New Potion Glutton vs Accelerated Drinker


Rules Questions

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
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.

And here is the issue: if you start with a flawed premise, you can't get a correct logical deduction.

The feat is still usefull for caracters who can get a potion as a swift action (for example, characters with the possesed hand feat, vanaras, tieflings with a prehenshile tail, or characters with an extra limb that can have a potion ready while enjoying normal combat, like a character with prehensile hair.

To those characters, the feat still gives them the option to buff themselves with a lvl 1 to 3 spell (like Enlarge person, reduce person, resist energy, haste, fly, bull's strength, heroism...) as a move action, and still have the standard action for another buff (like a spell)

That's far from "practical uselessness". It might not work for every single character in the game, as it did before. It might not be a completely broken feat for alchemists and investigators. It's no longer a no brainer in any optimized build that self-buff.

But it's far from uselessness. Not every feat need to be A++ deluxe ultra cyan blue lvl in every class guide. In fact, it's a good idea that they aren't, because power creep is an issue. A good feat is a feat that gives width to the number of options you have. A good feat is a feat that is good in some builds, but not others.

There's nothing wrong with that feat, other than it no longer works for what you wanted it. But it's still a feat that transform Enlarge Person, one of the best low level buffs, from 1 round casting to move action.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Red Griffyn wrote:
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?

If a feat is drastically errata-ed you're allowed to retrain it to another feat with no prerequisites for free.

I took Improved Unarmed Strike, which has actually been useful for surprise attacks. Studied Combat, Power Attack and Str 16 makes for a decent punch even when you're not a monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The feat is still usefull for caracters who can get a potion as a swift action (for example, characters with the possesed hand feat, vanaras, tieflings with a prehenshile tail, or characters with an extra limb that can have a potion ready while enjoying normal combat, like a character with prehensile hair.

So in this case what benefit does Potion Glutton confer over Accelerated Drinker, given that they could use a swift on their previous turn to draw the potion or just have it on-hand in an extra limb?


Alchemaic wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The feat is still usefull for caracters who can get a potion as a swift action (for example, characters with the possesed hand feat, vanaras, tieflings with a prehenshile tail, or characters with an extra limb that can have a potion ready while enjoying normal combat, like a character with prehensile hair.
So in this case what benefit does Potion Glutton confer over Accelerated Drinker, given that they could use a swift on their previous turn to draw the potion or just have it on-hand in an extra limb?

That's why status-removal is probably the big differences. You can get a lot of removal-worthy statuses in combat, but you don't know when or what. On your turn, swift action draw, move action to drink, and the standard action is unimpeded by the condition.

Scarab Sages

Alchemaic wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The feat is still usefull for caracters who can get a potion as a swift action (for example, characters with the possesed hand feat, vanaras, tieflings with a prehenshile tail, or characters with an extra limb that can have a potion ready while enjoying normal combat, like a character with prehensile hair.
So in this case what benefit does Potion Glutton confer over Accelerated Drinker, given that they could use a swift on their previous turn to draw the potion or just have it on-hand in an extra limb?

Potion Glutton doesn't provoke when drinking, Accelerated Drinker does. Potion Glutton can be used in the same round that you draw a potion with a swift action. Most characters don't walk around with a potion in hand (or in tail), so if unexpected combat breaks out, you could swift draw a potion, move drink it, and standard attack or cast a spell all on round one.

For my character that does have Accelerated Drinker, I will from time to time carry a potion in hand in a dungeon setting. But even then there's a trade off, because he uses a Longspear with Combat Reflexes, and he can't wield it when one hand is holding a potion. It lets me round 1 move action enlarge, swift action Battle Cry, and standard action Divine Favor (or Prayer for party buff), then 5-foot step into position for AoOs, but if I lose initiative I miss out on a likely AoO before I can get all of those things going. Potion Glutton wouldn't really help me in that situation. Plus, he's Lawful Good and worships Torag and isn't going to convert to Urgathoa anyway.


Alchemaic wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:


The feat is still usefull for caracters who can get a potion as a swift action (for example, characters with the possesed hand feat, vanaras, tieflings with a prehenshile tail, or characters with an extra limb that can have a potion ready while enjoying normal combat, like a character with prehensile hair.
So in this case what benefit does Potion Glutton confer over Accelerated Drinker, given that they could use a swift on their previous turn to draw the potion or just have it on-hand in an extra limb?

That you can do it in the first round, instead of needing to plan a round before. That even if you plan it the round before (ie: I'm going to drink this heroism potion the next round) you can change your mind (ie: let's drink this potion of fire resist instead, because the bad guy casted Flaming Sphere). That you dont get attacked by a AoO (hint: which could be a sunder to your potion). That Glutton is not a Combat Trait, and therefore doesn't preclude you from taking Armor Expert, Cautious Fighter, defender of the society, dirty fighter, deft dodger or reactionary, all of them good traits.

It's easily twice as good. Which is what it should be. Drinking potions as swift is waaaaay better than your average feat, even if extracts aren't allowed. Quicken Enlarge Person is a 5th lvl spell that cost a feat and a 5th lvl slot.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
It's easily twice as good. Which is what it should be. Drinking potions as swift is waaaaay better than your average feat, even if extracts aren't allowed. Quicken Enlarge Person is a 5th lvl spell that cost a feat and a 5th lvl slot.

Oh, it was beyond way too good for its cost; compare it to

Assured Drinker wrote:
Assured Drinker (Ex): No one can stop you from imbibing, even in combat. You don't provoke attacks of opportunity when drinking an elixir, extract, or potion. As a swift action, you can expend one use of mythic power to retrieve and drink an elixir, extract, or potion.

That's a Trickster mythic path feature. *New* Potion Glutton is *still* almost as good as something that only a mythic character of a particular mythic path can take.


James Risner wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
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.

Almost all of the FAQs I think are reasonable.

I'm talking about errata.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

_Ozy_ wrote:
I'm talking about errata.

Me too, in fact I think I'm 100% on errata as nearly all of the main issues were key thinks winning multiple yearly PVP competitions:

Soundstriker Weird Words
Scared witch Doctor
Triple Cha to AC making untouchable 68 touch AC

That's just three I've thought of right now on the spot. I don't recall a single errata that shouldn't have been consider an improvement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not quite the metric I was using. Feats/abilities that are overpowered needs to be dealt with, so anything including nuking from orbit is an 'improvement' from that standpoint.

However, when erratas nuke a feat or ability to nigh uselessness, it's an overreaction that could be avoided by being a bit more judicious.

For example, Divine Protection. Originally overpowered. Now, nigh useless. An 'improvement'? Sure, now you no longer have an overpowered feat that unbalances the game. Still, an example of 'nuking from orbit'.

Another one: Precise Strike with regard to the Magus and Arcane Deed.

Another one: Ring of Inner Fortitude. There's was no need to add the part about canceling benefits if you are immune to associated penalties/damage then you don't get the benefits, and it opens up a whole can of worms.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Divine Protection was a fundementally broken feat, as currently it's hard to get Cha to AC without 2 or more levels in a class. Handing it out for 3 feats to every divine class (iirc) would be a go to feat in any Cha based PVP build. Essentially a "you don't need 2 levels of Paladin" option for 100% of builds.

I can't comment on Precise Strike/Magus/Arcane Deed, link?

Ring of Inner Fortitude is an example of a long standing rules system concept. In 3.0/3.5 they wrote things with the idea that you can't get a benefit when you are immune to the detriment you pay for the benefit. People who didn't detect or understand that bought the ring and made themselves immune to the harmful effects. That was added because it wasn't apparent to some they shouldn't be looking to gain something in exchange for something else and make themselves immune to the something else.

So in this case, Divine Protection and Ring of Inner Fortitude shouldn't have been published the way they were and were fixed. To protect the game and how it works together.


I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.


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

Divine Protection was a fundementally broken feat, as currently it's hard to get Cha to AC without 2 or more levels in a class. Handing it out for 3 feats to every divine class (iirc) would be a go to feat in any Cha based PVP build. Essentially a "you don't need 2 levels of Paladin" option for 100% of builds.

I can't comment on Precise Strike/Magus/Arcane Deed, link?

Ring of Inner Fortitude is an example of a long standing rules system concept. In 3.0/3.5 they wrote things with the idea that you can't get a benefit when you are immune to the detriment you pay for the benefit. People who didn't detect or understand that bought the ring and made themselves immune to the harmful effects. That was added because it wasn't apparent to some they shouldn't be looking to gain something in exchange for something else and make themselves immune to the something else.

So in this case, Divine Protection and Ring of Inner Fortitude shouldn't have been published the way they were and were fixed. To protect the game and how it works together.

They erratad Arcane Deed such that your Magus levels didn't count as swashbuckler levels, so no extra damage from Precise Strike.

Divine Protection was to saves, not AC. And I agree that it was fundamentally broken, as I said. As I also said, that's not the point of any of this. The point was that they nuked the feat when they could have just reigned it in a bit...or just got rid of it altogether.

As far as the 'long standing rules system' that actually is false. The Vest of Stable mutation specifically prevents the penalties associated with Mutagens. That's it's whole purpose, and yet you keep the mutagen bonus.

Can a barbarian rage with a ring of inner fortitude, or does the fact that it negates the penalties from fatigue mean that you can't get the rage benefit?

If I'm an alchemist with a Cognatogen, does putting the ring on immediately end the effect? Does it prevent the post-Cognatogen stat damage anyways? In which case, it's still useful regardless of the errata for that particular use case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.

Not sure if sarcasm. Very much looks like it would be.

@ _Ozy_: If your Magus levels don't count as Swashbuckler levels, then how are you ever able to take a Swashbuckler Deed with that feature, since each one of them requires at least 1st level Swashbuckler just to take?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.

Not sure if sarcasm. Very much looks like it would be.

@ _Ozy_: If your Magus levels don't count as Swashbuckler levels, then how are you ever able to take a Swashbuckler Deed with that feature, since each one of them requires at least 1st level Swashbuckler just to take?

Exactly


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

Divine Protection was a fundementally broken feat, as currently it's hard to get Cha to AC without 2 or more levels in a class. Handing it out for 3 feats to every divine class (iirc) would be a go to feat in any Cha based PVP build. Essentially a "you don't need 2 levels of Paladin" option for 100% of builds.

I can't comment on Precise Strike/Magus/Arcane Deed, link?

Ring of Inner Fortitude is an example of a long standing rules system concept. In 3.0/3.5 they wrote things with the idea that you can't get a benefit when you are immune to the detriment you pay for the benefit. People who didn't detect or understand that bought the ring and made themselves immune to the harmful effects. That was added because it wasn't apparent to some they shouldn't be looking to gain something in exchange for something else and make themselves immune to the something else.

So in this case, Divine Protection and Ring of Inner Fortitude shouldn't have been published the way they were and were fixed. To protect the game and how it works together.

Charisma to AC is a very big different benefit than Charisma to Saves. The fact you actually understand the intent of the subject in question at all is a miracle if you don't even know for sure what it is that the subject actually grants you.

As far as handing it out for three feats, I don't recall it requiring three feats, merely that you had ranks in Knowledge Religion and the Mysteries or Domains class feature. It was really only overpowered for Oracles (as they were pure Charisma), since they were the only ones who super-pumped it and actually met the requirements, and it was otherwise only convenient for Clerics who gave a damn about Channel Energy (most all of them don't these days). Other than them, an Inquisitor, or Druid who selected Domains, it wasn't really that great since neither class had a desire for Charisma (and usually dumped it as a result), and nobody else would be able to meet the pre-requisites.

All the above does is point out how much of a "Feast V.S. Famine" feat that is, and really, if we're going to suggest that "Feast V.S. Famine" is bad feat design, then there are so many other feats that need to be nuked into uselessness, like Power Attack for starters, and others that need to be buffed to actually function for what they're intended to be used for, like Prone Shooter and Monkey Lunge.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.

Not sure if sarcasm. Very much looks like it would be.

@ _Ozy_: If your Magus levels don't count as Swashbuckler levels, then how are you ever able to take a Swashbuckler Deed with that feature, since each one of them requires at least 1st level Swashbuckler just to take?

Exactly

Presumably the specific rules of Arcane Deed are enough to bypass that particular requirement. Here's the wording of the errata:

Quote:
Even if he gains a panache pool through another means, the magus is not considered to have at least 1 point in his panache pool for the purpose of deeds selected with arcane deed, and his effective swashbuckler level for determining such a deed's effect is 0.

So, you're considered to have 0 levels for determining the deed's effect.

I would be quite surprised if many (any?) Magi actually took the Arcane Deeds discovery post-errata, which seems like a big waste of Pathfinder Dev time and resources.


Gulthor wrote:
almost as good as something that only a mythic character of a particular mythic path can take.

... just pointing out that this isn't a metric of anything.

There are some mythic abilities that just aren't interesting.

I'd counter your assertion by saying that Assured Drinker is (and always has been, with or without this feat) a very lackluster mythic ability.

When you have the option to literally cast any spell I know that forces two saves and permits two attempts at overcoming SR (with a bonus equal to my tier) - or, heck, literally any spell available to my class at +2 effective CL - as a swift action or... drink a potion really fast?

I know which of those is vastly inferior without having to think about it long.

Incidentally, both of these abilities have the same limitation - "only a mythic character of a particular mythic path can take" - so it really isn't that high a bar to clear for rather phenomenal cosmic power. EDIT: Which, to be clear, this feat is not, and never really has been.

EDIT 2: I'd forgotten the, "+2 CL for level-dependent effects" tidbit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.

So changing the action from swift to move is is a clarification, and not a nerf? How does that follow?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ignore the type of AC vs Saves. It should be obvious I knew it was saves as I equated it to 2 levels of paladin. As for 3 feats, maybe they changed it or I miss remembered it had prereqs.

So ignoring my typos, the point is some things needed nuking because they fundamentally broke the system. I don't get why things like that are not more obvious to others.


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'm very happy with this errata as to me it is a clarification not a nerf in any way. This is how it was supposed to be all along and was clearly the intent. I'm glad the written portion makes it clearer.
So changing the action from swift to move is is a clarification, and not a nerf? How does that follow?

Was referring to the fact it no longer means extracts are "potables". Once that was clarified most of the gaming community didn't care if it was swift or an hour.

Pretty sure the context of what I wrote would have shown that. But there you go


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sword wrote:

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 whole argument that "extracts don't count as potable" was pushed by the side trying to stop people from taking Potion Glutton.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Ignore the type of AC vs Saves. It should be obvious I knew it was saves as I equated it to 2 levels of paladin. As for 3 feats, maybe they changed it or I miss remembered it had prereqs.

So ignoring my typos, the point is some things needed nuking because they fundamentally broke the system. I don't get why things like that are not more obvious to others.

The requirements were Cha 13, 5 Ranks in Knowledge Religion, and the Domain/Mystery Class Features, as far as I know, which was most certainly not 3 feats.

It was basically any class that got a domain or mystery, which was Oracles, Clerics, and some Inquisitors and Druids, would be applicable for the feat. Oracles got the most imbalanced buff, Clerics would've gotten a minor increase (unless they said screw channeling), and it would've actually given Druids and Inquisitors a reason to actually have Charisma. Honestly, limiting the benefit to Domains only (since only Oracles possess the Mystery class feature, and was the only class that would receive a majorly imbalanced power boost) would've brought the power down respectively while keeping the benefit of the feat intact.

With that being said, why would you:

A. Publish an obviously broken option in certain conditions, the likes of which are most likely going to be the only conditions being fulfilled.

and then

B. Subsequently proceed to nuke said option into uselessness.

When:

C. Not publishing the broken option in the first place, and doing away with the nuked useless option entirely with another printing that limited its power by reducing its target audience (AKA no Mystery class feature requirement).

Is the obviously better solution?

The former is just a waste of time and publishing power. The latter required a simple revision to accomplish the goal in a better and more appropriate fashion without absolutely destroying the feat's original function or power.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with Divine Protection was not that it was powerful for oracles, but that it was powerful for oracle dips.

With one level into oracle (lore, for example), your average sorcerer, summoner, bard, eldritch scion magus and even mysterius stranger gunslinger, etc got CHA to AC, and CHA to saves. That's about +7 to +9 to AC and Saves for those classes/archetypes, which is indeed beyond the expected lvl of a feat.

Making the entry barrier a Domain will help a bit, as it has less sinergies, but in many cases, those clases can just take one level of cleric, inquisitor or druid. they won't get the AC, but they'll get the saves. In many cases, that's all what they wanted, as some of those classes used Armor (high CHA cavaliers), or had high dex anyway (mysterious stranger gunslinger, swashbucklers, scimitar eldritch scion magus, archer bards, scimitar/fencing bards,etc)

The problem is the design. It's a,feat that escalates with level and power. That's a design which is prone to optimization by default. Make it a flat +2 luck o maybe sacred bonus to all saves, if you have a domain, mystery, etc, and it is still useful for everybody (including Oracles), and actually better than, say, iron will. But has stronger requirements, and gives a typed bonus (even if an uncommon one), so while it's better than iron will (a nice feat), it is not overpoweringly better. It's something you grab if you like it, and you can meet the prereq, not something you are literally planning to give up an entire class level for it because it is extremely powerful like that

A Feat that gives you a flat +9 to all saves, constantly, is too powerful, regardless of the entry requirements. It is probably too powerful for paladin's divine grace too, although that one is hidden behind 2 lvls and a LG code of conduct.

The approach they took with Kensai INT to AC is better, I think. You get +1/lvl, up to your INT. That way it's a bonus for kensais (who lose other things for it), not for INT classes that dip into kensai 1.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The former is just a waste of time and publishing power.

That is how the publishing industry works.

Freelancers write parts.
Employees write parts.
Employees scan and edit parts written by freelancers.
Employees sometimes don't detect, notice, or realize synergies (because <100 people can't dream up what >1000 customers can.)

So it gets published with broken material. If the broken doesn't warp the game around it, then it stays. If it warps the game like synthesis summoner, divine protection, jingasa, weird words, scared witch doctor, and multiple abilities to the same stat then it needs to be addressed for the health of the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The former is just a waste of time and publishing power.

That is how the publishing industry works.

Freelancers write parts.
Employees write parts.
Employees scan and edit parts written by freelancers.
Employees sometimes don't detect, notice, or realize synergies (because <100 people can't dream up what >1000 customers can.)

So it gets published with broken material. If the broken doesn't warp the game around it, then it stays. If it warps the game like synthesis summoner, divine protection, jingasa, weird words, scared witch doctor, and multiple abilities to the same stat then it needs to be addressed for the health of the game.

Sometimes I disagree with Paizo's ability to judge what's overpowered, tho. For example, the Jingasa. In combination with Fate Favored, it was indeed powerful. But not because of the jingasa, but because of the trait, imho. The jingasa itself is not much more powerful than a Dusty Rose Ioun Stone, which is perfectly fine. Same thing happened with gunslingers dual wielding double pistols with alchemical amunitios and weapon cord. They originally ruled against free actions. That was a mess, because it affected a lot of things (like drawing arrows from a quiver). Ruling the weapon cord was way easier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I cannot check the FAQs right now because the website is wonky as all heck, but I'd like to argue a few facts.

Yes, while the Paizo writers will undoubtedly miss something in the publication of new work (due to the nature of the publishing industry) the subsequent fixes of the broken material is still often not satisfactory.

Divine Protection is a great example because the feat was utterly destroyed instead of being redirected towards its target audience. As previously explained the problem with Divine Protection was NOT solely because you could get 2 levels of Paladin in exchange for a feat. The problem was because it was able to be taken by a dipped class that used Cha as its primary stat.

What is the solution? Well, there are many solutions but given that the original audience was Domains and Mysteries (but Mystery users were OP) it would have made more sense to limit the feat to Domains only. Additionally, the problem is that dipping was too strong. Thus a level limiter could be added instead or in addition to the pre-requisites.

For instance, if Divine Protection could only be selected by 6th level Druids or Clerics. This would encourage an investment in Charisma for those two classes who normally ignore Charisma, and would improve their ability to channel energy/wild empathy respectively.

Now if other classes want Charisma to saves, they are better off dipping 2 levels into Paladin than taking 6 levels of Cleric or Druid. Meanwhile Druids and Clerics have some extra defense. Charisma based classes are left out to dry, the feat is fixed.

Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier is another example of an item that got broken over the knees by a nerf that really only needed to nudge the item to remove it from being a must buy item. First off, as an item there were many different levers available to paizo to change the item. Most notably the gold cost of the item could have been increased. The item could have been altered into a several stage item such as Lesser, Normal, and Greater. The one of the problems with the Jingasa was that it negated criticals completely, and how often does the GM manage to confirm a crit vs a PC? So simply nerfing it to function once per day as Fortification working as the level of the Helmet would have made more sense than removing that feature almost entirely. Lesser for light, Normal for Medium, and Greater for Heavy Fortification.

Fate's Favored was a slight problem, but the item was 5000 gold for +2 AC. You know what gets you +2 AC for 2000 gold? +1 armor and shield. Now obviously the luck bonus stacked ontop of that, but if that was really the problem the luck bonus could have been made an untyped bonus so that nothing would boost it.

However, making the item provide the critical negation once ever and changing the defense bonus from a luck bonus to a deflection bonus made the item a worse, non-upgradable, 3000 gold pricier ring of Protection. It ruined the item, which is a shame because no matter what people claim Pathfinder HAS staple items that are in every build. Having the helmet be a must buy was not the problem, the problem was its powers and it would have been better to ease its power back slowly rather than turn the item into sell fodder.

These are the types of nerfs that I despise. Not when something is banned from PFS play, not when something is lightly tapped, nor when something is brought into line with proper action economy. I hate when an option is simply nuked into the dust because no one could take the time and care to nerf it right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ShroudedInLight wrote:
I cannot check the FAQs right now because the website is wonky as all heck, but I'd like to argue a few facts.

Check again. The FAQ pages are perfectly accessible to me, even with much of the rest of the site being messed up at the moment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah, FAQs are working. My thanks David.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

The problem with Divine Protection was not that it was powerful for oracles, but that it was powerful for oracle dips.

With one level into oracle (lore, for example), your average sorcerer, summoner, bard, eldritch scion magus and even mysterius stranger gunslinger, etc got CHA to AC, and CHA to saves. That's about +7 to +9 to AC and Saves for those classes/archetypes, which is indeed beyond the expected lvl of a feat.

Making the entry barrier a Domain will help a bit, as it has less sinergies, but in many cases, those clases can just take one level of cleric, inquisitor or druid. they won't get the AC, but they'll get the saves. In many cases, that's all what they wanted, as some of those classes used Armor (high CHA cavaliers), or had high dex anyway (mysterious stranger gunslinger, swashbucklers, scimitar eldritch scion magus, archer bards, scimitar/fencing bards,etc)

The problem is the design. It's a,feat that escalates with level and power. That's a design which is prone to optimization by default. Make it a flat +2 luck o maybe sacred bonus to all saves, if you have a domain, mystery, etc, and it is still useful for everybody (including Oracles), and actually better than, say, iron will. But has stronger requirements, and gives a typed bonus (even if an uncommon one), so while it's better than iron will (a nice feat), it is not overpoweringly better. It's something you grab if you like it, and you can meet the prereq, not something you are literally planning to give up an entire class level for it because it is extremely powerful like that

A Feat that gives you a flat +9 to all saves, constantly, is too powerful, regardless of the entry requirements. It is probably too powerful for paladin's divine grace too, although that one is hidden behind 2 lvls and a LG code of conduct.

The approach they took with Kensai INT to AC is better, I think. You get +1/lvl, up to your INT. That way it's a bonus for kensais (who lose other things for it), not for INT classes that dip into...

Well, that's one avenue I didn't consider, nice job pointing it out.

I'd say making it a flat +1 Sacred/Profane Bonus to all saves (based on alignment) would've been appropriate and not game-breaking.

The problem with the Kensai approach is how you can make a feat scale like that. I suppose you could say "+1 per level in a class that grants the Domain/Mystery class features," but you'll still run into the "Oracles are OP" problem that was originally proposed. I'd otherwise agree.

@ James Risner: I don't remember Paizo products being freelanced. If they are, then that's the source of the problem. Even if the freelancer produces good content (that is, Paizo likes the flavor and concepts they're trying to make), they didn't make or were a part of designing the rules. Therefore, using somebody who didn't make the rules to write content in concert with the rules is akin to having a new band member create music in an already-established band. Needless to say, it can create awkward situations and discrepancies; or more bluntly, be the source of the problem plaguing the issue at hand.

And because they're the low man on the totem pole, they usually are the source of the problem, because they don't make the rules. The manager(s) (Paizo) do(es). Therefore, the likelihood of the freelancer screwing things up because they don't make (or apparently understand) the rules is basically 100% of the time.

That's not to knock any freelancers that Paizo is using, it's merely demonstrating that freelancers in general are going to create problems like this simply because what they're being asked to do is something that they, by nature of consistency and accuracy, shouldn't be doing.

In other words, it's simply the paradigm of how rules creation is, and unfortunately, the freelancers are on the shaft end of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In my comment about Kensai, I was comparing it to the paladin's Divibe Grace, which also give a dirext Cha to Saves bonus, which is too powerful for dips. In this case it's used less as a dip, because of the 2 lvl tax, but specially because of the LG paladin code. If you put divine grace as a Cleric feature, I suspect a lot of Cha based clases (like bards, for example) would get it. It's too good. But wizards don't dip into kensai magus. That's why I think it is better designed. I agree that it's harder to do with a feat. Feats are harder to balance than class features, because anyone can take them. Even classes not yet desigbed could take them in a future. That's too broad to balance, hence thecfeats should try to err on tge safe side. Divine prot, or Glutton, are too powerful compared to iron will, or quicken spell. And those two are blue level feats in any class guide. When a feat is clearly better choice than a considered very good feat, it went too far


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
In my comment about Kensai, I was comparing it to the paladin's Divibe Grace, which also give a dirext Cha to Saves bonus, which is too powerful for dips. In this case it's used less as a dip, because of the 2 lvl tax, but specially because of the LG paladin code. If you put divine grace as a Cleric feature, I suspect a lot of Cha based clases (like bards, for example) would get it. It's too good. But wizards don't dip into kensai magus. That's why I think it is better designed. I agree that it's harder to do with a feat. Feats are harder to balance than class features, because abtobe xan take tgen. Even classes not yet desigbed could take them in a future. That's too broad to balance, hence thecfeats should try to err on tge safe side. Divine prot, or Glutton, are too powerful compared to iron will, or quicken spell. And those two are blue level feats in any class guide. When a feat is clearly better choice than a considered very good feat, it went too far

Another good suggestion for fixing Divine Favor/OP Paladin Dips, Cha to saves up to +1 per class level.

And to be fair to potion glutton, using the whole Alchemist spell list as move action spells is absurdly overpowered. Any ability that effects the action economy that much is almost certainly unintentional and this version (while not OP OP) is much more reasonable.

I would argue, however, that power creep is not necessarily a problem with feats because of Paizo's absurd number of feats. When there are literally over 1000 different feats to choose from, some feats are going to be better than others. Simply comparing one feat to another is not a good way to judge the feat's power, rather it is important to consider the state of play and the feat's effect upon it.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
@ James Risner: I don't remember Paizo products being freelanced. If they are, then that's the source of the problem.

Industry standard, Paizo is in the industry.

Take Advanced Class Guide credits, the following names are not Paizo full time employees:
Dennis Baker
Ross Byers
Jesse Benner
Savannah Broadway
Jim Groves
Tim Hitchcock
Tracy Hurley
Jonathan H. Keith
Will McCardell
Dale C. McCoy, Jr
Tom Phillips
Thomas M. Reid
Tork Shaw
Russ Taylor
Patrick Renie

I pruned this list from memory, so if I inappropriately listed someone as "non-staff" when they are staff please excuse my ignorance.

In short, books are written in part (and rarely in full) by freelancers. Then the staff make develop/design/edit passes before publishing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay.

But it doesn't change the point that I made.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:

Ignore the type of AC vs Saves. It should be obvious I knew it was saves as I equated it to 2 levels of paladin. As for 3 feats, maybe they changed it or I miss remembered it had prereqs.

So ignoring my typos, the point is some things needed nuking because they fundamentally broke the system. I don't get why things like that are not more obvious to others.

Well, I guess you have the Dev team philosophy down pat.

No, it didn't need nuking it needed fixing.

There is actually a difference between the two.


_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Ignore the type of AC vs Saves. It should be obvious I knew it was saves as I equated it to 2 levels of paladin. As for 3 feats, maybe they changed it or I miss remembered it had prereqs.

So ignoring my typos, the point is some things needed nuking because they fundamentally broke the system. I don't get why things like that are not more obvious to others.

Well, I guess you have the Dev team philosophy down pat.

No, it didn't need nuking it needed fixing.

There is actually a difference between the two.

*shrugs* Nuking is all right, too. Most feats are weak options compared to, say, Extra Rage Power. If a feat is brought in line with normal feats, then it's probably going to be a weak option as a result.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
_Ozy_ wrote:
James Risner wrote:

Ignore the type of AC vs Saves. It should be obvious I knew it was saves as I equated it to 2 levels of paladin. As for 3 feats, maybe they changed it or I miss remembered it had prereqs.

So ignoring my typos, the point is some things needed nuking because they fundamentally broke the system. I don't get why things like that are not more obvious to others.

Well, I guess you have the Dev team philosophy down pat.

No, it didn't need nuking it needed fixing.

There is actually a difference between the two.

*shrugs* Nuking is all right, too. Most feats are weak options compared to, say, Extra Rage Power. If a feat is brought in line with normal feats, then it's probably going to be a weak option as a result.

Not really.

Nuking an option not only makes that option obsolete and no longer playable, but it also takes up publishing space for something that was supposed to do something worthwhile, but actually doesn't anymore. In other words, that useless feat could've been replaced with a feat that's useful (even if it's niche), and thereby increasing the popularity and value of that product because its publishing space isn't squandered on useless stuff.

If anything, it's worse than leaving the option as it was, because for those campaigns who want high-powered and optimized PCs, they still have those options available (and the GM can ban the option at his table if he doesn't want it; even in the case of PFS, they simply ban options outright anyway, and it was already stated that Divine Protection was a banned feat before any errata was required).

In short, there's no reason to nuke the option when it can actually make the issue worse than what it originally was. Of course, what some people view as "nuking," others view as "balancing," but I'd prefer that Paizo's design philosophy isn't "For every good option, there needs to be 10 bad ones," because if that's what "balance" is, then quite frankly it's no wonder that optimized builds appear to be all the same types and pathes over and over again.

And unfortunately, when they do stuff like this (as if this is the first time they've nuked something into uselessness), either because the PDT can't agree on any other solution, or because they're too afraid of any other sort of backlash they'd get with other fixes, that design quota that I've mentioned appears to be more and more of a reality and less of a cynical approach.


ShroudedInLight wrote:


I would argue, however, that power creep is not necessarily a problem with feats because of Paizo's absurd number of feats. When there are literally over 1000 different feats to choose from, some feats are going to be better than others. Simply comparing one feat to another is not a good way to judge the feat's power, rather it is important to consider the state of play and the feat's effect upon it.

That's why nobody bats an eye if some new book comes with a feat that is better than Prone Shooter, which is an awful feat.

But, for example, Iron Will is not just a perfectly valid feat. It's a very good one. Iron Will is something most classes with low Will save should at least consider. It's "blue rated" in most guides, in particular guides of classes without Wisdom or without good will save. And Divine Protection is just 10 times better. Something is wrong when you are publishing a feat that flat out sweeps a very good feat under the carpet.

If someone comes with a slightly better version of "Skill Focus: Appraise", I would not call it Power Creep. But if somebody comes with a feat called "mortal attack", which happens to be like Power Attack but without any negative modifier to attack, THEN that's a sign of power creep. Power Attack is a top level feat, and at best you should provide "sidegrades" of it, like Piranha strike. Feats that are straight and simply better than Power attack and dump it into the dust, are a clear symptom of power creep.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But it doesn't change the point that I made.

It does actually.

Due to how these types of books are produced, some things that "need not be in the game for the health of the game" will get printed.

Good errata policy is to fix the broken, leave the "bleeding good but not broken" and the "worthless options" as is.

3.5 Errata/FAQ policy was a disaster as the system had tons of unfixed broken material with high variance in interpretations that devolved into ridiculous "RAW" interpretations being the predominate online opinion.

4e Errata/FAQ policy was also a failure where they tweaked everything continually (which didn't leave the "bleeding good" options alone.)

Paizo has the best mix. Nuke from orbit the seriously game breaking material. Leave the "bleeding good" alone. Print some "worthless options" so there is balance and some people might just like that option despite being under powered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
But it doesn't change the point that I made.

It does actually.

Due to how these types of books are produced, some things that "need not be in the game for the health of the game" will get printed.

Good errata policy is to fix the broken, leave the "bleeding good but not broken" and the "worthless options" as is.

3.5 Errata/FAQ policy was a disaster as the system had tons of unfixed broken material with high variance in interpretations that devolved into ridiculous "RAW" interpretations being the predominate online opinion.

4e Errata/FAQ policy was also a failure where they tweaked everything continually (which didn't leave the "bleeding good" options alone.)

Paizo has the best mix. Nuke from orbit the seriously game breaking material. Leave the "bleeding good" alone. Print some "worthless options" so there is balance and some people might just like that option despite being under powered.

Not really.

My point is that the industry standard that you say they follow is faulted, and changing how that industry standard is handled would reduce (or perhaps even eliminate) the "need not be in the game for the health of the game" options being present in the first place, which means more content for other, more worthwhile material, which means better overall products, which means better praise (and by relation, more recommendations for other potential consumers), which results in better profits from each corresponding product.

Or, to crunch it all down into one A->B equation, changing how the industry standard is handled would result in better profits from each corresponding product.

That's my point. And that's just one point that can branch off into other quality-of-life standards (such as spending more time on FAQs for actual, worthy questions, or producing even more content since they have to worry less about their existing products being inconsistent).

And I explained precisely the things that can be changed which would result in better products, which is the practical removal of "need not be in the game for the health of the game" options, which is done by sticking to Paizo employee publishers, because it's quite clear that freelancers can't make options that actually adhere to the rules properly.

And again, it's no fault of the freelancers, but of the paradigm that requires the original creators of the rules to create more rules. Because anyone else creating rules, even in the form of character options, doesn't have the same design principles or values of the original creators, as evidenced by all the FAQ-ratta that nerfed the options that these freelancers created into uselessness; publishing space that could've been better spent on superior, rules-approved options that the developers could've created themselves.

3.X came at a time before the internet hitting the mainstream, and all of the benefits of electronic documentation referentiality, and even at that point, the rules were at-best limited to what the GM said at the time. Same can be said for 2nd AD&D and 1st Edition D&D, because they were likewise at a time where internet and electronics weren't mainstream.

4e is probably how most online games are currently done, and attempted to apply an online game solution to a product that required more consistency (hardcover books).

With that last bit, all you did is confirm my suspicions about Paizo's design theory ("For every good option, there needs to be 10 bad options"), which means I've been correct this whole time in that usually, whenever they nuke an option, it's because the design theory quota is upset, and thus they need a victim (or two or twelve) to restore the quota balance.

**EDIT**

Also, since you seem to know every single thing that Paizo has going on for some unexplained reason, why aren't you working for them?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

The amount of profits in the entire RPG industry according to ICv2 was $25 million in 2015. Paizo is just part of that and so is WotC and every other smaller game publisher.

In short, there simply isn't enough revenue to intact you plan and no guarantee your plan would product more profits. So there is no incentive to work harder to "get it right" at first. Plus Apple, Google, Magic the Gathering and Microsoft try to get their software right and still have issues caught when it goes to the masses. So it also is impossible for a small team to catch all issues. For example WotC just banded 3 cards from magic from current sets because they got it wrong on power level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Using free lancers is not an option for a company like Paizo. They could not survive paying all those dudes a full wage and making them part of the staff. And Paizo is, in gact, big for RPG standards. The rest of the RPG industry would have even worse to mantain all those free lancers as full time jobs. Many of these free lancers work in different products from different companies, who "share" this way the burden of the salary. Many others have full time jobs somewhere else and work in this,industry as a hobby or for a bit extra moneyy.

I think many people don't realize how TINY the RPG industry is.

In the ideal world, everything they publish would be correctly balanced. But in real world, that's not possible. As mentioned above, even Magic The Gathering, a business that is ten times bigger, and playtest more because of its competitive nature, release cards that they need to ban or restrict later. You can't always foresee all the interactions of a rule, and how much would people try to exploit a vague wording.

Some if their mistakes, tho, arw inexcusable. You don't need a deep playtest to know Divine Protection is far better than Iron Will. And they should learn about that mistake, and be VERY careful about feats or traits that allow you to use an ability or other escaling stat (like BAB, caster level or skill rankd) for saves or AC. Things that mess with action economy, like Glutton, should be also used with caution


Freelancing can be a good way to break into an industry. It is not something you necessarily do full time. You could have a day job or be in school and then work in your off time trying to get freelancing jobs.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PFS already nuked it in this fashion. So I'm used to it. That being said, my warpriest used it up until retirement.

Move action to retrieve the potion from his handy haversack, swift to drink, then standard to vital strike (with greater weapon of the chosen to roll twice) something into Urgathoa's loving embrace with my scythe (usually after my wife had butterfly stinged it up for me).

After PFS already made this change, that just turned into free action -> remove from gloves of storing, move action to drink (and not provoke!), and then hit them.

It's incredibly useful, especially before you get an iterative attack. And don't need to move. Though, the gloves are expensive, so it's less useful now unless you have a way to retrieve items that don't cost a move/standard.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

How are you moving to drink? Unless you mean free action to remove on turn 1 then move to drink on turn 2?

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
How are you moving to drink? Unless you mean free action to remove on turn 1 then move to drink on turn 2?

He's talking about Potion Glutton, not Accelerated Drinker. Potion Glutton does not have the requirement that you start the round with the potion in hand. So if you have a way to free/swift take a potion out, then you can drink it as a Move action (without provoking).

Grand Lodge

Ferious Thune wrote:
James Risner wrote:
How are you moving to drink? Unless you mean free action to remove on turn 1 then move to drink on turn 2?
He's talking about Potion Glutton, not Accelerated Drinker. Potion Glutton does not have the requirement that you start the round with the potion in hand. So if you have a way to free/swift take a potion out, then you can drink it as a Move action (without provoking).

Sorry, yes. I was talking about Potion Glutton specifically.

Though to be (un)fair one could make an argument that if the potion was in a glove of storing then it could be in hand because it shrinks down and is held in the palm of the glove--and if something in your palm isn't in hand then there's some etymological nonsense going on.
I'd be inclined to disallow this, but if a player wanted to spend 10,000g and a trait to do this (for a single pre-defined potion at a time), there are far more broken things they could do so it'd probably be fine to let them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

++ yes sorry right

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / New Potion Glutton vs Accelerated Drinker All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.