Amulet of the Drunkard: This amulet smells of old, ale-stained wood. While wearing it, you can regain 4d4 + 4 hit points when you drink a pint of beer, ale, mead, or wine. Once the amulet has restored hit points, it can’t do so again until the next dawn.
Question: The Player's Handbook has drinking a flagon of ale as a free action. My 5th level barbarian has the Amulet. Would I be able to drink a beer, heal myself with the amulet, then rage and use my 2 attacks all in the same round?
As above, technically yes however why would you be walking around all day carrying a glass of beer? How are you navigating the dungeon without dropping or spilling it, how are you fighting with it - you must be using a one handed weapon, and no shield - either that or drop the glass underfoot. Once it breaks then what do you do? How many glasses are you carrying in your backpack? how many casks of beer are you carrying. Being technically able to do something and realistically able to do something is very different.
If you're just in a tavern starting a brawl, then it may not really matter because you can simply drink the ale and _then_ start your combat action.
However, if you're in combat, you need to have the filled ale _in-hand_ in order to drink it as a free action. Carrying open vessels in combat can be tricky.
Amulet of the Drunkard: This amulet smells of old, ale-stained wood. While wearing it, you can regain 4d4 + 4 hit points when you drink a pint of beer, ale, mead, or wine. Once the amulet has restored hit points, it can’t do so again until the next dawn.
Question: The Player's Handbook has drinking a flagon of ale as a free action. My 5th level barbarian has the Amulet. Would I be able to drink a beer, heal myself with the amulet, then rage and use my 2 attacks all in the same round?
Thanks!
How is that a free action? Can you please link the section you are getting that from? Genuinely curious.
Off the top of my head, I don't see that being a free action. Retrieving the ale from wherever you have it stored on your person (in conjunction with an action utilizing it) could be a free action (assuming you haven't used your one free object interaction already), but actually consuming it would require the [Tooltip Not Found] action. I see no reason to treat it any differently than drinking a potion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
The official word on why it takes an action to drink a potion is for game balance, rather than emulating physics, so an item that makes ale act like a potion kind of skirts the rules in a dumb way. RAW, it works.
Of note: It does not state that it lets you choose when to activate it, so if you drink a beer before taking a short rest, you might accidentally waste it.
I think you meant page 190? Anyway, I see what you're seeing now, but I wanna say that's with the assumption that you're already holding the flagon. I.e. not needing to retrieve it first, so consuming can be your one free object interaction. Soo, yeah, I suppose it does work by RAW.
Also by RAW, if I had a player holding a flagon of ale while in combat, I'd make them roll a Dexterity ability check (maybe make it Acrobatics if they're proficient) to avoid spilling it all whenever they: move, make an attack, are the target of an attack, etc. Apply disadvantage where applicable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Probably. I was looking at a low res scan, so the page numbers weren't very legible.
Even if it is restricted to require an action, it is still overpowered based on the rarity/price chart, as it is the same rarity as the Potion of Greater Healing that it emulates.
The biggest risk is that a DM allows more than one of these items to exist in a campaign. Because 5e doesn't have "slots", and the amulet doesn't require attunement, a character could don a dozen of these amulets and potentially spam ale from an Alchemy Jug all day long, a la drunken master. It could be an amazing character idea if not min/maxed, but should at least require a bonus action to self-administer. (However, it could also be said that the amulets take effect simultaneously and split the damage, so multiple amulets act like a single Potion of Supreme Healing+, rather than as a dozen lesser potions.)
The other option would be to require that the alcohol consumed be of a high enough alcohol content to force a Con Save to avoid being "Poisoned" until the the player succeeds on a subsequent round. Gotta be the "good stuff", not just juice that has been sitting around too long.
Use common sense to determine whether more than one of a given kind of magic item can be worn. A character can’t normally wear more than one pair of footwear, one pair of gloves or gauntlets, one pair of bracers, one suit of armor, one item of headwear, and one cloak. You can make exceptions; a character might be able to wear a circlet under a helmet, for example, or be able to layer two cloaks.
I don't think it's quite as restrictive as in the past (one ring per hand only), but the concept is still very much in play. You can easily say the PC can't wear more than one, and just be done with it.
[edit] I actually wouldn't have any problem what-so-ever with a player using that (one) amulet with a Alchemy Jug. Using the jug is explicitly an action to pour (into your mouth). That would be using two distinct magic items in a clever manner, and fits into the action economy of one discrete use of an action.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Sure, DM fiat is always in play, but the "common sense" referenced here is being applied to practical physical limitations, rather than "slots" as a traditional RPG equipment mechanic.
Large clothing items are easy to limit due to mechanical interference, but accessories, like rings, bracelets, and amulets, are not only technically wearable without interference, but also a standard practice in both fantasy and real world fashion. Most rings and amulets require attunement, or don't benefit from duplication, so this is really just an issue with this one particular item, so I wouldn't want to make a blanket rule that multiple amulets can't be worn at all.
I wouldn't be carrying it around all day and it wouldn't need to be in a fragile glass, it could be in a skin that hangs around my character's shoulder.
I wouldn't be carrying it around all day and it wouldn't need to be in a fragile glass, it could be in a skin that hangs around my character's shoulder.
Then you're using two object interactions (retrieving & consuming), which requires your action. I'd still make you roll Dex checks to not drop it, get it caught on something, or sliced open.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Mundane items are vulnerable to combat damage. A lot of DMs ignore damage to armor and equipment because it isn't fun to need to patch armor after every battle, but if a player is trying to do something clever to get an advantage in combat, then they should expect to have the bumpers taken away (at least for that particular circumstance).
I wouldn't be carrying it around all day and it wouldn't need to be in a fragile glass, it could be in a skin that hangs around my character's shoulder.
Then you're using two object interactions (retrieving & consuming), which requires your action. I'd still make you roll Dex checks to not drop it, get it caught on something, or sliced open.
I'm envisioning it being used as a worst case scenario kind of thing. I get hit to the point I need a heal. I disengage and ready the skin(free action). Next round, I swig the booze(free action), rage, move back in and attack. Obviously, I need a party member to take aggro on whatever I was being hit by. I could also take a hit, then attack back and ready the skin. This risks something bad happening like a spill on a hit from the mob I'm engaged in. However, if it misses or hits and I make some kind of save or check, I can swig, and attack.
If you split your Object Interactions across consecutive rounds, that should be fine.
It's a wonderfully flavorful item that is strong even if it required an action/bonus action, so I would recommend just letting your DM know that you are aware of the goofy wording and plan to use it tastefully. It's not going to break anything if used thoughtfully.
I wouldn't be carrying it around all day and it wouldn't need to be in a fragile glass, it could be in a skin that hangs around my character's shoulder.
Then you're using two object interactions (retrieving & consuming), which requires your action. I'd still make you roll Dex checks to not drop it, get it caught on something, or sliced open.
I'm envisioning it being used as a worst case scenario kind of thing. I get hit to the point I need a heal. I disengage and ready the skin(free action). Next round, I swig the booze(free action), rage, move back in and attack. Obviously, I need a party member to take aggro on whatever I was being hit by. I could also take a hit, then attack back and ready the skin. This risks something bad happening like a spill on a hit from the mob I'm engaged in. However, if it misses or hits and I make some kind of save or check, I can swig, and attack.
I'd probably still make you roll Dex checks. ;) Otherwise, yeah, that appears to be a wholly valid sequence.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Honestly, these comments are trying to punish players for following the rules. You carry a flask with you and you can drink it as a free action, that's all there is to it. Do you make your players do a Dex check to use a potion? Why would this be different? Cause you don't like the rules on it, is a bad answer. As a DM ruling retrieving it as a action or bonus is fine, but don't add layers to punish using a magical item as intended. Honestly it's a once a day magic item requiring you to have a resource to even use, a free use is strong but okay.
Sentinel shield is every perception check, every initiation, doesn't require attunement and is uncommon. Far stronger than a once a day heal, and would you punish that?
Amulet of the Drunkard: This amulet smells of old, ale-stained wood. While wearing it, you can regain 4d4 + 4 hit points when you drink a pint of beer, ale, mead, or wine. Once the amulet has restored hit points, it can’t do so again until the next dawn.
Question: The Player's Handbook has drinking a flagon of ale as a free action. My 5th level barbarian has the Amulet. Would I be able to drink a beer, heal myself with the amulet, then rage and use my 2 attacks all in the same round?
Sure, if you have the flagon in hand you could even only drink half since a flagon is 2 pint and you must drink a pint of it to activate the amulet. But pulling it out and drinking it is likely to cost an action, unless you have it already in hand.
Amulet of the Drunkard: This amulet smells of old, ale-stained wood. While wearing it, you can regain 4d4 + 4![]()
hit points when you drink a pint of beer, ale, mead, or wine. Once the amulet has restored hit points, it can’t do so again until the next dawn.
Question: The Player's Handbook has drinking a flagon of ale as a free action. My 5th level barbarian has the Amulet. Would I be able to drink a beer, heal myself with the amulet, then rage and use my 2 attacks all in the same round?
Thanks!
If drinking a flagon of ale counts as a free object interaction, then what you describe works.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
As above, technically yes however why would you be walking around all day carrying a glass of beer? How are you navigating the dungeon without dropping or spilling it, how are you fighting with it - you must be using a one handed weapon, and no shield - either that or drop the glass underfoot. Once it breaks then what do you do? How many glasses are you carrying in your backpack? how many casks of beer are you carrying. Being technically able to do something and realistically able to do something is very different.
If you're just in a tavern starting a brawl, then it may not really matter because you can simply drink the ale and _then_ start your combat action.
However, if you're in combat, you need to have the filled ale _in-hand_ in order to drink it as a free action. Carrying open vessels in combat can be tricky.
How is that a free action? Can you please link the section you are getting that from? Genuinely curious.
Off the top of my head, I don't see that being a free action. Retrieving the ale from wherever you have it stored on your person (in conjunction with an action utilizing it) could be a free action (assuming you haven't used your one free object interaction already), but actually consuming it would require the [Tooltip Not Found] action. I see no reason to treat it any differently than drinking a potion.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Wait, is this not normal?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
@Sigred
It's listed on page 196 of the player's handbook.
The official word on why it takes an action to drink a potion is for game balance, rather than emulating physics, so an item that makes ale act like a potion kind of skirts the rules in a dumb way. RAW, it works.
Of note: It does not state that it lets you choose when to activate it, so if you drink a beer before taking a short rest, you might accidentally waste it.
However, it is easily abuseable as written.
I think you meant page 190? Anyway, I see what you're seeing now, but I wanna say that's with the assumption that you're already holding the flagon. I.e. not needing to retrieve it first, so consuming can be your one free object interaction. Soo, yeah, I suppose it does work by RAW.
Also by RAW, if I had a player holding a flagon of ale while in combat, I'd make them roll a Dexterity ability check (maybe make it Acrobatics if they're proficient) to avoid spilling it all whenever they: move, make an attack, are the target of an attack, etc. Apply disadvantage where applicable.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Probably. I was looking at a low res scan, so the page numbers weren't very legible.
Even if it is restricted to require an action, it is still overpowered based on the rarity/price chart, as it is the same rarity as the Potion of Greater Healing that it emulates.
The biggest risk is that a DM allows more than one of these items to exist in a campaign. Because 5e doesn't have "slots", and the amulet doesn't require attunement, a character could don a dozen of these amulets and potentially spam ale from an Alchemy Jug all day long, a la drunken master. It could be an amazing character idea if not min/maxed, but should at least require a bonus action to self-administer. (However, it could also be said that the amulets take effect simultaneously and split the damage, so multiple amulets act like a single Potion of Supreme Healing+, rather than as a dozen lesser potions.)
The other option would be to require that the alcohol consumed be of a high enough alcohol content to force a Con Save to avoid being "Poisoned" until the the player succeeds on a subsequent round. Gotta be the "good stuff", not just juice that has been sitting around too long.
5e does have slots.
I don't think it's quite as restrictive as in the past (one ring per hand only), but the concept is still very much in play. You can easily say the PC can't wear more than one, and just be done with it.
[edit] I actually wouldn't have any problem what-so-ever with a player using that (one) amulet with a Alchemy Jug. Using the jug is explicitly an action to pour (into your mouth). That would be using two distinct magic items in a clever manner, and fits into the action economy of one discrete use of an action.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Sure, DM fiat is always in play, but the "common sense" referenced here is being applied to practical physical limitations, rather than "slots" as a traditional RPG equipment mechanic.
Large clothing items are easy to limit due to mechanical interference, but accessories, like rings, bracelets, and amulets, are not only technically wearable without interference, but also a standard practice in both fantasy and real world fashion. Most rings and amulets require attunement, or don't benefit from duplication, so this is really just an issue with this one particular item, so I wouldn't want to make a blanket rule that multiple amulets can't be worn at all.
I wouldn't be carrying it around all day and it wouldn't need to be in a fragile glass, it could be in a skin that hangs around my character's shoulder.
Water skins
Then you're using two object interactions (retrieving & consuming), which requires your action. I'd still make you roll Dex checks to not drop it, get it caught on something, or sliced open.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Definitely.
Mundane items are vulnerable to combat damage. A lot of DMs ignore damage to armor and equipment because it isn't fun to need to patch armor after every battle, but if a player is trying to do something clever to get an advantage in combat, then they should expect to have the bumpers taken away (at least for that particular circumstance).
I'm envisioning it being used as a worst case scenario kind of thing. I get hit to the point I need a heal. I disengage and ready the skin(free action). Next round, I swig the booze(free action), rage, move back in and attack. Obviously, I need a party member to take aggro on whatever I was being hit by. I could also take a hit, then attack back and ready the skin. This risks something bad happening like a spill on a hit from the mob I'm engaged in. However, if it misses or hits and I make some kind of save or check, I can swig, and attack.
If you split your Object Interactions across consecutive rounds, that should be fine.
It's a wonderfully flavorful item that is strong even if it required an action/bonus action, so I would recommend just letting your DM know that you are aware of the goofy wording and plan to use it tastefully. It's not going to break anything if used thoughtfully.
I'd probably still make you roll Dex checks. ;) Otherwise, yeah, that appears to be a wholly valid sequence.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Honestly, these comments are trying to punish players for following the rules. You carry a flask with you and you can drink it as a free action, that's all there is to it. Do you make your players do a Dex check to use a potion? Why would this be different? Cause you don't like the rules on it, is a bad answer. As a DM ruling retrieving it as a action or bonus is fine, but don't add layers to punish using a magical item as intended. Honestly it's a once a day magic item requiring you to have a resource to even use, a free use is strong but okay.
Sentinel shield is every perception check, every initiation, doesn't require attunement and is uncommon. Far stronger than a once a day heal, and would you punish that?
Sure, if you have the flagon in hand you could even only drink half since a flagon is 2 pint and you must drink a pint of it to activate the amulet. But pulling it out and drinking it is likely to cost an action, unless you have it already in hand.
just need an alchemy jug and you can name whatever liquid you want in it as its essentially a bag of holding for one named liquid at a time.