I love the screaming wand (and will have to take something like that for my own campaign), but the Ring of Dazzling Wizardry is practically no curse at all. A ring of wizardry III or IV that adds 2 to your caster level in exchange for colors and sparkles? That fireball will still kill enemies just as well with sparkles attached. As long as you avoid subtle spells, this is a huge boost. :)
Small joint manipulation? Maybe an arm lock?
Not to be the killjoy, but even that wouldn't be possible unless your halfling somehow had superhuman strength. The sheer size differences mean that the most it would be able to affect is maybe a claw nail or something...
I would actually allow the attempt. And then I would let them know that their attempt was partially successful -- they are considered grappled, but the T-Rex is not. Essentially, they are hanging onto the colossal beast while it moves about its business, unhindered.
How familiar are your players with video game music? There are some good selections from popular games that might fit the bill. For instance, Final Fantasy IX and X have some more contemplative slow pieces that could work, but if your players are avid gamers, recognizing where music comes from can disrupt the immersion. Likewise, Martin O'Donnel's work on Halo 2 and 3 has some nice slower pieces that could serve well for the ambience of a library.
(I also use a lot of video game music as backdrops while playing -- often changing the sample rate in something like CoolEdit in order to slow the piece down and change its octave to make it a little less recognizable.)
The size thing is an interesting issue that is yet to be fully resolved. Would you allow this giant to catch a sling stone hurled by a halfling? Is that item a small stone because it was used as a weapon by a small creature? Or is it a diminuitive stone because that's literally the size of the object?
Is it reasonable for a giant to catch something this small? A battering blast is still big enough for him to see and notice, but at what point does it actually become cumbersome to catch? What if it were cast by a halfling, or a pixie? Imagine as a human using a rock-catching ability to try and grip and catch something the size of a BB coming your way.
I think that based on the size issue, this wouldn't be allowed. If the size of the force projectile were increased to actual small size then I think it would be back in consideration.
I am sure this has been discussed before, but I tried to do a search and turned up empty.
A new player will be joining my campaign this Friday. He will be playing a Ranger (level 4) with a Wolf animal companion. His 4th level feat is Boon Companion, which brings the wolf to 4 HD and allows it a stat increase. In order for the companion to know more tricks, understand a language, etc., the stat is going into Intelligence, which would bring it to 3.
Looking ahead, are there any sort of exemptions on the concept of Awakening for animal companions? The spell, as well as the Collar of True Awakening item, stipulate that an animal must have an intelligence less than 3, but it is extremely common for those with animal companions to give them a little bump in this area. Does that essentially exclude them forever from the potential of Awakening?
I think this is a case where the specifics of Awaken would trump the generalities of something else, but I want to make sure I haven't missed anything.
Interesting. Your average person with a dagger could never free themselves in this case. Someone armed with a short sword would have to hack at it for an average of 9 minutes (1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on damage for 1 point, 15 points needed.)
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I've been in that situation a few times myself, where just having players do their own thing endangered the party. In fact, one of those situations led to a TPK.
Was not quarterbacking the right thing to do in that case? I mean, technically, yes, it was the right thing to do. But biting one's tongue can also lead to wiping out the party, which impacts everyone at the table and isn't usually a good time...
And we're wrapping up 1E without any rules for consuming monsters. I'm actually thinking about this. I know, its weird.
Sorry to hit your old post here, but this just reminded me. Didn't someone around here post something indicating they were working on a sort of monster cookbook, that you could use the parts from various beasts and such to create buffing meals? I remember being very interested in it, but maybe I hallucinated.
Well, technically against their characters not the players themselves. That said, I could see being uncomfortable using it for that reason. Maybe instead have serpentfolk call humans "softskins" or "greasebags" (referring to how they sweat, which I assume snake people don't do)
True, it would be used against the characters, but in a roleplaying scenario, where two people are having a conversation where this occurs. In most cases, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but there's some where I could imagine that, even when leveled against a character of a race that doesn't exist in our world, it could evoke some unpleasant feelings. It's the same reason I wouldn't necessarily strive for a conversation about how to commit gender-oriented slurs or things like sexual assault. Sure, it's just a character in a game, but there are real people behind those pieces of paper and for some the parallels can be rather uncomfortable.
(All that having been said, as GM, know your table. Keep an eye out for how much is too much and talk to players when necessary.)
I especially like this answer. The moment the character embarks on their quest to perform this campaign-destroying endeavor, they vanish from existence. Their body, all their possessions (on or off their person) and all records of them are irrevocably erased. The other characters are informed that they have no memory of the character. In fact, what has happened is that the character has been destroyed some time ago by a force that foresaw what was to happen.
The other PCs have no memory of their lost ally; thus, they will not make any attempts to barter with deities, travel to long-lost planes, or anything else to bring them back. The handful of entities that might be aware of what has transpired are unlikely to lift a finger to reverse it.
It's a completely rational and reasonable GM fiat response.
Not sure if it's in the price range, but certainly a gem containing a live, trapped soul (especially one of a non-evil being) certainly qualifies as evil. The value of the gem itself is 1,000 GP per HD of the creature -- but what's the value of the soul within?
This is actually something I plan to auction off in my own campaign, though not as a piece of "evil" per se but just an item found in some eccentric person's collection after their death.
Yeah, RAW it's plain to see, but admittedly it doesn't make total sense. Your faerie dragon's melee reach would then be greater than the length of his breath weapon. How fearsome is it to see someone who can breathe fire -- but only up to their elbow? I suppose the dragon could try and grapple someone and drag them into range of their breath weapon...
Your GM could houserule that size change affect breath weapon attacks, but but does open up a can of worms for other creatures and attacks. Does a gaze attack have a smaller or greater range based on the size of the eyes that emit it? Does a Colossal ghoul emit stench at a larger range? How far away can a banshee wail when she's huge?
It's worth noting that your faerie dragon is just that, but should you choose to pursue this road, the entry for "true dragons" does state:
Breath weapons come in two shapes, lines and cones, whose areas vary with the dragon’s size.
Thus, it does seem that size should have some effect on breath weapon range.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Also, Simulacrum of a Hag is not necessarily a Hag, and may not be able to join a Coven at all. In fact, I'd say a Simulacrum of a Hag is not a Hag. Can you even join a Coven unwillingly? Well, Simulacrae have no free will and no ability to do anything willingly.
This does bring up an interesting point and potential shutdown. Unlike many other classes, Witches get their powers directly from a patron entity. (Arguably, Clerics would be in a similar boat.) Does a simulacrum of a Witch have the same tie to the patron entity? Would 500,000 simulacrums all get de facto contracts with a patron? Would such a patron entity have the actual ability to empower this sudden surge in their adherents? (Again, this would also apply to the concept of a Cleric should it ever come up.)
In two of those three scenarios, you are doing work associated with thieves. Thieves are renowned for their ability to disarm traps, pick locks, and steal items. That you are putting those abilities to good use does not change that, socially, those talents are associated with thieves and less respected people. Tying up the criminal probably goes 50/50. Forcibly restraining someone is generally only acceptable when the person is a criminal; since criminals make up a minority of the population, this act is more likely to be used unlawfully (although PCs may be more likely to use it lawfully.)
Subterfuge might also be a decent name, although like everything else, it cannot encompass the entirety of what this skill allows.
How does this actually work in a society of slavery? Is the Paladin obligated to free all the downtrodden slaves they come across, laws be damned? How would they have acted in the pre-Civil War American South? In ancient Egypt? Would they have been obliged to free all the Helots of Sparta? (I realize this is the right thing to do, for sure, but we're talking about breaking the law.)
I realize that this is sounds like it is shooting off on a tangent which is not directly related to the "Thievery" debate, but in truth, the scenario being described is theft of legal property. If the Paladin either directly (or through facilitation such as lockpicking) takes, removes or frees something that is legally recognized as the property of another, they are breaking the law and committing what would commonly be seen as "Thievery." Is it for the greater good? Probably, but that doesn't change the term. Though he redistributed wealth and often took things that had been unlawfully gained themselves, Robin Hood was still a thief.
The DM of wrote:
As many of us of have played Pathfinder and previous iterations of D&D going decades back, during which these restrictions have been in place without the sky falling down, I would instead ask what are your examples of situations where it is highly detrimental that a person can wear only two rings, one pair of boots, a single necklace, and the like.
Or, please provide examples of the horror of a person not being able to utilize more than, say, 15 magical items simultaneously, regardless of position (assuming that, by the time a character's wealth could accommodate it, they could use a number of magical items limited to at least the total slots available before.) Remember, they can own more than that, just not use them at the same time.
For your own real example(s), please consider them in the framework of PF2, where the Big Six are no longer mandated. So you can wear a cloak of your choice without losing your Cloak of Resistance, one of your ring slots is no longer consumed with a Ring of Protection; your belt and head slots are likely not occupied with a stat-boosting item.
What is the disastrous consequence of limiting item usage by slots or amount in PF2, so immense and important that it needs to be enumerated within the official rules instead of just being a houserule?
The solution is simple: wield the weapon during the entirety of the crafting/enchantment. ;)
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but both Uncommon and Rare items are subject to GM declaration, which is what makes them confusing. Admittedly, Rare is indeed more rare (you will only get it if the GM actively decides to give it to you), but it really seems like Uncommon should be available to all characters if they meet prerequisites such as class, feat, ancestry, country of origin, and the like.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that how you get the item doesn't feel like an appropriate determinant of its rarity.
I like this idea a lot, but I'm not sure I follow the implementation. Are you saying characters earn Hero Points normally when their flag is up? There must be some way for them to regain points other than raising the flag. Otherwise, if they raised the flag, gained six points and then spent below six, they would never be able to lower the flag again.
I haven't really dug into the math of this all that much, but I do like the idea of Int being tied more closely to skills.
Perhaps, as a matter of balance, there could be a feat which allows characters to use Int as the attribute for any of their skills instead of their normal ability scores.
This has two advantages that make it (hopefully) slightly less overpowering:
- It costs a feat to the user, which means resources drawn from elsewhere to use this conversion
- Intelligence is used instead of the normal ability, not in addition to it.
I rarely played characters with those abilities either (except for a monk with Leadership once), and I've never had an issue with other players using them. If we can get an extra meat shield and maybe some useful senses, I'm 100% down as a player. As a DM, I've never had anyone get upset over someone having a companion or eidolon, or summon monster. I think this is a problem more rarely than it's made out to be.
It may be more rare than it's portrayed here, but when it's a problem, it's really a problem. You may not have encountered this exact scenario, but no doubt as an experienced GM you have come across the scenarios where a PC was killed or completely incapacitated and had to sit out combat; or where an encounter favored the skills and setup of one character to the detriment of others. It can be very easy for player disinterest to mount in the face of lopsided involvement, and when this situation rears its ugly head, that's what you're faced with. And summons and undead creations aren't just pets or companions that disappear forever once killed. If you somehow manage to remove or nullify them via creative means, they'll just be back the next day or sooner.
For what it's worth, I agree with you. I don't think magical weapons in PF2 should be adding damage dice. But I was replying theoretically to how one could narrate such a weapon still being magical and yet requiring true expertise to maximize that power.
Disagree entirely. The sword is magic for whoever possesses it, but in order to unlock the full potential, you have to be worthy of the weapon. It's better than a plain old sword for anyone who picks it up. That's magic. But the weapon's amazing balance, magically-sharp edge, and the slight way it guides your stroke as you swing it... It takes the best of swordsmen to realize that and implement it to the full potential. The combination of a master warrior and master weapon should always yield a better result from each than if they were paired with other less powerful counterparts.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Swarms IRL are scary for the same reason swarms are in PF: the inability to target individual members. That's not a concern of power level.
But swarms in Pathfinder are the virtual embodiment of the concept. Numerous enemies that individually are nothing more than a nuisance becoming a threat due to their numbers. Why can't that be extrapolated to a macro level to say that large numbers of creatures typically much bigger than an ant, wasp, bee or bat *also* pose a genuine threat? PF1 has the Zombie Horde which is essentially a swarm of zombies, but I don't think a group needs to reach colossal size before it becomes a threat even to characters levels higher than individual members of the group.
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
I am strongly of the opinion that high level characters should be able to wade through armies of low-level mooks untouched, and villains who are that tactically lazy/dumb deserve to go out the window (and down fifty metres into the lava moat). Cutting a swathe through an army of low-level mooks is what gives high-level that legendary, Hercules or Cuchulainn feel.
On the other hand, imagine the amazing battle in the Mines of Moria if, upon hearing of the multitudes of approaching goblins, Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Boromir and Gandalf had just shrugged, stood their ground and cut down the approaching forces.
True, the sheer number of goblins involved would have meant plenty of natural 20s to cause the occasional hit, but the point stands--the concept of retreating before superior numbers of unskilled enemies is a storytelling (and fantasy) trope. There's valid precedence for either method, and certainly I wouldn't call the occasional villain (or GM) who utilizes a mook swarm to be lazy or dumb given the occurrences of such scenarios in the past.
(See also: Star Wars people running from inferior Stormtroopers, Neo fleeing from a hundred inferior Agent Smiths, most zombie films and literature, real life insect or animal swarms, and so on.)
We never use those bonuses at my table anyway, they were way too powerful, even for the only occasional use that was allowed. This forced players to use the cards for their bizarre effects instead, which has been much more entertaining.
Igor Horvat wrote:
You're on to something with this, but the numbers need a little tweaking IMO. Being trained in something shouldn't really mitigate you from screwing it up pretty badly. You're just adequate. How about this instead?
Untrained: Maximum die roll is 15 (or lower -- 12?)
This way you're penalized mildly for having no training at all, you get a definite benefit from having some training (you can actually make a good roll in the skill), and then you start seeing improvements in your minimum performance beyond that point.
Ah, the Boromir effect. And he was most assuredly no higher than level five or six.
Also, NPCs running a magic shop don't necessarily need to make all their potions themselves. There could be crafters--perhaps hundreds of them throughout the world--creating items merely to resell to stores. They don't have the acumen or desire to run a shop themselves, but they love crafting. A good shopkeep will have contact with probably half a dozen such individuals. They could restock their potions within a few days, or replace other, more significant items in a week.
Corwin Icewolf wrote:
It doesn't allow the Conan type unless they always have their signature weapon on hand. Was there never a story where Conan was captured and disarmed, or had to grab a plain standard sword or axe from a fallen enemy? I think the story would have become far less compelling if he suddenly had to hit everyone 4-5 times as much just because he didn't have his super special sword.
This rule makes the weapon far more important important than the warrior. As Thulsa Doom asked, "What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?" In PF2, the answer is, "everything."
For the exact same reasons you list, I think this is a bad rule, so bad that I feel it must be a mistake. The Bag of Holding has rarely, if ever, been anything more than a lesser convenience. It doesn't help you win battles, protect you from harmful effects, heal your wounds, solve diplomatic issues, improve your stealth checks, identify dangerous monsters or arcana, and so on. All it does is carry stuff around for you.
This rule makes the Bag of Holding feel like a magic item, since it's being treated like other magic items, but it balances the minor (at best) benefits of the item with a significant drawback in your character performance. 1 resonance to add 1 die to your weapon damage, or improve a skill check roll by +3? Maybe. But to open a bag and put something into it? Come on.
Secondly, this has potential to screw over players who have GM's who are not malignant, but either inexperienced or have some fetish for making things difficult for their players, because they feel it enhances roleplaying that way. Same goes with access to spells suddenly being restricted by being uncommon for many hitherto commonly known utility spells.
This is not "playing fairly." It comes right back to the thing being said, which is if you don't trust your GM to play fairly, find a new one. If players don't want things made extra difficult in spite of the rolls, and the GM does that, it isn't fair. (If the players want that, on the other hand, full speed ahead.)
Ever tried playing with a Chaotic Evil PC? Unless you're in it for laughs or running an evil campaign, it's like pulling teeth trying to work with them. Someone who isn't sure if they want to eat ice cream or orphan meat is not the best person to have following you around.
Chaotic Evil doesn't necessarily mean they roll dice in their heads to determine their next actions. Their behavior don't have to be inexplicable like the Joker or something. It just means that in addition to being cruel, ruthless, sadistic and the like, they're also untrustworthy--and potentially unpredictable, but especially since you can't take them at their word. The LOLRandomEvil mindset of CE is more an issue of players and interpretations than inherent to the alignment itself, I would say.
I agree, having such a being following you around is a trying experience. That's why anyone who works with them needs to know how to properly manipulate and control them--or best leverage their behavior...
Dave Justus wrote:
That said, it is still going to be very powerful and if the wizard can't get it done with 1 simulacrum, he can always make a few more, so this issue isn't going to go away with a 'rules' answer. You need to express your concern with your group and explain that while you are glad that the wizard is able to be cool, it is making the game not fun for you and see if you can't as a group figure out a way so everyone can have a good time.
Slightly tangential, but I'm thinking of a worst case scenario where the party had to kill the wizard (perhaps in his sleep) -- what happens to the simulacrum? The spell indicates that it is at all times under the control of the spellcaster. Following the death of the spellcaster, does it become a free-willed entity, lose all sense of self-direction like a Nomu, or just go up in smoke?
This is an interesting question, actually. On the surface (no pun intended), there doesn't seem to be any way the Grease spell could put out a fire; the volume of material generated by the spell is very small (if the grease was 1/8" deep, the spell would create just over a gallon of the grease. Pouring that over a flame would be rather ineffectual.
But this grease is spread out over the 10x10 area (presumably evenly), coating the surface of the material being greased. That introduces a barrier between the fire and its fuel. The grease isn't flammable, but the question becomes: is it vaporable? How long would it take for the flame to vaporize the grease and remove it as an impediment? (This assumes that the grease even can be removed while the spell persists.) It would take longer, I think, than the flame will survive unless it's a magical flame such as a Wall of Fire. Just like sprinkling dirt over a burning object (slowly enough as to not smother the flame outright, but simply to bury the object) will put out a fire, so would covering it with this grease.
So, if we accept that the grease cannot catch fire, then the logical ruling is that, if used on an object which is on fire but not continuously exposed to an external source of flame, that fire would be extinguished within one round due to a lack of oxygen. (Note that Grease only covers one side/surface. A burning wall or roof extinguished on one side by the grease spell could still be burning on the other side!)
If the object coated with Grease is exposed to an external source of flame such as a Wall of Fire, Remorhaz, etc., you must decide whether you believe the Grease can be vaporized by the heat, or whether it will persist for the duration of the spell. If the former, then the Grease will be burned away by the heat after a period of time, and then the object can again catch fire. If the Grease is sustained by the spell, then the object cannot signficantly burn so long as the spell persists due to a lack of oxygen. However, the Grease may still become boiling hot, so dousing yourself in Grease to avoid immolation may not provide quite the protection you're looking for, and it may still permit heat to pass through, melting metal, glass and similar objects (just not setting them on fire.)
Grease should not be able to douse any magical fire effect which is not dependent on oxygen--Continual Flame, flaming weapons, etc.
Can confirm, fluoroethers and fluorinated greases are 20th century inventions; research into them might have been in effect at the late part of the 19th century. In essence, unless your campaign allows for (primitive) combustion engines, it probably wouldn't be advanced enough for these.
We will not be moving over to PF2 for some time. While the new system certainly has some good ideas that I might enmesh as house rules into my PF1, there are just too many hard stops for me as GM (resonance, the reportedly-simple-but-getting-more-complicated-all-the-time action economy, the limited skill system) and my players (no Gunslingers or firearms, watering down of magic, the CS/S/F/CF system) for us to adopt it at this time. And that's okay, because it means that my seven or eight hardback books remain valid.
If there's an easy manner of converting over and books are released that have interesting new material, then I may pick up some PF2 stuff to broaden the horizons of (our already quite vast) PF1 stuff. But from everything I've read, the system just isn't for my table.
Gregg Reece wrote:
Yes, but in the case of the items you mentioned, you can objectively state that we have superior options now, just as modern computers can trounce my old Commodore 128 (which I still have), or modern cars are faster and more convenient than the horse and buggy.
The delicate balancing act of gameplay mechanics, flavor, realism, class balance and so much else that goes into a game like Pathfinder is going to prevent you from being able to say if something is objectively an improvement or just something that people like better. When you cannot demonstrably show that something is an improvement over something else, it is change for the sake of change. That can be necessary to avoid stagnation, but let's not conflate it with definitive improvement.
Well, the opponent has to be within range.
Interesting. Does this mean that you could counterspell the opponent's spell by being within touch range of him/her while being outside of touch range of the intended target?
You -> Opponent -> Opponent's Target
From a physical or direction standpoint, your magic wouldn't be "getting in the way" of the opponent's magic (a ranged counterspell could be seen as "intercepting" the opposing spell, but not here.) I guess in this case you're just nullifying the spell at its source before it has a chance to emanate.
Although I love the image this paints, wouldn't such a large number of tiny- or fine-sized inconsequential enemies be considered a swarm? Not that a squirrel swarm couldn't be potentially lethal, mind you, as they have a surprisingly powerful bite--ten times stronger per square inch than the strongest dog.
I have rationalized it by assuming that Potions and Scrolls require their user to impart a bit of magical energy in order to activate the effects.
So, can those without any knowledge of how to imbue this magical energy still drink a potion and gain the effects? What about someone who is unconscious? If it's not a willing, conscious effect, can you drain someone's innate essence by forcing potions on them? Does this also mean that a potion with negative effects (such as Cause Serious Wounds) would be negated if its would-be victim had already used up all of their Resonance for the day? There are so many aspects of Resonance that just don't make any sense if you think further along than just. "this is the ideal way in which this mechanic will be utilized."
Dave Justus wrote:
Actually, Immovable Rod does have flavor text which indirectly states this.
Several immovable rods can even make a ladder when used together (although only two are needed).
You wouldn't be able to substitute two immovable rods for "several" if they couldn't be moved again after being activated. Thus, the logical conclusion is that the ability can be turned on and off, even though you're right that it doesn't explicitly state that the button pressing can make the rod movable again.
We're 50/50 at this point on whether we'll be migrating over to 2.0 (and definitely not until firearms make it in), but we won't be taking Resonance and wand charges. We won't take Resonance and single-use potions and scrolls. Constantly-on items, or those that can be activated a certain number of times a day by your command? I can buy that. But no matter what game-balance or mechanical reason they provide, I can't buy into the logic of someone being able to only read a certain number of scrolls in a day when the magic for those scrolls is already within the scroll itself--especially when the target of those magics is not even the user of the scroll. It doesn't even matter if the Resonance limit is generous enough that it rarely comes up. The fact that it exists feels nonsensical. And you're paying a premium for portable (and potable) magic, only to find out that you might not be able to use them when you need them most because you're juiced out for the day? No sir.
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
This is just another one of those cases where the economy (of PF1, at least) just doesn't make sense if you sit down to think of it. Among the incomprehensible comparison of artifact and major magic item gold prices versus the cost to construct entire cities, you have the rampant availability of magic items in areas where the demographics provided by the game's source materials say they wouldn't exist. The populace to create the items doesn't exist and the cost of the items versus how many must be out there doesn't gel; if you have a 75% chance to find items under 1,000 GP, then on average, 75% of every possible magic item (including scrolls and wands) in that range is in the area--potentially with more total monetary value than all the mundane goods and real estate of the area.
I used to be dedicated to the concept of XP-based leveling. It was something bred into the game at its most base level. Seeing numbers gave you that feeling of progression, a building sense of anticipation as you got that much closer to another level of power!
But over the years, and especially with the group I'm currently GM'ing for, I've become more and more enamored of milestone or periodic [because levels don't always follow a major event] leveling, and it's what I've adopted for our current campaign. After a certain number of adventures and challenges, characters gain a level. I say characters (and not "the party") because I stagger the levels. Rather than the entire group gaining a level at once, I have half the group gain a level at a certain point and after the next session, the other half gain their level. Thus, there's never more than a one-level difference among party members, and not for more than one session. This doubles the number of "jackpot" sessions and reduces the load on trying to help everyone to level (if your groups of players is one of those that needs hands-on help with leveling) in the space between one session.
The best part about this method is of course not having to worry about totalling up the xp. Whatever route the party takes to victory, whether it's combat, diplomatic, duplicity or whatever, if they achieve the means, they get that much closer to leveling. I know that's essentially what it says in the books anyway, but it always felt somehow wrong when dealing with actual xp that if one member of the party managed to outwit a ferocious enemy and avoid a battle that should have put the whole group on the edge of their seat, that the reward should be the same.
In any event, unless I come across players who somehow feel cheated if they're not provided with their arbitrary post-session xp numbers, I will likely stick with milestone leveling.
You can't put more than one potion in a vial. If you do so as a normal course of things, the magical properties of both potions would be destroyed and the thing would just become plain old liquid.
There currently exists no magical item or ability to combine two potions. A Hybridization Funnel works like this for alchemical splash weapons, and it's possible your GM would allow you to create such an item for potions, but it would likely be expensive and should come with the same drawbacks as the funnel--requiring a Craft check to perform successfully and if the combined potions were not consumed in a certain period of time, they would become inert liquid.