As per the recent FAQ, the Potion Glutton feat now has the following text:
Benefit: You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables (but not extracts) as a move action without provoking an attack of opportunity.
The Accelerated Drinker trait says the following:
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.
So is Potion Glutton ever worth taking now, considering that it's twice the "feat space" of Accelerated Drinker, has the same overall action cost, and also has a god-based restriction? Avoiding AoOs is a pretty small benefit considering most AoOs can be avoided as a free action by moving 5 feet. You're not using that move action anyway, you had to spend it to draw your potion.
For reference (before things get changed), this is the original text:
Benefit(s): You can drink potions, elixirs, or other potables as a swift action without provoking attacks of opportunity.
Potion Glutton probably still works with mutagens, which is a nice benefit. It's mostly worth it for Tieflings, who can withdraw items as a swift action.
you can drink two, if you have both and start with one in you hand.
You didn't even mention the factor that you can't use extracts with Potion Glutton, which was also one of the biggest factors as to why people would take it for Alchemist characters. It's otherwise pretty lackluster, even with the Brew Potion feat.
So, no, the feat is garbage now, and the trait is still garbage, just now on an identical tier to the current feat text.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like another case of Paizo deciding to nuke the feat from orbit. It's the only way to be sure nobody will take it again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
The term is pretty open to interpretation. And Paizo could have resolved the issue by just saying "Everything else is good, but no extracts." Instead they hammered the action time as well.
Sure, blame anyone but Holy Perfect Paizo, but they still published the FAQ.
|
They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
The term is pretty open to interpretation. And Paizo could have resolved the issue by just saying "Everything else is good, but no extracts." Instead they hammered the action time as well.
Sure, blame anyone but Holy Perfect Paizo, but they still published the FAQ.
They also published the feat.
This mindset has always baffled me. Someone had to be breaking it, or starting enough FAQ threads for it, otherwise they wouldn't have looked at it I'm pretty sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game
And you can clarify that a feat doesn't work with a certain class feature without also destroying that feat. Those are two entirely different decisions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Paizo's FAQs and half of their "errata" can go suck a duck. I'm sick of stealth revisions and outright nerfs being snuck into their FAQs and Errata. I'm never going to play PFS anyway, so I'll just have to accept being one of those curmudgeons who claims they are still playing Pathfinder, but busts out a binder full of house-rules thicker than the Core Rulebook.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They also published the feat.They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
The term is pretty open to interpretation. And Paizo could have resolved the issue by just saying "Everything else is good, but no extracts." Instead they hammered the action time as well.
Sure, blame anyone but Holy Perfect Paizo, but they still published the FAQ.
Something they're far from blameless for. Putting out a feat which could reasonably be read as making Alchemist extracts usable as a swift action was a mistake. A mistake that needed to be fixed.
There's a difference between fixing the issue and nuking the feat so hard that it's no longer even useful for it's intended purpose. If all they'd done was add the "no extracts" clause, there wouldn't be a problem.
|
|
They also published the feat.They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
The term is pretty open to interpretation. And Paizo could have resolved the issue by just saying "Everything else is good, but no extracts." Instead they hammered the action time as well.
Sure, blame anyone but Holy Perfect Paizo, but they still published the FAQ.
Something they're far from blameless for. Putting out a feat which could reasonably be read as making Alchemist extracts usable as a swift action was a mistake. A mistake that needed to be fixed.
There's a difference between fixing the issue and nuking the feat so hard that it's no longer even useful for it's intended purpose. If all they'd done was add the "no extracts" clause, there wouldn't be a problem.
I'd call not provoking AoOs from using potions pretty useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call not provoking AoOs from using potions pretty useful.They also published the feat.They wouldn't have needed to nuke it if some people hadnt tried to to use it to break a cardinal feature of the game which is that spells in whatever form take an action to use (Unless expensive metamagic is used.) But noooooo. Some alchemists wanted their magic and more actions.
20 pages of debate about the meaning of "potable". Honestly.
The term is pretty open to interpretation. And Paizo could have resolved the issue by just saying "Everything else is good, but no extracts." Instead they hammered the action time as well.
Sure, blame anyone but Holy Perfect Paizo, but they still published the FAQ.
Something they're far from blameless for. Putting out a feat which could reasonably be read as making Alchemist extracts usable as a swift action was a mistake. A mistake that needed to be fixed.
There's a difference between fixing the issue and nuking the feat so hard that it's no longer even useful for it's intended purpose. If all they'd done was add the "no extracts" clause, there wouldn't be a problem.
It's not much better than the likes of Point Blank Master, and we have somebody saying reducing AoOs is overpowered and shouldn't exist as a feat. It's actually worse, since the odds of you actually consuming a potion when you are threatened is pretty slim, whereas the odds of you being pinned to fire at melee range is more likely.
Either way, Paizo stealth-nuked the feat into practical uselessness. If anything, the trait is now better because the trait can still be used with extracts (which are potions unless it says otherwise), whereas the feat can't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call not provoking AoOs from using potions pretty useful.Being 'useful' is a pretty low bar for spending a feat.
Pretty much this. It's not useless in the sense of "This feat literally does nothing" like pre-errata Prone Shooter. It does do something. However, I don't think anyone's going to spend a feat just to avoid taking AoOs while drinking potions in battle.
In all my years of D&D and Pathfinder, I don't think I've ever actually taken an AoO for potion-drinking. I don't use potions all that often in combat, and when I do it's usually something like taking an Enlarge or Fly potion on the first turn before anyone's threatening me. Plus five foot steps are a thing that can help avoid a lot of AoOs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Here, you have the first bolded part saying they behave like potions (which are spells in a bottle), and then another bolded part explaining how they are not like potions.
Therefore, it creates a "potion unless it says otherwise" precedent.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A lot of the changes boil down to things that are interpreted different than written.
This case we have "swift" which suggests the author thought potions were move actions and "potable" which was used to cover alcohol and water but likely not to cover extracts or they wouldn't have used potables.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of the changes boil down to things that are interpreted different than written.
This case we have "swift" which suggests the author thought potions were move actions and "potable" which was used to cover alcohol and water but likely not to cover extracts or they wouldn't have used potables.
Potions are standard actions to draw out, and standard actions to drink (unless you attach them to bandoliers, which are 1 gold for two of them, in which case it's a move action to draw them out). The idea that potions were move actions in the first place, when we have two instances of standard actions being required (without further alteration) is silly.
Potable means "safe to drink," and that definition varies based on what entity we're talking about.
If we have two creatures with the feat, one of which was immune to poison, and gave both of them a vial of poison to drink and told them it was a potion, you'd result in one person not being able to drink as a Swift Action (because the liquid is not potable to them), and another who can drink as a Swift Action (because the liquid, to them, is potable).
At best, it creates an issue with the mechanics of items in comparison to PC knowledge. (If they're told it's a potion, but it's actually a poison, would they benefit from the feat without knowing what it is exactly they're drinking?) At worst, it's a limited list that extracts was inadvertantly a part of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you weren't playing in PFS, you were always much better off just teleporting to Starfall in Numeria and buying medlances anyway.
They overdid the nerf; it only needed to be clarified that it didn't cover extracts and mutagens (and they still only got that half-right.)
I've noticed this is something gaming companies in general are doing a lot lately; Hearthstone, for instance, a digital CCG run by Blizzard is infamous for its heavy-handed nerfs that often take good cards from good to utterly unplayable.
These things require a scalpel, not a bazooka.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's a weird phenomena. It would be interesting to go through the various erratas and see how many actually were reasonable vs. an orbital nuking.
I've done that. I guess it depends on perspective, as I've felt the FAQ were way more reasonable than you. It may be how we read and interpret the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've noticed this is something gaming companies in general are doing a lot lately; Hearthstone, for instance, a digital CCG run by Blizzard is infamous for its heavy-handed nerfs that often take good cards from good to utterly unplayable.
These things require a scalpel, not a bazooka.
Problem is that you gotta think in the eyes of the company.
If you keep issuing the same "stuff," what makes you think customers are going to keep buying "stuff" that they presumably already have? Because it's "different" some how? People don't really give two figs about what "stuff" they have, but only how it functions, so you gotta do more than just reflavor something to make it a worthwhile product.
So, what they do is take the "stuff" you think you have, have it turn into garbage by making it no longer a valid product, and then sell the same rebranded "stuff" so that you have a reason to buy that "stuff" again (because the "stuff" you thought you had, you actually didn't have).
In short, it's a marketing scheme. We can either give into it and hope they learn (but realistically, they won't because that's how they thrive), or we can stop and let it die out on its own (but realistically, that won't happen because people won't understand the basic principle of repeat economics).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd call not provoking AoOs from using potions pretty useful.Being 'useful' is a pretty low bar for spending a feat.
Lots and lots of perfectly fine feats are just useful. Weapon focus, for example.
Maybe expecting an ever-increasing power creep, with every published feat being more powerful than the previous feat, is a pretty high bar. This feat still allow you to Enlarge Person as a move action instead of a 1 round casting, for example. Or use a Fly Potion, or Heroism, or many others. In particular, if you can grab the potion as swift (with any of the prehensile tails features, possesed hand feat, whatever)
That's decent enough for a feat, in the right build. It's not a "OMG, this feat is incredible, put it in every single DPR-Olympic build, replace whatever you want, but put it" level, but it's better than average for the right build. You shouldn't expect every feat to be universally useful to everyone, always, like Improved Initiative is
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With several thousand feats the idea that they would all be balanced against each other is frankly nonsense.
|
|
I've noticed this is something gaming companies in general are doing a lot lately; Hearthstone, for instance, a digital CCG run by Blizzard is infamous for its heavy-handed nerfs that often take good cards from good to utterly unplayable.
These things require a scalpel, not a bazooka.
Problem is that you gotta think in the eyes of the company.
If you keep issuing the same "stuff," what makes you think customers are going to keep buying "stuff" that they presumably already have? Because it's "different" some how? People don't really give two figs about what "stuff" they have, but only how it functions, so you gotta do more than just reflavor something to make it a worthwhile product.
So, what they do is take the "stuff" you think you have, have it turn into garbage by making it no longer a valid product, and then sell the same rebranded "stuff" so that you have a reason to buy that "stuff" again (because the "stuff" you thought you had, you actually didn't have).
In short, it's a marketing scheme. We can either give into it and hope they learn (but realistically, they won't because that's how they thrive), or we can stop and let it die out on its own (but realistically, that won't happen because people won't understand the basic principle of repeat economics).
Such as how Scarred Witch Doctor got completely reworked right before they gave us the Con-based Kineticist? Or how they errata-ed in new rules about spellcasting always being noticeable by default, right before Ultimate Intrigue came out with rules for hiding magic?
Remember to buy Paizo's Horse Armor DLC for only $19.99. Hurry, because soon PFS will require it.
Not really Errata when Spellcraft has been in the game since 3.5.
And I wouldn't really consider half a year to be right beofre.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ouch, didn't know about this until just now. That kinda wrecks a neat build I've had sitting on the back burner for a while. I don't think I ever saw complaints about this feat from GMs and most of the confusion was over what qualifies as "potable". I probably won't end up enforcing it in home games.
I've noticed this is something gaming companies in general are doing a lot lately; Hearthstone, for instance, a digital CCG run by Blizzard is infamous for its heavy-handed nerfs that often take good cards from good to utterly unplayable.
These things require a scalpel, not a bazooka.
Problem is that you gotta think in the eyes of the company.
If you keep issuing the same "stuff," what makes you think customers are going to keep buying "stuff" that they presumably already have? Because it's "different" some how? People don't really give two figs about what "stuff" they have, but only how it functions, so you gotta do more than just reflavor something to make it a worthwhile product.
So, what they do is take the "stuff" you think you have, have it turn into garbage by making it no longer a valid product, and then sell the same rebranded "stuff" so that you have a reason to buy that "stuff" again (because the "stuff" you thought you had, you actually didn't have).
In short, it's a marketing scheme. We can either give into it and hope they learn (but realistically, they won't because that's how they thrive), or we can stop and let it die out on its own (but realistically, that won't happen because people won't understand the basic principle of repeat economics).
I don't know how much I buy into this idea, but then, I don't play in organized play.
A home table is under no incentive to adopt rules fixes unless they want to. I've no doubt most groups in which Potion Glutton even showed up on the radar quickly slapped a "no extracts/no mutagens" house rule on it and moved on.
The Scarred Witch Doctor nerf you mentioned? We don't acknowledge it at our table.
Add to that that this is all compounded by the fact that we primarily use PRD sources and are really only purchasing Adventure Paths, and I'm not sure that this is primarily financial in its goal. Rather, I see gaming companies responding to forum pressure and outrage demanding fixes or clarifications, and the company overreacts. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there are more sinister intentions at play. I just can't bring myself to be that cynical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with realism is that it gets passed off as cynicism because people refuse to believe something in an attempt to be optimistic in spite of clear hard evidence because of some preconceived public notion they fear they"ll be labeled as.
Cynicism isn't a bad thing, nor is it wrong. If anything, it's better than things like paranoia or obliviousness. So sure, I'm a cynic, but I'm also more likely to be correct than Paranoid Pete who's all-around crazy, or Oblivious Oliver who just wants to be Stupid Good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A home table is under no incentive to adopt rules fixes unless they want to. I've no doubt most groups in which Potion Glutton even showed up on the radar quickly slapped a "no extracts/no mutagens" house rule on it and moved on.
The Scarred Witch Doctor nerf you mentioned? We don't acknowledge it at our table.
The only problem with this is that, very often, it becomes difficult or nearly impossible to find the "unnerfed" version of something once errata has been added. Try searching for Scarred Witch Doctor on the SRD and you're going to find the one that gets a +2 to Int. God help you if you try to find the old Crane Wing feats. If you happen to have a 1st edition printing of the book or PDF then you're safe, but online resources are going to update and remove the old versions.
|
I think a much neater fix would have been "drink and draw as a standard action, provoke only once for the whole thing" would have been so much nicer. Gluttony doesn't sound like something that carefully avoids AoOs. And you don't need to worry about extracts because those have always worked that way. The feat would just let you do the same for other drinks as well. No need to treat extracts as ludicrously undrinkable for balance reasons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem with this is that, very often, it becomes difficult or nearly impossible to find the "unnerfed" version of something once errata has been added. Try searching for Scarred Witch Doctor on the SRD and you're going to find the one that gets a +2 to Int. God help you if you try to find the old Crane Wing feats. If you happen to have a 1st edition printing of the book or PDF then you're safe, but online resources are going to update and remove the old versions.A home table is under no incentive to adopt rules fixes unless they want to. I've no doubt most groups in which Potion Glutton even showed up on the radar quickly slapped a "no extracts/no mutagens" house rule on it and moved on.
The Scarred Witch Doctor nerf you mentioned? We don't acknowledge it at our table.
Here you go:
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cynicism isn't a bad thing, nor is it wrong. If anything, it's better than things like paranoia or obliviousness. So sure, I'm a cynic, but I'm also more likely to be correct than Paranoid Pete who's all-around crazy, or Oblivious Oliver who just wants to be Stupid Good.
Assuming a conspiracy for something that could equally be explained by regular human incompetence sounds more like paranoia than cynicism.
Paizo have a strong financial incentive to keep players happy so they keep buying adventures and don't switch to D&D 5E. Clarifying a rule and then providing a feat to get around that rule and then putting the feat online so anyone can use it (in a non-PFS game) is a pretty convoluted way of making money.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The old version of the feat was clearly "broken" in the sense that it listed a "normal" case that was blatantly incorrect.
It may have also been overpowered in allowing efficient drinking of extracts (powerful, maybe too powerful). Which is a legitimate difference of opinion.
And then there were long discussions about "potable", where you basically had people try to bend the meaning of the word "potable" to mean "anything you can drink except the thing more similar to potions than all the other examples".
I think it's a lame fix. I understand the desire to make it less powerful (oh it was glorious..), but extracts are more similar to potions than elixirs, so this really doesn't make sense from any immersion perspective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cynicism isn't a bad thing, nor is it wrong. If anything, it's better than things like paranoia or obliviousness. So sure, I'm a cynic, but I'm also more likely to be correct than Paranoid Pete who's all-around crazy, or Oblivious Oliver who just wants to be Stupid Good.Assuming a conspiracy for something that could equally be explained by regular human incompetence sounds more like paranoia than cynicism.
Paizo have a strong financial incentive to keep players happy so they keep buying adventures and don't switch to D&D 5E. Clarifying a rule and then providing a feat to get around that rule and then putting the feat online so anyone can use it (in a non-PFS game) is a pretty convoluted way of making money.
Oh, I'm sure it could. But I'd prefer to not call Paizo a bunch of incompetents, because they're the big multi-million dollar company, so clearly they're doing something right. The question is what that is, and how that answer ties into their "process."
Based on past history regarding changes and publishings, "marketing scheme" seems the most likely (and optimistic) answer. (It certainly beats "Because Paizo is stupid." That's the Stupid Good answer.)
Of course, if by "convoluted," you mean "so obscure that the customers wouldn't think to notice it as a means to make money," then sure, I agree in that sense. If by "convoluted," you mean "it's a poor way to make money," then clearly you don't understand how to prey on the traditions of old-time D&D players. (Also, PFS is a significant source of Paizo's income, and people seem to enjoy it a lot more than I'd care to admit, so it's certainly a solid reason to do such a "convoluted" tactic.)
@ Ascalaphus: You'd think something that is greater than a typical potion would be just the thing that a glutton would want. But no, apparently being a glutton means you have to watch your magical power intake, otherwise you'll be too overpowered to adventure. (There's an "alcoholic person" link there, I just can't seem to connect it though...)
At best, you can call the feat "Consumer Savvy." At worst, you can call the feat "Worthless Garbage that's not worth a Feat Slot."
I know what name I'm giving it...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say neither "incompetence" nor "conspiracy", but rather "subject to different goals and constraints than you think". This isn't an incompetent fix for certain design goals. For Urgathoans, it is roughly twice as powerful as the trait (covering potions, elixirs, alchemical remedies, and probably mutagens rather than only potions, and removing the draw-and-drink restriction for swift-draw, move-drink combos), and the religious restriction shouldn't really impact power. The old version was broken, giving Alchemists a free version of Quicken Spell on everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say neither "incompetence" nor "conspiracy", but rather "subject to different goals and constraints than you think". This isn't an incompetent fix for certain design goals. For Urgathoans, it is roughly twice as powerful as the trait (covering potions, elixirs, alchemical remedies, and probably mutagens rather than only potions, and removing the draw-and-drink restriction for swift-draw, move-drink combos), and the religious restriction shouldn't really impact power. The old version was broken, giving Alchemists a free version of Quicken Spell on everything.
Never called it an incompetent fix. I did say that it nuked the feat into practical uselessness, but whether that's incompetent fixing or not is irrelevant to what I've said.
Roughly is a generous term; it's actually about as generous as the term "potable" in the feat text, which is still to this point under contention. The amount of people who use elixirs and alchemical remedies is pretty slim at best, and if extracts are out because they're too powerful, then mutagens should be out for the same exact reasoning; not to mention, because it gives penalties, beckons the question of whether it's a "potable" liquid.
Yes, there were parts in the original that were broken and needed to be fixed, but nuking the feat into practical uselessness is as much of a fix as throwing a broken computer out of a window onto the street and watching it crash and shatter into a thousand pieces. That's not a fix, that's an effective removal of something that we supposedly didn't want.
You only have one or two mutagens in a day, while you have a lot of extracts, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to allow them. Some GMs will decide to extend the exclusion to cover mutagens, though, so I listed them as only probably allowed. As for the "potable" argument, that seems overly nitpicky and incorrect to me. Alcohol gives penalties and is potable, after all.
The feat is not practically useless, certain not to a hyperbolic computer-smashed-into-a-thousand-pieces degree. If you can draw a potion or other potable as a swift action, then it's an improvement to your buffing and status-removal action economy. Status removal especially- being able to remove the limiting condition the round of and still take your standard action is useful- remove fear on a psychic caster, blindness on anybody, or delay poison to deal with after combat, without needing to give up your round's casting. There's now a Druid's Nature Bond option that allows making multiple free potions (not just extracts) every day if you want a combo that's still a little broken.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Several of which are used before combat begins, or are divided amongst party members in the case of Infusions. You might use Extracts twice as much, but the odds of using a Mutagen during combat is pretty slim, since it has a crazy-long duration, meaning you'll have it chugged before any adventuring day begins.
It's useless in that the kinds of characters who would most likely take the feat (Alchemists/Investigators) can't use it in the manner of which they would likely take the feat for (Extracts); not to mention, the action economy isn't as good as it was (though if they were already utilizing a Swift Action each turn, it'd certainly promote difficult choices). On top of that, the biggest contention of the feat (what constitutes a "potable" liquid) still isn't answered. While I haven't actually called it an incompetent fix just yet, I wouldn't blame people for doing just that.
Also, a Druid Nature Bond which makes potions for free? What the hell sourcebook is that from?
Eh, fair point on combat mutagen not being a great choice for anything but a surprise attack. It's not good for a full adventuring day until later in your career, though.
It's less useful if you restrict it to Alchemists and Investigators, who get the least benefit from it. You can just go out and buy potions, after all. Not a bad fit for Witch if you want crafted potions, though. I'm just saying that there are still reasonable uses for it. I'd like it a lot more without a deity restriction, but as mentioned, that shouldn't really be factored into power. If you want to view an unclear definition of "potable" as problematic, go ahead. I'll just be using "is it non-excluded and drinkable?" as my test.
It's from Healer's Handbook. The free potions are harder to sell than regular ones.
So another rule question. If you took this feat do you get to retrain it for free? What about all the items that were purchased to utilize the feat?
I imagine there was something permitted along those lines in relation to PFS. Otherwise, no. If you took the feat pre-errata, you're stuck with it post-errata unless your table allows retraining via Ultimate Campaign (which costs money and time).