| Denisei |
Hello. I have a question.
Can I combine perpetual infusion (alchemist's fire (lesser)) with Artokus's Fire at lvl 7?
The perpetual infusion description says "You gain the ability to create two 1st-level alchemical items using Quick Alchemy without spending a batch of infused reagents"
But Artokus's Fire has Additive 2, which means 3 lvl bomb. And I can`t combine Perpetual infusion with Artokus's Fire. Am I right?
| Seisho |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additive 2 means that your item you use the additive with has to be at least x = additive value below your level
so at level 7 you could craft any potion level 5 and lower
then the effective level of potion + additive is 7 or lower
so you can use your perpetual alchemists fire with artokus fire to upgrade it
(If I got the rules right)
| breithauptclan |
That is a really gray area. The answer to your original question depends on your rulings on the following:
1) When you craft an item for no cost because of Perpetual Infusions, are you still using the Quick Alchemy action directly, or are you using a new Perpetual Infusion action that has Quick Alchemy as a subordinate action?
2) When you create an Alchemist's Fire with the Artokus's Fire additive, is it still the Alchemist's Fire item, or is it a new item?
3) When you create an item with an additive, does the item level of the item actually increase? This one is answered definitively by the Additive trait. The resulting item does actually change its item level.
3b) When Perpetual Infusions gives you items that you can create for free, do the items have to be of the level specified when actually crafted, or is it only the item name that is important?
In order for you to be able to create Artokus's Fire infused Alchemist Fire items using Perpetual Infusions at level 7, you have to rule that: 1) you are still using Quick Alchemy directly when creating the Perpetual Infusion items with no cost. 2) You are still creating Alchemist's Fire items - the infusion does not change the created item to a new item. 3b) The names of the granted items is what is important, and the level listed in the class feature is just to point out what level of items to grant when homebrewers are creating their own Research Fields.
And actually, all of those rulings are fairly reasonable. But don't expect that every gaming group is going to allow it. The most controversial is probably ruling 3b, though all of them can be argued either way.
| Aw3som3-117 |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is a really gray area. The answer to your original question depends on your rulings on the following:
1) When you craft an item for no cost because of Perpetual Infusions, are you still using the Quick Alchemy action directly, or are you using a new Perpetual Infusion action that has Quick Alchemy as a subordinate action?
There is literally no action in the game called perpetual infusions. There is a feature that allows you to do something "using Quick Alchemy." You can check it out for yourself if you want (Link)
2) When you create an Alchemist's Fire with the Artokus's Fire additive, is it still the Alchemist's Fire item, or is it a new item?
It doesn't really matter what you call it afterward, because the trigger for the free action is "You use Quick Alchemy to craft an alchemist's fire, and that bomb's level is at least 2 levels lower than your advanced alchemy level." And you are most definitely fulfilling that trigger.
3)
When you create an item with an additive, does the item level of the item actually increase?This one is answered definitively by the Additive trait. The resulting item does actually change its item level.3b) When Perpetual Infusions gives you items that you can create for free, do the items have to be of the level specified when actually crafted, or is it only the item name that is important?
Again, irrelevant. You created the 1st level alchemical item for free and then you changed it with a free action afterward / at the same time. Either way, you have to have created it as a first level item for the free action to trigger in the first place.
All that being said, I also wouldn't be surprised if someone ruled differently, but that doesn't increase the validity of the above interpretations. All it does is show that perpetual infusions needs to be reworded since there are many people who read it differently than intended. Perhaps I'm one of them, but I very seriously doubt it, and all of the arguments I've seen on the other side have been... let's just say not very convincing.