Yes. The Pathfinder Core Book states, "If the item’s activation is subsumed in its use and takes no extra time use, activation is not an action at all." It is clear that swinging a magic sword or firing a magic arrow in the same way that you would use a mundane sword or arrow entitles you to the benefits of the magical enhancements.
Since the Javelin of Lightning is a magical weapon, this rule would apply. So, using Javelins of Lightning an 11th level fighter could (at a cost of 4,500 gold) throw three lighting bolts in a round.
I don't have an answer for you on a Bead of Force or Necklace of Fireballs, because neither is explicitly a weapon.
My tendency as a DM is to allow more leeway with expendable items than reusable ones, so I would probably allow both of those items to count as weapons, and therefore benefit from multiple attacks.
even though the use of Javelin of lightning requires no attack roll??
Correct.
& would character need quick draw to throw multi javelins??
If the PC had three javelins clutched in their left hand at the start of the round, they could throw all three without needing quickdraw. If, however, the javelins were all in, say, a quiver, they would need quickdraw to throw more than one a round. Normal rules apply, essentially.
Like Blueluck, I don't really see anything in the other two descriptions that would prevent a player from using iterative attacks for the items, but I would opine that the intention was likely to make it a standard action. They're phrased very similarly to many of the other "standard action, throw a thing" actions.
Unlike Blueluck, I wouldn't be more lenient with an item simply because it's expendable. Simply being expendable makes an item better and worse than other items. While they may only have one use, at one use they're virtually guaranteed (if used intelligently) to be extremely effective. The necklace of fireballs, for example, is one such effect. Assuming the character(s) had the funds, they could obliterate any single encounter with two standard actions or two iterative attacks.
I take your point. The reasons I err toward generosity with expendables and toward strictness with reusables are:
Unlike Blueluck, I wouldn't be more lenient with an item simply because it's expendable. Simply being expendable makes an item better and worse than other items. While they may only have one use, at one use they're virtually guaranteed (if used intelligently) to be extremely effective. The necklace of fireballs, for example, is one such effect. Assuming the character(s) had the funds, they could obliterate any single encounter with two standard actions or two iterative attacks.
- I assume that if I'm running a game that goes on long enough for players to make loot decisions like investing in expendables vs. reusables, that I'm running an ongoing campaign where consistent use of expendables will dilute the character's effectiveness in the long run. In a one-shot game at a convention, I don't give the characters enough time to make intricate magic item selection. Also, I didn't take this approach when running RPGA evens with static loot levels.
- In my experience, players prefer to spend their money on reusable items, or at least those with a large number of charges. If they're using expendables, it's probably because I handed them out. (And, of course, I wouldn't negate my own encounters by giving out an item.)
- Expendable items tend to be very expensive for what they do.
- Most importantly, if the players come up with an amazing trick using expendables, I want to reward them for their cleverness more than I want to control their power level. I have no problem letting the characters out-clever rather than out-fight an opponent. If the players come up with an amazing trick using infinitely repeatable methods, I worry more that they will miss out on later fun by being over-powered.
By all means, do what fits your style and your players' style!
By all means, do what fits your style and your players' style!
Agree. :)