Sorry to spam threads, I just have a lot of thoughts.
So drinking a potion in PF1 is a standard action, and usually at best a move action to draw. It provokes, but at least you can five foot step away. In the Unchained Action Economy, drawing it is 1 action, drinking it is 2. That also means no 5 foot step. In either economy, you can't draw a potion and pour it down a friend's unconscious throat in the same turn, unless you have some Swift Action prehensile tail shenanigans. Potions are also just about all spells in a can, so it makes a certain amount of sense for taking one to be balanced like casting a spell.
The result is that potions almost never get used in combat. Seriously, I can't remember the last it happened. It just takes too long and leaves you too vulnerable.
Should this be the case in PF2? It sounds like potions, mutagens, and elixirs are going to all follow the same usage rules. It also sounds like they will no longer be spells in a can, which may mean they don't need to be balanced against spells as much. It also sounds like the alchemist can hand all his elixirs and mutagens out without any sort of infusion tax, and all classes can theoretically craft these things.
I think the option to make drinking potions and elixirs one action should at least be on the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well...
You have to fish it out of your pack/pocket/wherever (action)
Uncork it (action)
Drink it (action)
Give it a moment to work (action)
Now you have two choices. You can...
Re-cork it (action) and put it back in your pack (action).
Or you can drop the cork (action) and the vial (action) and move on with combat.
;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The moment one wishes to be able to downvote posts *facepalm*
Either way I think it should be 2 actions at max (one drawing, one drinking)
maybe with ways to remove the time (potion sash for quick access, quick draw feat working there too etc)
Sorry to spam threads, I just have a lot of thoughts.
So drinking a potion in PF1 is a standard action, and usually at best a move action to draw. It provokes, but at least you can five foot step away. In the Unchained Action Economy, drawing it is 1 action, drinking it is 2. That also means no 5 foot step. In either economy, you can't draw a potion and pour it down a friend's unconscious throat in the same turn, unless you have some Swift Action prehensile tail shenanigans. Potions are also just about all spells in a can, so it makes a certain amount of sense for taking one to be balanced like casting a spell.
The result is that potions almost never get used in combat. Seriously, I can't remember the last it happened. It just takes too long and leaves you too vulnerable.
Should this be the case in PF2? It sounds like potions, mutagens, and elixirs are going to all follow the same usage rules. It also sounds like they will no longer be spells in a can, which may mean they don't need to be balanced against spells as much. It also sounds like the alchemist can hand all his elixirs and mutagens out without any sort of infusion tax, and all classes can theoretically craft these things.
I think the option to make drinking potions and elixirs one action should at least be on the table.
The answer is probably "Varies per item". The Bravo Brew requires 2 actions to use in combat in the blog, but that might not be true for every item, such as the Elixir of Life healing item. So it'll be a Interact Action (to draw) and 1-3 Manipulate Activations(to drink) based on the value/effectiveness of an elixir/potion of a particular level.
|
With 3 actions potions aren't too punishing now. You can even pull out an additional potion with your extra action to get a good start for the next round.
I do wish that we could apply a cure potion to a downed comrade with 1 action instead of a full-round action though. In dnd 2nd we always ruled cure potions as being applied to the wound rather than drinking which made for a lot of cool saves of unconscious pcs.
That also means no 5 foot step.
That's good in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With 3 actions potions aren't too punishing now. You can even pull out an additional potion with your extra action to get a good start for the next round.
I do wish that we could apply a cure potion to a downed comrade with 1 action instead of a full-round action though. In dnd 2nd we always ruled cure potions as being applied to the wound rather than drinking which made for a lot of cool saves of unconscious pcs.
To be clear, if they stick with the Unchained rules, drawing a potion is one action, and drinking is 2 ADDITIONAL actions, so it takes 3 and uses your whole turn.
I just realized my language in the OP wasn't super precise there.
The answer is probably "Varies per item". The Bravo Brew requires 2 actions to use in combat in the blog, but that might not be true for every item, such as the Elixir of Life healing item. So it'll be a Interact Action (to draw) and 1-3 Manipulate Activations(to drink) based on the value/effectiveness of an elixir/potion of a particular level.Sorry to spam threads, I just have a lot of thoughts.
So drinking a potion in PF1 is a standard action, and usually at best a move action to draw. It provokes, but at least you can five foot step away. In the Unchained Action Economy, drawing it is 1 action, drinking it is 2. That also means no 5 foot step. In either economy, you can't draw a potion and pour it down a friend's unconscious throat in the same turn, unless you have some Swift Action prehensile tail shenanigans. Potions are also just about all spells in a can, so it makes a certain amount of sense for taking one to be balanced like casting a spell.
The result is that potions almost never get used in combat. Seriously, I can't remember the last it happened. It just takes too long and leaves you too vulnerable.
Should this be the case in PF2? It sounds like potions, mutagens, and elixirs are going to all follow the same usage rules. It also sounds like they will no longer be spells in a can, which may mean they don't need to be balanced against spells as much. It also sounds like the alchemist can hand all his elixirs and mutagens out without any sort of infusion tax, and all classes can theoretically craft these things.
I think the option to make drinking potions and elixirs one action should at least be on the table.
So ... a bigger healing potion would take longer...why? More to drink? Then we need 2 addition stats: Stomach and Bladder capacity :P
No seriously, all Potions should take the same length to drink as all potions are probably about the same ammount of liquid.
Potion balancing would more be the price, maybe the resonance cost.
I wouldn't hate the idea of there being "quick delivery" potion methods. An elixir in an Epipen syringe type thing, or a chewable potion tablet you pop in your mouth. Not sure how they would be balanced, but it would be neat. The syringe thing in particular would make for some awesome Pulp Fiction moments if someone goes down.
at least 3 actions:
1 to retrieve it.
1 to drink it.
1 to drop the bottle. [with the confirmation that changing grips takes an action, they IMO looks like letting go of things [dropping] IS an action].
I think dropping will still be a free action. I believe they've also said it won't take longer to apply a potion to an ally than to yourself. So I think it will be two actions (draw/use), with (the hopeful possibility of) Quick Draw reducing that to one action.
Using a potion shouldn't be two actions unless they retcon the size of a potion. They're not soda cans, they're shotglasses. Though I admit due to always being portrayed in media as big flasks, as opposed to the tiny little vials they are defined as in D&D / PF rules, players may come in with certain expectations.
at least 3 actions:
1 to retrieve it.
1 to drink it.
1 to drop the bottle. [with the confirmation that changing grips takes an action, they IMO looks like letting go of things [dropping] IS an action].
I thought changing grips from one hand to two hands was an action but not the other way around. Where is this confirmation from? Under that regime, wouldn’t Dropping it would be a free action?
I think dropping will still be a free action.
How would they justify letting go of your weapon as an action while saying letting go of another item isn't? I'd expect a bunch of pushback if that's the case.
I thought changing grips from one hand to two hands was an action but not the other way around. Where is this confirmation from? Under that regime, wouldn’t Dropping it would be a free action?at least 3 actions:
1 to retrieve it.
1 to drink it.
1 to drop the bottle. [with the confirmation that changing grips takes an action, they IMO looks like letting go of things [dropping] IS an action].
From what I recall of the dev's comments, it's an action both ways but that actions MAY be allowed to be tied in with another action [I think the dev thought you could use the action to let go of your weapon with the open door action]. I don't think there is an action to tie into dropping.
I have the distinct impression dropping items or removing hands isn't an action. Just grabbing things. It could be wrong-- Logan's post is a little unclear-- but I'm assuming that is the case until given more evidence otherwise.
I think dropping will still be a free action.How would they justify letting go of your weapon as an action while saying letting go of another item isn't? I'd expect a bunch of pushback if that's the case.
Because it is totally different. Same reason why drawing a weapon was a Move Action but dropping it was free in PF1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not totally sure. But I think changing from 2-hand to 1-hand is free. It is only the reverse that takes an action.
It seems very likely that dropping items is free.
|
|
To be clear, if they stick with the Unchained rules, drawing a potion is one action, and drinking is 2 ADDITIONAL actions, so it takes 3 and uses your whole turn.
I just realized my language in the OP wasn't super precise there.
Sorry, i must have missed that due to not enough coffee yet.
Thanks for the clarification.Drinking requiring 2 actions is too much :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear, if they stick with the Unchained rules, drawing a potion is one action, and drinking is 2 ADDITIONAL actions, so it takes 3 and uses your whole turn.
I just realized my language in the OP wasn't super precise there.
Sorry, i must have missed that due to not enough coffee yet.
Thanks for the clarification.Drinking requiring 2 actions is too much :)
Nah, I legit phrased that badly. I wrote it from a position of already knowing the Unchained rules and subconsciously treated it like my audience would too.
Because it is totally different. Same reason why drawing a weapon was a Move Action but dropping it was free in PF1I think dropping will still be a free action.How would they justify letting go of your weapon as an action while saying letting go of another item isn't? I'd expect a bunch of pushback if that's the case.
Letting go of an item is "totally" different than letting go of a weapon? I can't see a possible reason it would be. This isn't draw vs drop, this is drop vs drop: drop a hand off a weapon vs drop a flask.
Letting go of an item is "totally" different than letting go of a weapon? I can't see a possible reason it would be. This isn't draw vs drop, this is drop vs drop: drop a hand off a weapon vs drop a flask.Because it is totally different. Same reason why drawing a weapon was a Move Action but dropping it was free in PF1I think dropping will still be a free action.How would they justify letting go of your weapon as an action while saying letting go of another item isn't? I'd expect a bunch of pushback if that's the case.
Again, you're assuming we actually have to spend an action to take a hand off a weapon. Nothing has actually said that and I'll be shocked and appalled if it is true.
Even if it is, dropping stuff affects way more than just potions so it isn't really relevant for the topic.
Again, you're assuming we actually have to spend an action to take a hand off a weapon.
Nope, I read the blog. If it doesn't take an action, the blog was very, very poorly written as is calls out "switching how many hands you’re using for an item". If it's a free action, the blog went out of it's way to make it look like it isn't.
Even if it is, dropping stuff affects way more than just potions so it isn't really relevant for the topic.
Seems like it might be important if you don't want to go the rest of your game with a bottle in your hand. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on the potion. If the PC bought the 40-ounce Big Gulp CLW potion from the convenience store, then they should spend many rounds drinking it and get "brain freeze" for a couple of rounds after. They could perhaps drink it faster if the rest of their party stands around chanting "Chug! Chug! Chug!"
Again, you're assuming we actually have to spend an action to take a hand off a weapon.Nope, I read the blog. If it doesn't take an action, the blog was very, very poorly written as is calls out "switching how many hands you’re using for an item". If it's a free action, the blog went out of it's way to make it look like it isn't.
And the guy who wrote the blog already admitted he should have used clearer language for describing all that. He done goofed and owned up to it.
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkro&page=2?Gearing-Up#79
Also, the bit you quoted there is from:
One of the squidgy parts of Pathfinder First Edition we wanted to clear up with the redesign is how holding, wielding, and stowing items work, particularly b]switching how many hands you’re using for an item.[/b] Now, drawing an item from a pouch, changing your grip from one-handed to two-handed, or detaching a shield from your arm all require the Interact action.
What that actually says (in a less than clear manner) is that ADDING a hand now takes an action because they wanted to clarify the rules for switching how many hands you're using for an item.
Also, we can look at the actual text for an interact action:
You use your hand or hands to manipulate an object or the terrain. You grab an unattended or stored object, open a door, or do some similar action. You may have to attempt a skill check to determine if your Interact action was successful.
Notice dropping is no where on that list. It specifically says you grab an object, not let one go.
I can see why you would be confused on this initially, as most of us were, and Logan himself said he could have phrased it more clearly. But it really looks like you are wrong about this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Letting go of an item is "totally" different than letting go of a weapon? I can't see a possible reason it would be. This isn't draw vs drop, this is drop vs drop: drop a hand off a weapon vs drop a flask.Because it is totally different. Same reason why drawing a weapon was a Move Action but dropping it was free in PF1I think dropping will still be a free action.How would they justify letting go of your weapon as an action while saying letting go of another item isn't? I'd expect a bunch of pushback if that's the case.
I'm under the assumption that going from 2h to 1h is free, and only going from 1h to 2h is not. Picking up your grip cost an action just like picking up the flying potion that follows you. Drop the potion or drop the grip are both free
In my group in PF 1st ed we just homebrewed that drawing the potion is part of the "bigger" action of drinking it much like drawing a weapon can be part of a move action if you have at least +1 BAB. So basically not an action I guess? We just assume the characters don't stow the potions in some ignote corner of their backpacks and carry them somewhere easily reachable instead, in the same way they don't have to search for their weapons if they wanna draw them or the Alchemist doesn't have to search for an extract before drinking it.
Potions are also just about all spells in a can, so it makes a certain amount of sense for taking one to be balanced like casting a spell.
Currently they're even worse than spells in that regard. Most spells are standard actions, so you can still move or do a move action. If retrieving a potion is a move action that requires a free hand and drinking it is a standard action, drinking a single potion takes your whole turn and triggers two attacks of opportunity. It's not like there's many upsides to potions that all of this is counter-balancing anyways. Potions are already limited to 3rd level or lower, need time and money to be crafted, have a single use (unless it's an Alchemist with Alchemical Allocation) and even lose targets (if the spell had multiple targets), letting someone drink one and then do a move action in the same turn is not gonna break anything.
So under second edition rules I think retrieving should be one action unless you are carrying them tucked in some big bag (bag of holding, etc) and have to "search" for them and drinking should be another action.
In my group in PF 1st ed we just homebrewed that drawing the potion can be part of the "bigger" action much like drawing a weapon can be part of a move action if you have at least +1 BAB. You drink it? Then it's part of the standard action of drinking. You move? Then it's part of moving. So basically not an action I guess? We just assume the characters don't stow the potions in some ignote corner of their backpacks and carry them somewhere easily reachable instead, much like they don't have to search for their weapons if they wanna draw them.
Potions are also just about all spells in a can, so it makes a certain amount of sense for taking one to be balanced like casting a spell.Currently they're even worse than spells in that regard. Most spells are standard actions, so you can still move. If retrieving a potion is a move action that requires a free hand and drinking it is a standard action, drinking a single potion takes your whole turn and triggers two attacks of opportunity. It's not like there's many upsides to potions that all of this is counter-balancing anyways. Potions are already limited to 3rd level or lower, need time and money to be crafted and lose targets (if the spell had multiple targets), it's not like letting someone drink one and then move in the same turn is gonna break anything.
Under second edition rules I think retrieving should be one action unless you are carrying them tucked in some big bag (bag of holding, etc) and have to "search" for them and drinking should be another action.
You're house rules aren't super far off from my own-- I tend to let people draw the potion as part of another move, though it didn't occur to me to make it part of the action to drink it.
I do agree with you that the additional costs and constraints of using a potion mean it should be somewhat easier than casting a spell.
I think a little bit of guidance on potion storage might not hurt. I know bandoleers do exist in Pathfinder and are sometimes assumed to be in use. But I'm not always clear how you determine which potions are "on hand" if you don't have one of these. I try not to get too hung up on this, but it is a thing that I sometimes wonder about. Especially if potion vials are fragile and can be sundered.
Again, you're assuming we actually have to spend an action to take a hand off a weapon.Nope, I read the blog. If it doesn't take an action, the blog was very, very poorly written as is calls out "switching how many hands you’re using for an item". If it's a free action, the blog went out of it's way to make it look like it isn't.And the guy who wrote the blog already admitted he should have used clearer language for describing all that. He done goofed and owned up to it.
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkro&page=2?Gearing-Up#79
Yes he did. Did you read his post? He DIDN'T say dropping a hand wasn't an action but 'it should be part of the action to open the door'. Not 'is' but 'should'. IMO, that is an important distinction and reads to me that the rules don't spell that out like he wanted. Remember that the books already went to print, so if the text is dodgy, it'll stay they way in the initial rules.
I'm all for it being a free action. I'm just not convinced it actually IS. If the ability is written like the blog, it needs tweaked to make that clear.
Again, you're assuming we actually have to spend an action to take a hand off a weapon.Nope, I read the blog. If it doesn't take an action, the blog was very, very poorly written as is calls out "switching how many hands you’re using for an item". If it's a free action, the blog went out of it's way to make it look like it isn't.And the guy who wrote the blog already admitted he should have used clearer language for describing all that. He done goofed and owned up to it.
http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkro&page=2?Gearing-Up#79
Yes he did. Did you read his post? He DIDN'T say dropping a hand wasn't an action but 'it should be part of the action to open the door'. Not 'is' but 'should'. IMO, that is an important distinction and reads to me that the rules don't spell that out like he wanted. Remember that the books already went to print, so if the text is dodgy, it'll stay they way in the initial rules.
I'm all for it being a free action. I'm just not convinced it actually IS. If the ability is written like the blog, it needs tweaked to make that clear.
And if it is dodgy, then the Playtest is a good way to figure it out and fix it. It's not just an opportunity to tweak math and mechanics; it's also a chance to tweak language for clarity of intent.
And if it is dodgy, then the Playtest is a good way to figure it out and fix it. It's not just an opportunity to tweak math and mechanics; it's also a chance to tweak language for clarity of intent.
I agree: my disagreement was on what was said and not on what it should be.
And if it is dodgy, then the Playtest is a good way to figure it out and fix it. It's not just an opportunity to tweak math and mechanics; it's also a chance to tweak language for clarity of intent.I agree: my disagreement was on what was said and not on what it should be.
This is a thread about what things SHOULD be, though.
Pretty sure 8-9 actions might be reasonable:
- 1 action to drop your two-handed weapon so you have enough hands to use the potion
- 1 action to draw the potion out of a pack
- 1 action to swirl the potion to activate its magic
- 1 action to uncork the potion
- 1-2 actions to drink depending on your character's background
- 1 action to drop the potion bottle
- 1 action to pick up the weapon you dropped
- 1 action to put your second hand on the weapon you picked up (to wield in two hands).
;)
You forgot the extra actions required to scratch your nether regions and pick your nose. So, 10-11 actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well...
You have to fish it out of your pack/pocket/wherever (action)
Uncork it (action)
Drink it (action)
Give it a moment to work (action)
Now you have two choices. You can...
Re-cork it (action) and put it back in your pack (action).
Or you can drop the cork (action) and the vial (action) and move on with combat.;)
This reminds me of a zombie game I played in once. The GM wanted us to feel 'horror,' which in his mind apparently meant, "Unreasonable frustration."
We're in a cabin, and a zombie busts down the door. One guy tries to hit it with a fireplace poker, but it doesn't hurt the thing. I get the bright idea to set it on fire.
Me: "We're camping, right? Okay, I grab the lighter fluid, douse it, and set it on fire."
GM: "Slow down. Doing that would take more than one turn. The lighter fluid is on the table, and PC 3 has the matches."
Me: "Okay, I go get the lighter fluid and spray it."
GM: "Moving to the table is a move action. Picking up the fluid is a move action."
Me: "Ugh. Okay, I do that."
PC 2: "I five-foot next to him, grab the fluid as a move action, and spray the zombie with it."
GM: "That works. Make an attack roll to see if you hit."
PC 2: "Seriously? Um, okay 8?"
GM: "It's in melee, so you take a -4 penalty because you don't have Precise Shot. You miss."
PC 3: "Can I try too?"
GM: "Sure."
PC 3: "Okay, I roll a-"
GM: "Wait, slow down. It takes a move action to get next to PC 2, and a move action to take the lighter fluid out of his hand."
PC 4: "I'm in melee. You should delay."
PC 3 delays.
PC 4: "I five-foot next to PC 2, take the lighter fluid as a move action, and spray the zombie. He's no longer in melee, so my 12 should hit, right?"
GM: "Yeah. He's doused with lighter fluid."
PC 3: "Okay, I strike a match and set it on fire."
GM: "Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down there. This is a camping, waterproof match case with a screw on lid. Retrieving it from your backpack takes a move action, and unscrewing the lid is a move action."
PC 3: "Fine, I do that."
GM: "Okay, the zombie's turn. It five-foot's and grapples PC 4."
Me: "My turn? Um, okay. I grab the matchbox from PC 3 and . . . let me guess, I can't pull this off."
GM: *shrugs* "Sorry. I'm just following the rules."
Me: "Fiiiine. I move between PC 2 and PC 3, and use a move action to grab unscrewed matchbox."
PC 2: "And I five-foot to be adjacent to RangerWickett, move action to draw a match, standard action to strike it."
PC 4: "I'm grappled, so I try to break the grapple. I rolled a 15 and kick the thing away from me. Now I . . . I think I can do this. I five-foot to this square, then move action to grab the lit match, and free action hold it toward PC 3."
PC 3: "I five-foot up, take the match as a move action, and throw it at the zombie."
We all look expectantly at the GM.
GM: "Go ahead. Make an attack roll-"
PC 3 picks up a d20.
GM: "-with a -4 non-proficiency penalty."
PC 3: "I aim at the lighter-fluid-coated ground at the zombie's feet, which should be, like, AC 4 at best. And I rolled a 19!"
Cheers among the PCs.
GM: "It hits the ground and starts a fire. The zombie makes its Reflex save . . . and he doesn't take any damage."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative is the greatest elephant in the room. People argue about giving out too magical powers to fighters, or too unrealistic rules about reloading crossbows, or whatever, but we accept that people create time bubbles in their initiative count because it is the only practical way to make it work.
Two guys fighting, one with a bow, one with a sword. Both toll the same initiative, bow wins the tie. He moves 5 feet, and calmly start to knock arrows in his bow, and shooting 5 times in 6 seconds, while the guy with the sword is in a time bubble, slightly beyond reach, unable to react for 6 whole seconds while he gets arrow after arrow.
Find me anything less realistic than that in the rules. Yet we accept it. Because we have to, and because we are used to it. Parsing actions that are supposed to be simultaneous while playing secuencial turns will always have kinks. Opening a door rendering you unable to attack is not more or less unrealistic than any other time related bubble in the initiative /action systen
This is a thread about what things SHOULD be, though.And if it is dodgy, then the Playtest is a good way to figure it out and fix it. It's not just an opportunity to tweak math and mechanics; it's also a chance to tweak language for clarity of intent.I agree: my disagreement was on what was said and not on what it should be.
And? As you yourself said, it it's not where we think it SHOULD be, playtesting is where you try to get it fixed. It's hard to do that if you don't acknowledge where the starting point is vs where you want the final version as.
PS: for myself, I think the whole 'regrip' type actions that were free before should remain free. That's why I posted as I did. The whole thing should be fixed and not just potions. If I have to use an action to out my second hand on a staff it doesn't seem odd to have to take an extra action for a potion either. Either everyone gets penalized or no one SHOULD. ;)