Cayden Cailean's divine fighting technique = spell combat for alchemists?

[graystone]

James Risner wrote:

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.

So YOU would stop someone from using an elixir because you think liquids JUST means "beer, soda, and water" and not ANYTHING with a magic affect? How about [empowered] holy water? Where is this mysterious exclusion of magic liquids spelled out?

This is outside "table variance" and comfortably inside 'house-rule' territory. I have no issue with someone saying 'I think RAI is [this] and I'm doing something different that it says', but I'm not cool with someone saying something the rule doesn't: you don't get to add thing in to make the rule say what you think it should. it clearly doesn't say beverages, as you imply, but LIQUIDS.

dwayne germaine: it's not burying my head in the sand but reading that's in print. I'm NOT going to assume what will happen in the future as I've been disappointed in the past. As such, I look at what's there: you are taking what happened with the other rules and adding to and editing the feat in question to come up with what you think it will become. That's NOT interpreting it but changing it to match your idea of RAI.

I'm interpreting the feat as it stands right now. If you wish to play it how you assume it'll get changed to in the future then feel free. Just don't call it an interpretation of the actual wording of the existing feat. Now if you want to talk about the chances that this'll get changed in the future, I'd say there's a good chance but that's a different issue that what it currently say though.

[James Risner]

Actually I believe it explicitly doesn't work for extracts because it doesn't mention them and in context it doesn't seem to suggest extracts work.

I'm ok with extracts being included in "other liquids" as a table variances rules interpretation.

Both are RAW from the reader point of view. One has a higher chance of the PDT agreeing with their interpretation.

It would be best for us to agree, as short of a FAQ or creating a finely crafted a FAQ post and getting 50+ clicks, neither party will agree the other is correct.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

James Risner wrote:

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.

If Magic Effects shouldn't be included, then why can you drink potions with the fighting style?

Potions wrote:

A potion is a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed. Potions vary incredibly in appearance. Magic oils are similar to potions, except that oils are applied externally rather than imbibed. A potion or oil can be used only once. It can duplicate the effect of a spell of up to 3rd level that has a casting time of less than 1 minute and targets one or more creatures or objects.

Potions are like spells cast upon the imbiber. The character taking the potion doesn't get to make any decisions about the effect—the caster who brewed the potion has already done so. The drinker of a potion is both the effective target and the caster of the effect (though the potion indicates the caster level, the drinker still controls the effect).

The person applying an oil is the effective caster, but the object is the target.

We have multiple instances stating Potions are magic effects, which you specifically claim isn't intended by the fighting style.

Extracts function like potions unless we are told otherwise. We aren't told otherwise here, compared to other instances where we are.

Therefore, if you're going to disallow Extracts, you'd have to disallow Potions for the same exact reasons that you'd disallow Extracts, and I have a feeling you'll have an uphill battle there.

[James Risner]

Potions are allowed.
No other non potion magical effect is allowed.

[TriOmegaZero]

Why?

[graystone]

James Risner wrote:

Potions are allowed.

No other non potion magical effect is allowed.

So no elixirs? Why? What in "liquids" explicitly or implicitly implies the lack of magic?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

James Risner wrote:

Potions are allowed.

Now you contradicted yourself.

You said that "liquids" refers to non-magical beverages.

Potions are neither non-magical, nor are they a beverage, so straight out of the gate, you're creating an exception to the assumed rule that has no basis outside of actually specifically listing that exception, with no exclusionary text to boot.

Same goes for Extracts. The same reasons you'd deny an Extract equally apply to a Potion, since their mechanics and applications are identical unless specified otherwise (which again, they aren't here), so saying a Potion is allowed when an Extract shouldn't be is like saying Spells are allowed, but Spell-Like Abilities are not.

James Risner wrote:

No other non potion magical effect is allowed.

[citation needed]

[James Risner]

Quote:

beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial

Potions are explicitly allowed.

From past rulings, we observe that if they mention liquids without calling out elixirs, extracts, infusions and other magical liquids they probably didn't write the rule with those in mind.

[TriOmegaZero]

They never do, unless it is an option specifically for those things.

[graystone]

James Risner wrote:

Quote:

beverage, potion, or other liquid from a bottle or vial

Potions are explicitly allowed.

From past rulings, we observe that if they mention liquids without calling out elixirs, extracts, infusions and other magical liquids they probably didn't write the rule with those in mind.

The quote from the feat implies your understanding is wrong though. You claim that liquid means "beer, soda, and water" but that's covered under "beverage" so WHY list "beverage, potion, or other liquid"? WHAT is the other "liquid" in your mind that isn't covered by beverage and potion?

[Darksol the Painbringer]

Maybe Poisons, Drugs, Alchemical Items, and so on. There are numerous things that are liquid that aren't a beverage.

But that doesn't mean Extracts, Elixirs, and the rest don't fall under the same definition.

[thorin001]

I am on the side that extracts do not work. Not because they are not liquids, but because they are multiple inert liquids until a standard action is taken to make them into an extract.

It should work on infusions, though. Infusions are ready to go without any further action by the alchemist.

[graystone]

thorin001 wrote:

I am on the side that extracts do not work. Not because they are not liquids, but because they are multiple inert liquids until a standard action is taken to make them into an extract.

It should work on infusions, though. Infusions are ready to go without any further action by the alchemist.

"An extract, once created, remains potent for 1 day before losing its magic, so an alchemist must re-prepare his extracts every day."

"An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action."

"Mixing an extract takes 1 minute of work"

It literally doesn't work how you think it does. You MAY be thinking of bombs which are made on the spot. "Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action"

[Tacticslion]

dwayne germaine wrote:

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.

Using this because it's indicative of a line of arguments; this is not for the purposes of singling out just the one poster.

I want to agree to this. I really do.

But the PDT (or maybe Mark Seifter?) has told us not to do this.

If you're curious, it was in the whole "nested sources" debate, where they ruled that both an ability score and a specific ability counted as a source. I (and others) noted that this set a precedent that indicated that the entire game held this concept of nested sources as "true" and the PDT explicitly responded that my supposition was untrue - instead, they noted that the ruling was only representative of itself, and showed no leaning toward a broader tendency.

This indicates that each ruling is intended to be an individual instance.

I find this extremely frustrating, as it means I'm no longer able to make reasonable extrapolations about what the PDT over-all intends.

That means that debates like this just cannot be settled in the way many indicate - you are not able to take rulings and make general statements about tendencies.

I mean, here's the thing: I think we all know that the PDT would, if forced to rule on it, rule conservatively, because, as much as I don't like it, that's what they do. "Whatever makes it suck for the player, 'cause of course that's easy on the GM!" (it's important to note: this is not what they say and definitely not what they intend, but it really feels that way, to me, at times; I say that it feels this way as a GM, too*).

But, as-written, it functions until errata is made. It kind of has to from a RAW perspective. Of course, you could take a different tack and argue that the whole ability scores as sources for untyped bonuses is the aberration - that it shouldn't set a general precedent that FAQs don't set a general precedent.

The problem with that line of thought is that it undermines everything the various members of the PDT have spoken with us about - that they intentionally limit FAQs only to the topic at-hand, because they don't like having loose language, and they don't want to create unintentional consequences by applying a FAQ beyond its immediate intent.

The PDT almost always rules things in a manner that weakens player choice.

The PDT almost always encourages us not to take any ruling any farther than it is explicitly covering.

So that's where we're at, now.

*:

It often feels like my particular style of GMing is considered bad and should feel bad, even if that's not really what they are trying to say; this is just an emotional reaction of mine, not a reasonable one - clearly the PDT is trying to do what they consider best for everyone, and generally vocally encourage GMs to make the game work for them. The problem is that's not what I'm after, even if it's a good thing for them to do. The major thing that appeals to me about the d20 system (and variants) is that it so often functions as an internally consistent, and most of these rulings actually work to move away from that; further, most of these rulings actively overturn things that were true in the previous systems (especially notable, that system that PF was originally sold as a direct continuation of) - rulings that I've hinged entire game sessions, or even campaigns on, even PF campaigns. This gets even more frustrating for me when I'm told, "It was meant that way from the beginning." which it either definitely was not, or was poorly communicated (and wrongly advertised). And all of this is made worse by my general desire to follow the printed rules. Thus, it drives me up the wall. This is a personal problem, though, and is not actually something wrong with the PDT. In fact, though I disagree with them more often then not, I think they're generally really cool people who work really hard to try and do their best to make the game better for everyone. It's just most often that it seems like it's not the game I want to run as GM or play as a player, and that dissonance interacts with my idiosyncrasies to frustrate me a lot. That said, I'd totally play with and/or under most of them most any day of the week, and I try not to argue with my GMs... *cough*

[Tacticslion]

TOZ wrote:

why did i read this damn thread ye gods

I ask myself that question every day.

[graystone]

Tacticslion, I agree with that post. I was there in the "nested sources" thread and I was the one Mark told that FAQ's are limited strictly to the subject at hand and aren't meant to be extrapolated to anything not mentioned in the FAQ. Which is confusing when they turn around and seem to want us to do just that in other situations. It's why I'm frustrated and just don't try to figure out what they are thinking and just wait for a ruling.

For example, the armor spikes FAQ would be limited to armor spikes and gauntlets if we go by the strictly limited format but the thread it spawned clearly shows that there is an underlining 'unwritten rule' that would cover all non hand weapons. It's a case of 'do what we say and not what we do'.

[James Risner]

I was in the "abilities as sources" thread and I've often wondered where this "don't expand FAQ beyond what's covered" myth originated. Do you have a link?

I didn't get "don't expand" message from that thread. I got "don't extrapolate things" that are not connected.

But again I've always felt things that add abilities to things always considered the ability score the source. So for me that FAQ (which matched years of James Jacobs and others posts) was a forgone conclusion.

There have been many FAQ that clarified things and were obvious (to me) that they spoke to a general rule (gang up on ranged flanking and virtual size stacking on bashing spiked shield) and some where they made it clear to not extend (eagle shaman Druid).

So I've enjoyed how they made the system in general fair, logical, and consistent. I appreciate that others don't view it as fair, logical, or consistent. I can't fix that. It's why in general I'm fine with others taking a sentence and interpreting it one way while I interpret it in another. Both are RAW. One will match potential future FAQ and one won't. If both players can accept that without insisting the other is wrong we have a better forum for discussing rules.

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

There is a distinct difference between sharing an opinion and stating something like it is objective fact because you happen to somehow figure out some other, unrelated mechanical niche of the rules.

Like, none of that really has any correlation to this at all. We're trying to make an objective statement about how the feat works at present and you're just making this more and more difficult to do by arguing your point like it is objective fact without evidence. None of what you've said is RAW, because I don't think you've provided any evidence to back up your claims thus far. We've spent half this thread trying to prove you wrong, for crying out loud. The only statement thus far I agree with is that this feat will probably receive errata at some point to give it the same restrictions as Potion Glutton, but that's speculation and little bearing on the rules of the feat.

[James Risner]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my opinion, None of what you've said is RAW

Added the italic to make that more acceptable. Especially since there is rarely ever a "one true RAW", as every FAQ had two people stating two versions of RAW.

[Cavall]

I honestly can't count how many times people cried "nerf!" And I shook my head and whispered "clarification."

Potion glutton was certainly one. This won't be any different.

Nothing about alchemists is hardwired to require worship of a God of Ale to function better than all others. Yet if this is allowed it of course woild be more common than a half orc covered in scars that fate took a shining to.

Common sense says that a trait saying the exact same thing getting clarified to define it would apply here. Allowing extracts to work with this is running by the idea of "I'm not being told NOT to".

When you are eventually told not to, don't cry nerf. You'll mean the other thing.

[graystone]

Cavall wrote:

Common sense says that a trait saying the exact same thing getting clarified to define it would apply here.

If only common sense was common, universal or something the PDT used every time. I defy anyone to take the position the nested sources FAQ was the 'common sense' response to the question...

Now if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say this most likely will see some kind of alteration in the future, but I've been surprised MANY times by the PDT so I wouldn't put money on it.

And really, the question this thread asked isn't 'what changes could this feat see in the future' but 'what can this feat do as it's currently written'. The chances it'll see errata/FAQing doesn't meaningfully impact the question of what it can do now: It might impact someone's choices if they are worried that abilities might be lost in the future but it doesn't change the underlying question.

[Cantriped]

James Risner wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my opinion, None of what you've said is RAW

Added the italic to make that more acceptable. Especially since there is rarely ever a "one true RAW", as every FAQ had two people stating two versions of RAW.

Wow James, just wow. Editing other people's comments and putting them in quotes is both rude and highly disingenuous. I expect better behavior from an adult with over 9,000 posts over a 9-year tenure on these boards.

It is also worth noting that it is a basic assumption of written English that all statements are to be considered the author's opinion until such time as they explicitly state otherwise; and even then they can be considered "facts" only if the author also cites their sources and/or provides supporting evidence proving that their statement is actually a fact.

[James Risner]

graystone wrote:

I defy anyone to take the position the nested sources FAQ was the 'common sense' response to the question...

I've been surprised MANY times by the PDT so I wouldn't put money on it.

I took that position.

Paizo employees have often said you need to read the rules with common sense.

The reason you are surprise is because you don't like reading the rules in the context of how they are written to be read. I'm hardly ever surprised. The only surprising FAQ time is taking free actions while not on your turn while taking other actions like attacks of opportunity.

[James Risner]

Cantriped wrote:

Editing other people's comments and putting them in quotes

I'm trying to help you here. Help your posts cause less frustration to readers who don't share your view. I can't make you a better forum citizen, I can only suggest.

[Entryhazard]

James Risner wrote:

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.

James Risner wrote:

Both are RAW from the reader point of view. One has a higher chance of the PDT agreeing with their interpretation.

Your imaginary English must be fascinating

[Cavall]

James Risner wrote:

graystone wrote:

I defy anyone to take the position the nested sources FAQ was the 'common sense' response to the question...

I've been surprised MANY times by the PDT so I wouldn't put money on it.

I took that position.

Paizo employees have often said you need to read the rules with common sense.

The reason you are surprise is because you don't like reading the rules in the context of how they are written to be read. I'm hardly ever surprised. The only surprising FAQ time is taking free actions while not on your turn while taking other actions like attacks of opportunity.

Same. I've only really been turned around by one FAQ. The Courageous enhantment.

Other than that common sense is exactly what I'd say describes most FAQ answers.

[James Risner]

Entryhazard wrote:

Your imaginary English must be fascinating

It is, I'm batting about 92% correct guess over more than 50 FAQ. So it seems to be the same imaginary English that common sense uses for the rules.

[graystone]

James Risner wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

Your imaginary English must be fascinating

It is, I'm batting about 92% correct guess over more than 50 FAQ. So it seems to be the same imaginary English that common sense uses for the rules.

Buy your own numbers you are wrong 8% of the time. The issue here is you make it sound as if you're 100% right or just because you say it, it must be reasonable. If you just put forth your reasons and let the facts speak for themselves, no one would have an issue. Taking the stance that 'I'm so awesome I know what's right' is a sure way to get people to NOT listen to you. So people could care less how well you think you can guess what a FAQ will be and do care about your actual reasons.

So I think you could maybe not have to point how proud you are of your 'batting' average ever thread you post in. :P

Cavall wrote:

Other than that common sense is exactly what I'd say describes most FAQ answers.

So you're telling me that common sense describes the nested sources FAQ?

James Risner wrote:

I took that position.

You took the position that stats and ONLY stats have multiple sources? I don't believe you. Not even a little.

[Cantriped]

James Risner wrote:

Cantriped wrote:

Editing other people's comments and putting them in quotes

I'm trying to help you here. Help your posts cause less frustration to readers who don't share your view. I can't make you a better forum citizen, I can only suggest.

Who were you trying to help exactly?

Its really hard to take you seriously, or consider you a credible source for judgements on any written work when you prove yourself incapable of discerning that the person whose comment you are replying to isn't the same person whose quote you previously edited. I'm not Garbage-Tier Waifu. I was however offended on their behalf because I'm a decent human being; and because, in my opinion, putting words in the mouths of others is unacceptable behavior. I cannot force you to be a better person, but I can point out to the general public that you are being neither a good person nor a literate one at the moment.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

James Risner wrote:

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

In my opinion, None of what you've said is RAW

Added the italic to make that more acceptable. Especially since there is rarely ever a "one true RAW", as every FAQ had two people stating two versions of RAW.

Not exactly a proper statement, since we've had several FAQs ruled based on RAW that either didn't exist (and as such was made up) or wasn't portrayed properly (and therefore needed errata to reflect said portrayal).

Defending Weapon FAQ is a prime example of RAW that wasn't portrayed properly. Courageous FAQ is another. Armor Spikes FAQ is yet another.

And that's not counting the FAQs that say things like "This will be updated in the next errata," or even FAQs that actually cite two sets of RAW, and the question resolves as "Which one is correct?"

The fact that you make a fallacious statement of "every FAQ states two versions of RAW," without understanding the consequences of that statement, really makes myself (and others) question why you keep referring RAW in a misleading manner that gets most everyone on these forums either confused about your posts, or angry towards your outlandish statements.

As a side note, I now know what everybody else felt like when they said that I was using the word "strawman" incorrectly.

[James Risner]

Graystone, I'm not perfect at predicting. I'm very good because I understand the way the rules are written. So long as anyone ignores that context, their success rate will be less and they may find the rules inconsistent, confusing, or frustrating.

I took the position that double dex to something didn't stack. I didn't speak to there being multiple "sources" but it makes sense.

[Entryhazard]

James Risner wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

Your imaginary English must be fascinating

It is, I'm batting about 92% correct guess over more than 50 FAQ. So it seems to be the same imaginary English that common sense uses for the rules.

Did you take care to exclude all the times in which the FAQ becomes Errata and changes the wording of a rule, or acknowledges the interpretation goes despite it? Because in those instances you were wrong before the FAQ was issued

Then again I shouldn't expect much from someon that says that X means "X, Y and Z, except W"

[Cavall]

Entryhazard wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Entryhazard wrote:

Your imaginary English must be fascinating

It is, I'm batting about 92% correct guess over more than 50 FAQ. So it seems to be the same imaginary English that common sense uses for the rules.

Did you take care to exclude all the times in which the FAQ becomes Errata and changes the wording of a rule, or acknowledges the interpretation goes despite it? Because in those instances you were wrong before the FAQ was issued

Then again I shouldn't expect much from someon that says that X means "X, Y and Z, except W"

Dial it down to a 5 mate

[CWheezy]

I dunno about how good your accuracy rate is james. I don't think its about how well you understand the paizo devs but its more like "They will nerf it so if i pick the side that's worse for players i'm right".

You could pick that side regardless of what makes sense. Its been shown potions are liquids, no real argument against that. It's easy to guess that this feat will be nerfed if its ever faqratta'd though, because paizo nerfs stuff, never buffs.

[James Risner]

It comes down to what do you think they intended. I read the rule, consider other rules especially similar rules, strongly consider developers comments, and then using that info I interpret the rules.

If I ignored similar rulings, developer comments on the rule, comments on similar rules, I'd definitely be often wrong and annoyed. Instead im rarely wrong and often happy. I can give interpretations that GM and players can use to consider between the two RAW (or more) and everyone is happy.

TLDR; If we all accept there is no one true RAW on rules that have multiple interpretations then we'd all be happier.

[Cavall]

I don't consider it a nerf to say that a single feat doesn't allow totally quickened actions on alchemist extracts.

I also think calling it a nerf creates a bitterness towards a game company that's telling you what the intent of the ability was all along.

It's easy to guess what paizo is going to say because they often lean towards the option not being the be all and end all option for a class.

They didn't let a trait do it, they won't let a feat do it either, no matter how many mugs are carried, I'd wager.

[World's Okayest Fighter]

If I've learned anything from the PDT (and it's debatable if I have), when the options are "cool but somewhat powerful ruling" vs. "cut it down at the knees no fun allowed ruling", they will somehow choose "double burn it to the ground and salt the earth." I expect this to be no different.

[Matthew Downie]

James Risner wrote:

It comes down to what do you think they intended. I read the rule, consider other rules especially similar rules, strongly consider developers comments, and then using that info I interpret the rules.

That's what the rest of us call RAI.

There are no ambiguous words here. By RAW, this works for 'liquids' and, elsewhere in the rules, example liquids are given as 'extract, infusion, potion, or an alchemical liquid like antitoxin'. There is no contradictory rules text anywhere (AFAIK) saying that extracts are not liquids.

If you think they made a mistake, that this is overpowered, that the RAW will be changed following an errata FAQ, that's fine.

[Cavall]

There is, however, clear rulings that treating extracts as liquids for the purpose of qualifying for something that doesn't name them specifically won't go further than a simple "no."

We can't ignore that ruling given the close nature of the text. I'd say that's very contradictory to your case, and it was official.

James "RAI" is based off a very clear "RAW"

[Entryhazard]

Can someone link me the whole nested sources debacle?

[Gulthor]

I dunno why I'm wading into this, but here I go.

The reason that Potion Glutton and Accelerated Drinker were unacceptable to function with extracts was that as-written they were essentially quicken spell available at level 1 with no restrictions or prerequisites (we can handwave worshipping Urgathoa for the purposes of this argument, even though I'll argue forever that it was a huge impasse.)

Blade & Tankard, however, is much more heavily gated and restrictive, requiring a much greater investment to be brought online and be effective (either through multiclassing or heavy feat dependency), as well as limiting the way that it can be utilized in combat.

I also think that the idea of a player needing to have encyclopedic knowledge of errata and FAQs in order to cross-reference and check every rule to try and discern the hidden nuances of meaning in new text is unreasonable.

If you were a newer player without a high level of system mastery, what would you think the interaction between Blade & Tankard and extracts would be? Reading it in such a context is the only reasonable way to interpret the ability.

There's no objective evidence to suggest that Blade & Tankard does not and is not intended to work with extracts. Lots of circumstantial evidence, sure, but again, we're talking about abilities that come online at vastly different levels, so comparing them to one another seems misguided.

But if we want to consider circumstantial evidence, shortly after Blade & Tankard was released, Paizo also released a Cayden Cailean-based alchemist prestige class, the Brewkeeper, which draws a clear line between the alchemist, extracts, and Cayden.

Not only that, but the abilities of the Brewkeeper either make the synergy between the two much clearer or muddy the waters further (depending on your position in this argument.)

Distilled Spells wrote:

A brewkeeper can spend 1 minute distilling an extract or spell she has prepared or an unused spell slot into a draught. When she does so with an alchemist extract, the draught functions as if enhanced by the infusion discovery. Spells can be distilled only if they qualify to be created as a potion or oil from the spell but without the limitation of being a 3rd- or lower-level spell.

Once a draught is created, it persists for up to 24 hours, even if it is no longer in the brewkeeper’s possession. After this point, the draught becomes inert and the brewkeeper regains the use of that extract or spell slot (although she must still prepare that slot normally, as if she had cast the spell or used the extract from that slot during the day).

As long as the draught remains potent, it continues to occupy one of the brewkeeper’s daily extract or spell slots.

A draught functions as a potion or oil, and can be used by any creature.

Draughts can obviously be consumed using Blade & Tankard. And Accelerated Drinker. And Potion Glutton. (Might be difficult to simultaneously worship Cayden and Urgathoa.) They're not potion-like, they function AS potions.

Faithful Drinker wrote:

When a brewkeeper drinks a potion, elixir, mutagen, draught, or other magical beverage, the brewkeeper gains a +2 sacred bonus on Will saves for 1 round.

Faithful drinker continues to assert that you drink potions, elixirs, mutagens, draughts, and other magical beverages.

So, RAW (rules as written), these all work with Blade & Tankard.

You are free to determine whether or not that you feel that that power level of such interactions is acceptable or not for your game, but consider the investment required to make this all come together versus the lack of investment that was required to break Accelerated Drinker or Potion Glutton.

EDIT: For the record, though I'm sure my bias/interpretation is clear, I'm not making any claims to have "called" this one.

James has an overall good track record of predicting nerfs, and one would be wise to consider his position. His certainty comes from a place of wisdom and experience.

The words as written clearly and cleanly mean that Blade & Tankard functions with extracts/infusions/Brewkeeper draughts/etc. The question to answer is whether or not the resulting effect is unbalancing/overpowered, which will be an accurate predictor of whether or not an errata is coming for Blade & Tankard (or the newly-released text on draughts.)

My position/interpretation on this is that Blade & Tankard is much more restrictive than pre-errata Accelerated Drinker/Potion Glutton, and that it does not strike me as "game-breaking" for it to function as worded.

That said, if it can be "abused", it'll probably be nerfed.

[TheMonkeyFish]

This is juat my 2 cents, but this requires 4 feat investments, level 10 MINIMUM (Level 14 Alchemist) AND requires you to REPLACE one of your attacks with drinking the potion.

This is hardly gamebreaking compared to what else you can do at level 14 for similar investments.

[Nitro~Nina]

Extracts are a liquid, and His Drunkenness would be ashamed of y'all trying to say otherwise.

They can even be made into an actual beverage now.

Paizo MIGHT clarify the other way, but for now the RAW absolutely says that extracts are a liquid and this feat says you can use it with liquids. There is no debate here, except what Paizo MIGHT do to chainge it.

Maybe I'm not an old enough player to be jaded, but Paizo turned a somewhat played-out system into something new, fun, and gave us all Vigilantes just so we could be Renaissance Batman. They do like us, really! They also don't want people to come in and overpower everyone's fun in their pseudo-MMO, because overly optimising munchkins can genuinely ruin people's enjoyment of a system... maybe Paizo go overboard trying to restrict that, but it's done with the best of intentions.

Give them a chance, and think:

What Would Cayden Do?

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

This is why we should play Brewkeepers. Draughts are indisputably a liquid and are essentially extracts. They are even made from them.

[Chromantic Durgon <3]

I'm fairly sure he wouldn't bother reading this thread where people think RAI and RAW are synonyms but don't seem to realise they think that.

[Gulthor]

Garbage-Tier Waifu wrote:

This is why we should play Brewkeepers. Draughts are indisputably a liquid and are essentially extracts. They are even made from them.

Honestly, in my opinion, if you were going to go for this build, you should 100% play a Brewkeeper *anyway*. If you're going to be a Cayden-worshipping alchemist (or cleric, because a cleric gets to distill and drink their spells just as easily) fighting with his signature style, you should also take levels in the Cayden-themed Prestige Class designed for your class.

And also....

Semi-Sarcastic Gulthor Rant wrote:

And you should take Accelerated Drinker and a tentacle or third arm to swift action drink Draughts.

And if Paizo doesn't intend for these interactions to keep occurring, they need to buckle down and watch the use of the word "potion" and errata *Alchemist extracts* rather than all the things that interact with extracts.

This is not a newly-discovered interaction at this point. There's no excuse to not be as hyper-aware of this specific class feature as the rest of us are. If the same thing comes up over and over and over again, you do not get to pretend to be caught by surprise anymore.

[Diego Rossi]

Oh oh!

Brewkeeper wrote:

Once a draught is created, it persists for up to 24 hours, even if it is no longer in the brewkeeper’s possession. After this point, the draught becomes inert and the brewkeeper regains the use of that extract or spell slot (although she must still prepare that slot normally, as if she had cast the spell or used the extract from that slot during the day).

As long as the draught remains potent, it continues to occupy one of the brewkeeper’s daily extract or spell slots.

I see that someone has read the threads about "how long will a infusion last and how long it will make your extract slot unavailable?"

Now that we have a similar ability that specify that you regain your slot "after 24 hours", what happen with the original infusion ability, that say "As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots." and has no text in the ability to limit the infusion duration?

[thaX]

The infusions reset after the day's rest or when 24 hours passes. That includes those that are able to be used by others, they become inert as the Alchemist resets his daily extracts, or loses them when not able to rest within a given 24 hours.

It is not a potion, it is the Alchemist "casting" the spell to target the imbiber.

[Gulthor]

thaX wrote:

The infusions reset after the day's rest or when 24 hours passes. That includes those that are able to be used by others, they become inert as the Alchemist resets his daily extracts, or loses them when not able to rest within a given 24 hours.

It is not a potion, it is the Alchemist "casting" the spell to target the imbiber.

Actually, Chirurgeon contradicts that:

Chirurgeon wrote:

Infused Curative

At 2nd level, a chirurgeon’s extracts of cure spells automatically act as infusions, and can be used by non-alchemists. When a chirurgeon prepares his extracts, he may choose to render any or all of his infused curatives inert and prepare other extracts to replace them (unlike infusions, which continue to occupy the alchemist’s daily extract slots until consumed or used).

[Garbage-Tier Waifu]

Yeah, pretty sure this is unique to draughts and infusions just keep going.

So don't lose your infusions, kids, or else you lose all your spell slots FOREVER. Or...until the vial is broken or contents spoiled somehow.