I am a both a player and a DM, and last night, in the campaign in which I am a player, my ally wanted to use a healing potion on another ally of ours who had just been downed. Because the healing potion was in the inventory of the downed ally, our DM ruled that he'd need to succeed an Investigation check to successfully find it and administer it. Although we were in initiative, I felt that this ruling seemed a bit arbitrary and needlessly crunchy. Am I way off base in thinking that you shouldn't need to investigate an ally's unconscious body in order to find and give them a potion of healing? Or is this how other DMs would rule this same type of action?
By default, only a potion in your inventory is usable, so you have to first get it into your inventory (by taking it from them). How much effort this requires is a DM call.
I think thats pretty shoddy DM'ing - most tables its BA to drink a potion - Action to adminter to someone else - Free Object interaction to grab it from your pack or an allies pack.
I mean really the group is all out there slaying the evil monsters and you what - hide the healing potions from each other - meh
Now if the DM made the DC super low and had in mostly as a flavor thing (like a dc 5) I can maybe see it but its still not a thing I would do in one of my games - it feels too much like ooo look at me I'm in charge and you can't do that nah nah nah nah nah.
But hey everyone has their own style so whatever floats the DM's boat.
I think thats pretty shoddy DM'ing - most tables its BA to drink a potion - Action to adminter to someone else - Free Object interaction to grab it from your pack or an allies pack.
Worth pointing out that under the 2024 rules it's a bonus action to do either.
I am a both a player and a DM, and last night, in the campaign in which I am a player, my ally wanted to use a healing potion on another ally of ours who had just been downed. Because the healing potion was in the inventory of the downed ally, our DM ruled that he'd need to succeed an Investigation check to successfully find it and administer it. Although we were in initiative, I felt that this ruling seemed a bit arbitrary and needlessly crunchy. Am I way off base in thinking that you shouldn't need to investigate an ally's unconscious body in order to find and give them a potion of healing? Or is this how other DMs would rule this same type of action?
I would, and have, ruled the same way. Going through someone else's gear is different from going through your own, and should not be a free action.
The DC for the search can easily be adjusted depending on where the potion is located; 5-10 for an easily accessible and obvious place would be typical. You use your action to search and your bonus action to administer.
Eh, if a character packs their potions for easy of accessibility in combat, it shouldn't be hard for another character to get access to them when the first character is down and in need of medical assistance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I tend to let the players find things in unconcious allies' packs (and anything else that doesn't feel like a struggle to overcome) for free, because I don't think a check would make it more fun or add anything to the game. That said, it's the DM's choice and I don't think it's a huge deal. If they're going for realism, or it's a dice-heavy game, having you make a check might be more appropriate.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, musician Fan of Undertale, Earthbound, Frieren, Dumbing of Age, Homestuck, Aurora, Discworld, Melrose Quartet, uhhhh other stuff i guess mmmmm onion pie (:
In long running campaigns I have players forget the stuff that's in their own backpacks - let alone what might be in an ally's backpack.
So, no. It's not unreasonable to have an investigation check to search an ally's equipment for a potion. It's also going to burn an action to do so. You'll burn your free object interaction to interact with the backpack, and then your use and object action/bonus action (depending on 5e or 5.5e) to grab the potion. Of course that's needlessly nitpicky.
So, if it were me the process would be simple:
- Investigation DC10 to search the backpack and grab the potion (Action) - [If 5.5e] Administer the potion to the downed player character (Bonus Action) - [Else if 5e] The potion can't be administered until the next turn and burns an action.
Despite what others might say, many, many tables that run 5e do require the potion to be a full action. This is largely for reasons of action economy. If you've ever played systems other than D&D (or even earlier editions) you'll find that other systems do force you to make choices like that (how best to spend an action). Personally, I allow a potion loop on an adventurer's belt which makes the first potion of each combat a bonus action, but after that it's back to being a full action (as it needs to be retrieved from a backpack after all).
The advantage of 5.5e play here then is that it speeds up the process and possibly even prevents a death saving throw!
Eh, if a character packs their potions for easy of accessibility in combat, it shouldn't be hard for another character to get access to them when the first character is down and in need of medical assistance.
That would be my ruling too
If a DM is going to be that finicky about where everyone keeps their healing potions, then they should give the party an opportunity to discuss where they keep them. It's not like they would be in a secret location
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Eh, if a character packs their potions for easy of accessibility in combat, it shouldn't be hard for another character to get access to them when the first character is down and in need of medical assistance.
That would be my ruling too
If a DM is going to be that finicky about where everyone keeps their healing potions, then they should give the party an opportunity to discuss where they keep them. It's not like they would be in a secret location
And you're not going to bury them at the bottom of your backpack, which is locked, tied with rope, and has Sovereign Glue applied to the opening.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am a both a player and a DM, and last night, in the campaign in which I am a player, my ally wanted to use a healing potion on another ally of ours who had just been downed. Because the healing potion was in the inventory of the downed ally, our DM ruled that he'd need to succeed an Investigation check to successfully find it and administer it. Although we were in initiative, I felt that this ruling seemed a bit arbitrary and needlessly crunchy. Am I way off base in thinking that you shouldn't need to investigate an ally's unconscious body in order to find and give them a potion of healing? Or is this how other DMs would rule this same type of action?
By default, only a potion in your inventory is usable, so you have to first get it into your inventory (by taking it from them). How much effort this requires is a DM call.
I think thats pretty shoddy DM'ing - most tables its BA to drink a potion - Action to adminter to someone else - Free Object interaction to grab it from your pack or an allies pack.
I mean really the group is all out there slaying the evil monsters and you what - hide the healing potions from each other - meh
Now if the DM made the DC super low and had in mostly as a flavor thing (like a dc 5) I can maybe see it but its still not a thing I would do in one of my games - it feels too much like ooo look at me I'm in charge and you can't do that nah nah nah nah nah.
But hey everyone has their own style so whatever floats the DM's boat.
Worth pointing out that under the 2024 rules it's a bonus action to do either.
pronouns: he/she/they
I would, and have, ruled the same way. Going through someone else's gear is different from going through your own, and should not be a free action.
The DC for the search can easily be adjusted depending on where the potion is located; 5-10 for an easily accessible and obvious place would be typical. You use your action to search and your bonus action to administer.
Eh, if a character packs their potions for easy of accessibility in combat, it shouldn't be hard for another character to get access to them when the first character is down and in need of medical assistance.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I would say it's fine. Making the action more complicated doesn't add anything to the game.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I tend to let the players find things in unconcious allies' packs (and anything else that doesn't feel like a struggle to overcome) for free, because I don't think a check would make it more fun or add anything to the game.
That said, it's the DM's choice and I don't think it's a huge deal. If they're going for realism, or it's a dice-heavy game, having you make a check might be more appropriate.
DM, musician
Fan of Undertale, Earthbound, Frieren, Dumbing of Age, Homestuck, Aurora, Discworld, Melrose Quartet, uhhhh other stuff i guess
mmmmm onion pie (:
I think making it require an action, no investigation check required is fair. Yes, I would house-rule that even if playing in 2024 rules.
In long running campaigns I have players forget the stuff that's in their own backpacks - let alone what might be in an ally's backpack.
So, no. It's not unreasonable to have an investigation check to search an ally's equipment for a potion. It's also going to burn an action to do so. You'll burn your free object interaction to interact with the backpack, and then your use and object action/bonus action (depending on 5e or 5.5e) to grab the potion. Of course that's needlessly nitpicky.
So, if it were me the process would be simple:
- Investigation DC10 to search the backpack and grab the potion (Action)
- [If 5.5e] Administer the potion to the downed player character (Bonus Action)
- [Else if 5e] The potion can't be administered until the next turn and burns an action.
Despite what others might say, many, many tables that run 5e do require the potion to be a full action. This is largely for reasons of action economy. If you've ever played systems other than D&D (or even earlier editions) you'll find that other systems do force you to make choices like that (how best to spend an action). Personally, I allow a potion loop on an adventurer's belt which makes the first potion of each combat a bonus action, but after that it's back to being a full action (as it needs to be retrieved from a backpack after all).
The advantage of 5.5e play here then is that it speeds up the process and possibly even prevents a death saving throw!
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
That would be my ruling too
If a DM is going to be that finicky about where everyone keeps their healing potions, then they should give the party an opportunity to discuss where they keep them. It's not like they would be in a secret location
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And you're not going to bury them at the bottom of your backpack, which is locked, tied with rope, and has Sovereign Glue applied to the opening.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.