I’ve seen this debated before. I’m genuinely curious, what is the argument against perpetual infusion synergy with double brew and alchemical alacrity? Is it simply because perpetual infusion refers to not spending a singular batch of infused reagents?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I misread it. Yes you should be able to make two of your Perpetual infusions without cost with Double Brew.
What are you saying here? You already can make 2 Perpetual Infusions for 0 cost without Double Brew...
As far as I can tell, there is no interaction between the two abilities. Double Brew lets you spend 2 reagents to brew 2 items, so a 2 for 1 action benefit. Perpetual Infusions let's you spend 0 reagents to brew 2 of your perpetual items, also a 2 for 1 action benefit.
Unless you want to be able to make 4 perpetual infusions for one action? But if you did, how would that work? Would 2 of the infusions fall to the ground because your hands are full with the first 2? When would you have the actions to support using more than 2 items in the same turn, figuring that at minimum you would have to spend an action to pick one up off the floor.
I agree that you can use Double Brew to make two perpetual infusion items for one action and no reagent cost.
The argument I've seen against this interpretation is in how Double Brew is worded:
"When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action"Specifically, the "instead of spending one batch....you can spend up to two batches" which see how if you squint and turn your head a bit that it means you can only do it while making things that use infused reagents. I think the "spend up to two" part is key though, implying that you can spend 0, 1, or 2 reagents to create 2 items that would cost you 0 or 1 reagents each.
I'm not well versed with the alchemist. I just always found this subject interesting for some reason. I used to get both sides pretty equally, but after more readings and with how you break it down, I've having a harder time seeing how it wouldn't work.
I could be wrong, but double brew and alacrity simply gives you the option to increase both the reagents you can spend and number of items you can make with quick alchemy. From the default cost of 1 batch of infused reagents spent and 1 alchemical item created to up to 2 and then up to 3 for both. I'm not sure how changing those numbers would invalidate perpetual infusions from applying when it's relevant.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry I misread it. Yes you should be able to make two of your Perpetual infusions without cost with Double Brew.What are you saying here? You already can make 2 Perpetual Infusions for 0 cost without Double Brew...
As far as I can tell, there is no interaction between the two abilities. Double Brew lets you spend 2 reagents to brew 2 items, so a 2 for 1 action benefit. Perpetual Infusions let's you spend 0 reagents to brew 2 of your perpetual items, also a 2 for 1 action benefit.
Unless you want to be able to make 4 perpetual infusions for one action? But if you did, how would that work? Would 2 of the infusions fall to the ground because your hands are full with the first 2? When would you have the actions to support using more than 2 items in the same turn, figuring that at minimum you would have to spend an action to pick one up off the floor.
Perpetual Infusions states: "You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents." It does not state that you can make them at the same time. You choose 2 1st level items. You can create them for free with Quick Alchemy. That's it.
Perpetual Infusions states: "You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents." It does not state that you can make them at the same time. You choose 2 1st level items. You can create them for free with Quick Alchemy. That's it.Sorry I misread it. Yes you should be able to make two of your Perpetual infusions without cost with Double Brew.What are you saying here? You already can make 2 Perpetual Infusions for 0 cost without Double Brew...
As far as I can tell, there is no interaction between the two abilities. Double Brew lets you spend 2 reagents to brew 2 items, so a 2 for 1 action benefit. Perpetual Infusions let's you spend 0 reagents to brew 2 of your perpetual items, also a 2 for 1 action benefit.
Unless you want to be able to make 4 perpetual infusions for one action? But if you did, how would that work? Would 2 of the infusions fall to the ground because your hands are full with the first 2? When would you have the actions to support using more than 2 items in the same turn, figuring that at minimum you would have to spend an action to pick one up off the floor.
Hmm. Maybe I've been mistaken about Perpetual Infusions all this time. I had always read Perpetual Infusions as allowing you to, by default, create 2 items per use of Quick Alchemy.
That is not the best worded ability that I have read. Then again, my experience with alchemists is practically nil in PF2, so not overly surprising I missed that.
With that in mind, I would say you have two options for this rules interaction.
1. It works with perpetual infusions, as you would normally have to spend reagents for the items, they qualify. I prefer this, as I see nothing wrong with making perpetual infusions just that tiny bit better. They aren't exactly game breaking items after all.
2. Because they don't actually cost you reagents, they do not qualify for double brew, since double specifies spending reagents. You could however still craft them for a cost with double brew. The only reason I could imagine doing so would be that you don't have the formula for a higher level version of the item, but you need multiples of it's effect in the same turn.
I err on the side of 1 for reasons stated above.
That is not the best worded ability that I have read. Then again, my experience with alchemists is practically nil in PF2, so not overly surprising I missed that.
That line always makes do a double take every time I read it even though I already know what it's actually trying to say.
2. Because they don't actually cost you reagents, they do not qualify for double brew, since double specifies spending reagents. You could however still craft them for a cost with double brew. The only reason I could imagine doing so would be that you don't have the formula for a higher level version of the item, but you need multiples of it's effect in the same turn.
Oh right, it's the 'spending reagents' that's used to argue that point. I remember getting it, but if spending reagents is what prevents perpetual infusions from qualifying, wouldn't the same be true for the default quick alchemy?
The double brew description even clarifies that quick alchemy is normally "spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item." Spending with quick alchemy is exactly what perpetual infusions bypasses for specific items and double brew just modifies it from "spending one batch" to "spending up to two batches." If double brew was its own action, perpetual infusions definitely wouldn't qualify for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what the debate is. Here is my reading of these two abilities.
You have learned how to create perpetual alchemical infusions that can provide a near-infinite supply of certain simple items. You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. The items you can select depend on your research field and must be in your formula book.
Interpretation: Pick two 1st level items that you know how to create and are on the appropriate list. The Reagent cost for creating these items drops to 0 instead of 1 when using Quick Alchemy.
You know your formulas so well that you can concoct two items at once. When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action. These items do not have to be the same.
Interpretation: The intent is better action use. Instead of taking two actions to create two items, you can use one action to create the two items. The items still cost their normal amount of Reagents.
Interaction: You can use Double Brew to create two of your 1st level items on your Perpetual Infusions list with one action and paying the normal Reagent cost of 0 for each of them. In fact you could create one of your Perpetual Infusion items and a different item for one action for the Reagent cost of 0 for the Perpetual Infusion item and 1 for the other one.
2. Because they don't actually cost you reagents, they do not qualify for double brew, since double specifies spending reagents. You could however still craft them for a cost with double brew. The only reason I could imagine doing so would be that you don't have the formula for a higher level version of the item, but you need multiples of it's effect in the same turn.Oh right, it's the 'spending reagents' that's used to argue that point.
Why would spending reagents be a requirement of Double Brew. It says to spend up to 2 Reagents. 0 is a number that is up to 2. So is 1.
If it said that you had to spend 2 Reagents to create 2 items, then I would maybe agree that it wouldn't allow you to create the Perpetual Infusion items for their normal cost.
But it doesn't. It says 'you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents'. Which means that 1 and 0 are valid amounts of Reagents to spend.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.
So I am spending 0 'instead of one'. Cool.
Or I am spending 1 'instead of one'. Which is still a valid replacement.
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.So I am spending 0 'instead of one'. Cool.
Or I am spending 1 'instead of one'. Which is still a valid replacement.
The issue is, nothing says you're allowed to make that substitution: double brew says instead of spending 1 batch you can spend 2. 0 isn't in that substitution. Perpetual Infusions and Double Brew both use Quick Alchemy but do different things with it. One allows you to use multiple batches and one allows you to avoid batches which are opposite things. It's hard to rationalize using multiple nothings, which is what you'd have to do with double brew. So IMO it doesn't seem valid. It's like trying to using ability that requires spending a spell slot [ie, batch of infused reagents] and an ability that specifically lets you cast a spell without a slot [ie, batch of infused reagents]: it's trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
The issue is, nothing says you're allowed to make that substitution: double brew says instead of spending 1 batch you can spend 2.
You quoted that wrong.
instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents
'Instead of' is a replacement keyword. 'Up to 2' gives an upper bound, but not a lower bound (I have to assume a lower bound of 0 since paying a negative amount doesn't make much sense).
So yeah. Instead of spending one batch of reagents, I can spend 0, 1 or 2 reagents instead. That is literally what Double Brew says.
As another tack at this, is there anything else printed that lowers (or raises) the number of reagents that creating items costs?
Because if not, then what is the point of the 'up to' in the Double Brew rules meant to apply to? If items always cost 1 reagent to create, why the more complicated language other than to make it compatible with Perpetual Infusions (or anything else that lowers the cost)?
You know your formulas so well that you can concoct two items at once. When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action. These items do not have to be the same.
You have learned how to create perpetual alchemical infusions that can provide a near-infinite supply of certain simple items. You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents. The items you can select depend on your research field and must be in your formula book.
Double brew uses Quick Alchemy to make 2 items in one action instead of 1, but goes on to clarify that doing so would still cost one reagent per item created instead of 1 for the entire action.
Then, later, Perpetual Infusions gives you the ability to create select alchemical items for free using Quick Alchemy, implying you can do anything you normally would be able to do with Quick Alchemy. You're just using the action, which just so happens to have been previously modified to allow for making 2 items at once. If it wanted you to only be able to create one with it, especially since EVERY alchemist will have Double Brew at this point, they could've added a sentence saying that "when using quick alchemy in this way, you can only create one item at a time" or something similar, but they didn't.
It's not uncommon for two affects to modify / improve the same ability. I see no reason why they can't be used at the same time. Also, I'd like to point out that rules tend to be written with the default assumption being no other affects are changing the action in question other than prerequisites, so it makes sense that Double Brew (which you get at an earlier level, btw. Edit: I'm blind, apparently, it comes later. Point still stands, though XD), wouldn't go out of it's way to say "instead of spending one batch of infused reagents, or however many batches you'd otherwise spend, you can spend upto 1 additional batch, unless that batch is also free, to make a second item."
Huh. Alchemical Alacrity does not seem to have the "instead of spending one" part so would perpetuals work with it? That's something it would have over Double Brew for once. That's fun but rather counterintuitive.
Also, I'd like to point out that rules tend to be written with the default assumption being no other affects are changing the action in question other than prerequisites,
Yeah. I have noticed that. Rules that change something, change the default rules. They rarely take an accounting of all of the other possible interactions that may also be changing those same default rules.
Double Brew (which you get at an earlier level, btw)
I'm looking at the table for Alchemist and it says that Perpetual Infusions is at level 7 and Double Brew is at level 9.
Huh. Alchemical Alacrity does not seem to have the "instead of spending one" part so would perpetuals work with it? That's something it would have over Double Brew for once. That's fun but rather counterintuitive.
Alchemical Alacrity has always confused me. Basically it means that you are required to take Enduring Alchemy before level 15 in order for that class ability to be usable. Otherwise you are just wasting Reagents since you don't have the actions needed to use the items you create.
Well, Quick Bomber would probably let you use a third bomb that you made.
But still, the class ability is not useful unless you have a very small number of required additional feats as well.
Double Brew (which you get at an earlier level, btw)I'm looking at the table for Alchemist and it says that Perpetual Infusions is at level 7 and Double Brew is at level 9.
Yeah, apparently I'm blind... Or more likely, tired, as it's almost midnight for me. I should probably call it a day.
You know what, I'll be honest, the fact that double brew comes after perpetual is actually pretty significant...
At this point I'm not sure what the intention was. I think it should be allowed, but I can really see it going either way, which is rather unfortunate, since usually the rules are pretty clear when you really look at them closely. Idk, maybe I'm just missing something.
Alchemical Alacrity has always confused me. Basically it means that you are required to take Enduring Alchemy before level 15 in order for that class ability to be usable. Otherwise you are just wasting Reagents since you don't have the actions needed to use the items you create.
Same. Extra frustrating that there's awareness of the issue since it was touched up in the errata but it barely made a difference. The new simplified carrying categories, which are great btw in any other context, somehow kept the ability as impractical as ever by 'stowing' the third item.
Anyway, if for some reason perpetuals work with Alchemical Alacrity but not Double Brew, at least Alchemical Alacrity actually becomes an upgrade. Since you don't have to make three items with Alacrity, you can finally make the "2 items for 0 reagents" play but just 7 levels later.
You quoted that wrong.
Good thing I wasn't quoting anything but summarizing the ability: the summery was correct in that the point of Double Brew was instead of the normal Quick Alchemy limit of 1 batch, you can "instead" spend 2 batches.
'Instead of' is a replacement keyword. 'Up to 2' gives an upper bound, but not a lower bound (I have to assume a lower bound of 0 since paying a negative amount doesn't make much sense).
"When using the Quick Alchemy action, instead of spending one batch of infused reagents to create a single item, you can spend up to two batches of infused reagents to make up to two alchemical items as described in that action."
It's telling you Quick Alchemy goes from 1 batch limit to 2 with Double Brew. The range is 1-2. 0 if from another completely different ability and NOT mentioned or hinted at in Double Brew.
So yeah. Instead of spending one batch of reagents, I can spend 0, 1 or 2 reagents instead. That is literally what Double Brew says.
How? It says 1 or 2: 0 isn't there. Now if you switch to asking how many batches you can spend on Quick Alchemy, you can get to 0. That's a different question from it being possible with Double Brew/Alchemical Alacrity.
Because if not, then what is the point of the 'up to' in the Double Brew rules meant to apply to? If items always cost 1 reagent to create, why the more complicated language other than to make it compatible with Perpetual Infusions (or anything else that lowers the cost)?
Because your Quick Alchemy changes as you level-
level 1 Quick Alchemy base: spend 1 batch, get 1 itemLevel 7 Perpetual Infusions: spend 0, get 1 item
level 9 Double Brew: spend 1-2 batches, get 1-2 items
level 15 Alchemical Alacrity: spend 2-3 batches. get 2-3 items
Note that it tells you specifically what items you get per batch used:
0=1 perpetual item
1=1 normal item
2=2 normal items
3=3 normal items
It never says you can opt to spend multiple 0 batches when an ability asks for multiple batches with Perpetual Infusions.
"up to" doesn't really offer anything to the argument IMO, as it reads just fine when the options are 1-2 and 1-3 and keeps the wording the same between Double Brew and Alchemical Alacrity. There isn't any "up to" in Perpetual...
Well, at least we have found where the disconnect between our reasoning is.
"up to" doesn't really offer anything to the argument IMO
That is a very important language construction. It provides a variable number that the player can select as well as an upper bound.
For example, if an ability had a frequency of 'up to 3 times per day', that would let the player choose to do it once, twice, three times, or probably even zero times. You couldn't do it four times or more.
If a spell says 'choose up to 5 targets', the spell doesn't fail if there are only 2 valid targets available. It also doesn't force you to choose your allies for the remaining 2 targets if there are only 3 enemy targets available.
level 1 Quick Alchemy base: spend 1 batch, get 1 item
...
level 9 Double Brew: spend 1-2 batches, get 1-2 items
level 15 Alchemical Alacrity: spend 2-3 batches. get 2-3 items
Question on this progression (assuming your interpretation of things for the moment):
From the look of this, the higher level abilities are overwriting the lower level ones. At level 9 you are not able to use the Quick Alchemy base ability to create items any more. In order to create one item for one reagent, you still have to use Double Brew.
However, if that is the case, when you get to level 15 and get Alchemical Alacrity, why do you no longer have the ability to create one item at a time? You can only spend a minimum of 2 batches to create two items.
If I am misunderstanding that and the Quick Alchemy base ability is still available, then why does Double Brew allow you to spend one reagent batch to create one item? That seems incredibly redundant. Similarly, why would Alchemical Alacrity allow you to spend 2 reagents to get 2 items. That is redundant with Double Brew.
That is a very important language construction. It provides a variable number that the player can select as well as an upper bound.
For example, if an ability had a frequency of 'up to 3 times per day', that would let the player choose to do it once, twice, three times, or probably even zero times. You couldn't do it four times or more.
If a spell says 'choose up to 5 targets', the spell doesn't fail if there are only 2 valid targets available. It also doesn't force you to choose your allies for the remaining 2 targets if there are only 3 enemy targets available.
I understand the importance of the language construct, I just think you are using it wrong hence my dismissing it. In a 'up to 3 times per day', 0 would mean you do not use the ability and not that something gives you a free use. You wouldn't word it as 0 uses unless you have some special ability like Perpetual that ignores uses and give an it at will: for instance, saying Perpetual doesn't use batches is an equivalent statement.
However, if that is the case, when you get to level 15 and get Alchemical Alacrity, why do you no longer have the ability to create one item at a time? You can only spend a minimum of 2 batches to create two items.
Late night mistake. Should be 1-3.
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.
If that's the hangup, there's a big difference between brew and alacrity then, right? Since alacrity doesn't have that text?
From what I understand, the hangup people have isn't the "up to two" part, but the 'instead of spending one" part.If that's the hangup, there's a big difference between brew and alacrity then, right? Since alacrity doesn't have that text?
Nope, Double has "up to two" and Alacrity has "up to three" so there isn't any difference in the argument. It's Perpetual that's worded "instead of spending one" so you're still comparing it to "up to".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What Quick Alchemy does normally: For one action, you spend one batch of Reagents to make one item.
What Perpetual Infusion does: For two specific items, the Quick Alchemy Reagent cost is reduced to 0.
What Double Brew does: Modifies Quick Alchemy so that for one action, you spend up to two batches of Reagents to make that many items.
Perpetual Infusions is not a modification of Quick Alchemy like Double Brew is, it's a modification of the Cost of certain items when making them with Quick Alchemy. Here's how it would work out:
You choose two items with Quick Alchemy to make with your one action. Then you spend the Reagents and the Action to produce those two items. When you choose an item you have for Perpetual Infusions, it reduces the Cost of that item to 0 instead of 1.
The argument that you can't is people reading the rules text like a legal document. It's supposed to be read in plain English.
The real problem is that the wording on Perpetual Infusions is very easy to misunderstand...
The argument that you can't is people reading the rules text like a legal document. It's supposed to be read in plain English.
If the rules where JUST conversational text, you'd have a valid point. The issue is, it swings from that to technical reading often in the same sentence. I mean we can have attack actions requiring a d20 roll but they aren't attack rolls: that isn't conversational speech but using technicalities like you might see in "a legal document".
So IMO, you have to look at it as if it's speaking from a technical view unless you're you're told otherwise as they often switch between talking casual and technical and use them interchangeably for the same thing: they'll switch from commanding something and using the Command action in the same description for instance.
Nope, Double has "up to two" and Alacrity has "up to three" so there isn't any difference in the argument. It's Perpetual that's worded "instead of spending one" so you're still comparing it to "up to".
Sorry, I was referring to the "instead of spending one" text not the "up to." Double brew has the "instead of spending one" text, alacrity does not. Perpetual does not have that text either; it has "create...using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents."
That is a very important language construction. It provides a variable number that the player can select as well as an upper bound.
For example, if an ability had a frequency of 'up to 3 times per day', that would let the player choose to do it once, twice, three times, or probably even zero times. You couldn't do it four times or more.
If a spell says 'choose up to 5 targets', the spell doesn't fail if there are only 2 valid targets available. It also doesn't force you to choose your allies for the remaining 2 targets if there are only 3 enemy targets available.
I understand the importance of the language construct, I just think you are using it wrong hence my dismissing it. In a 'up to 3 times per day', 0 would mean you do not use the ability and not that something gives you a free use. You wouldn't word it as 0 uses unless you have some special ability like Perpetual that ignores uses and give an it at will: for instance, saying Perpetual doesn't use batches is an equivalent statement.
Whether the 'up to X' has a lower bound of 0 or 1 isn't really specified. Normally I would also go with 1 - except for cases where spending 0 makes sense. And in the case of Double Brew with two Perpetual Infusion items, it does make sense that you are spending 0 and getting two items.
Out of curiosity, would you rule that I could create one Perpetual Infusion item, and one non-Perpetual Infusion item using Double Brew? It would cost one action, and 1 Reagent batch. So that does fall in to the 1-2 Reagents for 1-2 items that you are listing for Double Brew.
Again, I think it comes down to the fact that rules are written with few base assumptions in mind. By default, Quick Alchemy costs one batch of reagents, so, with that in mind, double batch mentions that it still costs 1 per item made, not one per use of Quick Alchemy. I mean, lets take a look all the way back at Quick Alchemy, even. It says right in the action's statblock:
Cost 1 batch of infused reagents
Does that mean that Perpetual Infusions doesn't work on it, since it says it costs an infused reagent? Of course not. That's the whole point of Perpetual Infusions. But then, how is that different from Double Batch? It also has an implied cost listed in the description. It says instead of the STANDARD cost of 1 batch, you can spend upto 2 and create upto 2 as described in that action.. I know I've mentioned it before, but I think that line I highlighted is very important.
Also, let's not forget the good 'ol specific trumps general rule. I know it's not always clear what's specific and what's general, and this may be one of those situations, but it's easy to explain how I see it at least, so I figured I'd drop it here. Double brew mentions that you can make things twice as fast. However, the rules need to clarify how much this costs. 1, because it's 1 action, or 2, because you're making 2? The answer is 2, and so they explain that to you in the most general case. Also, you have a specific class feature that works on 2 and ONLY 2 of your 1st-level alchemical items that you picked back at level 7, which reduces the cost of making those items with Quick Alchemy to 0.
Out of curiosity, would you rule that I could create one Perpetual Infusion item, and one non-Perpetual Infusion item using Double Brew? It would cost one action, and 1 Reagent batch. So that does fall in to the 1-2 Reagents for 1-2 items that you are listing for Double Brew.
I wouldn't allow multiple Perpetual Infusion item or a mixture of Perpetual Infusion item and normal ones: there is no rules on how to combine the abilities. Double Brew and Alacrity allow multiple batches to be spent and says nothing about none spent. If you say they are combines why not use both Double Brew AND Perpetual Infusion? You're only limited in how many batches you spend and NOT on items created: items are only a byproduct of spending batches. So if they can be combined, what stops 0 batches spent and 2 batches spend then? It doesn't go over your max batches for Double Brew... Remember, Perpetual never says it specifically replaces a batch but it says you use Quick Alchemy to make a single item: you do it "without spending a batch" and not like Double Brew's "instead of spending one batch": it's never said you replace a single batch for 0 batches in perpetual, but use the ability to get free item.
I see nothing that implies that the 0 batches used for Perpetual Infusion in any way replaces batch used abilities and upgrades. For instance, you can't use it for Unstable Concoction since you specifically aren't using batches: if it did work that way, when it says "You can spend up to 3 additional batches" you could always spend 3 perpetuals 0 batches and never touch your batches. You just don't get to replace batches for 0 batches unless it specifically tells you you can.
I see nothing that implies that the 0 batches used for Perpetual Infusion in any way replaces batch used abilities and upgrades. For instance, you can't use it for Unstable Concoction since you specifically aren't using batches: if it did work that way, when it says "You can spend up to 3 additional batches" you could always spend 3 perpetuals 0 batches and never touch your batches. You just don't get to replace batches for 0 batches unless it specifically tells you you can.
I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but that is a gross misrepresentation of the opposing side's perspective. Of course you can't spend 3 additional batches and reduce the cost to 0. Batches of infused reagents, by definition, are not alchemical items. So I can't say that the 3 batches I used are perpetual batches. That makes no sense. Perpetual batches don't exist. Also, there's no possible useful interaction there regardless, since there's no point in using unstable concoction on a perpetual infusion, as it will never be higher level than you.
That being said, I now see why you are interpreting it the way you are at least (though, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). It seems as though your perspective is that the upto two batches spent on double brew are a part of Double Brew, and are in no way related to the cost of Quick Alchemy. Despite the feature going through the process of the Quick Alchemy action you seem to see it as essentially being a different action with no possible way to reduce its cost or otherwise interact with other things that affect Quick Alchemy.
I can understand that, but I strongly disagree. If they wanted Double Brew to be unable to interact with other abilities, then they could've made it it's own action. Instead, just like a ton of other alchemy feats and features, it specifically calls out that it's using Quick Alchemy. Same as unstable concoction, btw. Since it's also using Quick Alchemy, I see no reason why you couldn't use double brew and create 2 unstable concoctions, potentially spending upto 8 batches of infused reagents in a single action to get 2 higher level items each with a DC 16 flat check on activation.
Perpetual never says it specifically replaces a batch but it says you use Quick Alchemy to make a single item: you do it "without spending a batch" and not like Double Brew's "instead of spending one batch": it's never said you replace a single batch for 0 batches in perpetual, but use the ability to get free item.
That is exactly how I interpret Perpetual Infusion. Equivalent wording: For these two selected 1st level items, instead of spending 1 batch of reagents to create them, you spend 0 reagents.
Even re-reading the rules text with your interpretation in mind, I don't see how you are getting to that conclusion.
Especially with your other interpretation above that Double Brew replaces Quick Alchemy entirely and that in order to create one item for one action you still have to use Double Brew (that was your justification for why the 'up to 2' was printed in the rules for Double Brew). Effectively, that would prevent you from using Perpetual Infusion at all except for level 7 and level 8. Once you hit level 9 and Double Brew gets added, you can't use Quick Alchemy and therefore can't get your Perpetual Infusion items for free any more.
I see nothing that implies that the 0 batches used for Perpetual Infusion in any way replaces batch used abilities and upgrades. For instance, you can't use it for Unstable Concoction since you specifically aren't using batches: if it did work that way, when it says "You can spend up to 3 additional batches" you could always spend 3 perpetuals 0 batches and never touch your batches. You just don't get to replace batches for 0 batches unless it specifically tells you you can.
Huh? The cost would be up to 3 additional batches above the normal cost of the item. So 0 + 3 batches. Not 0 + 0 batches.
It would be a terrible idea to do since you can already create level 1 items that are stable. There would be no point in creating a 1st level item with 2 extra reagents that causes it to have a 30% chance of doing damage to you.
But it would work. a 1st level item is certainly within the limit of 'up to 2 higher than your advanced alchemy level'. As long as you have the extra reagents available, you could for some insane reason decide instead of making a smokestick for 0 reagents like normal, make a smokestick with 2 extra reagents that may blow up in your face.
In fact, the language of Unstable Concoction also indicates the existence of interaction with rules that change the base cost of Quick Alchemy for certain items. Why doesn't Unstable Concoction simply say that 'you spend up to 4 reagents...' Why use the word 'additional' if items always cost 1 reagent to create the item when interacting properly with the feat?
That being said, I now see why you are interpreting it the way you are at least (though, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). It seems as though your perspective is that the upto two batches spent on double brew are a part of Double Brew, and are in no way related to the cost of Quick Alchemy. Despite the feature going through the process of the Quick Alchemy action you seem to see it as essentially being a different action with no possible way to reduce its cost or otherwise interact with other things that affect Quick Alchemy.
I don't see Double Brew as a different ability but an expansion of what Quick Alchemy can do when you spend batches. I see Perpetual as what Quick Alchemy can do when you spend no batches. This, IMO, leads to them not being compatible as they are doing diametrically opposed things. If you want to combine them there is no 'conversion' to do so. Is it 1 Perpetual and you full Double Brew? Is it one of your double brew becomes a Perpetual? Do both of your double brew have to be Perpetual? I just don't see the mechanism that changes 'no batches needed' to 'batches needed'. I see as much allowing a free use of perpetual with your double brew's 2 made as I do for making multiple perpetuals with double brew's required batches. IMO, it's like trying to use an innate spell for an ability that requires a spell be cast from a slot: even though it's using the same ability [spell casting] and the spell is limited [1/day], it's just not a slot. IMO, no batch is never a batch: you'd need some kind of explicit ability to do so.
@graystone
Got it... Yeah, that still seems like a stretch to me. Like, a really big one considering how abilities are worded in this game, not listing out every interaction between various abilities. But also, there's literally nothing left I have to say that hasn't already been said by at least one person in this thread. If you're not convinced at this point (nor have you convinced me at this point. If anything, this conversation has made it even more clear IMO), then I guess it's an agree to disagree kind of situation.
Oh, though, I guess I can mention how those situations you described would work if I'm right. Not trying to convince you this is correct, just an explanation of what would occur if it's supposed to work as we're describing.
When using Double Brew / Alchemical Alacrity to make multiple alchemical items the process of determining the cost would be as follows:
1. Base cost = 1 per item made
2. The perpetual infusions items (if any) are free, aka reduce the cost by 1 each
3. Add any additional batches that your feats / features cost. These are "additional" and are in no way affected by perpetual infusions cost reduction, whether this is from an additive affect, unstable concoctions, etc.
OK, I feel like I am still failing to understand what you are saying. Which is different than saying that you are wrong.
Maybe a more concrete example would help get the mechanics across better.
So let's role play this a bit. I have a stub of an alchemist here, and you be my GM.
For my level 9 bomber alchemist, I know Frost Vial (lesser) and Alchemist Fire (lesser) as my two Perpetual Infusion items. I also know Smokestick (lesser) and a handful of other 1st level items. I also know Thunderstone (moderate) and a handful of other non-first level items as appropriate for an alchemist. But these are the items and levels that I need for the discussion.
So for my first turn, I want to create a Thunderstone (moderate) to throw at an enemy and a Smokestick (lesser) to provide concealment. So I do that for one action using Double Brew, spending the two reagents for them (because neither is on my list of Perpetual Infusion items). For my second action, I throw the bomb at the enemy. For my third action, I activate and drop the smokestick.
For my next turn, I realize that I am running low on reagents, so I switch over to my perpetual infusion items. I want to use Double Brew to create two Alchemist Fire (lesser), then use my next two actions to throw them at the enemy.
So at this point, I am expecting that I can use Double Brew to create the two Alchemist Fire items, because why not. I am also expecting that these two Alchemist Fire items are not going to cost me any reagents, because they haven't done so for the last two levels.
So with that, please try explaining again why I can either only create one Alchemist Fire item that costs 0 reagents using the Quick Alchemy action, or I can use Double Brew to create two of them, but it will still cost me 2 reagents.
thank you gentlemen for the discussion so far - as a GM I would be inclined that Double Brew & perpetual infusions can be used together. However, I wonder if you can create two additive items with "doublebrew" and both have a trigger. e.g. smoke bombs for one bomb and sticky bombs for the other.
Hmm... They don't increase the cost of reagents, so you won't run into the problem of max 2 reagents with Double Brew.
The trigger for them is 'you use Quick Alchemy...' so there may be problems with that. If you, like me, think of Double Brew as using Quick Alchemy as a subordinate action, then you should be able to modify at least one of them even though you aren't directly using the Quick Alchemy action. Fortunately neither of these additive abilities are like metamagic that says 'your next action is ...' so there won't be problems with doing both of the free actions.
You wouldn't be able to create two Sticky Bombs (for example) because of the frequency of once per round. And in fact, I would lean towards not allowing two of any of the additives - similar to the flourish trait for attacks. You should only be able to do one of any of them per round. But that isn't what it actually says RAW.
So my conclusion is that I would allow it. Tentatively. Unless there was some balance problem that comes up with doing two additive creations each round instead of only one like each of the individual feats allows.
thank you gentlemen for the discussion so far - as a GM I would be inclined that Double Brew & perpetual infusions can be used together. However, I wonder if you can create two additive items with "doublebrew" and both have a trigger. e.g. smoke bombs for one bomb and sticky bombs for the other.
That's a good question. I would say since they're both triggered by the same action, at the same time (the moment you use quick alchemy) you can only use one of them, and only on one of the items created. This isn't because of any specific limitation to the feat, but rather the general rules of free actions, and how you can only use one free action for any given trigger.
That being said, I could easily see someone saying that the trigger is the item created with quick alchemy and not the quick alchemy action as a whole, meaning that it would be 2 separate triggers. You could always talk to a DM about it, but it's definitely not something that you should assume they'll allow.