Hiya! My group and I are playing Storm King's Thunder and we came across a certain thing that I need clearance on. TLDR: Can enemies use consumable items that are part of their treasure? I've always assumed that they were meant for the players as a reward, although it makes sense if they can.
I'm the one who usually DM's and some of my players are trying their hand at it, so they either come up to me with feedback questions or opinions or they check in with me for assistance.
We're pretty early on and, to be good with spoilers, we just had a fight with some enemies: The leader of which had a potion of invulnerability. There were a lot of mistakes made, which is part for the course in any DM's starting sessions, but the one thing in particular was the potion. I'll explain for context: He narrated how the enemy drank the potion without telling us what it was (which is actually good), but then forgot about it so he just fixed it on the fly. After the game, he told us that it was a potion of invulnerability and so the enemy was immune to all damage for ten rounds, which instantly triggered my DM Sense for multiple reasons: The DM mistook turns for rounds, so the effect was much, much shorter than it should have been, but also it sounded incredibly challenging for a party of 5 level 2 pcs.
So here's the deal: We play in a different language because we live in Spain, so I did what under normal circumstances never would've and checked the module on my own, in English, to see if there was an error in translation or something to help my fellow DM out. Turns out that it was a normal potion of invulnerability and our DM assumed what could be expected: It says invulnerability. Anyway, that's when I saw that the potion in question was part of the enemy's treasure, which prompts this post's question. It's both for myself to consider moving on and to let my DM know if he's technically not meant to do that, although I do think it makes sense and is a good idea.
I usually let enemies use items from their treasure if it would be on them. If they're carrying around that potion, it makes sense that they would use it. Usually, if you would be giving players the magic item, it's not too powerful to use against them. If it seems way too dangerous, I wouldn't let the enemy use it.
Basically, yes, I let enemies use items from their treasure hoard.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Hiya! My group and I are playing Storm King's Thunder and we came across a certain thing that I need clearance on. TLDR: Can enemies use consumable items that are part of their treasure?
Depends on the enemy and the location of the treasure; if the item is of a type that enemy can use, and is in a location from which it can be used, sure, the enemy can use it. Very low intelligence monsters may not know what the treasure is.
As people have said already if on their possession sure knock the party out with the Potion of Storm Giant Strenght.
Otherwise, if the item(s) are stored or hidden somewhere within the room I'd hold off and just us what you have in the creatures Stat block. Now, another DM logic to get around this is the party is really doing a number and it would be in the creatures best interest (and the DMs to keep the fight going) and there is a rational narrative way to get to said good, (locked chest-- not rational) then let the creature get/use the items. Again, if the narrative makes sense. If the creatures do use the item, back to if it was a potion, then either 'replace' the potion with another or throw gold equal to the potion or item use if it was a one-use item.
Hiya! My group and I are playing Storm King's Thunder and we came across a certain thing that I need clearance on. TLDR: Can enemies use consumable items that are part of their treasure?
Assuming the enemies are smart enough to know how to use them, and know they have them, then yes, 100%, absolutely, they can and should. If the orcs have a potion of healing, they should pop it just like a player would when close to dying. I mean after all, if the orc had a Sword +1 you'd have him actually using it wouldn't you? So why wouldn't he also use the potion? These items can be taken off enemies after killing them but the enemies should be able to use them also.
Obvious exceptions would be something that doesn't know how to use it (wolf with a healing potion in its den -- it collected it cause ti was 'shiny' and doesn't know what it does nor even how to open it), or physically can't (dragon might be smart enough to know how to use a healing potion but its giant claws might not be able to uncork the thing).
If I want the players to get the potion but do NOT want the monster to use it (or whatever other consumable, like a scroll) then I don't put it on the monster in an accessible place like a belt pouch. I put it in a chest in the next room or something. That explains logically why he wouldn't use the potion (no time to get it) but makes clear that he owned it, and they took it from him.
TLDR: If you don't want the enemy using the potion or other consumable, don't put it on his person. Put it somewhere else. Only give to their inventory the items you plan to let them actually use.
FYI, [magicitem]Potion of Invulnerability[/item] should not make a character immune to damage for 10 rounds, it gives them resistance. That decreases damage by half.
Whether the items listed with the enemies are for the enemies to use or whether they're party rewards is up to the DM. Both make sense. However, I'd generally expect that anything the monsters can do is going to be listed in their stat block as things they can do, and potions and weapons listed as treasure are treasure rewards for the characters. (E.g. the rewards usually don't list all the weapons of the various enemies - that's for their use. If there was a healing power or a resistance that the enemy had, it would be listed in their statblock as an ability, rather than separately as something the players find.) It's always up to the DM though.
I guess part of why I always assume the monsters could use consumables is that in NWN, they generally did. I learned not to give potions to monsters unless I wanted the monster to use them because the AI had them use whatever was in their inventory. To prevent it, as a module builder, I had to either (1) put the potion somewhere else than in the monster's inventory, or (2) re-script the monster.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hiya! My group and I are playing Storm King's Thunder and we came across a certain thing that I need clearance on. TLDR: Can enemies use consumable items that are part of their treasure? I've always assumed that they were meant for the players as a reward, although it makes sense if they can.
I'm the one who usually DM's and some of my players are trying their hand at it, so they either come up to me with feedback questions or opinions or they check in with me for assistance.
We're pretty early on and, to be good with spoilers, we just had a fight with some enemies: The leader of which had a potion of invulnerability. There were a lot of mistakes made, which is part for the course in any DM's starting sessions, but the one thing in particular was the potion. I'll explain for context: He narrated how the enemy drank the potion without telling us what it was (which is actually good), but then forgot about it so he just fixed it on the fly. After the game, he told us that it was a potion of invulnerability and so the enemy was immune to all damage for ten rounds, which instantly triggered my DM Sense for multiple reasons: The DM mistook turns for rounds, so the effect was much, much shorter than it should have been, but also it sounded incredibly challenging for a party of 5 level 2 pcs.
So here's the deal: We play in a different language because we live in Spain, so I did what under normal circumstances never would've and checked the module on my own, in English, to see if there was an error in translation or something to help my fellow DM out. Turns out that it was a normal potion of invulnerability and our DM assumed what could be expected: It says invulnerability. Anyway, that's when I saw that the potion in question was part of the enemy's treasure, which prompts this post's question. It's both for myself to consider moving on and to let my DM know if he's technically not meant to do that, although I do think it makes sense and is a good idea.
I usually let enemies use items from their treasure if it would be on them. If they're carrying around that potion, it makes sense that they would use it. Usually, if you would be giving players the magic item, it's not too powerful to use against them. If it seems way too dangerous, I wouldn't let the enemy use it.
Basically, yes, I let enemies use items from their treasure hoard.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Depends on the enemy and the location of the treasure; if the item is of a type that enemy can use, and is in a location from which it can be used, sure, the enemy can use it. Very low intelligence monsters may not know what the treasure is.
As people have said already if on their possession sure knock the party out with the Potion of Storm Giant Strenght.
Otherwise, if the item(s) are stored or hidden somewhere within the room I'd hold off and just us what you have in the creatures Stat block. Now, another DM logic to get around this is the party is really doing a number and it would be in the creatures best interest (and the DMs to keep the fight going) and there is a rational narrative way to get to said good, (locked chest-- not rational) then let the creature get/use the items. Again, if the narrative makes sense. If the creatures do use the item, back to if it was a potion, then either 'replace' the potion with another or throw gold equal to the potion or item use if it was a one-use item.
Assuming the enemies are smart enough to know how to use them, and know they have them, then yes, 100%, absolutely, they can and should. If the orcs have a potion of healing, they should pop it just like a player would when close to dying. I mean after all, if the orc had a Sword +1 you'd have him actually using it wouldn't you? So why wouldn't he also use the potion? These items can be taken off enemies after killing them but the enemies should be able to use them also.
Obvious exceptions would be something that doesn't know how to use it (wolf with a healing potion in its den -- it collected it cause ti was 'shiny' and doesn't know what it does nor even how to open it), or physically can't (dragon might be smart enough to know how to use a healing potion but its giant claws might not be able to uncork the thing).
If I want the players to get the potion but do NOT want the monster to use it (or whatever other consumable, like a scroll) then I don't put it on the monster in an accessible place like a belt pouch. I put it in a chest in the next room or something. That explains logically why he wouldn't use the potion (no time to get it) but makes clear that he owned it, and they took it from him.
TLDR: If you don't want the enemy using the potion or other consumable, don't put it on his person. Put it somewhere else. Only give to their inventory the items you plan to let them actually use.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
FYI, [magicitem]Potion of Invulnerability[/item] should not make a character immune to damage for 10 rounds, it gives them resistance. That decreases damage by half.
Whether the items listed with the enemies are for the enemies to use or whether they're party rewards is up to the DM. Both make sense. However, I'd generally expect that anything the monsters can do is going to be listed in their stat block as things they can do, and potions and weapons listed as treasure are treasure rewards for the characters. (E.g. the rewards usually don't list all the weapons of the various enemies - that's for their use. If there was a healing power or a resistance that the enemy had, it would be listed in their statblock as an ability, rather than separately as something the players find.) It's always up to the DM though.
I guess part of why I always assume the monsters could use consumables is that in NWN, they generally did. I learned not to give potions to monsters unless I wanted the monster to use them because the AI had them use whatever was in their inventory. To prevent it, as a module builder, I had to either (1) put the potion somewhere else than in the monster's inventory, or (2) re-script the monster.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.