Talk:Splash Potion

Are these renewable, or do you lose the glass canister once its fired? Because I'm a scrooge and would like to know if i have to dig up an entire desert over the duration of my game. (1 sand block = 1 potion bottle) --HexZyle 03:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

nope there nonrenewable they break and dissapear

Ah poop. Oh well then. I'll just build my wizard tower near a desert :) --HexZyle 05:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Witches now drop glass bottles, so they are renewable PancakeIdentity (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

sand is renewable thru wandering traders tho @PancakeIdentity CHICKEN JOCKEY I AM STEVE FLINT AND STEEL (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

What is the point of brewing a splash potion with no effects? If you plan to brew a splash potion of weakness, you can add a fermented spider eye to water, then add gunpowder.75.165.49.48 03:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• It is brewable, so they put it on the wiki. They don't make the game, they just tell us about it. PancakeIdentity (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• One particular application I can think of is pranks. A player hit with a splash potion will want to check what status effect they got ASAP. Which gets somewhat tricky if they got none. Sharfpang-fduser (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that if you splash a golem with a splash water bottle, it'll get angry. Correct me if I'm wrong, -~- Nerdyguy2000   talk   edits 19:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not in Java Edition, just tested it. Also did more testing to be thorough. Tested lingering water bottle, and the awkward and mundane splash potions, also no. Also tested potion of slowness because slowness it is listed in the code as a harmful effect, but does no damage; that didn't anger the iron golem either. Only potion that angered the golem was potion of harming. I am unable to test on Bedrock, so it may be different. Rampage455 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I must be missing something here, but isn't the ID for Thrown Potions just minecraft:potion and not minecraft:splash_potion Like it says on the Entity>ID section of this page??

(Sorry if this format isn't ideal, haven't used wiki Talk sections much-) JadeJuno (talk) 02:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/2970986 👁 Image
Wilf233_zhMCW（论·功） 14:24, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Fully documented in various tables on the pages cited. HolyT (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the current way potions are documented on the wiki isn't ideal. We are already planning to create individual pages for each potion type, also covering splash and lingering versions on the same page; you can see the current progress at Minecraft Wiki:Projects/DIG:Design to Implement Granularity#To-do.--Capopanzo (talk | contribs) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Duration is the same for both splash and normal potion, to answer your question. The page is planned to be split as other commenters have said. Hxy123abc (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Is it known why Splash Potions had such a high ID compared to other Items added alongside it?

Before the Flattening, the Splash Potion had the ID 438, while the Glistering Melon, also added in Beta 1.9 Pre 4 had the ID 382. Other Items with IDs in the 430-440s Range were only introduced during 1.9 Snaphots, and while there was a gap of unused IDs between Block IDs and Item IDs for a long time, and a big Gap between the IDs of the Music Discs and the IDs of all the other Items, those make sence, while this one seems kinda out of place, even though at first it doesnt look that odd next to the dragons breath and close to the lingering potion. My best guess would be that the bottle was suppost to use ID 384, right next to the Glistering Melon with ID 382, but someone accidentally swapped the numbers and nobody noticed until it was to late, but that theory also lacks, as the next free ID wouldve been 383, which was unused until Spawn Eggs where added in 1.1 Snapshots. Could be an interesting Fact for the Trivia Section. LucySebast (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

This kind of thing applies to every entity that has the same name as an item or block, but it's especially noticeable here. Since splash potions can be Used on blocks as an item and also used on air to create an entity, having both behaviors under "Usage" is confusing. For example: splash water bottles can be Used on dirt to create mud. Does that mean the item is used on the dirt directly, or does it shoot a splash water bottle entity at the dirt and convert it on impact?

Another aspect to this is that the Entity and Projectile pages are being worked on to add more in-depth technical information, and as they grow, that information may start to clutter pages like this one.

The first issue can be mostly avoided by using very careful wording, but I think it would be better to make a clearer distinction by storing the item information and entity information in visually distinct places. I personally think the best way to do that is to have a separate page for the entity, and here under Usage have a paragraph summarizing the entity page and link using {{Main}}. However, if that's not viable (especially since it's a pretty major change) I think the next best thing would be to move all the entity information to its own heading on this page and link to it in a similar way.

Does anyone have thoughts on this? For reference, some other cases to consider: Trident (where both the item and the projectile are weapons), eye of ender (where they can be used on portal frames and in the air), experience (currently on the experience page), wither skulls (currently on the wither page, which means there are 2 entities on 1 page). Intricate (talk) 09:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I think for this page, Usage could be split into Item and Projectile subsections where each have their specific usages to prevent ambiguity. I think Trident is not ambiguous as it doesn't have a use function other than throwing it. I'm not sure about experience and wither skulls. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 10:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)