Magical Crafting is required to make potions. Alchemical Crafting is required to create elixirs.
It's basically as Baarogue said. If the item has a magical trait or a tradition trait, it requires Magical Crafting. If it has Alchemical trait, it requires Alchemical Crafting.
Also keep in mind any Craft Requirements the item may have in addition to the feats. Magical Scrolls for example require that you provide a casting of the spell you want to make into a scroll at the listed rank.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also add that any character, even one without the Cast a Spell action, can take the Magical Crafting feat and there are several magic items that can be crafted without also needing a spell.
Note that the arcane, divine, occult, and primal traits (the four magic traditions) also indicate that an item is magical. IIRC, any premaster content with a school trait (abjuration, conjuration, divination, enchantment, evocation, illusion (actually, the remaster kept this trait), necromancy, and transmutation) is also magical.
Thank you for your answers, but I find myself with a secondary question: can you only make oils/poitions of the types found in the GM Core/various supplements. Or can you make a potion/oil to simulate any spell?
Unlike Scrolls and Wands, which have a generic option called Magic Scroll and Magic Wand (respectively) on which you can put any spell, Potions and Oils lack an equivalent in the currently printed rules.
That means unless your GM cooks up equivalents you're limited to the existing, pre-defined potions and oils.
Well, I understand where the confusion is coming from. Previous editions treated potions as a 'spell in a bottle'. There were restrictions on which types of spell (most notably, it had to be one that could target the drinker of the potion). But other than the listed restrictions, you could put any spell you wanted to into the potion.
I don't know if Pathfinder 1e did away with that, or if that is something that was removed in PF2. But in either case, that isn't how potions work now.
Yeah, unfortunately there is no "generic potion" option like there is for scrolls and wands (in PF2E).
In PF1, you could turn any spell under 3rd level, that wasn't personal, into a potion.
So I can definitely understand why OP might think they could have something along that.
|
Yeah, unfortunately there is no "generic potion" option like there is for scrolls and wands (in PF2E).
In PF1, you could turn any spell under 3rd level, that wasn't personal, into a potion.
So I can definitely understand why OP might think they could have something along that.
I think it was done on purpose. You have to be a caster to use scrolls and wands, or you invest feats and actions to Trick Magic Item.
Feature, not bug.
Yeah, unfortunately there is no "generic potion" option like there is for scrolls and wands (in PF2E).
In PF1, you could turn any spell under 3rd level, that wasn't personal, into a potion.
So I can definitely understand why OP might think they could have something along that.
I think it was done on purpose. You have to be a caster to use scrolls and wands, or to invest feats and actions to Trick Magic Item.
Feature, not bug.
But that is the same in PF1 and PF2. Potions can be used by anyone. Wands and scrolls require you to be able to cast spells (or have some special ability to use them without the ability to cast spells).
It probably has more to do with action economy than anything else. Wands and Scrolls take the same actions to activate as the spell they hold, so almost always 1-3 actions. Potions and Oils, in contrast, are all 1 action to activate, which means for 90% of the spells you'd get an action discount by turning it into a potion.
The existing potions that replicate spells (such as the invisibility potion or the potion of flying) compensate for this with either cost, level availability or lower effectiveness when compared to a scroll. While I don't doubt the Paizo devs could cook up a way to make generic "Magic Potions", it'd probably take too much work to balance to their liking, which is why they haven't done it.
It probably has more to do with action economy than anything else. Wands and Scrolls take the same actions to activate as the spell they hold, so almost always 1-3 actions. Potions and Oils, in contrast, are all 1 action to activate, which means for 90% of the spells you'd get an action discount by turning it into a potion.
The existing potions that replicate spells (such as the invisibility potion or the potion of flying) compensate for this with either cost, level availability or lower effectiveness when compared to a scroll. While I don't doubt the Paizo devs could cook up a way to make generic "Magic Potions", it'd probably take too much work to balance to their liking, which is why they haven't done it.
1 action, if you're already holding it in your hand.
2 actions if you've got it in some sort of potion bandolier on your body. 1 action to retrieve, and 1 to open.*
More actions if it's in a pouch or backpack or something like that.
*Having it visibly on you could run into a situation where an enemy targets it, although the rules about destroying items are vague/incomplete but as a GM I would totally make rules about targeting potions in plain sight. However, I wouldn't abuse it either to so as to completely dissuade players (or NPCs) from ever using potions.
Also, If the devs we're only specifically concerned about number of actions, they could make activating a potion require the same amount of actions of the base spell.
Which is a long way of saying, I don't think the primary reason was action economy.
Regardless, we're on the same page that "custom" potions aren't available without your GM specifically approving it.
|
There's probably also an element of preventing redundancy in there. If you make a generic potion option that functions identically to scrolls, what's the point outside of flavour?
Not to denigrate flavour by the way, it's probably more important than mechanics to me a lot of the time, but if I wanted a potion of whatever buff to function like a scroll, I'd just rename a scroll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depending on if you define "scroll" by the actual RAW or if you inject your preconceptions about it having to be a writing on parchment...
You could create a scroll that takes the form of a bottle of liquid. You would still have to use the Cast a Spell item activation to cast it with. Not just anyone could drink it and have it work.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It probably has more to do with action economy than anything else. Wands and Scrolls take the same actions to activate as the spell they hold, so almost always 1-3 actions. Potions and Oils, in contrast, are all 1 action to activate, which means for 90% of the spells you'd get an action discount by turning it into a potion.
The existing potions that replicate spells (such as the invisibility potion or the potion of flying) compensate for this with either cost, level availability or lower effectiveness when compared to a scroll. While I don't doubt the Paizo devs could cook up a way to make generic "Magic Potions", it'd probably take too much work to balance to their liking, which is why they haven't done it.
1 action, if you're already holding it in your hand.
2 actions if you've got it in some sort of potion bandolier on your body. 1 action to retrieve, and 1 to open.*
More actions if it's in a pouch or backpack or something like that.
*Having it visibly on you could run into a situation where an enemy targets it, although the rules about destroying items are vague/incomplete but as a GM I would totally make rules about targeting potions in plain sight. However, I wouldn't abuse it either to so as to completely dissuade players (or NPCs) from ever using potions.
Also, If the devs we're only specifically concerned about number of actions, they could make activating a potion require the same amount of actions of the base spell.
Which is a long way of saying, I don't think the primary reason was action economy.
Regardless, we're on the same page that "custom" potions aren't available without your GM specifically approving it.
Needing an action to Draw the item also applies to scrolls and wands, hence my off the cuff "90%" number. If a spell needs one action to cast, there's no difference between potion, scroll or wand. But if the spells are 2 or 3 actions, the potion wins out. Using the examples I talked about with invisibility or flying, it's always going to be 1 action less than using a scroll of the given spell.
Action economy is likely one part of it, but the other likely reason is that potions/oils do not require Trick Magic item or any kind of spellcasting to use and they wanted to limit the available effects.
Action economy is likely one part of it, but the other likely reason is that potions/oils do not require Trick Magic item or any kind of spellcasting to use and they wanted to limit the available effects.
In my personal evaluation I would say it's because of accessibility, specifically that Oils and Potions can be used by anyone with no investment while Scrolls and Wands cannot.
I will add, that in terms of Wands and Scrolls I think action economy to draw is less of an issue, because those who intend to use them (spell casters) tend to not need their hands to be full with weapons. Thus they can be holding a wand or scrolls in their hands if it is something they commonly use.
But you have a fair point that there are lots of scenarios where one might want to draw one after the start of combat, putting in closer to potions in that regard.
|
|
But that is the same in PF1 and PF2. Potions can be used by anyone. Wands and scrolls require you to be able to cast spells (or have some special ability to use them without the ability to cast spells).Yeah, unfortunately there is no "generic potion" option like there is for scrolls and wands (in PF2E).
In PF1, you could turn any spell under 3rd level, that wasn't personal, into a potion.
So I can definitely understand why OP might think they could have something along that.
I think it was done on purpose. You have to be a caster to use scrolls and wands, or to invest feats and actions to Trick Magic Item.
Feature, not bug.
Sorry, I was not clear. I meant that the fact we do not have a generic potion option similar to what was in PF1 is a feature and not a bug.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it could be, but I do question a bit why was it okay in PF1 but not in PF2....but then again so much has changed between editions that it seems likely that accessibility, action economy, etc are all good reasons why the array of options for potions is more limited.
Also technically we can have potions of high level spells. In fact, not just technically but for example we have Truesight Potion, which is a potion of a 7th level spell, something not achievable in PF1. So potions are better in some ways (we have high level spells available as potions) but worse in others (no rules for generic potions).
We also have grades of potions, like Potion of Flying comes in variants lasting up to an hour.
Honestly, in thinking about it I think potions in PF2 were kept in mind as items that martials would need critical access to without having to absolutely rely on allied casters to provide, and also not forcing allied casters to serve as buff bots to the martials.
Essentially, providing access to flight, haste, healing, darkvision (technically an elixir and not a potion) and other things martials require to continue functioning even if they were in group with no casters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose it could be, but I do question a bit why was it okay in PF1 but not in PF2....but then again so much has changed between editions that it seems likely that accessibility, action economy, etc are all good reasons why the array of options for potions is more limited.
Also technically we can have potions of high level spells. In fact, not just technically but for example we have Truesight Potion, which is a potion of a 7th level spell, something not achievable in PF1. So potions are better in some ways (we have high level spells available as potions) but worse in others (no rules for generic potions).
We also have grades of potions, like Potion of Flying comes in variants lasting up to an hour.
Honestly, in thinking about it I think potions in PF2 were kept in mind as items that martials would need critical access to without having to absolutely rely on allied casters to provide, and also not forcing allied casters to serve as buff bots to the martials.
Essentially, providing access to flight, haste, healing, darkvision (technically an elixir and not a potion) and other things martials require to continue functioning even if they were in group with no casters.
I suspect it's a simple case of PF2 being a lot more focused on balance than PF1 and the designers not wanting to have to worry about accidentally creating some broken potion every time they add a spell.
Scrolls don't get you anything action economy wise, and you have to invest something into being able to use them (though how much can vary).
Remember that PF1 had custom magic item creation pricing rules, and even though those rules said "treat these as guidelines rather than hard rules", players kept trying to treat them as hard rules. If you do that, you'd get absolutely busted item creation.
This time they solved that by going "nope, no rules for that, ask your GM if you want to get a new potion."
(I also think that keeping potions more limited in what they can do leaves space for Alchemy, which definitely feels like they want it to be more prominent in PF2 than it was in PF1.)
Remember that PF1 had custom magic item creation pricing rules, and even though those rules said "treat these as guidelines rather than hard rules", players kept trying to treat them as hard rules. If you do that, you'd get absolutely busted item creation.
This time they solved that by going "nope, no rules for that, ask your GM if you want to get a new potion."
(I also think that keeping potions more limited in what they can do leaves space for Alchemy, which definitely feels like they want it to be more prominent in PF2 than it was in PF1.)
True, I remember as a PF1 GM I had to constantly fight with certain players about how much something should cost and how to evaluate it's value, often comparing it to other similar items/functionalities. Eventually I just banned custom item creation at all because it was too much headache.
To your side note, I'm not sure if they intentionally left potions more basic so alchemy could do more. As alchemy is still kind of limited in the same way (no custom items, just different items in the book marked with alchemical versus magic/potion tag). And there is some overlap between them.
I think personally I would have preferred if alchemy could have made potions that had the same basic effects, but we're non-magical. Providing two paths to get the same effect (although there are a few snags with it).