While in First Edition, potions were spells of 3rd level or lower in a bottle; we wanted to go a slightly different route this time. Potions not only can have effects that reach into higher levels, but they also don't need to be tied to particular spell effects.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around potions in Pathfinder Second Edition. I get that they are no longer necessarily tied to a spell, but let's say we still want to create "spells in a bottle".
In First Edition, potions were double the cost of a scroll for a given spell level according to Tables 15-12 (p. 478) and 15-15 (p. 491) of the Core Rulebook. For instance, a 3rd-spell-level potion would cost 750 gp, while the scroll for the same spell would cost 375 gp. This makes sense given the added convenience of a potion.
In Second Edition, we have Table 11-3 (p. 565) for Scroll Statistics, but we don't have an equivalent table for Potions. I'm attempting to reverse-engineer the logic for determining the item level and cost for a potion. Here are some example potions from the Core Rulebook (pp. 562-564), all of which provide the effects of 2nd-level spells:
1) Invisibility Potion: Spell level = 2 / Item level = 4 / Cost = 20 gp
2) Barkskin Potion: Spell level = 2 / Item level = 4 / Cost = 15 gp
3) Potion of Water Breathing: Spell level = 2 / Item level = 3 / Cost = 11 gp
I'm failing to see a pattern for determining the item level based on the spell level, and the cost doesn't seem to be purely based on the item/spell level. Can I get some insight on this from the powers that be? Thanks!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say lore wise the reason it can't be replicated is that the specific abilities of the potion are made by ingredients and a type of magic that is only potent enough in that liquid form. I don't know, I'm used ro potions being specifically things different from spells in pop culture. I am also used to a potion being an exact copy of a spell but I almost exclusively see it in dnd/pathfinder. 5E also has a multitude of potions that are unique abilities, and besides the potions that are named after spells but do different things they mostly work( im looking at you potion of heroism in 5e). But even in lets say harry potter or most things with witches, potions are another ttpe of magic seperate or related to spells but not nesscarilly spells.
as for the op, I am not sure? But I hope somebody can respond with an answer for you soon.
I'm failing to see a pattern for determining the item level based on the spell level, and the cost doesn't seem to be purely based on the item/spell level. Can I get some insight on this from the powers that be? Thanks!
I'm guessing the costs are also influenced by duration, impact on combat, utility uses, etc.
I can't think of any truly ridiculous examples, but a potion of invisibility should probably not be worth the same as a potion of aid in 1E. Or bless and endure elements, or ant haul, or comprehend languages.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really glad that they moved away from the spell-in-a-bottle trope. As Leotamer mentions, it does allow a cleaner separation between casters and alchemists.
It was always a bit weird which spells would work as potions anyway, and arbitrary 3rd level cap meant potions were severely limited in higher level play.
I want there to be plenty of weird, mysterious, bizarre, potions out there. I mean, look at Harry Potter's potions versus spells. Felix Felicis anyone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the further separation between potions and spells is to better, separate the alchemist and wizard.
But the alchemist doesn't brew potions in PF2. They brew Elixirs... which are nonmagical pseudoscientific drinks and yet another thing entirely.
So you have spells, potions and elixiers.
I'm failing to see a pattern for determining the item level based on the spell level, and the cost doesn't seem to be purely based on the item/spell level. Can I get some insight on this from the powers that be? Thanks!I'm guessing the costs are also influenced by duration, impact on combat, utility uses, etc.
I can't think of any truly ridiculous examples, but a potion of invisibility should probably not be worth the same as a potion of aid in 1E. Or bless and endure elements, or ant haul, or comprehend languages.
I was hoping that numerical features of the spells (e.g. duration, casting time) would account for the variation in cost between potions, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on. Case in point, consider the Invisibility and Barkskin potions, whose spells are identical for the following parameters.
- Invisibility
- - Potion: Item level = 4 / Cost = 20 gp
- - Spell: Spell level = 2 / Casting time = 2 actions / Duration = 10 min / Targets = 1 / Range = Touch
- Barkskin
- - Potion: Item level = 4 / Cost = 15 gp
- - Spell: Spell level = 2 / Casting time = 2 actions / Duration = 10 min / Targets = 1 / Range = Touch
At this point, the cost seems based on a general feeling on how good the spell effect is. I can see why Invisibility would be considered more powerful than Barkskin, i.e. resistance 2 to bludgeoning and piercing damage and weakness 3 to fire. While my scientific mind prefers formulas for determining cost, I'm fine with a more flexible system. I would just like this to be officially stated.
In the end, it's not hard to price an item using the range of costs for consumable magic items of a given level (pp. 536–542). For example, 4th-level consumable items range from 11 gp for a moderate Darkvision elixir to 20 gp for a Bloodseeker beak talisman.
That being said, the question remains for determining the item level of a spell-based potion. Apparently, the spell level isn't the only factor. For instance, why is a Potion of Water Breathing a 3rd-level item unlike the previous two potions? Is it because of its reduced perceived utility? Is it because of the longer casting time? Interestingly, the cost is within the range for 4th-level consumables, so couldn't it have been a 4th-level item?
- Water Breathing
- - Potion: Item level = 3 / Cost = 11 gp
- - Spell: Spell level = 2 / Casting time = 1 min / Duration = 1 hour / Targets = 1–5 / Range = 30 ft
I like that wizards can finally see the value in a competitive marketplace and sensibly price invisibility potions above barkskin. The added utility is quite valuable.
The potion of water breathing is interesting in that it is a valuable time saver, but the potion form is less potent than the spell because it only affects a single target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark Seifter pitched in with the following on Twitter (source).
Unlike in PF1, we're not really using a formula that multiplies spell level by other variables and winds up implying that constant true strike is 2,000 gp. That formula table was only ever a guideline in PF1 either, for reasons like the true strike example.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
First and foremost, how exactly is it that a Wizard can't study the potion and replicate its effects through magic?
Because they can't? The same reason a wizard can't cast Bless.
So how about instead creating "uncommon spells" that aren't part of regular spellcaster repertoires (you can't choose them when you level up for instance), and make all unique potion effects into uncommon spells?
They could, but creating a spell, saying the spell could only be used for a potion and isn't obtainable normally, then creating a potion that references that spell seems like... a lot of extra overhead for literally no gain.
I'm not sure what any of this is meant to accomplish.
Mark Seifter pitched in with the following on Twitter (source).
Unlike in PF1, we're not really using a formula that multiplies spell level by other variables and winds up implying that constant true strike is 2,000 gp. That formula table was only ever a guideline in PF1 either, for reasons like the true strike example.
How are you supposed to price anything if there's no formula? There are so many middle fingers to GMs this edition.
I just wanted to clarify: An alchemist can take the Magical Crafting Feat (as the only prerequisite is expert in Crafting) and spend money to make any magic item (though for the few with spell crafting requirements, they'll somehow need to supply said required spell). That's nice as it balances the fact non-alchemists can take the Alchemical Crafting feat and do the equivalent with elixirs, etc.
Thus the main advantage of the IMPROBABLE ELIXIRS class feat is that it lets an alchemist spend infused reagents to make known 'potions' for 'free' like any other Alchemical Elixir they know; while none of the currently listed potions have a spell prerequisite, each such requirement translates to just an extra dose of infused reagent for each produced potion dose, correct?