain a +(x) enhancement bonus to armor, it should stack with something that provides an armor bonus.
No. You can cast Magic Vestment on regular clothing to give it an armor enhancement bonus. However, that does not then stack with actual armor (magical or otherwise). Had you cast the Magic Vestment on non-magical armor then the armor and armor enhancement bonuses WOULD stack, but on two separate items they do not.

1: The point Gulthor is raising here is that the Barkskin spell adds a bonus to your base natural armour. In this case, an enhancement bonus to natural armour.

Example A: Human (base natural armour of 0) receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total natural armour of +3 on his character sheet.

Example B: Human (base natural armour of 0) is wearing an amulet of natural armour +1 (provides a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armour) total natural armour of +1 on his character sheet. He later receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total Natural armour of +3 on his character sheet as both Barkskin and the Amulet of Natural Armour provide enhancement bonuses to natural armour and as such they do not stack.

Example C: Lizardfolk (base natural armour of 5) receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total natural armour of +8 on his character sheet.

2: Regarding Magic Vestment + Mage Armour, they will also stack. Mage armour grants an armour bonus (ie raises your base Armour Bonus to AC from 0 to 4). Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to your Armour Bonus.

This can be cast on a normal set of clothing as mentioned in the spell description: An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:

For an example.

3.5 FAQ wrote:

I have a bard in my game who has a bit of money to spend. She buys a set of bracers of armor +3 and a suit of +3 leather armor. If the bard wears both at the same time, the armor bonus from the bracers (+3) overrides the armor bonus from the leather armor (+1). Our question is, does the +3 enhancement bonus from the armor still get applied for a total of +6, is it subsumed by the magic of the bracers, or is it just ignored completely? Since the enhancement bonus and armor bonus are different types of bonuses, the bard thinks her total Armor Class bonus should be +6.

The magic leather armor’s +3 enhancement bonus applies to make the armor’s armor bonus bigger (+4 in this case). The example character uses only the larger armor bonus (+4) when wearing both the armor and the bracers.
The overlapping +3 bonus from the bracers is still there, however. (It is just irrelevant most of the time.) If something bypasses the +4 bonus from the magic armor, the bracers might still prove effective. For example, an incorporeal touch attack bypasses the whole armor bonus from the magic armor. Since the bracers provide a force effect, they protect the bard against the incorporeal touch attack. The example character still has a +3 armor bonus against the incorporeal touch attack.

Applying 3.X FAQs isn't exactly a smart idea, especially since Paizo has shown previously that they have overturned previous 3.X rulings (i.e. Armor Spikes).

That being said, I don't exactly disagree with the argument behind it.

The point here is that this is no different than, for example, the Enlightened Paladin's AC bonus ability. In the Paladin's AC bonus ability, you add a specific modifier to a different modifier, which is then added to a given statistic (in short, Charisma to Dexterity to AC).

In this example, you add a specific modifier (+X Enhancement Bonus) to a different modifier (Armor Bonus), which is then added to a given statistic (AC). It is functionally no different than the above example.

From this, it is determined that you are given a flat Armor Bonus amount from the two subjects (Mage Armor and regular Clothing), and that Armor Bonus is altered by the Enhancement Bonus (if any) on those subjects. Since the +5 Enhancement from the Clothes overrides the +4 Armor from the Mage Armor spell, it is the clear application.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

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

They made no changes to the text, they just clarified what the text means.

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

The world where one exists (armor bonus) and one doesn't (armor enhancement bonus). At least in terms of being used to apply to your AC. You only every apple an armor enhancement bonus to an armor bonus.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alan_of_Q wrote:
Example B: Human (base natural armour of 0) is wearing an amulet of natural armour +1 (provides a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armour) total natural armour of +1 on his character sheet. He later receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total Natural armour of +3 on his character sheet as both Barkskin and the Amulet of Natural Armour provide enhancement bonuses to natural armour and as such they do not stack.

Ok, you have some rules interactions incorrectly applied.

The human with a natural armor bonus of 0 is wearing an Amulet of Natural Armor +1. So the +1 enhancement bonus is applied to the natural skin to be a +1 NAC and the +1 NAC is applied to his AC.

When he later gets the bark skin, it applies to his skin. He will have +3 (the barkskin and the natural +0) as a natural armor bonus applied to his AC.

Combining the two effects, he would have a non-stacking +1 from skin+aona and +3 non-stacking +3 from skin+barkskin. The two don't stack so he uses the +3 from the barkskin and the amulet is ignored.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Applying 3.X FAQs isn't exactly a smart idea, especially since Paizo has shown previously that they have overturned previous 3.X rulings (i.e. Armor Spikes).

I agree. I just thought it was a good thing to bring up for perspective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Alan_of_Q wrote:
Example B: Human (base natural armour of 0) is wearing an amulet of natural armour +1 (provides a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armour) total natural armour of +1 on his character sheet. He later receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total Natural armour of +3 on his character sheet as both Barkskin and the Amulet of Natural Armour provide enhancement bonuses to natural armour and as such they do not stack.

Ok, you have some rules interactions incorrectly applied.

The human with a natural armor bonus of 0 is wearing an Amulet of Natural Armor +1. So the +1 enhancement bonus is applied to the natural skin to be a +1 NAC and the +1 NAC is applied to his AC.

When he later gets the bark skin, it applies to his skin. He will have +3 (the barkskin and the natural +0) as a natural armor bonus applied to his AC.

Combining the two effects, he would have a non-stacking +1 from skin+aona and +3 non-stacking +3 from skin+barkskin. The two don't stack so he uses the +3 from the barkskin and the amulet is ignored.

Now if he instead increased his base NA (like Wildshape, not an enhancement bonus) then it would stack.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, TOZ, that example IS bad and has been overruled.

Because, in the Paizo universe, if you wear Bracers of Armor and magic armor, only the power of the stronger armor bonus applies, and the other one is COMPLETELY SUPPRESSED.

In 3.5, you could wear Bracers of Armor and Magic armor, and it was a GOOD IDEA...because it gave you a good AC against incorporeal touch attacks. Also, you could add +5 worth of armor abilities into the bracers, and get some extra armor effects on the cheap (stack them on +1 bracers).

This is completely impossible in PF, because either the bracers or the armor is rendered completely inert, including all secondary abilities.

==Aelryinth

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Alan_of_Q wrote:

2: Regarding Magic Vestment + Mage Armour, they will also stack. Mage armour grants an armour bonus (ie raises your base Armour Bonus to AC from 0 to 4). Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to your Armour Bonus.

This can be cast on a normal set of clothing as mentioned in the spell description: An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

This is completely wrong.

Mage Armor surrounds you in a field of force that replicates armor, giving you an armor bonus.
It does NOTHING to your clothing or yourself.

Magic Vestment CANNOT target Mage Armor, because mage armor is a force effect and spell, not a suit of armor.

If you cast it on your AC 0 clothing, you get AC+5 clothing. Congrats, it works like a chain shirt or something for a few hours.

Since it provides +5 AC and is a suit of armor, it completely suppresses all the effects of the mage armor while in force, just like it would Bracers of Armor, since it has +5 Ac vs +4 from the Mage Armor.

Your clothing being AC 5 and the Mage Armor being AC 4 are seperate sources of armor and do not stack.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

This is completely impossible in PF, because either the bracers or the armor is rendered completely inert, including all secondary abilities.

==Aelryinth

Replace bracers of armor with mage armor and you should understand why I mentioned it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Oh, I understand why you did it...to show armor bonuses don't stack. Great example.

However, I counter-posted to show it's even more strident a barrier in PF, because you don't even get the secondary AC of the bracers in PF. The worse source of AC is completely suppressed.

Which also stops you from wearing +1 Heavy Fortification cloth armor under your +5 Ghost Touch Full Plate.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

Yeah, I had to point that out to Ashiel in another discussion. :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Bet he was happy about that. Not. No more Soul Forge armor with Bracers of Heavy Fortification!

==Aelryinth

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Interesting. Link on the shutting down lesser armors?

This has implications for Amulet of Mighty Fists and Greater Magic Fang stacking? No?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
James Risner wrote:

Interesting. Link on the shutting down lesser armors?

This has implications for Amulet of Mighty Fists and Greater Magic Fang stacking? No?

No, in that case you don't have a bracer and an actual armor (i.e. two magic items) competing for auras... you have a spell overlapping the items.

The PRD description of Bracers of Armor has the correct wording:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/magicItems/wondrousItems.html

In fact, "An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability" so stacking is clearly not in question in this case.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So if Joe finds a shield of shielding that works as a shield +4 till it blocks 50 points of magic missile damage, then that works with his magic plate mail +5 because they are different bonuses. If Joe takes a one level dip into Wizard and casts mage armor, that fizzles. If Joe finds bracers of archery they only work if they don't add an armor bonus of 5 or less.

So potion glutton has been decided?


Goth Guru wrote:
So potion glutton has been decided?

I mean it's fairly clear based on the full list of information provided it works as written and allows all potables (Drinkable liquids) to be consumed as a swift. An extract is a drinkable liquid and as such able to be consumed as a swift action. No other logical reasoning has been presented and 100% of other arguments are "its too strong" or "It also requires a move action" The latter of which I'm not sure of but may be correct.

Someone actually tried to argue that the extracts weren't a drinkable liquid at one point is how far gone the people are, which to me signals yes it's pretty definitively clear its over and clear.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

extracts are not drinkable by anyone except the alchemist, so can it be qualified as a potables?

Potato = potaaaaato?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

extracts are not drinkable by anyone except the alchemist, so can it be qualified as a potables?

Potato = potaaaaato?

Yes if you possess infusion.

It's not potable for anyone but the alchemist/investigator unless you have infusion. Then it is potable for everyone.


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

extracts are not drinkable by anyone except the alchemist, so can it be qualified as a potables?

Potato = potaaaaato?

An extract can absolutely be drunken by someone who is not the alchemist. Nothing says they cannot.

What is stated is that the extract becomes inert, which means it no longer has the special qualities the Alchemist provided it. At best, they're drinking what amounts to funny-tasting water.

But it's still completely drinkable.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

I hate this feat now.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Has anyone considered an alchemist with the enhance potion discovery with Potion Glutton? *this* would be a legal way to get your multiple spells off per round I think...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Has anyone considered an alchemist with the enhance potion discovery with Potion Glutton? *this* would be a legal way to get your multiple spells off per round I think...

It's already a way to get multiple extracts a round.

You've yet to refute that extracts are potable and every argument you've made amounts to "It's op look over here!".

Here's a simple guide to if PG lets you drink as a swift.
Potable is drinkable.
Therefore if it is drinkable you can drink it as a swift.

Can you drink it?

Yes -> PG lets you do it as a swift.
No -> PG does not let you do it as a swift.

Do you drink extracts?

Yes -> It's in the description of alchemy that they must be drank to take effect.

Can you present any rules which refute this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I hate this feat now.

Was there ever a point at which you did not?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Undone wrote:

Here's a simple guide to if PG lets you drink as a swift.

Potable is drinkable.
Therefore if it is drinkable you can drink it as a swift.

Hey, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but I think it's *entirely* possible that whoever wrote this feat meant 'potables' as a noun and not an adjective. Some of the dictionaries I used to look it up only had potables (with an 's') as a noun, and in reference to spirits and liquor...

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I hate this feat now.
Was there ever a point at which you did not?

Yes there was. When I still believed people would use it for potions only. Despite it's typo in the normal section. When everyone I know was 100% sure this was accelerated drinker's other half that was missing to make it a feat.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

...but seriously, enhance potion with PG is just awesome. I may be loving this feat again. (statting a 7th-level NPC with this for tonight's game...)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Undone wrote:

Here's a simple guide to if PG lets you drink as a swift.

Potable is drinkable.
Therefore if it is drinkable you can drink it as a swift.
Hey, I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk here, but I think it's *entirely* possible that whoever wrote this feat meant 'potables' as a noun and not an adjective. Some of the dictionaries I used to look it up only had potables (with an 's') as a noun, and in reference to spirits and liquor...

Well, they definitely meant it as a noun and the alcohol reference is the only way I've ever heard "potables" used, so I read it that way at first.

If that was the intent, they should clarify it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary said wrote:
po-ta-ble adj: drinkable

It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Goth Guru wrote:
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary said wrote:
po-ta-ble adj: drinkable
It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.

Thank you. I have suddenly realized the feat is well balanced thanks to your insight.


Goth Guru wrote:
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary said wrote:
po-ta-ble adj: drinkable
It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.

That's the adjective form, which is obviously not being used in the feat.

Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary wrote:


noun po·ta·ble
: a liquid that is suitable for drinking; especially : an alcoholic beverage

So technically any liquid, but usually used for alcoholic ones. As I said before, that's the only way I've ever seen or heard the noun used.


While I was being a little sarcastic, the other potables could mean other potable liquids. I don't think sand is very potable.


I'm still with purple dragon knight on this. I'm not arguing an extract is not potable. Just that the balance of a feat to get double the casting seems really off. Your other extracts are still standards so that's 2 a round. For a feat at early levels it's far too broken.

As such it's a case of translating the intent of a single word, and since the case is made its best to simply wait for the devs to make a choice and concrete it one way or the other.

Adding in dictionary definitions for the 18th time isn't changing a single mind.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
Merriam-Webster's Pocket Dictionary said wrote:
po-ta-ble adj: drinkable
It's copyright 1995 so your dictionary might be out of date.
Thank you. I have suddenly realized the feat is well balanced thanks to your insight.

This is the rules forum. We don't argue what's balanced. We argue RAW.

By raw wizards get new spell levels at 1/3/5/7/9/11/13/15/17. That doesn't make the spell levels associated with those levels any less broken, but no one argues they don't get them.

Also for those who think this feat is horrifyingly OP I assume you believe the WP to also be broken beyond words since it already has this feat as a class feature starting at level 2.


No. It doesn't. War priest gains a power that gives it limited swift action casting and only to spells that are 1 round or lower.

An alchemist already has all spells at a standard action even if it's normally longer. Such as lesser restoration. This feat allows all extracts as swift every round. No pool or limits. So it isn't comparable.

Additionally RAW is exactly what's being argued. RAW over a single words meaning.

Just because you're on one side doesn't make it the only side.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Alan_of_Q wrote:
Example B: Human (base natural armour of 0) is wearing an amulet of natural armour +1 (provides a +1 enhancement bonus to natural armour) total natural armour of +1 on his character sheet. He later receives a +3 enhancement bonus to natural armour from Barkskin. New total Natural armour of +3 on his character sheet as both Barkskin and the Amulet of Natural Armour provide enhancement bonuses to natural armour and as such they do not stack.

Ok, you have some rules interactions incorrectly applied.

The human with a natural armor bonus of 0 is wearing an Amulet of Natural Armor +1. So the +1 enhancement bonus is applied to the natural skin to be a +1 NAC and the +1 NAC is applied to his AC.

When he later gets the bark skin, it applies to his skin. He will have +3 (the barkskin and the natural +0) as a natural armor bonus applied to his AC.

Combining the two effects, he would have a non-stacking +1 from skin+aona and +3 non-stacking +3 from skin+barkskin. The two don't stack so he uses the +3 from the barkskin and the amulet is ignored.

Did you even read what I wrote mate? Given that you've just repeated me, I'm going to assume you misread my post.

Liberty's Edge

Aelryinth wrote:
Alan_of_Q wrote:

2: Regarding Magic Vestment + Mage Armour, they will also stack. Mage armour grants an armour bonus (ie raises your base Armour Bonus to AC from 0 to 4). Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to your Armour Bonus.

This can be cast on a normal set of clothing as mentioned in the spell description: An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

This is completely wrong.

Mage Armor surrounds you in a field of force that replicates armor, giving you an armor bonus.
It does NOTHING to your clothing or yourself.

Magic Vestment CANNOT target Mage Armor, because mage armor is a force effect and spell, not a suit of armor.

If you cast it on your AC 0 clothing, you get AC+5 clothing. Congrats, it works like a chain shirt or something for a few hours.

Since it provides +5 AC and is a suit of armor, it completely suppresses all the effects of the mage armor while in force, just like it would Bracers of Armor, since it has +5 Ac vs +4 from the Mage Armor.

Your clothing being AC 5 and the Mage Armor being AC 4 are seperate sources of armor and do not stack.

==Aelryinth

Nay, 'like' bonuses do not stack. But, for example, a 'sacred' bonus to AC will stack with an 'enhancement' bonus to AC.

Mage Armour provides a +4 'armor' bonus to AC. Magic Vestment provides an 'enhancement' bonus to AC. Ergo, they stack.

You are correct that you can't target the force effect created by the Mage Armour spell, but you can target your t-shirt to gain the 'enhancement' bonus.


Alan_of_Q wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Alan_of_Q wrote:

2: Regarding Magic Vestment + Mage Armour, they will also stack. Mage armour grants an armour bonus (ie raises your base Armour Bonus to AC from 0 to 4). Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to your Armour Bonus.

This can be cast on a normal set of clothing as mentioned in the spell description: An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

This is completely wrong.

Mage Armor surrounds you in a field of force that replicates armor, giving you an armor bonus.
It does NOTHING to your clothing or yourself.

Magic Vestment CANNOT target Mage Armor, because mage armor is a force effect and spell, not a suit of armor.

If you cast it on your AC 0 clothing, you get AC+5 clothing. Congrats, it works like a chain shirt or something for a few hours.

Since it provides +5 AC and is a suit of armor, it completely suppresses all the effects of the mage armor while in force, just like it would Bracers of Armor, since it has +5 Ac vs +4 from the Mage Armor.

Your clothing being AC 5 and the Mage Armor being AC 4 are seperate sources of armor and do not stack.

==Aelryinth

Nay, 'like' bonuses do not stack. But, for example, a 'sacred' bonus to AC will stack with an 'enhancement' bonus to AC.

Mage Armour provides a +4 'armor' bonus to AC. Magic Vestment provides an 'enhancement' bonus to AC. Ergo, they stack.

You are correct that you can't target the force effect created by the Mage Armour spell, but you can target your t-shirt to gain the 'enhancement' bonus.

Magic vestment does not give an enhancement bonus to AC. It gives an enhancement bonus to the armor bonus of the thing it is cast on. It takes the bonus and increases it, THEN you apply stacking. So you have a shirt with a +5 armor bonus and mage armor with a +4 armor bonus. They don't stack. The enhancement bonus does not go directly to your AC.

PRD wrote:


Enhancement Bonuses: Enhancement bonuses apply to your armor to increase the armor bonus it provides.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Alan_of_Q wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:
Alan_of_Q wrote:

2: Regarding Magic Vestment + Mage Armour, they will also stack. Mage armour grants an armour bonus (ie raises your base Armour Bonus to AC from 0 to 4). Magic Vestment adds an enhancement bonus to your Armour Bonus.

This can be cast on a normal set of clothing as mentioned in the spell description: An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

This is completely wrong.

Mage Armor surrounds you in a field of force that replicates armor, giving you an armor bonus.
It does NOTHING to your clothing or yourself.

Magic Vestment CANNOT target Mage Armor, because mage armor is a force effect and spell, not a suit of armor.

If you cast it on your AC 0 clothing, you get AC+5 clothing. Congrats, it works like a chain shirt or something for a few hours.

Since it provides +5 AC and is a suit of armor, it completely suppresses all the effects of the mage armor while in force, just like it would Bracers of Armor, since it has +5 Ac vs +4 from the Mage Armor.

Your clothing being AC 5 and the Mage Armor being AC 4 are seperate sources of armor and do not stack.

==Aelryinth

Nay, 'like' bonuses do not stack. But, for example, a 'sacred' bonus to AC will stack with an 'enhancement' bonus to AC.

Mage Armour provides a +4 'armor' bonus to AC. Magic Vestment provides an 'enhancement' bonus to AC. Ergo, they stack.

You are correct that you can't target the force effect created by the Mage Armour spell, but you can target your t-shirt to gain the 'enhancement' bonus.

You aren't reading the posts above you.

Magic Vestment provides an enhancement bonus to the +0 Armor bonus of your clothing, ending up with a +5 Armor bonus - it has no effect on Mage Armor.
It is exactly the same as the +1 enhancement bonus on your chain shirt, which provides +4 Armor bonus, resulting in a total +5 Armor bonus.
No, the Vestment on your clothes does not stack with your chain shirt.
If you put the Vestment on your chain shirt, you'd end up with a Chain Shirt +5 for a total +9 Armor bonus, because the +5 enhancement bonus from GMV does not stack with the +1 enhancement bonus of the armor.

Mage Armor provides a flat +4 stand alone armor bonus which you cannot otherwise modify, and which does not stack with other armor bonuses.

This is exactly like an amulet of Nat Armor providing a +1 Enhancement bonus to a normal human's +0 Nat Armor bonus, giving him Nat Armor +1. Barkskin also provides an enhancement bonus to Nat AC, and so won't stack with the amulet.

==Aelryinth


Cavall wrote:

No. It doesn't. War priest gains a power that gives it limited swift action casting and only to spells that are 1 round or lower.

An alchemist already has all spells at a standard action even if it's normally longer. Such as lesser restoration. This feat allows all extracts as swift every round. No pool or limits. So it isn't comparable.

Additionally RAW is exactly what's being argued. RAW over a single words meaning.

Just because you're on one side doesn't make it the only side.

And a barbarian allegedly has limited rage. However I've never seen a 5th or 6th level barbarian run out of rage. I can tell you safely I've never run out of fervor past 6th on any of my 5 warpriests and excluding 4th level I only run out if I run out of spells. Fervor is not a limiting mechanic.

RAW of a single word isn't even being argued. People are trying to ignore the definition of a word. The word is clearly defined, as mentioned earlier the meaning has been posted over two dozen times and attempts to refute the definition of a word in the dictionary have been preposterous to the point of a SNL skit or a political response like arguing that something you drink isn't drinkable, or that potable who's definition is drinkable doesn't include something which must be drank. It's as absurd as saying "If you move up you can do so as a swift action" but then debating UP using not the planet as the original point of reference for just that ability.

Quote:

Full Definition of potable

: suitable for drinking
potability play \ˌpō-tə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
potableness play \ˈpō-tə-bəl-nəs\ noun
See potable defined for English-language learners

See potable defined for kids

Examples of potable in a sentence
<around here, the only potable water comes from wells>

Origin of potable
Middle English, from Late Latin potabilis, from Latin potare to drink; akin to Latin bibere to drink, Greek pinein

First Known Use: 15th century

That is potable. That is the official definition of potable. There's no question or debate that is what it is defined as. It's been posted repeatedly because people keep ignoring it.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's being ignored because most reasonable people think the argument over the word is dumb. Extracts are obviously drinkable and are potables, and devolving into minutiae over English is one of the first signs your argument has failed.

So, we've kinda been ignoring it. No offense.

==Aelryinth

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Alan_of_Q wrote:
Did you even read what I wrote mate? Given that you've just repeated me, I'm going to assume you misread my post.

Are you saying that a character with Mage Armor and Magic Vestment +5 on them has more than +5 AC? If so, I'm saying you are interpreting the rules incorrectly. If you are saying they don't stack, then I'm agreeing with you.

351 to 400 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.