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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

37 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or does it still by raw allow investigators and alchemists to drink as a swift?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would expect table variation on that


I am interested in any updates.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see it mentioned in any posts by Pathfinder Design Team, i.e. no FAQ. I don't see any errata for Inner Sea Gods at all, and the text of the feat on the Archives of Nethys and d20pfsrd both agree with the book (except for d20pfsrd not using Urgathoa's name). I conclude that it has not changed and still allows exactly what it allowed to begin with... for good or ill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The feat says "potions, elixirs, and other potables." I'd presume that to mean alchemical items, mutagens, vials, etc., though some further clarification as to what "other potables" specifically refers to would be helpful. And the feat still mentions you do so as a Swift Action, so I figure it still functions as it does.

The thing I don't understand is how the normal is "Drinking potions is a move action that provokes attacks of opportunity," when by the rules, it's a Standard Action, and I don't see any feat pre-requisites or anything.

Grand Lodge

I see the problem more that you need the potable in hand to drink it as a swift action, while the standard action to drink an extract includes drawing it.

As a GM I think I would rule that for extracts Potion Glutton doesn't include the drawing of the extract. You could still benefit from it by using a move action to draw it, a swift to drink it, and still have a standard for the round.

To me this seems to most closely follow the rules, but from previous discussions I know there are other opinions on what RAW says


dwayne germaine wrote:

I see the problem more that you need the potable in hand to drink it as a swift action, while the standard action to drink an extract includes drawing it.

As a GM I think I would rule that for extracts Potion Glutton doesn't include the drawing of the extract. You could still benefit from it by using a move action to draw it, a swift to drink it, and still have a standard for the round.

To me this seems to most closely follow the rules, but from previous discussions I know there are other opinions on what RAW says

Or quick draw which negates it.

Grand Lodge

Undone wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:

I see the problem more that you need the potable in hand to drink it as a swift action, while the standard action to drink an extract includes drawing it.

As a GM I think I would rule that for extracts Potion Glutton doesn't include the drawing of the extract. You could still benefit from it by using a move action to draw it, a swift to drink it, and still have a standard for the round.

To me this seems to most closely follow the rules, but from previous discussions I know there are other opinions on what RAW says

Or quick draw which negates it.

Quick draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action. You need a lenient GM to allow you to draw other things with it (hence table variation)


dwayne germaine wrote:
Undone wrote:
dwayne germaine wrote:

I see the problem more that you need the potable in hand to drink it as a swift action, while the standard action to drink an extract includes drawing it.

As a GM I think I would rule that for extracts Potion Glutton doesn't include the drawing of the extract. You could still benefit from it by using a move action to draw it, a swift to drink it, and still have a standard for the round.

To me this seems to most closely follow the rules, but from previous discussions I know there are other opinions on what RAW says

Or quick draw which negates it.
Quick draw allows you to draw a weapon as a free action. You need a lenient GM to allow you to draw other things with it (hence table variation)

If I have throw anything (which I do since I am an investi-alchemist) then doesn't that make anything I draw a weapon?


The biggest question is whether or not "other potables" includes Extracts.

The obvious answer on its face should be yes, but Extracts are bizarre, arcane concoctions that aren't anything else and generally only count as potion-like when doing so is the worse choice.

Grand Lodge

dtreth wrote:


If I have throw anything (which I do since I am an investi-alchemist) then doesn't that make anything I draw a weapon?

Sure, so long as you are throwing it at someone... but it's probably a bad use for an extract and potion glutton isn't going to help you at all then


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Relevant FAQ supports being able to draw weapon-like objects as if they were weapons, though that then leads to the question as to what constitutes a weapon-like object.

Unfortunately, there's no proof that an Extract is a Weapon-like Object, meaning the ability to draw an Extract via Quick Draw is off the table.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Relevant FAQ supports being able to draw weapon-like objects as if they were weapons, though that then leads to the question as to what constitutes a weapon-like object.

Unfortunately, there's no proof that an Extract is a Weapon-like Object, meaning the ability to draw an Extract via Quick Draw is off the table.

IF you can state that an iron vial causes damage when thrown, and you store your extracts in an iron vial, they would be weapons that simply contained another liquid. Like a weapon with an empty hilt.


Quick Draw specifically disallows alchemical items, so that's out.

Other than that....G@& d!$n it PDT, putting in a few lines of reasons in your FAQs would solve a lot of questions. The Accelerated Drinker + Extracts ruling just says "no". The reasoning behind it, IIRC, was "Alchemist class abilities take the actions they say they take".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Manly-man teapot wrote:

Quick Draw specifically disallows alchemical items, so that's out.

Other than that....G#@ d$%n it PDT, putting in a few lines of reasons in your FAQs would solve a lot of questions. The Accelerated Drinker + Extracts ruling just says "no". The reasoning behind it, IIRC, was "Alchemist class abilities take the actions they say they take".

A minor point, but I thought that rather than disallowing Alchemal Items, Accelerated Drinker applies only to potions.

Accelerated Drinker wrote:
Benefit: You may drink a potion as a move action instead of a standard action as long as you start your turn with the potion in your hand.

Plus, Alchemists' items: Extracts, Mutagens, and Bombs, don't actually begin in-hand, but are rather whipped up and used on the spot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I have used it (and will continue to do so until such a time as errata/FAQ/developer/etc. says otherwise) is that it works with extracts and mutagens. Unlike Accelerated Drinker, it has the 'other potables' line (Accelerated Drinker was ruled not to work because extracts are not potions despite being used like them, as far as I recall). That said, while it is a swift action to consume, it is still a move to draw the extract/mutagen if not in hand. I think that this, combined with being a feat (rather than a trait like Accelerated drinker) and requiring the worship of a specific (evil) deity help balance the option. It's still very good, of course, but not overwhelmingly so, I think. My (limited) experience so far indicates that while it opens up options, it doesn't actually change that much in the end.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

We all know that extracts are basically a different flavor for spells, and you all know that casting a spell as a swift would break your game utterly. So... I think you all know the answer to this. Potion glutton is for potions.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
We all know that extracts are basically a different flavor for spells, and you all know that casting a spell as a swift would break your game utterly. So... I think you all know the answer to this. Potion glutton is for potions.

And for other potables. If PF wanted to make a 'drink caster', as well as stating the similarities between extracts and potions, and then makes unclear text like this about drinking potions as well as other potables, they should be required to say if these apply to extracts. They at least ruled on accelerated drinker, so this should be no different.

As for game breaking, you can already speed drink with familiar/poisoner's gloves shenanigans, this was made after that, and familiar/poisoner's gloves shenanigans are known to the devs.

Even accelerated drinker is a gamist ruling since in game there's no physical difference between a potion and an extract (Something the rules of extracts make clear), so I think this is a perfectly valid question.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Poisoner's glove are nice for a 5K item, but only good for 2 infusions per day. Potion Glutton works for as many rounds you want and only limited by the amount of drinking stuff you carry (check that STR dump stat, unless you carry your potion crates in some kind of extradimensional space... ;) )

I don't have a problem with Potion Glutton applying to alchemical liquids and alcohol (potables usually refers to booze, anyhow) but infusions should, obviously, not be allowed. Otherwise every alchemist and investigator would have that feat to cast as a swift action - it would be a no brainer really, as it has no mechanical prereq and can be taken at first level.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is why most people who are talking about it are mentioning the move action to draw the item as well, since P. Glut doesn't help with that. It's not even like you can speed it up with spring loaded wrist sheathes, as they're also a swift action, so there's no net gain there.

A swift and a move to drink a potion is still pretty good, I won't deny that. But it's best at early levels, and really only amazing for bombers.

1-7 (pre fast bombs), you can move+swift a potion, throw a bomb, nice.
Natural attackers are only getting 1 attack, weapon wielders are only getting 1 attack (even with haste), everyone else isn't getting nearly as big a benefit.

Personally, if PG gets ruled that it doesn't need a move action to draw, I'll agree with you 100%, I'd take it on everyone. But as it stands now, it's not broken, just very good. Kind of like buying 5 pairs of poisoner's gloves once you're high enough level to afford them easily and switching them out like quick runner's shirts.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

You have to think higher level too. A guy with two gloves of storing can drink two infusions with this, and still take a move action on top of that (to draw a potion and store it in the glove).

Round 2 start, move action to draw potion 2, store it as well... (just cause you can) and you can still drink those two infusions during round 2 as you have a swift and a standard left. Or you just drink one infusion that round, and keep those two for next round.

So in effect, you've become a caster that can cast 2 spells, 1 spell, 2 spells, 1 spell, etc. Or 2 spells, 2 spells, then 1 spell.

1/2/1/2/etc. if you start the fight with gloves empty;

2/2/1/2/1/etc. if you start the fight 'pre-loaded'

This is pretty broken IMO. The moment you start thinking of infusions as objects instead of 'standard action to cast a spell' terms, you run into such nonsense.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm assuming the feat does what it says it does. Not what people think it ought to do, to fit what they think would be balanced. There's no way we're going to get that unwritten consensus thing to really work.

Extracts are potables. Therefore you can drink them Swift. But the feat doesn't let you draw them for free, so that'll cost you a Move.

And that Move action is the balancer, such as it is. It means you can't drink up AND move around. It means you can't drink up AND full attack. And that's very significant.

Even so, it's an extremely powerful feat. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets changed at some point. Because making one attack per round and drinking an extract as well - it's what the rules are right now, but it might be too good to last.

However, how would you change it, so that it's still worthwhile for it's official main goal - potions? If you change the drinking to Move, is it really worthwhile for anyone except tieflings (prehensile tail)? Switching the action on potion from draw(move)+drink(std) to draw(move)+drink(std) is pretty pointless. You could have some advantage if you start a combat with a potion in hand and don't need to walk anywhere, but that's a rather marginal case.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
You have to think higher level too. A guy with two gloves of storing can drink two infusions with this, and still take a move action on top of that (to draw a potion and store it in the glove).

You can't wear two gloves of storing.

Gloves of Storing wrote:
A glove of storing uses up your entire hands slot. You may not use another item (even another glove of storing) that also uses the hands slot.


The thing is the war priest pretty much has the same ability as potion glutton the differences is PG is pretty much only alchemist and investigator two classes which are pretty far from broken considering vanilla wizard, druid, cleric.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

yes, but they still don't want someone lining up dozens of mutagens and extracts and drinking them willy nilly after making them ahead of time. That's the kind of thing which really starts grinding teeth, effectively duplicating multi-day duration spells.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

yes, but they still don't want someone lining up dozens of mutagens and extracts and drinking them willy nilly after making them ahead of time. That's the kind of thing which really starts grinding teeth, effectively duplicating multi-day duration spells.

==Aelryinth

Wait so you are telling me your generic wizard doing the same thing isn't teeth grinding?

It looks to me by RAW it works.

I also don't feel it's op because I've played a WP and fervor is pretty much fair although it creates a feeling of "If this combat goes on too long I'll win but there is the real chance it goes only 1-2 rounds."

I genuinely don't feel the investigator is competitive with the other classes released and that this would be a nice step up. The alchemist I also don't feel is OP at all so once again a nice step up.


Aelryinth wrote:

yes, but they still don't want someone lining up dozens of mutagens and extracts and drinking them willy nilly after making them ahead of time. That's the kind of thing which really starts grinding teeth, effectively duplicating multi-day duration spells.

==Aelryinth

You can only make one mutagen at a time though.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Undone wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

yes, but they still don't want someone lining up dozens of mutagens and extracts and drinking them willy nilly after making them ahead of time. That's the kind of thing which really starts grinding teeth, effectively duplicating multi-day duration spells.

==Aelryinth

Wait so you are telling me your generic wizard doing the same thing isn't teeth grinding?

It looks to me by RAW it works.

I also don't feel it's op because I've played a WP and fervor is pretty much fair although it creates a feeling of "If this combat goes on too long I'll win but there is the real chance it goes only 1-2 rounds."

I genuinely don't feel the investigator is competitive with the other classes released and that this would be a nice step up. The alchemist I also don't feel is OP at all so once again a nice step up.

No, I'm telling you that extracts and mutagens are basically free class abilities.

Potions cost time and money.

If you can make and store up extracts and mutagens, and then chain drink them, that's the exact them as casting a buff spell yesterday and having it take effect today without using spell slots or gold.

And they probably want to avoid that.

===Aelryinth


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
We all know that extracts are basically a different flavor for spells, and you all know that casting a spell as a swift would break your game utterly. So... I think you all know the answer to this. Potion glutton is for potions.

If that's the case, then they really should have said that instead of making the rules what they did.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo makes no errors and RAW is god. Remember that!

==Aelryinth

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

Paizo makes no errors and RAW is god. Remember that!

==Aelryinth

The meaning of the feat is quite clear. Extracts are potable, and are also the thing most similar to potions in the game. So it definitely applies.

Should it apply, is an entirely different issue. You think it shouldn't, because it would be OP. I can appreciate that point, and I think it's very likely that the feat will change if ISG gets a reprint.

But right now, the rule is clear, even if you think writing it that way was a mistake.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I always read "other potables" to mean things like wine skins of alcohol and things like that.

I didn't read it to function as a quicken spell for all alchemist spells. It may or may not mean to quicken a whole class's spell casting. I'd like to see a FAQ.

So please everyone in this thread click FAQ on the 1st post.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
I always read "other potables" to mean things like wine skins of alcohol and things like that.

According to the dictionary, it's anything that's clean and safe to drink. Extracts meet that requirement. (With the possible exception of Cure extracts for undead worshipers of Urgathoa, I suppose.)

The feat is centered around potions. Extracts are more similar to potions than mundane liquids are to potions.

James Risner wrote:
I didn't read it to function as a quicken spell for all alchemist spells.

It's not. Quicken is only a swift action. This also requires you to have the extract (or potion) ready, so Move + Swift. That's just not the same.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
It's not. Quicken is only a swift action. This also requires you to have the extract (or potion) ready, so Move + Swift. That's just not the same.

But you don't have an extract ready until you prepare it. Preparing it and drinking it is the same standard action.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
It's not. Quicken is only a swift action. This also requires you to have the extract (or potion) ready, so Move + Swift. That's just not the same.
But you don't have an extract ready until you prepare it. Preparing it and drinking it is the same standard action.

I believe you are mistaken, extracts need to be prepared ahead of time. Perhaps you are thinking of an Alchemist's bombs which are inert until prepared and thrown.

Alchemy wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Firewarrior44 wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
It's not. Quicken is only a swift action. This also requires you to have the extract (or potion) ready, so Move + Swift. That's just not the same.
But you don't have an extract ready until you prepare it. Preparing it and drinking it is the same standard action.

I believe you are mistaken, extracts need to be prepared ahead of time. Perhaps you are thinking of an Alchemist's bombs which are inert until prepared and thrown.

Alchemy wrote:
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.

Even if normal extracts did, it's just another reason to have the infusion discovery, which would bypass that since the extracts you hand out don't need to be activated, and just about everyone is taking infusion anyways due to things like familiar shenanigoats and such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

Paizo makes no errors and RAW is god. Remember that!

==Aelryinth

The meaning of the feat is quite clear. Extracts are potable, and are also the thing most similar to potions in the game. So it definitely applies.

Should it apply, is an entirely different issue. You think it shouldn't, because it would be OP. I can appreciate that point, and I think it's very likely that the feat will change if ISG gets a reprint.

But right now, the rule is clear, even if you think writing it that way was a mistake.

I mean it's very clear that the definition of potable is drinkable.

Extracts are required to be drank to function.
Therefor we can conclude extracts (well most) are safely drinkable.
It would be kind of silly to try and come up with an alternative explanation of what the feat actually does.

Obviously FAQ could correct this but as written it does this. I was curious if it was changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The PDT doesn't do FAQs on non core-line work. The closest they've done to that was some encouraging for the Golarion team to answer the Freebooter Ranger archetype question.

Your best bet is to ask the question in the product discussion page for the product it came from.


The standard action for extracts is to draw and drink combined. The feat only lets you drink as a swift action. Drawing must still happen. If you had a swift action way to draw, you couldn't use the swift action drink. So generally speaking your 'casting' becomes a move+swift action in place of a standard. While this does let you 'cast' twice per round, or 'cast' and bomb in a round, it is not the same as quicken by a decent margin.


Cheapy wrote:
The PDT doesn't do FAQs on non core-line work. The closest they've done to that was some encouraging for the Golarion team to answer the Freebooter Ranger archetype question.

They addressed pretty much this exact issue for Accelerated Drinker, a trait from a player companion, and that's when the answer was much more clear. If they wanted to block anything of this sort from working, it would be a simple matter of editing the FAQ to say "No. Abilities changing the actions required to drink potions or other consumable substances never effect the use of extracts unless they are explicitly mentioned in the abilities' text."

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Undone wrote:
I mean it's very clear that the definition of potable is drinkable.

Honestly... who cares about that actual definition? haven't you all played this game for years now? do you really think that some feat called "Potion Glutton" is meant to quicken cast all extracts for alchemists and investigators?

For crying out loud, even if this would work on extracts, aren't you a bit worried that the equivalent, on the wiz/sor side, has the following little caveat to it?

--> "A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell's actual level. "

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The alchemist player would argue that it's simply the equivalent of the warpriest's ability to cast buff spells as swift actions at level 1, PDK.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

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

Using a limited resource pool, as opposed to permanently reducing the action economy cost across the board.


Quote:

Honestly... who cares about that actual definition? haven't you all played this game for years now? do you really think that some feat called "Potion Glutton" is meant to quicken cast all extracts for alchemists and investigators?

For crying out loud, even if this would work on extracts, aren't you a bit worried that the equivalent, on the wiz/sor side, has the following little caveat to it?

--> "A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell's actual level. "

You would have a point if it wasn't self consumption only.

You would also have a point if either of the two had 9th level extracts.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Using a limited resource pool, as opposed to permanently reducing the action economy cost across the board.

Considering how easy it is at higher levels to reach more fervor than rounds of combat per day I disagree with this assessment. PG is slighly stronger early on (Level 1) Level 2 to about level 6 it's the same because with a 16 wisdom (Not exactly a hard ask for a freeking wisdom class) you can quicken every spell on yourself. At level 7 PG is slightly better but by the time level 10 or so rolls around and you have +4/+6 headbands and levels you tend toward 10+ fervor which is reaching rage levels of "Do I even need to count?".

Grand Lodge

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

And doing that means you aren't using it for extra HP in combat. There is still far more opportunity cost in Fervor than Potion Glutton if you allow all extracts to be used as a swift.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fervor's a class ability. Potion Glutton is a feat. By taking a feat and not selecting other feats that's a huge opportunity cost right there.

And, as people have been saying, you still have to draw your extracts to consume them as a swift. Action economy is not exactly lowered to Quicken levels.

Grand Lodge

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

I assumed that people we saying it changed from a standard to a swift. Move+swift is certainly less of an issue.

But Quicken Spell is also a feat, and has a much higher cost as well.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Undone wrote:
I mean it's very clear that the definition of potable is drinkable.

Honestly... who cares about that actual definition? haven't you all played this game for years now? do you really think that some feat called "Potion Glutton" is meant to quicken cast all extracts for alchemists and investigators?

For crying out loud, even if this would work on extracts, aren't you a bit worried that the equivalent, on the wiz/sor side, has the following little caveat to it?

--> "A quickened spell uses up a spell slot four levels higher than the spell's actual level. "

Who cares about the actual words used to identify how the rules work? I would hope the development team, which is precisely the problem here when things like this are printed.

Again, it's not like there's no precedent for for extracts working differently. You can't stick a self only spell into a pair of gloves that can be used by someone else to inject you with a spell for its full duration, and yet poisoner's gloves (which the name is their worst use) can do just that. Yeah, it cost 5k, but it's 5k for 2 uses and changes it from a swift into a non-action easily abusable by a familiar.

Besides, what does it matter how long we've been playing, lazy writing for an ability is going to cause problems. Perhaps had the text been clear, or the rules text for extracts not likened them so much to potions in use, we wouldn't be having this problem.

I know that if we get a ruling on this, it'll be ruled that extracts don't apply, that's probably the RAI considering accelerated drinker (which is less powerful in this respect), but perhaps this can finally send a message that when you write a potion specific ability, you have to account for a class that has potion like mechanics that has existed for years.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:

The alchemist player would argue that it's simply the equivalent of the warpriest's ability to cast buff spells as swift actions at level 1, PDK.

==Aelryinth

The alchemist player would be wrong, as feats meant to modify a class feature clearly spell it out in their description.


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

The alchemist player would argue that it's simply the equivalent of the warpriest's ability to cast buff spells as swift actions at level 1, PDK.

==Aelryinth

The alchemist player would be wrong, as feats meant to modify a class feature clearly spell it out in their description.

Unfortunately nothing in the rules actually says or implies this.

1 to 50 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.