The "they are not liquids" is using the same kind of RAW interpretation skills. You can argue they are not liquids because they are described as being like potions but no details as how like plus they are never called out as liquids.
So if someone can assert they are liquids because they are "like potions" then someone else can assert they are not. Neither positions are strictly right, as there are no rules saying they are or are not liquids.
Didn't Gisher already clear that snag up earlier in this thread?
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.
Lune, while your overall point is sound, you don't have to be any sort of Divine Caster or meet the Optional Replacement clause, so long as you meet the actual prerequisites. Those other options just allow you to ignore the prerequisites, as far as I know.
Well, I understand but with the Optional Replacement being +10 BAB it seems likely that you would either want to get into it the traditional way by giving up a major blessing or by rushing to +10 BAB. If taking this fighting style is the basis of your build then you want to get to it as soon as possible, right? If you aren't going Warpriest then you are probably getting there via the +10 BAB which means either Fighter or Swashbuckler here. The fact that you want to use it with Extracts also implies at least one level of Alchemist.
I think my original point stands. I'm not sure what unholy combination someone is using to get there but straight Alchemist doesn't seem like the best option to get there the soonest. In fact, the whole build doesn't seem that great. You would be TWF without Dex to Damage so you are MAD having to have all physical stats high as well as Int at least reasonable as your casting stat. You also don't really want to forgo Wis because you have no real means of shoring up your weak Will save. So that leaves Cha as your only real dump stat. Other than that you are a Swashbuckler that uses TWF which is a fairly weak concept.
Grace feats are in PDT books, Dervish Dance isn't under the PDT purview.
The "they are not liquids" is using the same kind of RAW interpretation skills. You can argue they are not liquids because they are described as being like potions but no details as how like plus they are never called out as liquids.
So if someone can assert they are liquids because they are "like potions" then someone else can assert they are not. Neither positions are strictly right, as there are no rules saying they are or are not liquids.
Slashing Grace was under the purview, yes, but Fencing Grace wasn't until they decided to release it as a feat in Ultimate Intrigue to apply the Errata they wanted (since it wasn't in a hardcover). Before then, it was in a softcover which, at the time, the PDT didn't give to shakes about fixing due to the source it came from.
Considering Dervish Dance is likewise from a softcover, all they gotta do is throw it in the next Hardcover they publish, and then they can errata it into useless oblivion.
Dervish Dance is from the Inner Sea World Guide... Which is a most definitely a Hardcover. However, it is part of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line instead of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line.
What Darksol the Painbringer said (tempered by what Cantriped said which makes none of what Darksol the Painbringer less true).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dervish Dance is from the Inner Sea World Guide... Which is a most definitely a Hardcover. However, it is part of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line instead of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line.
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is precisely what I mean when I reference "Hardcover." So, figure the Beastiaries 1-X, Core, the "Advanced" Books (ACG, ARG, APG, the "Ultimate" Books (UM, UE, UC, UCamp), and the "Adventures" Books (OA, HA). Of course, that's not including things like NPC Codex, GMG, Unchained, and so on.
And considering they took a softcover option like Fencing Grace, and republished it in a Hardcover just to nerf it down to being a niche option across the board (still has use, but again, is extremely niche), I still don't see why they wouldn't do the same thing for Dervish Dance.
After all, allowing Dexterity to Damage and Extracts to work with niche options is game-breaking and a big no-no, but having spells which end entire encounters before they even start is all fine and dandy, right?
Exactly. They didn't do the same thing to Dervish Dance. So saying that you shouldn't play this Feat as RAW because it is just going to get nerfed like Potion Glutton doesn't really add up. They could never touch it in the same way they never touched Dervish Dance but nerfed all the other X Grace feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to point out that there is a Brewkeeper Prestige Class for Cayden Worshipers that advances Extracts as well as spells.
Kind of makes me think that the Intention is that Extracts are liquids and that his Divine Technique would have synergy with the Prestige Class and Base Class that enters it.
It also calls out an Extract (as well as Mutagens, Elixirs, Draughts and Other Magical Beverages) as something you drink in Helpful Home Brew (and Faithful Drinker).
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is precisely what I mean when I reference "Hardcover."
Hardcover and Softcover are terms for bookbinding styles. They have nothing at all to do with publication hierarchy. Misusing those terms confuses the issue, and damages your credibility.
His credibility and point stands.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think personally mocking James is bad form, Lune, as much as I agree that he is being unreasonable. Let's debate the actual point he's making, not call him names.
Other than that, I completely agree.
While James hasn't done much to endear myself to him (I didn't say anything when he did it but I was quite personally insulted by him editing my post in-quote), I would also agree not to resort to personal mockery. That's just poor form. Or calling people crazy, for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line is precisely what I mean when I reference "Hardcover."Hardcover and Softcover are terms for bookbinding styles. They have nothing at all to do with publication hierarchy. Misusing those terms confuses the issue, and damages your credibility.
That's a childish claim to make just because I have preferred terminology to refer to a specific subset of books (that ironically, quite a few messageboard users share).
Most importantly, you're arguing the semantics of my post, and not the point that it was meant to convey:
Paizo can take options from non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources, (re)print them into Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources, and make changes to them however they see fit, and we already have a precedent of this happening, which is the Fencing Grace feat.
Because we already have an example of Dexterity-to-Damage being reprinted and nerfed considerably because of it, it stands to reason that future Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources can likewise add other Dexterity-to-Damage options, nerf them into niche application/uselessness, and accomplish the intent that Dexterity-to-Damage is a no-no in this manner.
In fact, this can be done with any non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line sources that contain subjects that don't follow their original intentions, and expands to something well beyond what has been examplified so far.
That's it.
If all you're getting from my post is "You're using the wrong terminology because I like using this word instead," then you're not adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.
That would be Darksol with the "disingenuous" comment but I don't see any of you complaining at him even though that is apparently the comment that got to James.
A quick search on the first page of the thread would point out that Graystone is the first to use the term "disingenuous." Not saying that I didn't use it or that it's unacceptable, just pointing out that I didn't start anything.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lune, please calm down. This is a discussion about the specifics of half a feat in a geeky roleplaying game; there's no need to get defensive.
Back to the topic at hand: while I agree that it may be best to be conservative with our estimates, Cavall, I also think that we should go with what the text says now rather than assume what Paizo may do in future. As it stands now, Extracts are clearly allowed by this feat as liquids. We may be disappointed in future, but as for now it is entirely rules-legal to drink your extracts from a tankard mid-battle, as far as I can see.
Yes this may be the crux of this entire issue I would suppose.
On one hand we have a clear issue of "hey it works right now with a loophole" and honestly? I can't argue that.
I think what James and myself are actually arguing is that it IS a loophole and just warning it is likely to be closed.
So really this thread isn't two sides of yes no it's more now and future.
James is arguing this:
Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.
Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.
|
Ok so here is our handy order of operations
Feat checks that the thing in your tankards is liquid
Per the sipping pet discovery and also being drank infusions are liquids
If so you can in place of an attack drink from it.
So you can attack and instead devour the infusions as a semi spell combat thing.
Where is the confusion? Where can you disagree?
|
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but someone on page 1 said the tankard had to be the offhand weapon, but the feat does not say that. It says light weapon in one hand, tankard in the other.
It also lets you treat a tankard as a light mace (a light weapon).
3 (11bab) +2 (improved twf) +1 (haste) = 6 attacks.
Dual weild magic tankards. 4 from A and 2 from B in one round, 4 from B and 2 from A in a later round. 12 extracts in 2 rounds, plus 3 more in a third round if you use your swifts to fill it...
Also would work well on one of those druids that make free potions.
Unless your tankards teleport the extract from the vial as a free action, I don't see how you can do that. You are missing "a few" move actions to refill the tankards.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A part of the confusion is based on the Alchemist class being a spell caster through his use of Extracts. An ability to be able to cast his spells (AKA drink) differently than using a standard action may be akin to the Quicken Metamagic feat (when drinking as a swift action with Potion Gluttony) or something to that effect.
Looking at it in this way, is there a way for a wizard/sorcerer to use a spell in the same way as drinking the extract/infusions that an Alchemist would use with the Tankard? Likely, if not, any clarification would not allow for the Alchemist to shortcut the action economy that is otherwise unavailable for the Wizard/sorcerer.
To be sure, with how the feat is used normally, the Alchemist would need to TWF to even consider using the benefit as iterative attacks would not work here, and needing TWF and ITWF is not the best use of an Alchemist's feats, needed ranged helpful feats for his Bombs and such.
I have pressed the FAQ button, but expect the clarification to use the same conclusion as Potion Gluttony.
|
|
A part of the confusion is based on the Alchemist class being a spell caster through his use of Extracts. An ability to be able to cast his spells (AKA drink) differently than using a standard action may be akin to the Quicken Metamagic feat (when drinking as a swift action with Potion Gluttony) or something to that effect.
Looking at it in this way, is there a way for a wizard/sorcerer to use a spell in the same way as drinking the extract/infusions that an Alchemist would use with the Tankard? Likely, if not, any clarification would not allow for the Alchemist to shortcut the action economy that is otherwise unavailable for the Wizard/sorcerer.
To be sure, with how the feat is used normally, the Alchemist would need to TWF to even consider using the benefit as iterative attacks would not work here, and needing TWF and ITWF is not the best use of an Alchemist's feats, needed ranged helpful feats for his Bombs and such.
I have pressed the FAQ button, but expect the clarification to use the same conclusion as Potion Gluttony.
And that pose an interesting question: it is possible to drink more than 1 extract/round?
They are somewhat spells in liquid form.
A spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't count against your normal limit of one spell per round. However, you may cast such a spell only once per round. Casting a spell with a casting time of 1 swift action doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.[/quote+
Applying what is cited above, the extracts , if interpreted as a "liquid spell", would have a limit of 1 standard +1 swift in a round.
If instead they are seen as enhanced potions, the limit is the action you use to drink them
As the number of classes that can get some extract/infusion like items increase (recently the druid has received the ability to do something similar in exchange of the nature bond) the question become important.
I think the devs intend them to be liquid spells, and limited to 1 round + (eventually) a swift one/round. That is why all the ways to drink several extract/infusions in one round have been stopped.
But I think that putting that in writing would be beneficial, as it will clarify things for future contributors.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Cayden worships Alchemists now?! Sign me up!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They make the best drinks. Really pack a punch!
I swear to me I'm not drunk. S'truth.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
James is arguing this:
Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.
Actually I was interpreting that you could read RAW to allow it, but you have precedence from Glutton/Accelerated Drinker to suggest you not that. Instead you should interpret RAW to forbid extracts.
Plus you have a lot of murky things that we all take for granted that simply isn't directly spelled out in PDT books, but are spelled out in companion lines.
Unless your tankards teleport the extract from the vial as a free action, I don't see how you can do that. You are missing "a few" move actions to refill the tankards.Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but someone on page 1 said the tankard had to be the offhand weapon, but the feat does not say that. It says light weapon in one hand, tankard in the other.
It also lets you treat a tankard as a light mace (a light weapon).
3 (11bab) +2 (improved twf) +1 (haste) = 6 attacks.
Dual weild magic tankards. 4 from A and 2 from B in one round, 4 from B and 2 from A in a later round. 12 extracts in 2 rounds, plus 3 more in a third round if you use your swifts to fill it...
Also would work well on one of those druids that make free potions.
Get a couple of Cailean Fighting Tankards, and you're set :)
Also, I'm decently certain that the best usage of this is a Separatist Cleric with the Alchemy subdomain. It even specifically calls out that the cleric is creating "potions", so there's no question of whether it should work with the Fighting Style or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James is arguing this:
Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.
Actually I was interpreting that you could read RAW to allow it, but you have precedence from Glutton/Accelerated Drinker to suggest you not that. Instead you should interpret RAW to forbid extracts.
Plus you have a lot of murky things that we all take for granted that simply isn't directly spelled out in PDT books, but are spelled out in companion lines.
Actually, James, you argued that extracts are not liquids. That was your response in the second post in this thread.
Lorewalker was accurate with his statement.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Actually, James, you argued that extracts are not liquids. That was your response in the second post in this thread.
Read all my posts again.
We interpret them (myself included) as liquids, but they are never said they were liquids in the class write up. In fact they only said:
... he alchemist captures his own magic potential within liquids and extracts he creates ...
That could be interpreted to be liquids (such as infusions and potions) and extracts being non liquids or it could be a list of two liquids.
I don't think and never thought extracts are non-liquid. But we don't have a rule saying they are in APG. The hint that they are come from a companion line book, outside the PDT RPG books.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
James is arguing this:
Extracts aren't liquid, the feat doesn't work with free liquids, extracts are sometimes spells, the feat only works with drinks like beer, and if the liquid is magic at all and not a potion it doesn't work.You are arguing this:
RAW might allow it but RAI doesn't. You should treat it as if RAW doesn't.Your argument is valid. Though, not the only valid argument.
Actually I was interpreting that you could read RAW to allow it, but you have precedence from Glutton/Accelerated Drinker to suggest you not that. Instead you should interpret RAW to forbid extracts.
Plus you have a lot of murky things that we all take for granted that simply isn't directly spelled out in PDT books, but are spelled out in companion lines.
R.A.W = Read As Written
R.A.I = Read As IntendedIf you interpret text using the RAW method then you do not add any information to the text. You only take the words that are written and decipher their definition as well as take context and grammar into consideration.
If you interpret text using the RAI method then you can add information to the text. You can draw from things like Dev comments, FAQs that do not directly connect to the text but are similar in idea, lore and balance concerns.
So when you say that RAW includes the ability to interpret all liquids to mean some liquids you are by definition incorrect. What you should say is that there is a RAI argument for why we should judge the RAW rule to mean something other than its wording suggests. This would alleviate much of the push back you seem to be getting in this thread.
Both RAW and RAI should be considered when making a judgement. But one is not the other and a RAW interpretation can not be one that includes RAI. RAI does not change the words on the page.
but also of fashioning magical potion-like extracts in which they can store spell effects. ....
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
Physical Description: A typical potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid held in a ceramic or glass vial fitted with a tight stopper.
take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow.
The first two are pretty explicit in defining them as a liquid. And the common parlance of the action "to drink" would back this.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
R.A.W = Read As Written
R.A.I = Read As IntendedIf you interpret text using the RAW method then you do not add any information to the text.
RAW doesn't exist as a valid concept, as all RAW is interpreted by the reader.
Your version of "do not add any information" may not be my version of "do not add any information" and may not agree with their version of "do not add any information".
Most of the FAQ result from two people taking the same text and using their RAW interpretation to get two rulings. The FAQ makes it clear which one is correct and which one is incorrect.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
potion-like extracts
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion
potion or oil consists of 1 ounce of liquid
Drink, Dictionary definition take (a liquid) into the mouth and swallow
All true, but the relationship from a potion to an extract isn't well documented with rules. Again, we are interpreting most of this from the rules written by adding something.