If you're not interested in limiting their stock of potions...why bother with expiry dates then? It's just more bookkeeping.
When I have played in games that provide means to make potions that have an meaningful effect there is often a need to provide some balancing feature (rules) also if you are hunting for materials to make things it can provide RP outlets. I agree that everyone does not like this style of play and that it can be pushed to extremes.
I am also not saying having some potion limiting features means I am for (or against) limits on all potions. I say this because that has been put forth by posters in the past. For example I do not think a potion should give the drinker the same abilities as a staff of the magi for 1 hour or even all for all spells to be put into potion form.
Also in the past when people have talked about using attunement to limit magic items it is almost always accompanied by limiting all magic items in the game and or setting. Again I have played in games where there have been a lot of magic items and very few the problems I have seen is when the GM and or players are playing one style in the other game and when GM's tend to be directors and or authors vs GM's.
A lot of that wandered quite far away from my question. However, you say that having expiry dates is to provide a balance. Expiry dates merely force players to use the option within a certain period. That's useful if you want to throw potions and your players but don't want them gaining an infinite hoard...but if it's used the next day,.it doesn't affect its power at all.
I'm also dubious of the need to reduce their attractiveness vis a vis the equivalent magic item. They seem to run at 1/10th the value, which for a reasonably desirable effect is already pretty high. A potion of resistance is worth much less than 1/10th the cost of a ring of resistance. Waterbreathing might be worth it? You're only going to use it a couple of times per campaign (assuming it's not one centered on water). Maybe then...but the party would just create one or buy one on demand, because obtaining one in anticipation is just wasteful. But then...the expiry date isn't going to really affect how useful it is. On effects that are consistently useful, expiry dates won't have an effect.
So basically, expiry dates add bookkeeping, but they don't really balance potions with magic items. If the expiry date is tight, they'll just delay obtaining them or use them quickly, if the expiry date is lax, it'll be irrelevant.
I'd suggest another way of balancing it. If you think potions are too potent for their value vis a vis equivalent magic items (and you don't want to adjust the values), then I'd add side effects. The greater the disparity, the more severe the side effect. Maybe their skin goes an odd colour, or they get the runs. Maybe they become really clumsy or can't touch metal or something. You could even homebrew a table for a d100, with various side effects. You get a modifier based on how big the disparity is and they get the effect based on their roll. That would be a disencentive to getting effects on the cheap...while not bogging the game down in inventory management.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I can also see a problem with too many potions with limited time span, for example the party finds a large group of herbs and can make 100 potions of Red Star Flower healing (4d10) that last for 7 days. I think most people would find that problematic in their games based on how I have seen 5e deals with magic items in general. Note: if your 5e game deals a lot of damage all the time then your play style might require this level of healing (as well as a general adjustment in healing spell power)...again this is not the default in 5e as I have seen playing and reading books.
I could see that working
Essentially if the magic items last long enough for the one adventure the party is on then making or buying the items in advance that they know will only last for as long as the adventure they are on but will last until say they next find a town that they can replenish then the party would have no compunction about using every one of these magical resources they have and there would be no bookkeeping other than this is my list of expendables to use and I will line off them as I use them.
In a lot of ways, 5e is reactionary against 4e's perceived power creep--a perception I assume was mostly driven by incompetent DMs who just could not design encounters commensurate with player abilities. Attunement and a generally inferior system for magical items is one of the major areas where you can see this reactionary behavior--Wizards clearly made their system vastly worse to neuter players and make things easier on bad DMs.
It's interesting how opinions vary. You vilify the attunement system and magic item limits as an attempt to neuter players and make things easier for bad DMs. I've been playing and DMing since 1e and personally I find the attunement and limits a vast improvement once you get used to them. The characters/players have to make meaningful choices about the items they carry and equip.
A DM could always limit the magic items found but as mentioned but players like finding shiny items and DMs like to give them out. By the time you hit level 10-12 in 1e, the typical character often looked like a Christmas tree of magical items just due to a "normal" rate of accumulation. Leveling was typically slower in earlier editions and if you look at the published modules, the baseline rate of magic item accumulation was pretty high already and not related to "bad DMs". Though it was always possible for a DM to make the situation worse by handing out some of the Legendary/Artifact/Very Rare items that could be really disruptive.
Personally, I tend to work with my players to decide a list of items they would like and eventually will give those out as loot--why? Because 5e is a pretty terrible system for character customization, with most of your real decision making being decided by level 3 in a given class. Working with players gives them increased customization options they otherwise would not obtain, while still giving me the ability to control when those items actually enter circulation. This also means I do not end up giving out more attunable items than the players will actually end up using, avoiding revolving door "I attune this niche weapon for this niche purpose" effects.
Interesting. I don't do this since I find it breaks the immersion of a role playing game. Discussing what the character will find in the course of game play so they can build their character around eventually finding those items seems to me counter-intuitive for a role playing game. As DM, I'll take a look at the emerging game play and role playing and probably put in items that will assist particular characters more than others. However, it sometimes happens that the party decides a different character than the one I intended is a better fit for the item - c'est la vie - the game play is up to the players. The DM adjudicates the interactions of the players with the game world.
Now, that does not mean I only give out player requested loot--there is some fun in random loot that players are like "what do I do with this?" and have to decide who gets what. But that is what non-attunable items are for. Things that players can pass around and use for niche purposes, and which require some tactical decisions of "what do we take out of the bag of holding for right now and who do we give it to?"
I prefer giving out magic items that fit the story context rather than random loot but everyone has preferences :). I also don't see any issue to a party having more attunable items than they can use. It allows them to swap out if they are planning something but has typically no effect on much of the game play since most of time the players aren't certain what is coming next.
If you are looking for a way to limit magic I would have most potions have an expiration date unless they were in a special container and or in a special container in a container that protects them from environmental effects. This would mean for healing they party had to pick herbs and make potions or rely on wands, staffs, rods (in the most part) for healing as well as have the players do more RP finding interesting herbs and substances and then creating ways to try and achieve the affect they were after (it is not just throw herb(s) into pot, boil and then put into flask but a multi step process that once the detail is worked out the GM can then have you roll and not go over the process again. Note this is not for all groups)
Then your wonderful fantasy RPG becomes some sort of inventory management game.
It depends on what you mean by inventory management? It is simple to say this potion last for 7 days just like you have abilities that recharge after a short or long rest.
Note: I have also played in and seen games that do not like this and are more like an author or director " rpg game".
What other recharges are longer than a day? The issue is that you have to keep separate shelf lives for each potion, plus have an explanation as to how the party are able to find any potions anywhere other than a shop brewing them freshly daily. You have to maintain inventory lists for shops by remaining potency, for treasure by remaining potency....
Edit: Plus, besides the needing parts issue, it takes a week to make an uncommon potion. You would give it only a 7 day shelf life? Who, PC or NPC would make potions?
Yes potions are a cheep limited resource not permanently stable items like a magic sword or staff tends to be.
How are they cheap when you still need to hunt down a creature for the requisite parts, plus need a week's down time on top of that? Or do CR 4+ creatures get routinely farmed, bred like cattle just to supply potion shops, in which case, what level are the shop runners and how many are there, if it is one potion per week per brewer?
And where are these shops? What sane community would allow such a farm anywhere near the main population?
And even if you hand wave all those common sense questions away, you still are doing the extra paperwork keeping track of stale dates.
Arbitrary and tedious rules are arbitrary and tedious.
Cheep in terms of $$$ not necessarily time and other things. Local people can gather the magically infused herbs/plants/trees around their village and people can then buy them.
Also in a lot of games potions are more then just fizzy water, fruit juice and funny words. The material's used to create the potion matter vs just spend time and "pop" you have a portable cure wounds spell.
If you're not interested in limiting their stock of potions...why bother with expiry dates then? It's just more bookkeeping.
When I have played in games that provide means to make potions that have an meaningful effect there is often a need to provide some balancing feature (rules) also if you are hunting for materials to make things it can provide RP outlets. I agree that everyone does not like this style of play and that it can be pushed to extremes.
I am also not saying having some potion limiting features means I am for (or against) limits on all potions. I say this because that has been put forth by posters in the past. For example I do not think a potion should give the drinker the same abilities as a staff of the magi for 1 hour or even all for all spells to be put into potion form.
Also in the past when people have talked about using attunement to limit magic items it is almost always accompanied by limiting all magic items in the game and or setting. Again I have played in games where there have been a lot of magic items and very few the problems I have seen is when the GM and or players are playing one style in the other game and when GM's tend to be directors and or authors vs GM's.
A lot of that wandered quite far away from my question. However, you say that having expiry dates is to provide a balance. Expiry dates merely force players to use the option within a certain period. That's useful if you want to throw potions and your players but don't want them gaining an infinite hoard...but if it's used the next day,.it doesn't affect its power at all.
I'm also dubious of the need to reduce their attractiveness vis a vis the equivalent magic item. They seem to run at 1/10th the value, which for a reasonably desirable effect is already pretty high. A potion of resistance is worth much less than 1/10th the cost of a ring of resistance. Waterbreathing might be worth it? You're only going to use it a couple of times per campaign (assuming it's not one centered on water). Maybe then...but the party would just create one or buy one on demand, because obtaining one in anticipation is just wasteful. But then...the expiry date isn't going to really affect how useful it is. On effects that are consistently useful, expiry dates won't have an effect.
So basically, expiry dates add bookkeeping, but they don't really balance potions with magic items. If the expiry date is tight, they'll just delay obtaining them or use them quickly, if the expiry date is lax, it'll be irrelevant.
I'd suggest another way of balancing it. If you think potions are too potent for their value vis a vis equivalent magic items (and you don't want to adjust the values), then I'd add side effects. The greater the disparity, the more severe the side effect. Maybe their skin goes an odd colour, or they get the runs. Maybe they become really clumsy or can't touch metal or something. You could even homebrew a table for a d100, with various side effects. You get a modifier based on how big the disparity is and they get the effect based on their roll. That would be a disencentive to getting effects on the cheap...while not bogging the game down in inventory management.
I have seen the argument that potions are too cheep and in their game they can just "buy" potions vs getting magic items. Or magic items (as most people think of them) are rare but there are more temporary items in the setting to make up for them. And again I have also seen GM's and at times player who hate magic items.
Going back to attunement as a way to limit items in game, in fiction, RPG "I do not remember the name back in the 80's" and a home grown RPG (80's); they had you sacrifice something or something daily to form the bond of attunement (being able to interact and use the items abilities). So in the home designed game it was often HP or spell slots/points, stats or experience or a special experience pool. So in todays terms "pay to play" with the magic item.
If in your game players have a hoard of magic items; why are they not selling them and or using them?
I can also see a problem with too many potions with limited time span, for example the party finds a large group of herbs and can make 100 potions of Red Star Flower healing (4d10) that last for 7 days. I think most people would find that problematic in their games based on how I have seen 5e deals with magic items in general. Note: if your 5e game deals a lot of damage all the time then your play style might require this level of healing (as well as a general adjustment in healing spell power)...again this is not the default in 5e as I have seen playing and reading books.
I could see that working
Essentially if the magic items last long enough for the one adventure the party is on then making or buying the items in advance that they know will only last for as long as the adventure they are on but will last until say they next find a town that they can replenish then the party would have no compunction about using every one of these magical resources they have and there would be no bookkeeping other than this is my list of expendables to use and I will line off them as I use them.
Breaking it down to very simple terms; items could be limited to 1 adventure. But this can be a strange way to look at it if your adventures run very long and or short. For example why did my potions last 60 days in this adventure but only 3 days in this adventure?
I also tend to find when there are time limits on things in gaming people tend to look for ways to use that item moor and not forget about them.
If an area has a high chance of werewolves don't you think every single person around would be hunting down harvesting and or buying up every single potion ingredient to fight them off or to protect themselves? Heck yeh. Oh and they might even be out of season.
If you get hired to hunt down the werewolf do not expect cheap potions against them or even available ingredients.
Trying to avoid the 1e D&D good/bad thread spiral.
In general why are players not selling their excess items? Is the groups game style "collect them all" or every player has everything?
I agree in general with the item distribution system you laid out above in general by both you and the poster you were replying to. I think of the items "available" to the creature or items they would have access to, then how many of the items would they have used to get to where they were and what do I expect the creature to use in combat and last what might the creature have found before they got to where the are now. It is more immersive them roll on a table and it is something I have evolved into from simply roll on a table or book says creature as X,Y and Z treasure options. Note it is also dependent on what the creature finds valuable. (So if a race finds used soda cans valuable then they will have and try to find used soda cans)
I also try and feel out what direction my players are going and what items they might want to find. But in general I have standard magic items and custom magic items.
I think the attunement idea can have 2 different forks, the way to limit magic items and the way to add RP elements to the game.
RAW, items, including potions, have min CR ratings for the parts.
RAW, you can craft a potion of healing using the rules in the PHB, using a herbalism kit -- it's not treated as crafting a magic item. XGTE extended this to other types of healing potion, none of which have any exotic component requirements, just money and time.
That is a specific exception for healing potions, though. If this discussion is limited to healing potions (even if all strengths), perhaps the OP should say so?
There's also an exception for spell scrolls, but in the end the problem is that you're never going to use up 100% of what you gain -- while in theory you can have exactly as many consumables than you need, it's far more likely that if you have either less or more. If you have less than you need... you fail and accumulation is moot. If you have more than you need... stuff accumulates. The best way to limit amount of stuff being carried around is severe limits on inventory slots.
Again, that depends on what you gain, through. And PC's can, themselves sell things, or even set them down, if they feel they are carrying too much. They can acquire property and store things. If they are really finding that many things, then the question becomes where did all those things come from and why did anything they fought to get them not use them? That only applies to things that could use them of course, but how many potions does the local wolf pack accumulate and why?
You can of course have games where consumables don't appear at all, but if they do appear, they're inevitably going to accumulate because people just don't use 100% of what they find and are probably only going to bother selling it if there's stuff they can buy and it makes a significant contribution towards buying that stuff -- which is generally magic items past tier 1.
I don't mean the entire adventure but a short time. Obviously if the party is going to be gone 60 days then expiring items may not work but even then unless you are locked in Vecma's Tomb eventually you have to leave a dungeon to find food. I am just saying that just because one could waste time keeping books of when every potion expires does not mean you have to in game.
I saw one adventure by a popular writer that had players ascend a staircase to a temple taken over by a fiend. halfway there was a statue that if walked in front of it forced a wisdom save or the creature must drop their most valuable item. It would then be absorbed into the statue. Now many people would see this as mean. (and it might be depending on the campaign/players) But it creates an interesting dynamic. The first player will probably trigger the trap (and possibly loose) and then the rest have to decide what to do. 1 Leave out items so you keep them for later adventures. 2 risk the save 3. try creative solutions and problem solving. (to be nice you might even include a method for returning said items)
Another similar scenario could be deliberately planning Item sacrifices. a portal or device that destroys it to power the mcguffin magic. forcing players to choose their favorite items. you could assign a point value to different rarities or classes of items and then choose the number of points needed based on how much magic junk the party has.
I think there is a lot of interesting play in preparing, swapping magic items, single use items ect for specific encounters. I like missions where everyone needs a specific resistance or skill at least once or where planning changes the difficulty. but I don't really see it as often As i think it should happen.
The keys to making it interesting and fun usually
1. signaling with good information (or they blatantly failed detecting the "trap"). (I think PHB rangers actually were good at this type of play )
2. clear paths or options or trade offs. (too many items to fill attunement i or uses for all of them or places to sell them)
3. balance is accounted for (at most changing difficulty by 1-2 increments )
I don't mean the entire adventure but a short time. Obviously if the party is going to be gone 60 days then expiring items may not work but even then unless you are locked in Vecma's Tomb eventually you have to leave a dungeon to find food. I am just saying that just because one could waste time keeping books of when every potion expires does not mean you have to in game.
I agree but I have seen people define short in many different ways that is why I tend to prefer hours, days, etc vs short time or long time.
In general I tend to like some adventures to be focus and some to be free form. That focus could be social encounters or elemental resistance and unfocused means the group has to prep for a wide range of encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A lot of that wandered quite far away from my question. However, you say that having expiry dates is to provide a balance. Expiry dates merely force players to use the option within a certain period. That's useful if you want to throw potions and your players but don't want them gaining an infinite hoard...but if it's used the next day,.it doesn't affect its power at all.
I'm also dubious of the need to reduce their attractiveness vis a vis the equivalent magic item. They seem to run at 1/10th the value, which for a reasonably desirable effect is already pretty high. A potion of resistance is worth much less than 1/10th the cost of a ring of resistance. Waterbreathing might be worth it? You're only going to use it a couple of times per campaign (assuming it's not one centered on water). Maybe then...but the party would just create one or buy one on demand, because obtaining one in anticipation is just wasteful. But then...the expiry date isn't going to really affect how useful it is. On effects that are consistently useful, expiry dates won't have an effect.
So basically, expiry dates add bookkeeping, but they don't really balance potions with magic items. If the expiry date is tight, they'll just delay obtaining them or use them quickly, if the expiry date is lax, it'll be irrelevant.
I'd suggest another way of balancing it. If you think potions are too potent for their value vis a vis equivalent magic items (and you don't want to adjust the values), then I'd add side effects. The greater the disparity, the more severe the side effect. Maybe their skin goes an odd colour, or they get the runs. Maybe they become really clumsy or can't touch metal or something. You could even homebrew a table for a d100, with various side effects. You get a modifier based on how big the disparity is and they get the effect based on their roll. That would be a disencentive to getting effects on the cheap...while not bogging the game down in inventory management.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I could see that working
Essentially if the magic items last long enough for the one adventure the party is on then making or buying the items in advance that they know will only last for as long as the adventure they are on but will last until say they next find a town that they can replenish then the party would have no compunction about using every one of these magical resources they have and there would be no bookkeeping other than this is my list of expendables to use and I will line off them as I use them.
It's interesting how opinions vary. You vilify the attunement system and magic item limits as an attempt to neuter players and make things easier for bad DMs. I've been playing and DMing since 1e and personally I find the attunement and limits a vast improvement once you get used to them. The characters/players have to make meaningful choices about the items they carry and equip.
A DM could always limit the magic items found but as mentioned but players like finding shiny items and DMs like to give them out. By the time you hit level 10-12 in 1e, the typical character often looked like a Christmas tree of magical items just due to a "normal" rate of accumulation. Leveling was typically slower in earlier editions and if you look at the published modules, the baseline rate of magic item accumulation was pretty high already and not related to "bad DMs". Though it was always possible for a DM to make the situation worse by handing out some of the Legendary/Artifact/Very Rare items that could be really disruptive.
Interesting. I don't do this since I find it breaks the immersion of a role playing game. Discussing what the character will find in the course of game play so they can build their character around eventually finding those items seems to me counter-intuitive for a role playing game. As DM, I'll take a look at the emerging game play and role playing and probably put in items that will assist particular characters more than others. However, it sometimes happens that the party decides a different character than the one I intended is a better fit for the item - c'est la vie - the game play is up to the players. The DM adjudicates the interactions of the players with the game world.
I prefer giving out magic items that fit the story context rather than random loot but everyone has preferences :). I also don't see any issue to a party having more attunable items than they can use. It allows them to swap out if they are planning something but has typically no effect on much of the game play since most of time the players aren't certain what is coming next.
Cheep in terms of $$$ not necessarily time and other things. Local people can gather the magically infused herbs/plants/trees around their village and people can then buy them.
Also in a lot of games potions are more then just fizzy water, fruit juice and funny words. The material's used to create the potion matter vs just spend time and "pop" you have a portable cure wounds spell.
I have seen the argument that potions are too cheep and in their game they can just "buy" potions vs getting magic items. Or magic items (as most people think of them) are rare but there are more temporary items in the setting to make up for them. And again I have also seen GM's and at times player who hate magic items.
Going back to attunement as a way to limit items in game, in fiction, RPG "I do not remember the name back in the 80's" and a home grown RPG (80's); they had you sacrifice something or something daily to form the bond of attunement (being able to interact and use the items abilities). So in the home designed game it was often HP or spell slots/points, stats or experience or a special experience pool. So in todays terms "pay to play" with the magic item.
If in your game players have a hoard of magic items; why are they not selling them and or using them?
Breaking it down to very simple terms; items could be limited to 1 adventure. But this can be a strange way to look at it if your adventures run very long and or short. For example why did my potions last 60 days in this adventure but only 3 days in this adventure?
I also tend to find when there are time limits on things in gaming people tend to look for ways to use that item moor and not forget about them.
Just limit the amount available.
If an area has a high chance of werewolves don't you think every single person around would be hunting down harvesting and or buying up every single potion ingredient to fight them off or to protect themselves? Heck yeh. Oh and they might even be out of season.
If you get hired to hunt down the werewolf do not expect cheap potions against them or even available ingredients.
David42:
Trying to avoid the 1e D&D good/bad thread spiral.
In general why are players not selling their excess items? Is the groups game style "collect them all" or every player has everything?
I agree in general with the item distribution system you laid out above in general by both you and the poster you were replying to. I think of the items "available" to the creature or items they would have access to, then how many of the items would they have used to get to where they were and what do I expect the creature to use in combat and last what might the creature have found before they got to where the are now. It is more immersive them roll on a table and it is something I have evolved into from simply roll on a table or book says creature as X,Y and Z treasure options. Note it is also dependent on what the creature finds valuable. (So if a race finds used soda cans valuable then they will have and try to find used soda cans)
I also try and feel out what direction my players are going and what items they might want to find. But in general I have standard magic items and custom magic items.
I think the attunement idea can have 2 different forks, the way to limit magic items and the way to add RP elements to the game.
RAW, you can craft a potion of healing using the rules in the PHB, using a herbalism kit -- it's not treated as crafting a magic item. XGTE extended this to other types of healing potion, none of which have any exotic component requirements, just money and time.
There's also an exception for spell scrolls, but in the end the problem is that you're never going to use up 100% of what you gain -- while in theory you can have exactly as many consumables than you need, it's far more likely that if you have either less or more. If you have less than you need... you fail and accumulation is moot. If you have more than you need... stuff accumulates. The best way to limit amount of stuff being carried around is severe limits on inventory slots.
You can of course have games where consumables don't appear at all, but if they do appear, they're inevitably going to accumulate because people just don't use 100% of what they find and are probably only going to bother selling it if there's stuff they can buy and it makes a significant contribution towards buying that stuff -- which is generally magic items past tier 1.
I don't mean the entire adventure but a short time. Obviously if the party is going to be gone 60 days then expiring items may not work but even then unless you are locked in Vecma's Tomb eventually you have to leave a dungeon to find food. I am just saying that just because one could waste time keeping books of when every potion expires does not mean you have to in game.
I saw one adventure by a popular writer that had players ascend a staircase to a temple taken over by a fiend. halfway there was a statue that if walked in front of it forced a wisdom save or the creature must drop their most valuable item. It would then be absorbed into the statue. Now many people would see this as mean. (and it might be depending on the campaign/players) But it creates an interesting dynamic. The first player will probably trigger the trap (and possibly loose) and then the rest have to decide what to do. 1 Leave out items so you keep them for later adventures. 2 risk the save 3. try creative solutions and problem solving. (to be nice you might even include a method for returning said items)
Another similar scenario could be deliberately planning Item sacrifices. a portal or device that destroys it to power the mcguffin magic. forcing players to choose their favorite items. you could assign a point value to different rarities or classes of items and then choose the number of points needed based on how much magic junk the party has.
I think there is a lot of interesting play in preparing, swapping magic items, single use items ect for specific encounters. I like missions where everyone needs a specific resistance or skill at least once or where planning changes the difficulty. but I don't really see it as often As i think it should happen.
The keys to making it interesting and fun usually
1. signaling with good information (or they blatantly failed detecting the "trap"). (I think PHB rangers actually were good at this type of play )
2. clear paths or options or trade offs. (too many items to fill attunement i or uses for all of them or places to sell them)
3. balance is accounted for (at most changing difficulty by 1-2 increments )
I agree but I have seen people define short in many different ways that is why I tend to prefer hours, days, etc vs short time or long time.
In general I tend to like some adventures to be focus and some to be free form. That focus could be social encounters or elemental resistance and unfocused means the group has to prep for a wide range of encounters.