If a player is going to hoard coin in the first way, why are that not doing so in the second? If optimal is the sole driving force of those players, why drop that is the second way?
Availability of items for purchase by level. Buying items you can't actually use without waiting a day makes them fairly marginal in their utility.
Going to b$!@#+#+ numbers as I don't have the book at my side, but if your next potency rune costs 50,000 so, you have 70,000 so but you can't spend it yet because you don't yet have access to a seller, then you know you have 20,000 so to burn. Additional SP is always nice, you might be able to even line up your next couple levels up upgrades, but you can't very those items right now so who cares if you put money into other things? You'll make more money later just in time. Even if toy have only 40,000 so now, it is probably safe to assume you can spend 20,000 now and expect to make 30,000 by the time you level up.
That's pretty much the answer to your whole post. Can't use all the items at once so buying more and more has rapidly diminishing returns, selling random magic items players don't care about has not too much impact if they aren't already starved for wealth.
It's nice to be able to err on the side of giving too much loot and letting players have that part of their lizard brain tickled without worrying you're making Christmas trees, and as a player I like being able to spend money on things that don't concern my character directly without worrying In just gimping myself. My only complaint about it in 5e was that, after level 6 or so once enough gold was saved up for plate armor, money as a reward lost all of its excitement. I'd still be pretty jazzed about it in PF2 since at least most of it will go towards buying a bigger stick that lets me roll more dice, I'd just know that I could get away with spending 10% of it for RP purposes with no impact.
I'd say that while you can't "break" the game with multiple low-cost items, it is definitely a problem when multiple low-cost items can grant a more beneficial set of bonuses than a higher-value item. For instance, if I have 1000gp to spend and I can buy either a Standard Ring of Energy Resistance or 4x Lesser Rings of Energy Resistance, is that extra 5 resistance on a single element really worth having no resistance to three others?
I think the question being asked ("Does the game break if there is no magic item limit?") is too narrow, as it ignores these corner case scenarios where it may not break the game but still causes a balance issue.
Prices are bizarre. Energy resistance rings are perhaps the worst offenders.
That, however, is a side topic. We're looking for game breakers here. Have any?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did actual flat-out game breaking become the goal anyways? I think it might have been somewhere on page 1, but definitely wasn't OP. Your own OP was just asking if there was any point in introducing a limit at all, which I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful. So at this point is it a thread derail to find actual game-breaking combinations or are goal posts just being moved?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Preventing game breaking was always the goal of having a limit. You don't for example introduce limits on the amount of magic items you can wear for no reason. You do it to prevent the items from being abused to the point they break the game. That's the point of the thread and the first post. If you go back and read it, it's clear. We're not discussing "Should there be a limit or not?" in a void. The context is game breaking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful...
You have not presented any valid reasons why a limit IS useful or beneficial. In fact your last post was about how Rings of Wizardry could be abused to give spellcasters 50 or 60 spells. That was pointed out to be forbidden by the rules and thus impossible. That's why there is still an open call on this thread for item combinations that say, "Hey, you know what? There are combinations of magic items out there that need some work to prevent them from ruining the game."
So, no, you especially Shinigami02 have not demonstrated a case for a limit on magic items being needed for any reason.
...I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful...You have not presented any valid reasons why a limit IS useful or beneficial. In fact your last post was about how Rings of Wizardry could be abused to give spellcasters 50 or 60 spells. That was pointed out to be forbidden by the rules and thus impossible. That's why there is still an open call on this thread for item combinations that say, "Hey, you know what? There are combinations of magic items out there that need some work to prevent them from ruining the game."
So, no, you especially Shinigami02 have not demonstrated a case for a limit on magic items being needed for
any reasonhis arbitrary reasons.
Okay just fixed that :P
But joking aside, i do think you won't be persuaded by any argument. My own here would be both that combos of lower priced items and the weird fact that it limits future design space, 10 might be a bit of an odd number but a hard limit to me must exist or else it will end up with someone that will want to stack 500 magic items just because.
I'm probably going to houserule "no more magic items equipped (or whatever verb is appropriate) than your level" and see how it goes.
Sure there is. That's the definition of a slot or resonance based system. If you deny that, which is fine, then we are existentially questioning the existence of any sort of a limit. Also fine, but everyone's posts, not just my own, talk about how unlimited items break the game and try to give examples.
I think it's fair to take the slot based system and say, "Why does this thing exist?" PF1 inherited it. PF1 dealt with most of the abuse by creating bonuses that did and didn't stack. I think we were already on the border of questioning why have a slot system, but we didn't. It was historical. We accepted it.
When we moved to a point based system which was level + charisma bonus, it became obvious without its slot-based history that it was nothing more than a system, and, here is the point of the thread, it wasn't relevant anymore. Items and their cost already restrict themselves. There aren't game breaking combinations anymore. And if that's the case, there's no point to limiting magic items by a slot or point based system.
You're free to disagree, which several of you have done, but you have not posted any examples to back up the claim that, "DM Of, you are wrong. We do need a limit, and here's why." Participants have thrown around theories, but at this point, I think the only point that will prove that a limit is needed is to show how that lack of a limit breaks the game. Everything else is opinion and theory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't you basically throwing around the burden of proof for everyone while needing to meet your own weird criteria? Well if so it's really impossible to prove to you, try taking the burden and proving that for every possible item that might come it won't break the game without a limit for a change...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The challenge is straightforward. Dig into the PF2 core rulebook's magic item section. Put together a combination of magic items that breaks the game (in or outside the economy, whatever). Justify inclusion of a magic item limit.
The burden of proof is on the system component to exist, not for me to prove it shouldn't simply because it already does exist.
Case in point, the 3 action economy. Does giving a player 3 actions per round break the game? We could argue that, but I haven't seen any discussions here that find it to be a problem. Ok, let's change the premise. Let's propose a 10 action economy where each action is as potent as the current 3 action economy's actions. I can prove the 3-action limit needs to exist, because giving a player 10 actions let's them cast 5 spells or put together ridiculous combinations of movement, attacks, magic item discharges (to avoid MAP), and spells that take out entire groups of foes before the next person gets to take their turn. There, I've justified there needs to be a limit on actions per round.
We had a resonance based magic item restriction system. That system, if it is to exist in some form, needs to justify its existence. The burden of proof is not on me to show it shouldn't exist (which I've actually done by demonstrating there are no combinations of affordable items that break the game and thus require a limit). It's on proponents of the system to demonstrate the reasoning for its existence.
If you want to prove there needs to be a limit, put your evidence on the table to discuss. I'm not trying to say there shouldn't be. I'm trying to understand it for my own group's use or not. I don't see a need currently. I think the easiest way to demonstrate this is to show a game-breaking magic item combo. If you have another way that holds up to scrutiny, feel free to post it.
4 actions vs 3 was not the premise. Continuing to attack the thread, because you don't have any valid examples is not helpful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I feel several of us have presented reasons why having a limit other than just price can be useful...You have not presented any valid reasons why a limit IS useful or beneficial. In fact your last post was about how Rings of Wizardry could be abused to give spellcasters 50 or 60 spells. That was pointed out to be forbidden by the rules and thus impossible. That's why there is still an open call on this thread for item combinations that say, "Hey, you know what? There are combinations of magic items out there that need some work to prevent them from ruining the game."
So, no, you especially Shinigami02 have not demonstrated a case for a limit on magic items being needed for any reason.
No no no, my last post was, and I quote myself:
I swear that line wasn't there before. Okay I'll concede that one. I still feel that given the way price scaling works it's still better to have an item limit now if only to prevent abuse later. Even if nothing currently is capable of breaking the game (which is debatable, I'm just not invested enough to go do another major dive) every item made down the line would still have to be designed around "what if a higher level character had 5, 10, 20, 50, etc. of these instead of a level-appropriate item" and [I] feel that having a second balance point would allow for cooler low-level items rather than locking everything neat and possibly semi-powerful behind high-level and the associated costs.
Most important bits (IMO) emphasized. Could this be done by adding one or more lines to every single item created that creates specific limits on how they can or cannot be used in multiples? Sure I guess. But that's going to be a lot of book space that could be used to, say, print more cool options, or more lore, or more whatever else is in the book. In contrast, a simple item limit makes that balance point implicit (though some exceptions might need to be made for extreme cases, a la the Ring of Wizardry, but it wouldn't need to be made for every single item,) while having the option to adjust the limit or even simply remove it (if you know and trust your players enough, like you clearly do) to adjust the feel of home-games.
Shinigami02, you claimed you made valid points towards proving the need for an item limit. I called you out that you had been refuted in your 1 erroneous example. Rather than admit it or contribute towards the discussion, you post that you had another post since then and ignore the fact that you are arguing on a tangent. I can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to get across with this rambling or by shifting to the word "balance" instead of game-breaking, which are terms on the same scale.
The only part of what you wrote that I understand is "...it's still better to have an item limit now if only to prevent abuse later." Which is ridiculous. There is no current need for one. You are conceding that. Yet you still think we should have a limit anyway, just because who knows what the future holds. I'm not going to argue theoretics with you. I am interested in what we can see from the ruleset we currently have. If you want to have a theoretical discussion on how to balance the unreleased PF2 core and its future unreleased source books, that sounds like another topic. Consider spinning up another thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without an item limit there are only two balance points for items: Price and Availability. Availability can, will, and as written in the playtest should, vary from game to game, possibly dramatically. As for price, that leads to my earlier point:
every item made down the line would still have to be designed around "what if a higher level character had 5, 10, 20, 50, etc. of these instead of a level-appropriate item"
because price does not scale linearly but more like exponentially or quadratically (I'm not the greatest at distinguishing them) so one higher-level item costs the same as several lower-level items. Because price is the only concrete balancing system in such a place this causes a couple options:
1) Wealth By Level becomes set in stone, for to vary from it in the least causes power to shift, possibly catastrophically. I've dealt with this for 4 years in PF1e, I'd really like to see PF2e be more loose in how much treasure GMs are allowed to hand out.
2) All, or at least most, items have to have at least one line, and likely in most cases several lines, placing down hard limits of what happens if you try to use multiple of that item at once or in rapid succession. Given books with items tend to have several at once, that's a lot of book space that could be used for other, more interesting things.
3) Items at the low end of the price scale cannot be much more than trivial in power, or else higher cost items get left by the wayside because the lower cost items just render them worthless.
An Item Limit, while it might not completely eliminate the issues, does help alleviate them. It produces a situation where there is a real trade-off against collecting as many small passive bonuses as you can get your hands on rather than having one big item that can do some thing cool a limited number of times per day. It allows low-cost items to be able to do some cool thing a limited number of times a day without adding extra text to each one saying that no you can't buy/craft 10 of these and get 10x the uses of it each day. If combined with a well-applied limitation on accessibility (again, it varies wildly, but that does mean sometimes it is a valid point of balance) you can give the party loads of money without having to worry about them picking up dozens of passive bonuses or small items that allow them to balloon their strength beyond what is reasonable for their level. In short, it allows for more dynamic balancing of power level because there is that extra axis to balance things out.
So in conclusion, when you say
Yet you still think we should have a limit anyway, just because who knows what the future holds. I'm not going to argue theoretics with you.
I think you are only looking at half the picture, and completely ignoring what could be. And if you don't think the possibilities that it opens up are a valid reason to include the extra balance point, well then we shall just never see eye to eye, so I bid you good day sir.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) All, or at least most, items have to have at least one line, and likely in most cases several lines, placing down hard limits of what happens if you try to use multiple of that item at once or in rapid succession. Given books with items tend to have several at once, that's a lot of book space that could be used for other, more interesting things.
Not addressing all of it, but I feel this is easily resolvable by just using a trait keyword. The Potent items are only meant to be used once per person. So if you have one that gives you a bonus to Dex, you can't use any others. This doesn't have to explained each and every time per item; the space that might be used for such repetitive explanations can instead be used for more interesting things. All thanks to codifying it into a single trait keyword.
Well thought out post, Shinigami02. You're getting into the sensibility side of this that I'm for. I agree the door should be opened on wealth without having to worry about overuse and misuse of magic items. My campaigns keep those kinds of items inaccessible enough that it's not a concern for my groups. "Guys and gals, if you want to run a magic item economics game, that's not really what this campaign is about."
So far PF2 items are ludicrously expensive and underwhelming. The cost factor is so strong of a factor, there's no need for an item limit system. I don't agree with that. However, even if they were cheaper, they're all written such that they can't be abused with stacking. I think that part is good. Having a magic weapon that gives you 3d8 damage and somehow buying another magic item that boosts that to 6d8 on top of the magic item plus scale is the kind of thing that breaks the game but is absent from PF2. Blasting someone with a magic item for 8d6 with 3 actions is fine, but doubling up on those to get 16d6 is not. That kind of thing is again prevented through the action economy requirement system.
Isn't the action economy system limiting most abuse all on its own with the way items are written?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The action economy system does limit using items in one big blast. In contrast though, using something that's intended to be (and balanced around being) used once per minute every round, or something that's supposed to be used once per day as an opening for every fight. Something doesn't have to be used in a nova to be problematic.
Items do not have to be nova-able to be a problem, true. Being restricted to once per minute is very effective if the item cannot have a stronger effect than an equivalent character of approximately the same level wielding a magic weapon.
Thus the Ring of the Ram example. Standard does 3 actions for 6d6 or greater does 9d6. That is not better than an equivalent character with a +3 longsword doing 4d8 x3 with the potential for crit (24d8).
True, but the once a minute items they've introduced so far are extremely weak.
Everything is weak. Resistance 15 to an element that takes L12 wealth to obtain? Worthless. I expect big changes in PF2 or at least at my table. These are the kinds of items that make games fun, not broken.
Heck, I'm going to throw back to BECMI (not version war :) ).
There used to be a Scroll of Protection from Dragon Breath. It gave you immunity to dragon breath in a 10' radius for 1 Turn (10 minutes). BLAM yo!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Preventing game breaking was always the goal of having a limit. You don't for example introduce limits on the amount of magic items you can wear for no reason. You do it to prevent the items from being abused to the point they break the game. That's the point of the thread and the first post. If you go back and read it, it's clear. We're not discussing "Should there be a limit or not?" in a void. The context is game breaking.
For the record, I don't think removing the item limit in PF2 would break the game - few items in PF2 are strong enough to pose a balance issue on their own, and the stacking rules prevent the most egregious possibilities. That said, the item limit was never a mechanic solely intended to prevent game-breaking combos. It's a balance point, which means it also has to accomplish the goal of ensuring that available items are balanced against each other. The devs stated early on in the playtest that Resonance would serve as a second balance point to gold, using the Ring of Energy Resistance as an example of what it was meant to prevent.
And to be fair, the first post never asked if removing the item limit would break the game - it asked if there was any point in having an item limit anymore, which is a different question entirely.
Balance is another way to express mechanics that are not so far "unbalanced" as to be game-breaking. A game that is balanced is not broken by its potential mechanics. So let's not shift the conversation to balance as if that's what overrides this thread. It's what it's been all along.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Currently, having no slot restrictions will not break the game.
However, slots in PF1 and Resonance in PF2 also had another use: helping to more evenly distribute loot.
In PF1, if one enemy drops a cloak of resistance and the next enemy drops a cloak of elven kind, one character cannot equip both. So even if the party were to decide that it was mathematically and RP appropriate for one character to have both, they couldn't.
Resonance could be highly restrictive and meant, at least, one character wouldn't hoard all the fun items because they could only use X per day.
Given that, for a statistically significant number of tables, the majority of loot is found rather than bought, a slot limit can prove useful. However, in practice, it rarely matters because every table I've been with had some sort of loot distribution agreement.
Indeed, we've frequently added up the gold value of our gear periodically both for the GM to check wealth and to see how uneven things have gotten. Generally we're within 10% of one another. This holds true even without leaving the dungeon to liquidate and buy things, so again Gold cost is working pretty well for this purpose.
Currently, having no slot restrictions will not break the game.
However, slots in PF1 and Resonance in PF2 also had another use: helping to more evenly distribute loot.
In PF1, if one enemy drops a cloak of resistance and the next enemy drops a cloak of elven kind, one character cannot equip both. So even if the party were to decide that it was mathematically and RP appropriate for one character to have both, they couldn't.
Resonance could be highly restrictive and meant, at least, one character wouldn't hoard all the fun items because they could only use X per day.
Given that, for a statistically significant number of tables, the majority of loot is found rather than bought, a slot limit can prove useful. However, in practice, it rarely matters because every table I've been with had some sort of loot distribution agreement.
Indeed, we've frequently added up the gold value of our gear periodically both for the GM to check wealth and to see how uneven things have gotten. Generally we're within 10% of one another. This holds true even without leaving the dungeon to liquidate and buy things, so again Gold cost is working pretty well for this purpose.
I know a few people that would load up on everything they found if there was no limit. Hell, I know people that would load up on everything they found even with a limit cause "Might need it".
Jerks are going to be jerks regardless of a limit or not.
What would be the point of restricting magic item use at all in this system?Several points have been raised already in this thread. None of them are "game-breaking" (to your completely undefined specifications anyway), but we also don't have full item lists yet. But more importantly, that wasn't the question you asked. You asked in your original post as I quoted, if there was any point at all. The answer to that question is an easy yes. Now, you don't seem to think that these reasons would make your specific playgroups' games less enjoyable, but that's hardly the point. The Core Rules of the game aren't designed only for your group. Furthermore, the Paizo police aren't going to show up at your door and arrest you if you decide not to enforce an item limit in your game. If the designers feel that the best experience for the most people involves some sort of item limit (again, reasons for which have already been articulated), then they should make that part of the rules, which your playgroup is free to ignore if they so chose. I do have to commend you on your ability to move the goalposts though. Every time a valid point has come up, you just push those goalposts further out, and no one has seemed to notice. First it was any reason. At all. Ever. Then it was one that was economical (which was an even less compelling argument when it became clear you had no real grasp whatsoever on what the economics of the game actually were). Then it had to be "game-breaking!!!1!elventy!!" Then it was, "Well, even if they ever want to make something that would break the game in unlimited numbers, they can just make the text super clunky and add limiting errata to items that mess things up." You know, instead of just having a set limit of magical items you can use at any one time like every other game in existence, because it would make you happier.
Keep in mind that the idea of "Just houserule however you want" is a two way street, so suggesting that he houserules is appropriate compared to you houseruling is a double standard when, if the roles were reversed (and they have been), you decided it wasn't fair to do that. Don't you think the opposite roles are equally consequential?
Even then, it's so easy to solve this issue as GM it's not even funny. Want players to not have too many items? Throw an arbitrary item limit just because. Do they have too few items? Throw an arbitrary number of items at them just because.
The fact that this is a group preferential debate really only means that Paizo needs to put in guidelines for how loot can be handled (or should be handled if unsure), and in the item-by-level section of the book, they already did. Putting in hard rules leads to silly arguments like the ones in this thread.
I personally thought that item slots in PF1 were fine. Except, numerous people have complained that being confined to X amount of a certain slot or 2 for arbitrary reasons was unacceptable, which actually, by design, promotes the Christmas Tree effect everyone apparently doesn't want. Sounds counterintuitive to say that people don't want the Christmas Tree effect while simultaneously confining all of my magic into two slots of nearly endless amounts of items that provide abilities and effects for me. Also, trinkets in their concept further promotes this due to its consumable nature, and consumables inflate the Christmas Tree effect a lot more than usual.
There was Resonance, but after testing the developers decided not to follow through with it due to its reception and implementation, and all we know is that there will be some arbitrary item limitation that I imagine someone has already thought up of (for example, saying someone only gets 10 permanent items). This doesn't change the consumable issue that plays in the Christmas Tree effect, and this is already something that item slots have been used for; an arbitrary limitation of magic items.
And I've never had people look through 3 pages of magic items for their actions; players (plus GMs) can and should be aware of what they have and what their items do (assuming they properly identify items they find). Even then, there are GM ways to enforce short round times, such as applying a clock counter (forcing a delay) as the simplest solution. Mistakes happen, yes, but I'd rather keep the game flowing. (In fact that reminds me of someone complaining about how reactions work in a recent game that grinded the game to a halt, and I despised that it happened.)
If players are running around with that many items, then that GM has screwed up majorly and they are running a completely different game with completely different expectations. I don't recall any game where a player has had nearly that many magic items, especially because item slots combined with following WBL killed that concept in PF1, meaning unless the GM didn't enforce item slots, or gave out way too much money, that never happened.
As for the pricing thing, this is something that should be addressed in the balancing of the game. 36 rings of counterspell should not equate to a +5 armor rune in price, and this is an issue that's spawned from quadratic pricing. The fact that it takes 25 normal Cloaks of Elvenkind to equate to 1 Greater Cloak of Elvenkind based on sheer pricing is beyond broken. And this is especially prevalent when items with flat bonuses have a flat cost compared to scaling items of a quadratic cost; completely different frequencies clashing against each other.
IMO, an easy way to fix the ring of counterspells shenanigans is to limit the spell level stored in the ring and having 10 different versions of the item, thereby warranting the quadratic wavelength common amongst the pricings and thereby making the frequencies identical. (They've already had numerous items with 4-6 different versions, what's one item with 10 versions of itself going to hurt?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prices are bizarre. Energy resistance rings are perhaps the worst offenders.
That, however, is a side topic. We're looking for game breakers here. Have any?
Potion of Quickness, 30gp.
Since playing Heroes of Undarin, every single player in my playtest has always had 4 actions, without pause, without exceptions, including full casters (because why not).It's not a hard break, but it's a sign that something is quite wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Potion of Quickness, 30gp.
Since playing Heroes of Undarin, every single player in my playtest has always had 4 actions, without pause, without exceptions, including full casters (because why not).
Sounds like a serious case of Potion Addiction. Gonna suck when they finally run dry.
Prices are bizarre. Energy resistance rings are perhaps the worst offenders.
That, however, is a side topic. We're looking for game breakers here. Have any?
Potion of Quickness, 30gp.
Since playing Heroes of Undarin, every single player in my playtest has always had 4 actions, without pause, without exceptions, including full casters (because why not).It's not a hard break, but it's a sign that something is quite wrong.
As a consumable not currently restricted by the updated PF2 rules, this example is outside of the item limit scope, but pricing-wise it is a good topic at 30gp.
Is it really breaking is my first thought. It takes an action to drink, and depending on what you need to have in your hands, could take several more to pull out, drink, and then re-equip yourself. 1min duration, so you can't have this effect on you for long enough to explore.
I will think of an example. Shield and Sword warrior enters room, attacked by ogres, goblins, baddies.
Turn 1) sheathe sword, draw potion (we'll say it's handy), drink
Turn 2) draw sword, take 3 actions
Turn 3+) Take 4 actions
In this example, it is not until turn 5 that our warrior breaks even on actions and round 6 before he nets 1 more action than never having drank the potion. With MAP not allowing a 4th attack to be very useful, this example would prove to be a very poor magic item use.
I know a 1 handed person with the potion in their second hand does better, but unless you drink this ahead of battle, you are behind the action curve.
What do you think from seeing your players' usage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a consumable not currently restricted by the updated PF2 rules, this example is outside of the item limit scope, but pricing-wise it is a good topic at 30gp.
Is it really breaking is my first thought. It takes an action to drink, and depending on what you need to have in your hands, could take several more to pull out, drink, and then re-equip yourself. 1min duration, so you can't have this effect on you for long enough to explore.
I will think of an example. Shield and Sword warrior enters room, attacked by ogres, goblins, baddies.
Turn 1) sheathe sword, draw potion (we'll say it's handy), drink
Turn 2) draw sword, take 3 actions
Turn 3+) Take 4 actionsIn this example, it is not until turn 5 that our warrior breaks even on actions and round 6 before he nets 1 more action than never having drank the potion. With MAP not allowing a 4th attack to be very useful, this example would prove to be a very poor magic item use.
I know a 1 handed person with the potion in their second hand does better, but unless you drink this ahead of battle, you are behind the action curve.
What do you think from seeing your players' usage?
If your general fight plan is to utilize this potion it would make more sense to either be carrying it in your hand from the start, or at least keep your weapon sheated while exploring so you have a free hand for a quick drink if needed (if the encounter is low risk enough to not drink it, you can spare the extra action required to draw your sword regardless). The first scenario would net you positive action economy from round 4 and the other from round 5.
But depending on the situation it's also quite likely you would get to drink the potion without it impacting your action economy, since if you are breaking down a door in a dungeon a perception check would likely let you be aware of the enemies before hand. And since it's a potion you don't really risk getting discovered like a verbal action might otherwise do.
There are also plenty...
Also believe that dropping your weapon is a free action, as is switching from a two-handed to one-handed grip on a weapon (which you can do even with two-handed weapons, you just can't then attack with them until you go back to a two-handed grip). So a fighter with a broadsword, even if they were completely unprepared, would spend a free action to release their grip, an interact action to draw the potion, an operate action to drink the potion, and then an interact action to return to a two-handed grip (or to pick up whatever it is you dropped on the ground). Remember that the haste effect is immediate, so you get your extra action on the same turn with which to do whatever you want, like smack someone upside the head or move into position.
That is the worst case scenario, and it would not be until turn 3 that you break even and turn 4 where you start reaping the benefit. Any amount of prebuffing makes it an immediate and massive benefit, and doing as you said and just keeping it in your hand at the ready means you break even on the second turn and start benefiting on the third.
For a one-handed Fighter, drinking the potion and then following it up with Dual-Handed Assault is a pretty potent combo, following that up with a combat grab, dueling parry, or what have you. At that point you break even on the very first turn, and reap the benefits come the second turn.
I don't like that sort of consumable, that you basically must use every combat if you've got the money for it. Health potions generally aren't going to outheal the damage incoming and their effects can be recreated now with the Treat Wounds activity. Most other potions are situationally useful enough such that there's a point where having more than X number of them just means the extras will never be used and aren't even useful as a contigency. This sort of potion that you would want to use for every single combat so long you have the money for it seems excessive, and the only limiting factor is if the party believes they're not going to ultimately profit from it and thus severely fall behind WBL, which just goes back to that "spend every single copper on mechanically useful stuff" I'd rather avoid.
As a GM, if my party decided to go all in on crafting Potions of Quickness (because they would quickly deplete the stock of potions at Ye Olde Potion Shoppe) I would be hard pressed to call shenanigans.
30 gold (300 PF1 gold) per fight per person adds up fast. You can't craft for half in this edition (right? I seem to recall that). They also have to get the down time to do the crafting, which is far from guaranteed.
So the party all has to go around with a free hand holding a potion to get a significant boost for every fight. They might find the fights a bit boring, since I wouldn't really do anything to counter that particular tactic, but they're paying hard earned cash to do so.
Honestly, I might cry actual tears because they finally did something to prepare ahead of time.
It does seem a bit strong for a pre-buff though. Maybe it'll get upped in price in the final edition.
You can't craft for half in this edition (right? I seem to recall that). They also have to get the down time to do the crafting, which is far from guaranteed.
Yes and no to both - when you craft an item, you can either spend one day (if you are a few levels higher than the item, up to 4 days if you are the same level) of crafting time and pay full price for it, or you can spend more time working on it to reduce the price (at a rate per day based on your level and Crafting proficiency), to a minimum of half cost. A high level crafter can pretty reliably make potions for half cost in two days, though two days per potion is not an insignificant amount of time if your goal is to stockpile a bunch of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
