Talk:Potion of speed
Revision as of 13:06, 3 March 2014 by Bluescreenofdeath (talk | contribs)
That these "are good candidates for dilution" is a dubious claim given the important role these play in both major alchemical chains. Does anyone with a lot of experience actually dilute these?Thefifthsetpin 04:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will save enough for alchemy, then dilute the rest. Usually, around 10 potions are more than enough. --Tjr 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I typically save a couple for the Planes if I'm planning to go the timeout speed + extrinsic jumping route (which is more efficient in Pw than the extrinsic speed + spellcast jumping method to achieve the same powerful combination). Ais523 13:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I concur, speed is a very useful potion, given the both alchemy chains and and a fine alternative for the speedboots for a wishless ascension kit. By the time one has enough speeds pots to waste it's bloody likely that there's more than enough other junk pots for dilution anyway. I diluted speeds back when I didn't bother with alchemy and always went for speedboots, but nowadays my vote goes out to dropping or changing that remark. (sorry about the anonymous, but I can't access my user account anymore, the password doesnt work and it complains no such user when I'm asking it resend me a password through email even though the page and changes are still here, user:Kynde)
Does the duration on these stack like with the spellbook of haste self? The haste self page explicitly mentions that the duration stacks for the spells, and this page doesn't mention it, so I assumed that one could *not* quaff !oSpeed to last for the whole ascension run in order to wear different boots, as you can with haste self. If the duration stacks, could we add this to the page? Coffeebug (talk)
- Wizard mode testing shows that indeed, they do stack. Diving into the source shows that yes, quaffing them will increase the "player is very fast" timeout no matter if the player was very fast already or not, so I'm adding this to the article. --Bluescreenofdeath (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
