|
13 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Let's say I want to combine two extracts via Admixture vial.
For example Enlarge person and Long Arm. Both are Level 1 extracts.
What Level would have the combined extract?
Second question: Can I then put the combined extract into a preserving Flask to keep it for a long time?
You combined two level 1 extracts that were already made, so the idea of 'level' isn't really defined. They are both still level one extracts that you get to drink at the same time from the vial.
It's not clear if you can then pour the mixed extracts into the preserving flask, but if that were allowed I would use the same 'highest level +2' that's associated with the combined extracts discovery. So you would need a level 3 flask for your example. That should preserve the balance.
Sounds fair. Otherwise it would be very powerful. So for two LV1 extracts it will be a LV3 Flask, if there is a LV2 extract involved you will need the LV4 flask and so on.
Still a powerful combination of items, but balanced by the sheer Gold cost it will take.
One can say that I interpreted it wrong, but until rather recently —and maybe even after then— I've always interpreted admixture vial as requiring a level 3 extract slot to be usable.
It says that it works like combine extracts, and combine extracts requires a level 3 slot. Yes it has slightly different wording (formula vs extract), but they weren't necessarily made by the same people, and certainly weren't made at the same time.
I interpreted it as an item that is used before the 2 lower level extracts are actually made, and that they're only made during the process of using the admixture vial, and take up 0 low level slots (and a single high level slot)
Otherwise the discovery seems kinda weak compared to the item (not many alchemists I know will ever get a level 5 slot, not to say that it doesn't happen though.), at least ignoring the uses per day limitation (which could be bypassed by buying more admixture vials if one really wanted).
I see that the descriptions are more or less clear, but I have my doubts about them because of the balance and the fact someone could easily make a mistake of using the wrong word (extract vs formula).
The admixture vial combines extracts that are already made using their original slots. It can be done anytime after the fact. How would it even interact with higher slots?
I've made a shield extract and a reduce person extract using first level slots. Later that day, I pour them into the admixture vial. Done.
You would have to assume a lot of missing and incorrect words to have it behave how you think.
The benefit of the discovery is that you can use it more than once a day, but yeah it's still kinda weak.
After some discussion with a friend of mine, we came to the conclusion that it makes more sense to use multiple Boro Beads, to replenish the extracts used for the Combination.
I know this thread is pretty old, but I have input here:
Paizo wrote: Once per day, an alchemist can use this simple-looking glass vial to combine two extracts into one usable extract as if he had the combine extracts discovery. It seems extremely reasonable to interpret that has having the same requirements and limitations--in essence, you use the admixture vial as the container in question at the moment you are preparing extracts to mix them in the same way that they would be mixed if you were using combine extracts. Since you are essentially buying a per-day usage of combine extracts without having to pay the cost of a discovery, this seems like a reasonable limitation. Otherwise, at level 7, I'd just shove haste and beast shape I into an admixture vial and call it a day, a combination that would otherwise require me to be level 13 to even attempt to pull off. Or hell, how about a double cure serious wounds--6d8 + 14 healing for the cost of a standard action (aka more than the total average hitpoints for a level 7 alchemist with a Con of 10)? Yes please!
You can house rule anything you like, but that's not how the item actually works. The magic item combines extracts that are already made:
Quote: Once per day, an alchemist can use this simple-looking glass vial to combine two extracts into one usable extract as if he had the combine extracts discovery. An admixture vial can combine extracts of 3rd level or lower. The feat 'comibine extracts' works on the actual formula and requires the use of higher slots:
Quote: When the alchemist creates an extract, he can place two formulae into one extract. When the extract is consumed, both formulae take effect. Thus it is clear that the feat works during the forumula->extract preparation, whereas the admixture vial operates on extracts that are already created and in existence.
The word 'formulae' is nowhere to be found in the description of the admixture vial. The reference to the feat is essentially referential 'fluff' since the magic item defines how it is used in the description.
The 'limitation' that is built into the admixture vial is that it only works on extracts of 3rd level or lower, whereas the feat 'combine extracts' has no such limitation.
That's really not the implication of the words there (more specifically that's hardly the only interpretation, the way you make it sound, but I would also argue that your interpretation is also not the one that follows most logically).
Quote: an alchemist can use this simple-looking glass vial to combine two extracts into one usable extract as if he had the combine extracts discovery The language there does not have any requirement that the extracts exist before being combined. It specifically says that they are combined in the same way that the combine extracts discovery creates an extract that is composed from two different formulae, that is, with the same mechanics and limitations. The item then imposes a further limitation that the extract can only be on 3rd level or lower. Given the balance issues I've already pointed out, this seems to follow logically, as well as being exactly what the words say. Getting hung up on how the item refers specifically to the extract rather than the formula is arguable, but doesn't seem like the most reasonable intepretation.
Stop.
Admixture vials combine extracts. The discovery combines formula. That's how it operates. The idea that an admixture vial would suddenly occupy a higher level is a bit silly. Also consider that as written I don't believe the discovery uses the original slots at all, only the higher slot. Where as admixture vials use the lower slot.
This raises an interesting question about the interactions of boro beads .....
Dude, I already pointed out the difference in the language. it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. Combine extracts talks about combining formulae into one extract, which would take up ONE SLOT (of higher level) out of your daily allotment to gain both effects. It specifically DOES NOT say that it combines 'in the same way' because formulae != extracts.
If you use the admixture vial, you already have two existing extracts which already took TWO SLOTS (of the original levels) from your daily allotment. Combining these extracts does not take any further slots and can be done at any time, even if you've already expended all your other slots for the day.
So:
Combine extract (feat): ONE EXTRACT SLOT, level +2, no other limits
Admixture vial (item): TWO EXTRACT SLOTS, original levels, 1/day, 3rd level limit
That's how they work, and it's not getting 'hung up' on how the item refers to the extracts, it's actually using the item properly instead of incorrectly. Again, you are free to change it as you see fit in your house game, but that's how the rules are written.
Quote: it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. It's very easy to handwave away. Two different people wrote the copy, and Paizo has terrible QA.
The language around "as if he had the combine extracts discovery" is also pretty clear: combine these in exactly the same way that discovery does it, just by spending money on an item rather than spending a discovery. You're both acting like this is completely cut and dried, when it's just as likely that someone forgot the distinction between "extract" and "formula" when making source material as it isn't.
The two extract slots argument doesn't really change the balance equation. With your interpretation, I can cast the equivalent of "cure critical wounds" at level 4 rather than level 10. Two slots to bring myself from nearly dead to full strength in a single round is a bargain (and with chirurgeon archetype, I can just deactivate the extracts if I really need to prep something else later, and have a minute to do it in). I can haste and heroism, which I'd probably be using the slots for anyway, in a single round. And if I did feel that was too dear a cost, I'd just get a level 1-3 preserving flask, and suddenly, it's not a factor until I have to use it. Or a boro bead, and I can get the slots back. This is all pretty great stuff, and clearly eclipses what combine extracts can do. If you're arguing that the people who designed this thing designed it to be almost strictly better than something that costs a discovery, then you can argue it, but I don't think it really holds water. At the very least, dismissing the alternate interpretation as a "house rule" is both rude and unreasonable.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
slitherrr wrote: Quote: it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. It's very easy to handwave away. Two different people wrote the copy, and Paizo has terrible QA. The Rules Forum might not be a good fit for you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Gisher wrote: slitherrr wrote: Quote: it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. It's very easy to handwave away. Two different people wrote the copy, and Paizo has terrible QA. The Rules Forum might not be a good fit for you. I guess that depends on your definition of RAW.
If you use the "only I'm in charge of the English language" version, then yea others might not be welcome.
If you use the "RAW is an interpreted thing and welcome to table variance" version then all are welcome.
Are you welcoming or not? ;-)
James Risner wrote:
I guess that depends on your definition of RAW.
If you use the "only I'm in charge of the English language" version, then yea others might not be welcome.
If you use the "RAW is an interpreted thing and welcome to table variance" version then all are welcome.
Are you welcoming or not? ;-) Couldn't have said it better.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
James Risner wrote: Gisher wrote: slitherrr wrote: Quote: it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. It's very easy to handwave away. Two different people wrote the copy, and Paizo has terrible QA. The Rules Forum might not be a good fit for you. I guess that depends on your definition of RAW.
If you use the "only I'm in charge of the English language" version, then yea others might not be welcome.
If you use the "RAW is an interpreted thing and welcome to table variance" version then all are welcome.
Are you welcoming or not? ;-) Why even have a rules forum if there is no way to determine what they actually say? Sometimes there actually is a right answer and a wrong answer. Not every time, but most of the time.
Otherwise, answer every post with: expect table variance
The threads will be a hell of a lot shorter, so I guess that's something.
slitherrr wrote: Quote: it exists for a reason and you can't handwave it away. It's very easy to handwave away. Two different people wrote the copy, and Paizo has terrible QA.
The language around "as if he had the combine extracts discovery" is also pretty clear: combine these in exactly the same way that discovery does it, just by spending money on an item rather than spending a discovery. You're both acting like this is completely cut and dried, when it's just as likely that someone forgot the distinction between "extract" and "formula" when making source material as it isn't.
The two extract slots argument doesn't really change the balance equation. With your interpretation, I can cast the equivalent of "cure critical wounds" at level 4 rather than level 10. Two slots to bring myself from nearly dead to full strength in a single round is a bargain (and with chirurgeon archetype, I can just deactivate the extracts if I really need to prep something else later, and have a minute to do it in). I can haste and heroism, which I'd probably be using the slots for anyway, in a single round. And if I did feel that was too dear a cost, I'd just get a level 1-3 preserving flask, and suddenly, it's not a factor until I have to use it. Or a boro bead, and I can get the slots back. This is all pretty great stuff, and clearly eclipses what combine extracts can do. If you're arguing that the people who designed this thing designed it to be almost strictly better than something that costs a discovery, then you can argue it, but I don't think it really holds water. At the very least, dismissing the alternate interpretation as a "house rule" is both rude and unreasonable. Yes, congratulations, magic items increase your power level.
Guess what, slap poisoner's gloves on your tumor familiar and you can get two free infusions each day with no actions needed on your part.
With TWO boro beads you can get the slots back, they interact with extracts you mix up and consume, not extracts you combined using a magic item. 'Mixing' is how alchemists turn formulas into extracts, 'combining' is not mixing.
A preserving flask 'is capable of preserving an extract of a particular level.' The extract from an admixture vial is not an extract of a particular level.
Oftimes loopholes that you think are there really aren't.
_Ozy_ wrote: Why even have a rules forum ... Sometimes there actually is a right answer and a wrong answer.
Otherwise, answer every post with: expect table variance
When the two sides describe why they believe they are correct, and one side doesn't say "you convinced me" then you are at "table variance" and there won't be much either side can do but bicker for months. I don't like to bicker.
I guess, but to me 'expect table variance' sounds like you're suggesting either interpretation is equally valid, when clearly both cannot actually be correct.
The reason to continue to 'bicker' as you say is that perhaps, eventually, enough extra data, or extra voices are brought into the discussion to convince at least a portion of the people arguing that they were, in fact, incorrect. Often, the entirety of an argument isn't presented in the first few posts.
And sometimes, with enough posts, the devs decide to show up and FAQ/comment and put the argument to rest, e.g. that interminably long thread regarding a 10' pit.
James Risner wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Why even have a rules forum ... Sometimes there actually is a right answer and a wrong answer.
Otherwise, answer every post with: expect table variance
When the two sides describe why they believe they are correct, and one side doesn't say "you convinced me" then you are at "table variance" and there won't be much either side can do but bicker for months. I don't like to bicker.
Some sides don't have to describe why they believe they are correct. They just point out the rules, the English language, then apply proper grammar and determine exactly what the words say. RAW being genuinely unclear is fairly rare.
_Ozy_ wrote: I guess, but to me 'expect table variance' sounds like you're suggesting either interpretation is equally valid, when clearly both cannot actually be correct.
Anzyr wrote: Some sides don't have to describe why they believe they are correct. They just point out the rules, the English language, then apply proper grammar and determine exactly what the words say. RAW being genuinely unclear is fairly rare. This is the fundamental misunderstanding, here. You are suggesting that there is only one interpretation of any set of words. Clearly, there is probably only one intent (which we don't know, since the designer is not here to weigh in), but the nature of the English language (and all human language) is that it is ambiguous and amorphous.
The words that exist in this item's description have two interpretations, and they're both very clearly spelled out and grammatically cohesive, and yet both are contradictory. This is not an impossibility--this is language. The way forward is to determine the most likely valid interpretation (which is why we bring in concepts of balance and designer intent and so forth), not to stand and shout at each other over which interpretation is clearly correct.
_Ozy_ wrote: Yes, congratulations, magic items increase your power level. Sarcasm becomes you. No wait, it actually makes you look petty. Nobody is arguing that magical items shouldn't increase your power level. My argument, which I've maybe not made clear enough for you, is that 5000 gp is a pretty small price to pay compared to the cost of a discovery, for something that is better than a discovery.
__Ozy__ wrote: A preserving flask 'is capable of preserving an extract of a particular level.' The extract from an admixture vial is not an extract of a particular level. Under what reasoning? Two extracts have been combined into a single extract--that's a completely plausible interpretation. Hell, the level is even defined more completely if you accept my interpretation (that is, it is two levels higher than the highest component extract), but that of course wouldn't have the balance problems. And trying to rules-lawyer from this angle doesn't address the thrust of my balance argument, which is that 100% gain in action economy for two buffs that I'm already going to probably cast (e.g. heroism and haste) loses nothing by taking up those slots.
The phrase "as if he had the combine extracts discovery" only refers to the way you can now drink the extracts at the same time and the new extract that was made is considered to be a higher level extract.
That's what it says it does. Saying that the alchemist "loses" a usable extract doesn't makes sense logically or within what is written.
The alchemist makes what is a special type of magic item. Once it is made it isn't part of the alchemist so saying the affecting the item affects the alchemist doesn't make sense.
slitherrr wrote: This is the fundamental misunderstanding, here. You are suggesting that there is only one interpretation of any set of words. Clearly, there is probably only one intent (which we don't know, since the designer is not here to weigh in), but the nature of the English language (and all human language) is that it is ambiguous and amorphous. Actually, no, you may have inferred that from my words, but actually I was suggesting the latter. There is only one proper interpretation that aligns with the developers intent. Clearly, if nothing else, these forums have taught me that there are nearly an infinite number of interpretations of any given sentence.
Quote: My argument, which I've maybe not made clear enough for you, is that 5000 gp is a pretty small price to pay compared to the cost of a discovery, for something that is better than a discovery. Except it's not necessarily better than a discovery as it only works 1/day and has a limit of 3rd level spells. Neither of these limitations exist for the discovery.
Quote: Under what reasoning? Two extracts have been combined into a single extract--that's a completely plausible interpretation. Hell, the level is even defined more completely if... Under the reasoning is that if you try to look up the level for a combined extract in the alchemist's formula list, you will not find one.
Honestly I've always wondered about this too, as I assumed the worst for it out of safety. The 'this acts as the combine extracts discovery' line always made me think that comboing 2 level 1 extracts would take a level 3 slot, much like the discovery. The reading that said line only applies to how it's imbibed feels too strong for me, so I'd like some clarification on this as well.
Anzyr wrote: RAW being genuinely unclear is fairly rare. I think you are new to these forums. RAW being genuinely unclear is frequent enough. It may be true that out of thousands of rules, only a dozen are genuinely unclear.
I've witnessed way to many cases where one side tries to dictate the interpretation of English words, which all too often results in table variance.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
N. Jolly wrote: Honestly I've always wondered about this too, as I assumed the worst for it out of safety. The 'this acts as the combine extracts discovery' line always made me think that comboing 2 level 1 extracts would take a level 3 slot, much like the discovery. The reading that said line only applies to how it's imbibed feels too strong for me, so I'd like some clarification on this as well. How could it? It has no interactions with slots, just existing extracts. Walk me through how that would work.
I create a first level extract, another first level extract, and then combine them using the vial. Do I get my first level slots back and lose a third level slot?
Do I use THREE slots to do this?
Combine extracts has a completely different mechanic. The 'as if' reference doesn't mean that you ignore the listed mechanics of the item, it just references an ability that has a similar result.
Considering the action economy is really no different than the poisoners gloves, I don't really get the angst.
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
_Ozy_ wrote: N. Jolly wrote: Honestly I've always wondered about this too, as I assumed the worst for it out of safety. The 'this acts as the combine extracts discovery' line always made me think that comboing 2 level 1 extracts would take a level 3 slot, much like the discovery. The reading that said line only applies to how it's imbibed feels too strong for me, so I'd like some clarification on this as well. How could it? It has no interactions with slots, just existing extracts. Walk me through how that would work.
I create a first level extract, another first level extract, and then combine them using the vial. Do I get my first level slots back and lose a third level slot?
Do I use THREE slots to do this?
Combine extracts has a completely different mechanic. The 'as if' reference doesn't mean that you ignore the listed mechanics of the item, it just references an ability that has a similar result.
Considering the action economy is really no different than the poisoners gloves, I don't really get the angst. Considering there's questions asked, this is why I'd like to see this get cleared up. And poisoner's gloves at least require a bit of thinking to get their benefit, considering you're using a set of items that are listed as poisoner's items to instead buff yourself and others.
Maybe the fact that it's not clear is why this question is being asked in the first place. I always took it that you did the combining when you initially made the extracts, not that you could combine them during the beginning of the day. In this way, it would work exactly like the discovery in question, the one that it specifically mentions in its description.
The fact that it says you're combining them 'as if you had the combine extracts' makes it sounds like it follows the same rules, not being able to decide to combine them after already made and mix them once they have already been determined.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yeah, I understand the confusion. However, the item actually lists the mechanics of how the combining works:
Quote: An admixture vial can combine extracts of 3rd level or lower. Extracts, not formula. Why would they not duplicate the wording of the discovery if that's what they wanted to duplicate? It's quite different and specific.
Furthermore, why would they put the limit on recombining again if it acted just like combine extracts? You wouldn't need to since you could only mix formulae together.
I should note, however, that there is no limit in reverse, you can actually use an admixture vial on two 'combined' extracts, though because of the level limits at best you would get 4 level 1 formula into 1 admixture extract using 2 level 3 slots.
However, just to be clear, you really think that you can't actually use this item to take two existing extracts, which have already been created and used up a slot, and mix them together?
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I think the big word to read here is actually "an" for working this out.
The flask works like combine extracts. This allows it to combine two formula to AN extract, for a +2 level cost. Singular, so we treat it as singular from now on. This becomes important.
As that makes it clear you could do that, I would say the answer to your first question is "level of the highest plus 2".
Since preserving flask allows you to preserve AN extract, it would allow this, under the caveat that it follows this new spell level of highest plus 2 to preserve it.
So "highest plus 2 needed to hold it, but yes."
Basically the real question is do we allow 2 extracts in one? Well, we aren't. The combine extracts discovery is clear that 2 formula become one extract. AN extract.
So long as we accept it is one, (which we should do as that is the point, that it is one container taking one action to use) then we accept the rules that go with it.
While I understand the idea that doesn't use a level 3 spell to add two level ones, we should accept that it functions as if it did, as it says it acts like combine extracts, and does not give an example of where it is exempt from those rules.
So tldr I feel +2 level of highest and this would also be the cost of the flask to preserve it. The cost would be 2 formula and a bucket of gold.
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Clicked for FAQ.
At the time I flagged it there were at least 7 people who vociferously championed one side or the other but only 2 FAQ clicks. Please click it even if you think you are right. Prove yourself right.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
