| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cayden Cailean's Blade and Tankard
Optional Replacement: A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler who worships Cayden Cailean can replace proficiency with shields or bucklers with the following initial benefit.Initial Benefit: You can wield a tankard (or mug) as a weapon, treating it in all ways as a light mace appropriate for your size. If you engage in two-weapon fighting with a rapier or light weapon in one hand and a tankard in the other, you can drink a potion or other liquid from the tankard or attempt to toss liquid from the tankard as a dirty trick combat maneuver (such as to blind a foe) in place of attacking with it. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity for attempting a dirty trick maneuver with a tankard.
Advanced Prerequisites: Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +10.
Optional Replacement: A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler of at least 10th level who worships Cayden Cailean can replace a bonus feat or deed with the following advanced benefit, even if he doesn’t meet the prerequisites.
Advanced Benefit: You can refill your tankard with a beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial as a swift action. You gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to perform dirty tricks with tankards. The effects of such a dirty trick lasts for 1d4 rounds + 1 round for every 5 points by which the result of your combat maneuver check exceeds the target’s CMD; a standard action is required for the target to remove this penalty.
The operative phrase: "If you engage in two-weapon fighting with a rapier or light weapon in one hand and a tankard in the other, you can drink a potion or other liquid from the tankard or attempt to toss liquid from the tankard as a dirty trick combat maneuver (such as to blind a foe) in place of attacking with it." Plausibly, this includes infused extracts, at least with the Infusion discovery:
When the alchemist creates an extract, he can infuse it with an extra bit of his own magical power. The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots. An infused extract can be imbibed by a non-alchemist to gain its effects.
By RAW, is there any reason why an alchemist couldn't infuse an extract, put it in their tankard, and then quaff it in place of their off-hand attacks?
(And, also by RAW, couldn't an alchemist with the feat's advanced benefit of the feat a swift action to refill their tankard to do it again the next round?)
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemists drink their extracts. They are clearly liquids, hence fall under "other liquid." Quaffing one from the tankard is just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And there's a reason they had to errata in "but not extracts" to Potion Glutton. Unless they do that to Cayden Cailean's DFT too, it works on extracts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be well and good if the text were only about potions, but it is about potions and other liquids and the latter is what extracts fall under.
The divine fighting techniques are from player companions written years after Potion Glutton came out. It's unreasonable to think they weren't well aware by then that they were including extracts by not explicitly excluding them.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extract != potion or other liquid.
You are correct that extracts do not equal the entire set of liquids. But the entire set of liquids does contain extracts.
The problem is, of course, Cayden's divine fighting technique has an obviously unintended consequence when used in concert with extracts. This really needs a FAQ(as we both know it can't get an errata).
But I would suggest to all, despite the exact text, not to use this combination due to RAI.
|
|
That would be well and good if the text were only about potions, but it is about potions and other liquids and the latter is what extracts fall under.
The divine fighting techniques are from player companions written years after Potion Glutton came out. It's unreasonable to think they weren't well aware by then that they were including extracts by not explicitly excluding them.
It's from a splat book. That makes it very reasonable to suggest they may have missed an implication. As it happens woefully often.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The divine fighting techniques are from player companions written years after Potion Glutton came out. It's unreasonable to think they weren't well aware by then that they were including extracts by not explicitly excluding them.
It's unreasonable to think they see things being misinterpreted that translates to making their rules more complex and longer to close off all the misinterpretations.
It's more reasonable to not misinterpret in the first place.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Potions and Extracts/Infusions have been treated different from each other on several occasions, I don't think this is an exception.
They're still liquids. You drink them like liquids; when it comes to infusions, you can store and distribute them like liquids (indeed, like potions). The fact that they're treated differently for some effects hardly implies that they should be treated differently for all effects.
It's unreasonable to think they see things being misinterpreted that translates to making their rules more complex and longer to close off all the misinterpretations.
It's more reasonable to not misinterpret in the first place.
Adding the line "You can't use this feat with extracts" would've hardly made it more complicated in any especially onerous way.
In fact, it's not obvious to me that my interpretation IS a misinterpretation. After all, you're hardly getting the quaff for free: you need to use a suboptimal weapon combination (two mismatched weapons), you give up an attack (one of your better attacks, if you want to benefit from the extract at the start of your turn), you have to start the encounter with the tankard in hand, and--until 10th level--you can't use the ability more than once per encounter without a prohibitive action cost. At 10th level, you still need a free hand to do the refilling, which I take it would mean either stowing the rapier for a bit or using a prehensile tail or something. And even then, you're spending a weapon attack and a swift action to use the extract, which is not nothing.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
They're still liquids. You drink them like liquids; when it comes to infusions, you can store and distribute them like liquids (indeed, like potions). The fact that they're treated differently for some effects hardly implies that they should be treated differently for all effects.
No, they are not liquids. They take a standard to drink. In general this ability is for alcohol (drunken master style) and other mundane liquids. They added potions for coolness, but pretty sure potions were just added for a boost.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, they are not liquids. They take a standard to drink.
If they were solid, you'd have to eat them. If they were gases, you'd have to inhale them. But you drink them, so they're liquids.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And there's a reason they had to errata in "but not extracts" to Potion Glutton. Unless they do that to Cayden Cailean's DFT too, it works on extracts.
I agree: As it stands, extracts work fine. If it ever gets an FAQ/errata, I expect it to get the Potion Glutton treatment though.
It's unreasonable to think they see things being misinterpreted that translates to making their rules more complex and longer to close off all the misinterpretations.
It's hardly a huge burden to add ',except extracts,' after "potion or other liquid" and the only complexity it adds is the one you think is intended... They added beverage to the list in the advanced feat so what's so hard with removing that and adding 'no extracts' up top?
It's more reasonable to not misinterpret in the first place.
It's unreasonable to NOT read the words on the page. As written, it works with extracts. We can argue RAI all day but that doesn't change how they worded it. Extracts are potion like items that you drink... Saying they aren't liquid is disingenuous.
They're still liquids. You drink them like liquids; when it comes to infusions, you can store and distribute them like liquids (indeed, like potions). The fact that they're treated differently for some effects hardly implies that they should be treated differently for all effects.No, they are not liquids. They take a standard to drink. In general this ability is for alcohol (drunken master style) and other mundane liquids. They added potions for coolness, but pretty sure potions were just added for a boost.
Now if they only WROTE mundane into the feat... Without that word there isn't the limit you're saying there is. For instance, would you say an elixir couldn't be used? It's NOT a mundane liquid or a potion. Is the RAI to not allow that either? And if not, why does that differ from the extract?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Syrup?No, they are not liquids. They take a standard to drink.If they were solid, you'd have to eat them. If they were gases, you'd have to inhale them. But you drink them, so they're liquids.
"A liquid is a nearly incompressible fluid that conforms to the shape of its container but retains a (nearly) constant volume independent of pressure. As such, it is one of the four fundamental states of matter (the others being solid, gas, and plasma), and is the only state with a definite volume but no fixed shape."
So not a gas, solid or plasma? It's a liquid... ;)
Drink
Verb: take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow
NOUN: a liquid that can be swallowed as refreshment or nourishment
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's hardly unprecedented for a player companion to publish grossly overpowered or under-edited material. It's neither possible to ascertain the author/developer had an actual intent, nor that their intent was subject to responsible adult supervision by the PDT (it never is) to try to ensure balance. The PFS clarifications and bans are the final editing pass and sanity check for player companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So not a gas, solid or plasma? It's a liquid... ;)
Outside chance of it being Bose-Einstein condensate, but that would probably hurt your tongue.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Divine Fighting Technique (Combat)
Divine fighting techniques emulate the martial supremacy and approach to combat of certain gods, but do not generally require users’ interests and goals to be aligned with the techniques’ associated deities.
Although each deity’s divine fighting technique is primarily preserved and passed on by her faithful, worship is not required to learn one. Instead, these fighting styles simply require a certain manner of looking at the world and specific combat training. A god’s divine fighting technique has an initial benefit as well as an advanced benefit available only if you meet certain prerequisites.
Any adventurer can learn a divine fighting technique by taking the Divine Fighting Technique feat. A cleric, inquisitor, or warpriest who worships a deity can always choose to give up either the first power of one of her domains or a minor blessing benefit to gain access to that god’s divine fighting technique without having to meet the Divine Fighting Techniques technique’s prerequisites (including the Divine Fighting Technique feat). In addition, a warpriest can always give up a major blessing to gain the advanced benefit without meeting its prerequisite. In a few cases, other classes can gain the benefits by sacrificing class features, as noted in the appropriate divine fighting techniques.
Prerequisite(s): Same alignment as chosen deity.
Benefit(s): Select a deity.
You can use that deity’s fighting technique and receive any benefit for which you qualify, as described in the Divine Fighting Techniques section below.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Each time you take this feat, it applies to a new deity’s divine fighting technique.
Divine Fighting Techniques
The following divine fighting techniques are available to all characters who take the Divine Fighting Technique feat or who worship the appropriate deity and give up the indicated class ability.
....
Blade and Tankard Style
Your god is famous for wading into battle with a tankard in his off-hand.
Optional Replacement: A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler who worships such a god can replace proficiency with shields or bucklers with the following initial benefit.
Initial Benefit(s): You can wield a tankard (or mug) as a weapon, treating it in all ways as a light mace appropriate for your size. If you engage in two-weapon fighting with a rapier or light weapon in one hand and a tankard in the other, you can drink a potion or other liquid from the tankard or attempt to toss liquid from the tankard as a dirty trick combat maneuver (such as to blind a foe) in place of attacking with it. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity for attempting a dirty trick maneuver with a tankard.
Advanced Prerequisite(s): Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +10.
Optional Replacement: A chaotic good fighter or swashbuckler of at least 10th level who worships such a god can replace a bonus feat or deed with the following advanced benefit, even if he doesn’t meet the prerequisites.
Advanced Benefit(s): You can refill your tankard with a beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial as a swift action. You gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to perform dirty tricks with tankards. The effects of such a dirty trick lasts for 1d4 rounds + 1 round for every 5 points by which the result of your combat maneuver check exceeds the target’s CMD; a standard action is required for the target to remove this penalty.
So, to be able to refill the tankard as a swift action you need:
- the Divine Fighting Technique feat- the Two-Weapon Fighting feat
- the Improved Two-Weapon Fighting feat
- base attack bonus +10
(but see below about handling the bottle or vial in wick you store your beverage) .
3 feats, alchemist level 14 to get what is a weaker form of quicken spell for alchemists.
To drink from the tankard you only need
- the Divine Fighting Technique feat
- the extract discovery.
The Two-Weapon Fighting feat would be suggested, ad it reduce your attack penalty, but not required.
Note that drinking from the tankard substitute your off hand attacks and provoke (it isn't a swift action, it substitute your off hand attacks).
Then there is a little catch: "You can refill your tankard with a beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial as a swift action." Yes, but you need to have access to that bottle or vial. Unless you have a tail or extra appendage (the vestigial arm discovery would help) you are forced to sheath or drop your weapon (the tankard is occupying your off hand) to draw a bottle.
All included it is probably a "once for battle" option, hoping that no one ever jolt your tankard arm and spill your extract (to avoid that, use of one of those German pewter tankards with a lid).
All included, I would allow it.
- * - * -
Considering that to have it work your alchemist would be constantly going around with a tankard with a specific extract in it encumbering his off hand, I don't see it as something worth it.
- * - * -
Edit: I thought the infusion discovery was needed, but it isn't. Eve if you put the tankard down to have two free hands for something, an extract will be again active as soon as the alchemist pick it up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Diego: "the extract discovery"?
The way I interpreted the advanced benefit, the swift action also included retrieving the liquid (but I could definitely be wrong).
But you're right, 14th level and 3 feats should allow this.
I meant the infusion discovery, I always confuse the two terms.
But effectively it is not needed. I will correct my post. I added a lot of afterthoughts earlier, too.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Someday I will petition for a sticky over the board that explains what a subset is
|
|
The way I interpreted the advanced benefit, the swift action also included retrieving the liquid (but I could definitely be wrong).
Maybe the writer meant that, but it is not spelled out anywhere. You still need a free appendage to do that and the appropriate action to retrieve the bottle/vial.
It is something nice to characterize a character, but to me it seem a way for a combatant to have a way to get access to a single potion while in combat, not a way to quickcast extracts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By RAW, is there any reason why an alchemist couldn't infuse an extract, put it in their tankard, and then quaff it in place of their off-hand attacks?
(And, also by RAW, couldn't an alchemist with the feat's advanced benefit of the feat a swift action to refill their tankard to do it again the next round?)
I'd say yes to the first, as long as the extract were already in the tankard.
For the second, you'd still need to retrieve the extract (normally a move action and requiring a free hand or other means*) before refilling the tankard as a swift action.
Of course, a Cailean fighting tankard makes refilling the tankard mostly a moot point.
*- The fighting style specifically calls out "two-weapon fighting with a rapier or light weapon in one hand and a tankard in the other." A prehensile tail, tentacle, or vestigial arm (among other, less common, methods) is required to meet the style and manipulate a bottle or vial.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the writer meant that, but it is not spelled out anywhere. You still need a free appendage to do that and the appropriate action to retrieve the bottle/vial.
The way I interpreted the advanced benefit, the swift action also included retrieving the liquid (but I could definitely be wrong).
Unless explicitly mentioned, it's best to consider that normal rules are in effect for retrieving objects.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written you could use the divine fighting style to drink extracts.
I think however, it probably should function like potion glutton. However, as written it doesn't, because they specifically had to change potion glutton not to work.
|
People keep saying that this works with extracts because they specifically changed Potion Glutton to make it not work. I'm more inclined to see that as setting a precedent for the opposit interpretation. It's become obvious that the developers don't want extracts to be used interchangeably with potions, and that things that work with potions don't work with extracts unless they are specifically called out in the rules.
That said, I don't think it would cause that much of an issue to allow alchemists to do this. It certainly won't break the game if 14th level alchemists who worship Cayden Cailean can essentially use an extract as a swift while fighting with a rapier.
As far as the issue with drawing potions or extracts goes while using this fighting style, I'm pretty confident that the intent of the advanced style is that drawing the potion is part of the action. The fighting style is useless if while two weapon fighting, you have to drop or sheath your sword so that you can pull out the potion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People are saying extracts work with the divine fighting style because it says "potions or other liquid". Not because they specifically changed potion glutton to not work.
I think the case of potion glutton actually sets a precedent that it probably should be changed to more explicitly not allow it, if that is really their intention.
|
|
Sorry, people are using the change to potion glutton as evidence that it should work with this. I see it as the opposite. First Accelerated Drinker, and then Potion Glutton... In every instance where an ability has allowed use of potions with improved action economy they have come out with a ruleing that it does not work with extracts. I see no reason to think that this reinforces "they need to rule out extracts specifically for each". Instead it sets a precedent that extracts do not follow the rules of potions, and despite how counter intuitive it might be, any rule for potions does not include extracts unless it says it includes extracts.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...any rule for potions does not include extracts unless it says it includes extracts.
I don't think anyone is saying you should be able to use this ability for extracts because you can use it for potions. They are saying that because the feat works for "potions or other liquids". Extracts are not potions (though they work like potions in most cases), but they are liquids.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Extracts are not potions (though they work like potions in most cases), but they are liquids.
But they are not really. They are more like spells than liquids.
alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.
It's not even clear extracts are liquids.
One definition of extract:
A solid preparation obtained by evaporating a solution of a drug, etc., or the fresh juice of a plant (distinguished from an abstract).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that "Extracts" and "Infusions" (I.E. Alchemist Spell Slots) are defined as being "potion-like", and that an extract or infusion "is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion" makes it clear that they are intended to be considered liquids; as are all actual potions unless the GM uses an optional rule (such as Potion-Bread) to define select potions otherwise.
Alchemist Extracts/Infusions are intended to be treated just like potions unless otherwise noted. The fact that the developers didn't anticipate all the problems that would have down the line, or that the writers of supplements tend to forget about the potion-like nature of extracts/infusions, doesn't change the RAW. Only Errata can change the RAW, and only an actual FAQ/Clarification document can change how the RAW is supposed to be interpreted. Assuming the rule was not intended to be interpreted literally, as all rules must otherwise be for a discussion regarding them to have any meaning or chance of concensus.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extracts are not potions (though they work like potions in most cases), but they are liquids.But they are not really. They are more like spells than liquids.
Extracts function as potions up until the point where said extract, being treated as a liquid, would result in the alchemist drinking their potion at a speed faster than a standard action.
Because at this point extracts enter a quasi-intangible state of neither solidity, gaseous, nor are they liquid.
They are, instead, stoppered abstraction and remain so in all instances where in rules interaction with liquids could tamper with extract drinking speed. This is to ensure all alchemists take as long as possible to consume their extracts. Space-time itself bends and stretches in inconceivable ways to ensure that every single alchemist in existence consumes their extracts at exactly the same speed.
What I am trying to say here is that this statement is extremely silly and dishonest and you damn well know it. Just say 'It'll get errata'd because Potion Glutton did' and leave it at that.
At this point, it functions. Expect nerfs. Done.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Extracts are not potions (though they work like potions in most cases), but they are liquids.But they are not really. They are more like spells than liquids.
alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.It's not even clear extracts are liquids.
One definition of extract:
A solid preparation obtained by evaporating a solution of a drug, etc., or the fresh juice of a plant (distinguished from an abstract).
I think it is clear that they are liquids.
Sipping Pet (Ex) : As a standard action, the marauder can administer a dose of a liquid (such as an extract, infusion, potion, or an alchemical liquid like antitoxin) to his animal companion, even if the companion is unconscious. The alchemist must be adjacent to or riding the companion to use this ability. An alchemist must have the infusion discovery to select this discovery.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So not a gas, solid or plasma? It's a liquid... ;)Outside chance of it being Bose-Einstein condensate, but that would probably hurt your tongue.
Well I was assuming an environment above absolute zero. If the characters are surviving in absolute zero, this matter seems trivial...
Garbage-Tier Waifu: Elixirs are like Schrödinger's cat to James. They are like liquid and potion-like unless you actually try to use them; then the act of observing them changes them into an intangible spell... unless you try to use it as a spell, they it turns back into a liquid and potion-like item since alchemists aren't spell casters...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, people are using the change to potion glutton as evidence that it should work with this. I see it as the opposite. First Accelerated Drinker, and then Potion Glutton... In every instance where an ability has allowed use of potions with improved action economy they have come out with a ruleing that it does not work with extracts. I see no reason to think that this reinforces "they need to rule out extracts specifically for each". Instead it sets a precedent that extracts do not follow the rules of potions, and despite how counter intuitive it might be, any rule for potions does not include extracts unless it says it includes extracts.
The changes mean that the original wording allowed for a change in extract economy. What you are talking about is the likelihood that THIS ability will be overturned. That is a separate issue from what it actually says NOW.
The original Accelerated Drinker/Potion Glutton can be reason why extracts work with the feat in question and that has NOTHING to do with the likelihood it'll be altered in the future like the changed Accelerated Drinker/Potion Glutton. What it says now isn't altered by what it may become in the future.
Now if you want to quibble about RAI, that's another matter. I've quite frankly given up on trying to divine the thinking of the PDT.
PS: it's not the potion part of the feat that ANYONE is looking at but the liquid part. Even is you think "potions does not include extracts" as sacred, extracts are still liquids.
JAMES: "In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract."
"An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion"
"An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."
You drink liquids, not solids, so I really can't see how you can say, with a straight face, they are anything but liquids...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
James has Immunity to Cognitive Dissonance and Charm & Compulsion Effects as a result of his 5th-Star GM Class Feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Extracts are not potions (though they work like potions in most cases), but they are liquids.But they are not really. They are more like spells than liquids.
Nothing's stopping them from being both - "Liquid" and "spell" are not mutually-exclusive adjectives, and there is no reason to treat them as such.
alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates, infusing his chemicals with virulent power to grant him impressive skill with poisons, explosives, and all manner of self-transformative magic.It's not even clear extracts are liquids.
First, your quoted paragraph explicitly uses the word "liquids" in its description. Second, where is this quoted from?
One definition of extract:
A solid preparation obtained by evaporating a solution of a drug, etc., or the fresh juice of a plant (distinguished from an abstract).
And where is this definition from? Are you quoting a Pathfinder rule book or the PRD here? Because I don't see Extract defined anywhere in my books.
What I do see is that the Alchemy class feature of the Alchemist class describes extracts as behaving like "spells in potion form", and the Potions page describes potions as "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed." Potions are explicitly stated to be liquids, and extracts are stated to have the form of a potion. Ergo, extracts have a liquid form, and are considered liquids. The rules leave no room for doubt.
|
|
@ graystone: Oh for sure you can CHOOSE to interperet it that way. I don't even think it will hurt the game. I think this is way less of a potential problem than the original Potion Glutton text was.
I just think that if you choose to look at the rules without the context of how they have ruled on similar questions in the past then you are essentially burrying your head in the sand and justifying an interpretation that you might want. On the other hand, if you want to make an informed decision about how they might rule on this IF they ever FAQ or eratta it, then you have to look at similar past decisions that the developers made and use that as a benchmark. If you do that then in this case I think you have to predict that the intent is that it doesn't work for extracts.
I HOPE that they allow Alchemists to use this for extracts, but I sure wouldn't bet on it, advise anyone that that is how it works until they change it, or fault any GM who does take the eventual ruleings on similar questions as an indication of how this actually works.
Edited for clarity on who I was responding to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It certainly is important to consider what the PDTs eventual decision might be, especially so for the long career of a PFS Character considering this feat. However past decisions on tangentially related topics aren't highly credible sources of evidence in a discussion of the current, actual game mechanics.
In my home games, I adhere to the RAW literally unless a FAQ instructs me to do otherwise. If I disagree with the RAW and/or FAQ, I write a house rule document defining my position in advance so that my players can know decisively how the game works and make informed decisions. On rare occasion, a FAQ or Errata has changed something my players were using mid-campaign (such as the errata of Abundant Ammunition did). I don't make such revisions official until the beginning of the next campaign (by which time I'd written custom spells that more or less replaced Abundant Ammunition).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That line uses liquids in a "beer, soda, and water" sense and shouldn't be taken as magic effects (extracts) should be included.
I'm ok with the alternative interpretation, as I see it as table variance.
To be clear, you are not saying that is how it should work, which is an opinion which I could understand, but you are saying that's how it does work as written, a statement of fact which is presented without any supporting evidence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That line uses liquids in a "beer, soda, and water" sense and shouldn't be taken as magic effects (extracts) should be included.
...
But the line I quoted does make it clear that extracts are included as liquids.
Sipping Pet (Ex) : As a standard action, the marauder can administer a dose of a liquid (such as an extract, infusion, potion, or an alchemical liquid like antitoxin) to his animal companion, even if the companion is unconscious. The alchemist must be adjacent to or riding the companion to use this ability. An alchemist must have the infusion discovery to select this discovery.