Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Again, this is getting off the actual point.
We have ample evidence from past FAQ that the relationship to potions and the extent of the similarities from extracts to potions can lend them to often be excluded from "liquid" and "potion" use.
Which results in table variance as one table reads the RAW to include them and another reads the RAW to exclude them. Neither is strictly wrong as both are right with their version of RAW.
What is being added?
An Extract is a liquid and, the feat works with any liquid. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What is being added?
An Extract is a liquid and, the feat works with any liquid. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.
I agree!!!!!
But they are never called out as liquids in the APG.
Only described as potions (which are liquids) and you drink them.
In any event, this is the most tenuous point I was trying to make. I get it is easy to attack weak points. It's fun even to attack weak points.
It doesn't lessen the issue that the use of liquid in this feat is almost certainly restricted to things you would want in a tankard to drink for benefits other than spellcasting with the exception of potions.
|
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.
Can you drink something that is not a liquid?
If I said I was going to drink some H2O then can that be ice or steam? Or does the word drink fully describe the state of the H2O?to take liquid into the mouth for swallowing
With that, then, I ask by what method does an alchemist 'cast' his extracts?
In effect, an alchemist prepares his spells by mixing ingredients into a number of extracts, and then “casts” his spells by drinking the extract.
This means that by definition the substance being ingested in is a liquid. So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.
Congratulations, you have just added liquid to the definition of extracts as a result of interpreting the rules.
The same action that can be performed to exclude extracts from "other liquids" in context.
Is my point really this unclear? - not being snarky. I genuinely don't understand why this point isn't clear. I'm confused or missing something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think you are confusing "words in a text having multiple possible meanings" and "adding additional meanings not based on words in the text."
Your "everything is subjective" argument doesn't fly. As go cannot mean stop. So if you say you have a RAW interpretation that makes go mean stop... then it can not be RAW. As the information for go is not included in stop. I get that english can be a difficult language to parse but some things are fairly clear.
Say you are at a job and your boss sends you a memo stating, "Get a form T1050 and fill it out using the information from account 110334." Can you later tell your boss you interpreted his memo to mean that you can leave early for the day? In no way is leaving early mentioned in the memo explicitly or implicitly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, an extract is a liquid by the APG.Congratulations, you have just added liquid to the definition of extracts as a result of interpreting the rules.
The same action that can be performed to exclude extracts from "other liquids" in context.
Is my point really this unclear? - not being snarky. I genuinely don't understand why this point isn't clear. I'm confused or missing something.
Implicit information is not the same thing as adding additional information.
The rules states that an extract is a liquid by the fact that it is a drink, this is implicit and already exists within the text. The rules state that the fighting style can be used with all liquids, this is explicit. The rules state that extracts can not be used with Potion Glutton, this is also explicit. This is all RAW as it requires no new information.
But, the moment you say that an extract can not be used with the fighting style because it doesn't work with Potion Glutton then you have added information that doesn't exist within the text. Meaning it is not a valid way to read the text and thus can not be RAW.
It is RAI, though. And this point seems to be agreed upon, that it should be judged that extracts are not included.
You are clear. You just also happen to be incorrect in your word usage. I have attempted to explain to you the difference because I think your input is valuable but your method hampers your effectiveness.
As James Risnar points out, there's a history of FAQs, design team rulings, and content that pretty much says that extracts are treated differently than potions and other liquids you drink.
You can chalk that up to the alchemy class feature being a poorly written wall of text.
|
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.
So, theoretically, if we allow this, this feat could allow the "casting" of 12 spells in a round.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
As this point, and considering the bolded text, I agree with James.
If a ability don't say explicitly that it affect the speed at which a extract is drunk, it don't affect the speed at which an extract is drunk.We have a specific rule about the speed a which an extract can be drunk by an alchemist. To overrule that we need another specific text, one mentioning extracts, not a generic term like "liquids".
Note how the speed at which an alchemist draw and drink an extract override the normal casting time of the base spell. Whether it is restoration with a 3 round casting time or a spell with a swift casting time, for a alchemist it is a standard action.
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.
So, theoretically, if we allow this, this feat could allow the "casting" of 12 spells in a round.
An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action.
Unless you have 12 Standard Actions to spend, you wouldn't be able to do that.
I suggest you re-read this relevant FAQ, which states that, for a Bomb, Mutagen, or Extract, the Standard Action includes the requirement of drawing the relevant components, akin to spellcasting (which the Combat Chapter notes drawing such components is a Free Action).
So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.
Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.
|
|
The point, Darksol, is that the Extract would not be able to be used in conjunction with TWF with the Tankard, which is what the thread is about. Diego is talking about a high level character using his iteraves and TWF to keep "casting" the extracts contained within the Tankard. Even a Wizard can only cast one "quickened" spell.
We both agree that Extracts and Infusions would take a "standard" action, it is using it in the full round action that is questioned, which is the OP question who compared it to a Magus Spell Combat.
The point, Darksol, is that the Extract would not be able to be used in conjunction with TWF with the Tankard, which is what the thread is about. Diego is talking about a high level character using his iteraves and TWF to keep "casting" the extracts contained within the Tankard. Even a Wizard can only cast one "quickened" spell.
We both agree that Extracts and Infusions would take a "standard" action, it is using it in the full round action that is questioned, which is the OP question who compared it to a Magus Spell Combat.
Because the limit of how many consumables you can take is based off of your BAB (and TWF attacks), which is broken even without Extracts.
Take a Drunken Monk. Out of Ki? After a Full Round Action, I'm back at Max Ki because I drank a dozen pints of booze. Take a character with Brew Potion. Need time to superbuff your martial, but don't want to waste time in-combat to do so? Just give them the tankard and they can spend a Full-Round Action applying all of their favorite buffs.
I imagine there are other equally absurd things you can do with this combination, but really, everyone's problem should not be with Extracts being applicable to the feat, and be with the poorly written mechanics of the feat itself allowing such abuse to begin with.
Ironically, the fix is simple: it should only replace the highest BAB attack you get, and you only get to drink from the tankard once per round. It's basic, it's consistent (most other rules function like this), and it makes the idea of Extracts being used with the feat not broken.
My take on the old Potion Glutton FAQ was "Things that are specified to work only with potions do not work with extracts unless they say they do."
I guess other people took something else away, like "Nothing works with extracts unless they say they do."
And I don't see any reason to think this working isn't RAI. If a high level Fighter who makes the investment can use this to give himself multiple buffs in a round (using a very specific +1 Light Hammer magic item as an off-hand weapon) by sacrificing attacks (and potions) then I see no problem with that. I don't see any real problem with Alchemists doing the same thing. It's not as game-breaking as Teleport or Simulacrum. It's useful, but any character who buffs in advance gets the same benefit without making the same sacrifices.
|
|
So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.
Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.
Actually it was suggested in the post i cited (12 in 2 rounds, to be exact, one for each attack that you use to drink an extract instead of attacking). 6 spells in a round is already 4 above the maximum allowed.
Having the components in hand allow you to cast a spell at a faster speed than standard? If the reply is yes, why the quicken spell feat, with its heavy cost, exist?
The problem is that while my argument is valid for extracts, it is weak when we speak of infusion.
As already said, the whole set of the alchemy rules need a serious clarification.
The speed at which you cast/drink the spell can be changed?
There are several spells with a range or a target of "an object" in the alchemist list that can't be used with extract or infusion. Some are really thematic. How we should treat them? They are errors, they are there to allow the use of wands and to make oils?
|
|
Hey, toasty...
One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)
So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?
If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.
|
|
Hey, toasty...
One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)
So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?
If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.
You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:
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.
Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.
|
|
And even if he could not, the magic tankards being discussed are also treated as light hammers as part of their magic...
Why bother excluding extracts? Brewmaster prc, Heriophant mythic path, Druidic Herbalism...
Problem is the RATE, yeah? Stick a "once per round" in there, and you should be good.
Still stepping of the toes of an iconic ability of another class (i.e. getting something very similar to spell combat, with a spell list that is way better at self boosting), but that limitation would change the situation.
Still, RAW, extract have a specific rule about "casting" time. You need a specific rule that explicitly say that it affect extract to override that.
Infusions .... with those there is a lot of uncertainty, as it is very unclear what they inherit and what they don't from the extract rules.
So, if you already have the components out (such as in the Tankard, ready to drink), you're still spending a Standard Action to consume it; you just don't have to spend the relevant Free Action to draw the components out in the first place.
Also, nobody's suggesting we get 12 extracts consumed in a round by dual-wielding two tankards. That's a strawman argument (I think), so using it as a basis for defense isn't really feasible.
Actually it was suggested in the post i cited (12 in 2 rounds, to be exact, one for each attack that you use to drink an extract instead of attacking). 6 spells in a round is already 4 above the maximum allowed.
Having the components in hand allow you to cast a spell at a faster speed than standard? If the reply is yes, why the quicken spell feat, with its heavy cost, exist?
The problem is that while my argument is valid for extracts, it is weak when we speak of infusion.
As already said, the whole set of the alchemy rules need a serious clarification.The speed at which you cast/drink the spell can be changed?
There are several spells with a range or a target of "an object" in the alchemist list that can't be used with extract or infusion. Some are really thematic. How we should treat them? They are errors, they are there to allow the use of wands and to make oils?
Yes, but it doesn't particularly matter if it's an Extract or a Potion, the latter of which is explicitly allowed, because consuming 6 Potions as a Full Round action is similarly broken (even if costly).
Never said that. All I said is that the Standard Action for consuming an Extract also includes the action required to draw spell components (normally a Free Action in the Combat Actions Table), and that if you already have your Extract out, you don't spend the (assumed) Free Action to drink it. We have a FAQ that explicitly tells us this.
A more silly interpretation would be that you can't ever have Extracts out ready to drink, and/or that whenever you'd spend a Standard Action to drink an Extract that you already have out, you have to draw a second one. Different perspective, equally ridiculous, and regardless of which side you take, a middle ground would be required to avoid mechanical catastrophe.
Not the entire rules, but some parts of them do. The biggest one being is "Do Extracts count as Potions for abilities and effects?" Which, based on its current wording, it is "Yes, unless the rules tell you otherwise (or explicitly mention Extracts)." Another big question is "Do Communal spells (which are on Alchemist spell lists) let you consume only part of the Extract/Infusion so it can be shared with allies, or is it just a bunch of holdover for posterity's sake?" Which, based on how Potions work (and Extracts/Infusions have mechanics identical to Potions), the answer would be "No, you can't share it."
The action required to drink an extract doesn't change unless we have a rule that tells us that it changes, which this feat does. It changes the Extract consumption from '1 Standard Action' to 'In place of an attack while TWFing with a Tankard.' Problem is that they didn't take into account iterative attacks in the feat design (ironic, since the feat requires hefty BAB to acquire it), and instead assumed a 1/round limit.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main problem here, rules-wise, is that the alchemist tried to do casting but without casting. They then linked that not-casting to a mundane task. Now anything that modifies that mundane task also modifies not-casting.
The alchemist is just a bundle of issues because of this design choice. Honestly, being able to drink their mutagen faster is already pretty powerful. This is why you shouldn't create a thing that is not that thing. It creates murkiness.
The style is also from a splat book. A breeding ground for rules that cause trouble.
|
|
Fully agreed, Lorewalker.
The alchemist is a nice idea, but it need a more specific ruleset for how its alchemy ability work.
I have opened a thread about the duration of infusions, one of the open questions about alchemists, it is here, so if you are interested, go there, and click for a FAQ.
|
|
Hey, toasty...
One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)
So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?
If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.
You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:
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.Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.
To sip from the tankard, you are TWF with it as you do so. TWF is specific as to what weapon is wielded and how the attacks are made. (you are gaining extra attacks with the Off Hand weapon) This is more specific when the light weapon is in the off hand and a One Handed is in the main hand, as when you use the One Handed weapon in the off hand, the penalties would go up for doing so...
Now, you can decide which hand is main and which is off when using your normal attack progression without TWF, but that isn't the subject at hand.
|
|
Hey, toasty...
One tankard, as the first hand needs a Rapier or another one handed/light weapon, which the tankard is not. (it is considered a light mace when wielded as the Feat dictates)
So the question is, Main hand (more attacks to sip) or off hand (Better to hit chances with Main Hand weapon)?
If a FAQ does come out, it will likely either exclude Extracts/Fusions, or limit them to once per round.
You can choose every round what is your main and off hand. And the feat text is:
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.Not the usual "wielding it as", but "treating it in all ways as a light mace". Extremely open ended. The guy taking that feat has some strong argument that for him, for all purposes, the tankard is a light mace, including feats like weapon focus, specialization and two handed combat.
To sip from the tankard, you are TWF with it as you do so. TWF is specific as to what weapon is wielded and how the attacks are made. (you are gaining extra attacks with the Off Hand weapon) This is more specific when the light weapon is in the off hand and a One Handed is in the main hand, as when you use the One Handed weapon in the off hand, the penalties would go up for doing so...
Now, you can decide which hand is main and which is off when using your normal attack progression without TWF, but that isn't the subject at hand.
You are trying to say that the TWF rules somewhere lock you into using a hand as your main hand forever? If so cite the relevant piece of text.
They lock you into selecting every round what is your main and your secondary hand and sticking to that selection for the whole round, but no more than that.|
|
So when you take the full round action, one weapon is in the main hand, and the other in the Off Hand. It matters not which hands they are, but the weapons are locked to the Main/off hand for that full round action when the character does his attacks.
I am just saying that there is a limit on how many sips are available according to which hand (Main or Off) is used to wield the Tankard. You can only sip as many times as you have attacks made with the Tankard. This is assuming one would want to do this more than once in the first place.
