Is alchemical allocation legal?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages 5/5

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Tallow wrote:


There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

Glass vials have to fall at least 10 feet to take damage? Or are there different falling object rules that I've missed?

This is a situation in which a GM gets to use rules sets to extrapolate what will happen when you drop glass 5 feet. At some point common sense needs to apply.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Jason Wu wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

I try very hard not to be a "hah-hah! Gotcha!" GM, so I'm not going to say "it shatters on impact" or come up with other ways to destroy the potion vial. If you happen to be holding a (freshly drawn) potion and decide to drop it as a free action it will be probably be fine.

However, dropping an opened vial without stoppering it is almost certainly going to cause the liquid to spill out. If you are putting it away normally as a move action I'm not going to force you to spend another action to stopper it. But dropping is free. You need some kind of action to put the stopper back.

Generally I will agree with this. However, I will not just say, "its fine." I'll warn the player of potential repercussions.

There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

At some point, even in PFS, a GM needs to be able to extrapolate the rules to create a common sense ruling when something is done that isn't really covered in the rules. Glass breaks when it is dropped onto something hard. Drop it on spongy grassy meadow? Fine. On a cobblestone street? Not so much.

Secondly, while I have allowed it before, in PFS, items that are purchased are assumed to be the standard, cheapest option. In this case, glass vials are cheaper than metal ones, and so you can't just choose to have all your potions in metal vials.

Iron potion vials are pfs legal. Any reason why I can't buy one?

Do iron potion vials automatically stopper themselves?

There are tons of things that are normally fine but become overpowered if you try to game and abuse the system to get extreme corner cases. How is this any different?

-j

Agreed Jason Wu. Del_Taco_Eater, I'm not saying you are doing this, but if a player comes and starts manipulating rules to exploit every ounce of brokenness, or rules layering and demanding I can't adjudicate a certain way cause there aren't rules for that, I can rules lawyer too. There aren't rules for damage if you only drop or fall 5' so glass doesn't break when I drop it while standing on the ground. or There aren't any rules that say a potion spills if you don't restopper it. So I can say, "Well there are no rules that allow you to transfer a potion from one vial to another, and so that means you ruined your potion. You just drank some nasty tasting liquid.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Urgathhoa or Cayden

Source:
It's Cayden, from Inner Sea Temples
Liberty's Edge

Given that you can explicitly drink a potion as a Standard Action and pull it out as a Move Action, and can explicitly do both in a round...logically opening a vial must be a Free Action (or non-action). That being the case, I see no reason closing it wouldn't also be a Free Action.

Which, again, makes dropping it and it spilling sorta not a problem. People stealing it still is, and the action economy is still crap, making it a bad idea in combat, but it's not just gonna spill out unless you're super careless.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Given that you can explicitly drink a potion as a Standard Action and pull it out as a Move Action, and can explicitly do both in a round...logically opening a vial must be a Free Action (or non-action). That being the case, I see no reason closing it wouldn't also be a Free Action.

Which, again, makes dropping it and it spilling sorta not a problem. People stealing it still is, and the action economy is still crap, making it a bad idea in combat, but it's not just gonna spill out unless you're super careless.

I disagree. Drawing a weapon can go from a move to a free action. But sheathing never does. Restoppering a potion requires enough finesse to ensure a good seal. Assuming I have a good group of players who use the rules responsibly and fairly, I'd probably not make a big deal about that if they take a move action to stow it. But someone who is trying to manipulate action economy in an irrespinsible, rules lawery kinda way, will not be able to drop and stopper as the same free action. Just as drawing a sword, without quick draw is not a free action, but can be done as part of movement.

The entire point is disallowing over manipulation of action economy rules with gray areas to achieve a state by which consumables are no longer consumable with no actual action economy payout for it.

There has to be some give and take. No cake and eating simultaneously, so to speak.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Given that you can explicitly drink a potion as a Standard Action and pull it out as a Move Action, and can explicitly do both in a round...logically opening a vial must be a Free Action (or non-action). That being the case, I see no reason closing it wouldn't also be a Free Action.

That's...

By that logic any action that is not explicitly and exactingly described would be a free action under any circumstances. But that's not how actions work. Instead, many actions that would normally take time become free (or not an action) in situations where they are combined with a related activity.

Drawing an arrow from a quiver is not an action when shooting a bow; it's subsumed into the action of firing the bow. However if you have empty hands and want to draw an arrow it is considered to be drawing a weapon.

Drawing a weapon is a move action, but becomes a free action when combined with moving your speed (if you have a BAB of +1 or more).

CRB page 478-Potions wrote:

Activation: Drinking a potion or applying an oil requires no special skill. The user merely removes the stopper and swallows the potion or smears on the oil. The following rules govern potion and oil use.

Drinking a potion or using an oil is a standard action...

Removing the stopper is part of the standard action to drink the potion. If you want to remove the stopper but not drink the potion that takes a move action.

If you want to put in a stopper as you put the potion away, I'll let it be part of the move action to put it away. But if you aren't taking any other action, you need to use a move action to stopper it.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
I wonder which deity would benefit most from a container that doesn't spill when it is dropped?

Zyphus would hate them...


Jason Wu wrote:
Del_Taco_Eater wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

I try very hard not to be a "hah-hah! Gotcha!" GM, so I'm not going to say "it shatters on impact" or come up with other ways to destroy the potion vial. If you happen to be holding a (freshly drawn) potion and decide to drop it as a free action it will be probably be fine.

However, dropping an opened vial without stoppering it is almost certainly going to cause the liquid to spill out. If you are putting it away normally as a move action I'm not going to force you to spend another action to stopper it. But dropping is free. You need some kind of action to put the stopper back.

Generally I will agree with this. However, I will not just say, "its fine." I'll warn the player of potential repercussions.

There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

At some point, even in PFS, a GM needs to be able to extrapolate the rules to create a common sense ruling when something is done that isn't really covered in the rules. Glass breaks when it is dropped onto something hard. Drop it on spongy grassy meadow? Fine. On a cobblestone street? Not so much.

Secondly, while I have allowed it before, in PFS, items that are purchased are assumed to be the standard, cheapest option. In this case, glass vials are cheaper than metal ones, and so you can't just choose to have all your potions in metal vials.

Iron potion vials are pfs legal. Any reason why I can't buy one?

Do iron potion vials automatically stopper themselves?

There are tons of things that are normally fine but become overpowered if you try to game and abuse the system to get extreme corner cases. How is this any different?

-j

Did you read the post I was responding to?

Shadow Lodge

My question is, why would anyone realistically be holding an open potion vial? Opening the vial isn't part of the "retrieve a stowed item" action any more than opening any other container is, so opening the vial would be part of the action to drink it. I just can't see any circumstance someone would spend an action to draw the potion, spend another action to open it without drinking it, and then stand around with the potion in hand.

Well, I take that back; administering a potion to an unconscious character is a full round action, and you can split those across two rounds via standard actions. A very corner case, but possible; not really worthy of discussion, though, since the potion would be in the middle of being poured out, anyways.

As to glass vials shattering when dropped... keep in mind that the vials that people would be capable of producing in this setting aren't as thin as the beakers we can produce with modern production means. Thick glass isn't as prone to shattering as you might think; a simple drop probably wouldn't have the force to do it.

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

SCPRedMage wrote:
My question is, why would anyone realistically be holding an open potion vial? Opening the vial isn't part of the "retrieve a stowed item" action any more than opening any other container is, so opening the vial would be part of the action to drink it.

The post that triggered that discussion was a hypothetical of (Round 1) using alchemical allocation, pulling out a potion (Round 2 move), drinking and spitting back the potion per alchemical allocation (Round 2 standard), then just dropping the potion to have two free hands rather than spending another move action to put it away.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looking at the rules for falling objects, I don't think it is possible to get past the hardness of glass from a short fall.

I assume a vial is Diminutive and not considered dense. It is probably smaller than Diminutive, which would reduce damage further.

Starting from:
Small object - 2d6
Tiny - 1d8
Diminutive - 1d6
fall < 30ft - 1d3
light object - 1d3/2 = 1

Hardness of glass: 1

4/5

Since I'm in a fuel-on-the-fire kinda mood...

The standard potion bottle is ceramic or glass. Ceramics can be a *lot* tougher than most basic glass. But then, maybe Corning has a branch in Golarion.

Hmm, let's see if there *are* rules for any of this?!?

The PRD wrote:
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. The stoppered container is usually no more than 1 inch wide and 2 inches high. The vial has AC 13, 1 hit point, hardness 1, and a break DC of 12.

The Exchange 5/5

So, as soon as we another book out we'll need to check to see if TPTB put in an item like...

"Droppable Self Sealing Vial, 3 gp. This vial is often used for potions and elixirs and resists damage when dropped onto hard surfaces from a height of less than ten feet. It's design requires someone using it to squeeze it to access the contents, and so when not in hand is sealed and will not leak."

and thus once it is published from that moment onward, all potions/elixirs dropped that are not in one of these DSS Vials will brake and spill. (Precedent established by the Potion Sponge ).

edit: nah, with that wording, some judges will still rule that the DSS Vial MIGHT brake - after all "resists does not mean always resists. If they had intended it to ALWAYS not brake, it would say that..."

Edit-Edit: or maybe we'll get a new Feat - something like "Bottle Dropper"...

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Wait why are we having this conversation with the class that can carry five things at once?
EDIT:
Sorry seven things at once.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Beer hat of calden cayden isn't starting to look like such a joke item now is it...

4/5

We already have the fake beer gut.


Tallow wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Tallow wrote:


There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

Glass vials have to fall at least 10 feet to take damage? Or are there different falling object rules that I've missed?
This is a situation in which a GM gets to use rules sets to extrapolate what will happen when you drop glass 5 feet. At some point common sense needs to apply.

"Common Sense" is a term that means "things that I think are reasonable." Others may not share your views as to what constitutes common sense.

On top of that, if you make ad-hoc rulings that supplement or are contrary to the rules without informing the players at the start of the game, you're enacting what I like to call Surprise! Physics.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Tallow wrote:
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Tallow wrote:


There are mechanics for dropping items in the falling rules, and rules for how many hit points and hardness glass has in the damaging items rules.

Glass vials have to fall at least 10 feet to take damage? Or are there different falling object rules that I've missed?
This is a situation in which a GM gets to use rules sets to extrapolate what will happen when you drop glass 5 feet. At some point common sense needs to apply.

"Common Sense" is a term that means "things that I think are reasonable." Others may not share your views as to what constitutes common sense.

On top of that, if you make ad-hoc rulings that supplement or are contrary to the rules without informing the players at the start of the game, you're enacting what I like to call Surprise! Physics.

The game literally does not work if a GM can't make a judgement call on things not covered on the rules.

And I'm really kinda shocked that glass breaking when you drop is surprising.

Anything I can empirically demonstrate shouldn't incur any angst.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Tallow wrote:


And I'm really kinda shocked that glass breaking when you drop is surprising.

Anything I can empirically demonstrate shouldn't incur any angst.

It is because its completely arbitrary as to whether or not it does that and nothing in Pathfinder actually gives any indication as to what technology level it was.

Scarab Sages 5/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
Tallow wrote:


And I'm really kinda shocked that glass breaking when you drop is surprising.

Anything I can empirically demonstrate shouldn't incur any angst.

It is because its completely arbitrary as to whether or not it does that and nothing in Pathfinder actually gives any indication as to what technology level it was.

Sure.Let's for a moment assume that glass not breaking when you drop it is common occurrence. But we both know that in our reality that isn't usually true. It stands to reason that in a technologically less advanced Society, that it would also break.

Why is that commonality and commonly excepted truth incorrect just because the rules don't cover it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"How are the laws of physics working today" is a reasonable question for a player to ask in pfs

4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

"How are the laws of physics working today" is a reasonable question for a player to ask in pfs

And as a GM my usual answer is "Unless magic or RAW trump physics, physics will work." Because of this, a party successfully managed to blast open a locked door with a significant amout of the gunslinger's gunpowder and some alchemical fire, doing significant damage to the enemies on the other side.


Unless the Gunslinger was carrying literal barrels of the stuff, physics would dictate the opposite. Detonating gunpowder in an open space doesn't result in a particularly big boom.

3/5 *

Glass not breaking when dropped IS a common occurrence though.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
plaidwandering wrote:
Glass not breaking when dropped IS a common occurrence though.

Especially if the container is full. People think glass is a weak material and its not: its just usually made really thin. It's pretty much rock.

5/5 5/5

A container being full makes for greater kinetic energy on impact, so doesn't help prevent breakage (speaking from personal experience where I tried to catch a falling bottle and half severed my ulna artery - think Monty Python sketch).

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pete Winz wrote:
A container being full makes for greater kinetic energy on impact, so doesn't help prevent breakage (speaking from personal experience where I tried to catch a falling bottle and half severed my ulna artery - think Monty Python sketch).

It does. Smash an empty beer bottle over someone's head VS a full one.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pete Winz wrote:
A container being full makes for greater kinetic energy on impact, so doesn't help prevent breakage (speaking from personal experience where I tried to catch a falling bottle and half severed my ulna artery - think Monty Python sketch).
It does. Smash an empty beer bottle over someone's head VS a full one.

If you want a scientific breakdown of why you're wrong, I can link one.

Here ya go.

It's pretty simple physics. An empty bottle only has outside forces acting on it. A full bottle, meanwhile, has the outside force of gravity and point of impact with the ground, and the water trying to "flatten", putting horizontal pressure on the inside of the bottle as well. This makes a full container more "fragile".

If you want an example requiring less glass clean-up, spike a water balloon and a balloon filled with air (or even just an empty one...it makes the same point) into the ground. Tell me which one pops.

Silver Crusade 2/5

We aren't talking bottles, here, but rather potion vials. Those only hold one ounce of liquid. They may also be made thicker than many bottles we usually see. That isn't described, as far as I know.


Potion vials are 1 inch wide and 2 inches high, and contain an ounce of liquid. Which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay tinier than I thought they were.

If anyone wants to do the kind of conversion to make that useful information, be my guest. That's 2 Tablespoons of liquid contained in a space as wide as my thumb, and about 3/4 the length. Not sure how thick the glass could be in that case.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

Sundakan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Pete Winz wrote:
A container being full makes for greater kinetic energy on impact, so doesn't help prevent breakage (speaking from personal experience where I tried to catch a falling bottle and half severed my ulna artery - think Monty Python sketch).
It does. Smash an empty beer bottle over someone's head VS a full one.

If you want a scientific breakdown of why you're wrong, I can link one.

Here ya go.

It's pretty simple physics. An empty bottle only has outside forces acting on it. A full bottle, meanwhile, has the outside force of gravity and point of impact with the ground, and the water trying to "flatten", putting horizontal pressure on the inside of the bottle as well. This makes a full container more "fragile".

If you want an example requiring less glass clean-up, spike a water balloon and a balloon filled with air (or even just an empty one...it makes the same point) into the ground. Tell me which one pops.

Its weirdly more complicated than that to the point where what type of liquid in the bottle is a factor. If its beer I want to say that it actually absorbs the energy as opposed to water which magnifies it.

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Missouri—St. Louis

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's actually rather interesting, because that info gives us the SHAPE of the vial as well: It can't be round, unless it also happens to be a TARDIS. So we can safely assume that it has a square profile. Luckily, this also makes doing the math a hell of a lot easier.

A fluid ounce is equal to ~1.8 cubic inches. If we model the vial as a pair of cubes, we can split that in half and take the cubic root to get the interior dimensions of the vial. That gives interior dimensions of ~.965 inches on each side. Subtract that from 1 inch and dividing by 2 gives us the thickness of the glass (.035/2 = .0175).

So the glass is a bit less than half a millimeter thick.

TL;DR: Don't drop your potion vials.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alex Blaes wrote:


TL;DR: Don't drop your potion vials.

That isn't even in don't drop your potion vial territory that's in we didn't think anyone would look at our dimensions territory.

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Missouri—St. Louis

New plan: Don't sneeze while carrying potions. ;)

3/5

It's a great spell, however it has almost no use inside combat. I use it regularly with my buff potions I've picked up on chronicles that are higher caster level or for Fly


FWIW someone sent me these dimensions by PM a few day ago:

Quote:
Out of boredom(and while waiting for soup to cool), a container could have side walls thickness of .6 of an inch and base thickness of .4 of an inch to contain an ounce of fluid.

Not sure where those dimensions come from, exactly, but that's more reasonable thickness.

What changes if we assume the vials are cylindrical with a rounded bottom? That's how I've always imagined them.

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Missouri—St. Louis

The cylinder would have to have larger interior dimensions than exterior. Thus square.

I'd love to see the math for those dimensions, because they look to be pretty off.

EDIT: Impossibly so, since the side dimensions would add up to 1.2 inches...

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Missouri—St. Louis

Just did the math. With those wall dimensions (assuming total sidewall dimensions of .6, not each) and the 1x1x2" shape, we get interior dimensions of .4x.4x1.6". That gives us an interior volume of 0.256 cubic inches, or roughly 0.14 fluid ounces.

What this really tells us, of course, is that I clearly like math too much.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

That's okay you make up for me, Alex, and thus bring balance to the universe. It's been fun watching you geek out over this.

Hmm

The Exchange 4/5 5/5

I too was curious enough to do the math.

1 fluid oz.= 1.8047 cubic inches

To fit that in a 1"x1"x2" outside dimension rectangular container, we need to make the walls 0.02 inches thick, giving us inside dimensions of 0.96x0.96x1.96 for a total volume of 1.8064 cubic inches.

Extra credit:
How many potions can you fit in a handy haversack?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Kevin Willis wrote:

I too was curious enough to do the math.

1 fluid oz.= 1.8047 cubic inches

To fit that in a 1"x1"x2" outside dimension rectangular container, we need to make the walls 0.02 inches thick, giving us inside dimensions of 0.96x0.96x1.96 for a total volume of 1.8064 cubic inches.

Extra credit:
How many potions can you fit in a handy haversack?

HH = 12 cubic feet, so 12x12x12x12 = 20736 cubic inches

divided by 2 for potions is 10368 potions.

More than I want to have to write on my ITS.

The Exchange 5/5

DesolateHarmony wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

I too was curious enough to do the math.

1 fluid oz.= 1.8047 cubic inches

To fit that in a 1"x1"x2" outside dimension rectangular container, we need to make the walls 0.02 inches thick, giving us inside dimensions of 0.96x0.96x1.96 for a total volume of 1.8064 cubic inches.

Extra credit:
How many potions can you fit in a handy haversack?

HH = 12 cubic feet, so 12x12x12x12 = 20736 cubic inches

divided by 2 for potions is 10368 potions.

More than I want to have to write on my ITS.

a standard issue ITS has 16 blanks for items (not counting lines for wands...), so this gives us 648 pages... perhaps hole punched and put into three ring binders? The standard 2" three ring binder (the "big" binders) lists as having a Page Capacity of 350, so that would give us 2 three ring binders. SO... drink a potion of Cure Light Wounds? that means we need to note it's use on page 65, volume #2 of the ITS...

;-)

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

Well, with that many potions you've got plenty of duplicates, and some of my characters use the wand lines for potions as is. (My monk buys both Mage Armor and Enlarge Person in lots of 20). So you can make that way shorter (especially if you use the alternate form that is all wand lines).

5/5 5/55/55/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
Well, with that many potions you've got plenty of duplicates, and some of my characters use the wand lines for potions as is. (My monk buys both Mage Armor and Enlarge Person in lots of 20). So you can make that way shorter (especially if you use the alternate form that is all wand lines).

really should invest in a wand and save the potions for when no on in the party can turn it on.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I agree with you on Mage Armor. For Enlarge Person the potions have worked better in the field for action economy, and the burn rate is such that the cost difference by the time she retires will be neglible.

The Exchange 5/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
Well, with that many potions you've got plenty of duplicates, and some of my characters use the wand lines for potions as is. (My monk buys both Mage Armor and Enlarge Person in lots of 20). So you can make that way shorter (especially if you use the alternate form that is all wand lines).

except that, unlike for wand charges, you need to note on the ITS both when the potion was "got" and when it was "used". So you can't just check off the potions when used - you need to note the Chronicle number they were used during. "Potion of CLW, cost 50 gp...Got it CR14... Used it CR15."

I do get around this with several of my Alchemist PCs by using the top row of check boxes for the "Got" AR number and the bottom row for the "Used" AR number. But then I craft (and use) a lot of Alchemical items... This let's me track 25 of the same item (Vermin Repellent for example).

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Bob's Feet wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Well, with that many potions you've got plenty of duplicates, and some of my characters use the wand lines for potions as is. (My monk buys both Mage Armor and Enlarge Person in lots of 20). So you can make that way shorter (especially if you use the alternate form that is all wand lines).
except that, unlike for wand charges, you need to note on the ITS both when the potion was "got" and when it was "used". So you can't just check off the potions when used - you need to note the Chronicle number they were used during. "Potion of CLW, cost 50 gp...Got it CR14... Used it CR15." .

That's what I do -- the boxes aren't too small to write numbers in. For that matter, before I started doing that, I would buy my consumables in four-packs and divide that *huge* box on the normal line into four quarters to track the usage.

I've also always tracked wand charges by chronicle used, too, btw. First I'd heard that I could just put an x in them.

51 to 97 of 97 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Is alchemical allocation legal? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society