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


Rules Questions

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

On the Potion glutton thing, characters are already limited to extracts of a level that they can create. If that isn't limiting enough, limit it like rage. You can only double dose a total number of rounds equal to your con bonus +1 per 3 levels(of anything). After that you are "full" till the next day.

As for the armor thing, like sources don't stack seems pretty simple. The Cape of Dork Boy gives a +1 dorkiness bonus to armor that will not stack with any other dorkiness bonus.


Goth Guru wrote:
On the Potion glutton thing, characters are already limited to extracts of a level that they can create. If that isn't limiting enough, limit it like rage. You can only double dose a total number of rounds equal to your con bonus +1 per 3 levels(of anything). After that you are "full" till the next day.

Making it half your level + Int mod (The fervor equivalent) makes it basically infinite instead of literally infinite.

If there are 5 combats a day most combats will be over in maximum 2-3 rounds with some combats ending in 1. Typically at 4th level assuming you have a +3 in your stat (because you should regardless) you'll have 5 quick casts off fervor which is 1/combat but you'll only have 6 total spells. Sure later on you spells balloon up but later on you don't get enough rounds of combat to use em all anyway.


I used like meaning it not exactly the same. Try +1 per 5 levels and you can only do it once per combat.

If that's too severe, you can use the feat once per combat per 10 levels. That's once per level 1-10th level. twice per combat 11th to 20th level. 3 times per combat epic.

All that matters is the Pathfinder's official's ruling. I'm just tossing out ideas.

If you want to try to tie how often the character can use potion glutton in a situation to the lethality of the module or campaign, have fun in mathland.

If somebody tries to use Potion Glutton too often, bring back the potion miscibility table. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or alternatively let it work as written realizing that wizards, clerics, and druids are straight up better than it with nothing but the core rule book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good point they need a nerf too.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

make all spells that are not evocations take a minimum of one full round to cast (i.e. they go off at the beginning of the next turn).

Not only will you see a LOT more direct damage spells, but huge changes in how wizards act in combat. Being only able to 5' step until the beginning of your next turn, and attracting attention during a full combat round until your spell resolves will hugely change the way casters play.

Y'know, more like 1/2e.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

make all spells that are not evocations take a minimum of one full round to cast (i.e. they go off at the beginning of the next turn).

Not only will you see a LOT more direct damage spells, but huge changes in how wizards act in combat. Being only able to 5' step until the beginning of your next turn, and attracting attention during a full combat round until your spell resolves will hugely change the way casters play.

Y'know, more like 1/2e.

==Aelryinth

Suddenly dazing spell.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Direct damage returns!

==Aelryinth


Nerfing everything just lowers the fun factor. So does too much sarcasm!

Community Manager

Removed an unhelpful post. Please be civil to each other.


Saethori wrote:
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.

I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.


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


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.

Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?

"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That's brilliant, funny, and an accurate description of mechanics.


thejeff wrote:
Undone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.

Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?

"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>

As hilarious as that is, I have a feeling GMs would create a bunch of "Gotcha!" scenarios with that sort of thinking, since they can be all like "You're drinking this?" And you say "Yes," and then they say "It's poison, make a saving throw or become Nauseated. Oh, and you lost your Standard Action because it's not safe for you to drink."

I'd find that in order for a liquid to be "potable," you'd also have to know what it is, and/or what it does. You can't just be blindly handed a liquid, not know what it does, and expect it to be safe for you to drink.

It can also fall into the realm of GM FIAT as to determine what is "safe to drink." For all you know, that beverage you were handed might contain and undetectable roofie (a shame to have it happen, but certainly possible with the right Alchemy skills).


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Undone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.

Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?

"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>

As hilarious as that is, I have a feeling GMs would create a bunch of "Gotcha!" scenarios with that sort of thinking, since they can be all like "You're drinking this?" And you say "Yes," and then they say "It's poison, make a saving throw or become Nauseated. Oh, and you lost your Standard Action because it's not safe for you to drink."

I'd find that in order for a liquid to be "potable," you'd also have to know what it is, and/or what it does. You can't just be blindly handed a liquid, not know what it does, and expect it to be safe for you to drink.

It can also fall into the realm of GM FIAT as to determine what is "safe to drink." For all you know, that beverage you were handed might contain and undetectable roofie (a shame to have it happen, but certainly possible with the right Alchemy skills).

This is one time I wouldn't quibble over table variation. I trust in Uragothoa to bless my Fort Save!


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Undone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.

Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?

"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>

As hilarious as that is, I have a feeling GMs would create a bunch of "Gotcha!" scenarios with that sort of thinking, since they can be all like "You're drinking this?" And you say "Yes," and then they say "It's poison, make a saving throw or become Nauseated. Oh, and you lost your Standard Action because it's not safe for you to drink."

I'd find that in order for a liquid to be "potable," you'd also have to know what it is, and/or what it does. You can't just be blindly handed a liquid, not know what it does, and expect it to be safe for you to drink.

It can also fall into the realm of GM FIAT as to determine what is "safe to drink." For all you know, that beverage you were handed might contain and undetectable roofie (a shame to have it happen, but certainly possible with the right Alchemy skills).

I use a move action to study them. I use my next move action to study them. I use my swift to drink. If I cannot drink then It's poison. If I can then the GM literally cannot tell me it's poison.


Undone wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Undone wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


I'm pretty sure potability is determined from the perspective of the one who potes it. So Alchemal Mutagens are Potable to the Alchemist, but not to anyone else, who must make a Fort Save when they drink it.

I would say that milk is nonpotable to someone who is lactose intolerant.

I'm pretty sure it means safe to drink, not that is physically possible to tip into the back of your mouth and swallow it. I could do that with water from my toilet, but toilet water pretty much captures the very essence of non-potable, even though it is physically easier to drink water from my toilet bowl than to drink the chair I am sitting in.

Large difference is that what you just said pretty much is in agreement with the "You can drink it therefor you can drink it as a swift." It only has to be potable for the person drinking it because nearly everything that can be consumed has someone allergic to it.

Hmmm. Can I use this to detect poisons and other harmful liquids?

"Hey, I'm drinking this too slowly! It must not be potable!" <Spits back out>

As hilarious as that is, I have a feeling GMs would create a bunch of "Gotcha!" scenarios with that sort of thinking, since they can be all like "You're drinking this?" And you say "Yes," and then they say "It's poison, make a saving throw or become Nauseated. Oh, and you lost your Standard Action because it's not safe for you to drink."

I'd find that in order for a liquid to be "potable," you'd also have to know what it is, and/or what it does. You can't just be blindly handed a liquid, not know what it does, and expect it to be safe for you to drink.

It can also fall into the realm of GM FIAT as to determine what is "safe to drink." For all you know, that beverage you were handed might contain and undetectable roofie (a shame to have it happen, but certainly possible with the right Alchemy skills).

I use a move action to study them....

I can metagame to disprove something all day long, but that doesn't make it a reasonable action for a PC to take. Unless your PC would have an in-game reason to spend a move action to study something, twice I might add, then something like this certainly wouldn't fly at my (or several others') table(s).

It also brings into question whether "potable" is subjective of a perspective, or if it's objective of the rules. If it's perspective-based, then for all you know, the liquid is safe, and you drink it as if it's safe (when in actuality, it's not), and you're not getting any metagame knowledge out of it. If it's objective-based, then you're getting a benefit that you should not be getting (the ability to determine whether a liquid is safe or not depending on the action required to drink it, especially if said liquid is under an illusion of being safe to drink, but actually isn't).


A vial of water with a glamour on the bottle can be chugged just like a poison. Is it possible the rules are making it hard to drink 2 potions in a round, but not changing the time it takes to drink a dose of any liquid? You can wear 10 rings but only 2 can be effective magically.


A lot of this is moot after a certain level, that alchemist could chug it anyways.


I'm thinking if you drink more than one magic potable a round without feat or class ability, the potion miscibility table comes into play.

I don't know if it's been updated at all.

Paizo Employee Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Potion Glutton: The “Normal” line says that drinking potions is normally a move action. Isn’t it normally a standard action? And if so, the feat text seems to be based on the move action assumption, so what should I do?

Normally, drinking potions is a standard action, not a move action. To bring it in line with that, change the text of potion glutton to the following: “Benefit: You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables (but not extracts) as a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Normal: Drinking potions is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.”


Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

Answered in FAQ.

FAQ wrote:

Potion Glutton: The “Normal” line says that drinking potions is normally a move action. Isn’t it normally a standard action? And if so, the feat text seems to be based on the move action assumption, so what should I do?

Normally, drinking potions is a standard action, not a move action. To bring it in line with that, change the text of potion glutton to the following: “Benefit: You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables (but not extracts) as a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
Normal: Drinking potions is a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity.”

Yay! It's a FAQ Friday!

401 to 424 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.