Houseruling Potion Consumption - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 paulstrait Oct 02, 2014 13:51:54	So, I recently realized that Drinking a Potion is an action; in our last session, I allowed the PCs to drink potions as part of their actions. Obviously this was an error, but I was thinking that it might be nice to make it possible to drink an a potion without spending an action, at a cost. Here is what I am thinking: Drink a Potion -- Bonus Action. Requirements: Potion must be readily accessible (e.g., attached to belt -- probably would require a special bandalier or something to have more than one or maybe two accessible), and you must have a hand free (using a two handed weapon is okay if it can be held in one hand, but if you are using two weapons, you would have to drop or sheathe your offhand weapon). If you are within the reach of an enemy, you provoke a melee opportunity attack. This way, they are a) limited to a certain amount per battle, and they have to be placed in a slightly more vulnerable position than in your pack to be used in this way (vulnerable to perhaps breaking if they fall prone, or maybe to being stolen or disarmed); b) constrained from doing this in a round in which they are already taking a bonus action; c) are limited in their ability to combine potion use with multiple attacks; and d) provoke opportunity attacks while at melee. Obviously none of those restrictions apply to using a potion as a normal action. The drawbacks are much less prominent if they are using it while moving or at range compared to if they are using it while in the heat of melee, which seems about right to me. So--- are these drawbacks sufficient? are they too much? Are there any parts I should reconsider? For example, by making it a bonus action, that makes it better for characters that don't usually get bonus actions -- drinking a potion in this manner is more costly for the rogue who gets cunning action than for other characters who aren't losing out on a bonus action necessarily. Is that an undue burden? What about provoking an opportunity attack--alternatives might include attackers gaining advantage for the round when they attack, or your attack gets made at disadvantage. Essentially, I want to give my players an option that won't break the game (or significantly alter game balance) that gives them a legitimate tactical choice. ---- EDIT--Some clarifications: 1) I think the current rule in the PHB is balanced. I'm not dissatisfied with it. I don't need you to tell me that it is balanced. Of course it is. My players have requested that I come up with a houserule that will let them consume potions differently and more dangerously so as to not consume their action, if the circumstances call for it. I could tell them "No," but I'd rather tell them Yes and come up with a balanced way to do so. 2) Under the proposed houserule, one still has the option to spend an action to drink a potion, and that would work as per the rules. I am not looking to make drinking potions more dangerous in general. 3) Beyond finding a way to say yes to my players, this is an exercise in game balance and understanding 5e better. So I am looking for thoughts on whether certain things will break the game -- but please explain why if you think something is game-breaking (i.e., provide a scenario under which the brokenness of the proposed houserule becomes apparent). I apologize if I sound frustrated, but I am looking for assistance, not affirmations of the soundness of the non-houseruled system.
#2 bawylie Oct 02, 2014 14:12:59	To me, youve done overthought the issue. Works fine as written. Works just as well if you change from action to bonus action. Im not moved by the drawbacks. The action economy is strict enough IMO.
#3 paulstrait Oct 02, 2014 14:28:37	Well, if they can use it as a bonus action, there is no reason for them to ever use it as an action, and my hope was to create a meaningful choice, a risk/reward judgment... I certainly wouldn't make a bonus action without any other restriction--if you rely on fighting with both hands and you have a potion buried deep in your pack, it strikes me as a bit much to say you can find a way to drink that potion without letting your guard down or temporarily freeing up a hand. I mean, this is the basis for why it generally takes an action to drink a potion, no? In any event, I can understand why someone would want to leave the rules as they are -- I'm instead looking for suggestions on how to create a balanced choice.
#4 teron82 Oct 02, 2014 16:47:14	I still find it odd you can down a whole flagon of ale for free but drinking a potion takes an entire action.
#5 paulstrait Oct 02, 2014 18:35:45	Yeah, I think that is part of my thinking. If nothing else, if the player wants to be a little more reckless in their drinking/use of a potion, they should be able to do it less safely than is entailed in an action. Or at least, that is the prevailing view among my players at the moment which is why I'm trying to devise a rule to accomodate...
#6 Oraibi Oct 02, 2014 19:03:59	Provoking an opportunity attack is a bad idea. There's only one thing that generally provokes opp attacks in 5e, and it's intentionally that such is the case. You overcomplicate and break the game by adding in special exceptions that provoke OAs.
#7 paulstrait Oct 02, 2014 19:33:33	If I might ask you to elaborate -- what is the scenario in which it would break the game? I mean, I could see if it were only possible to drink a potion in this manner, but the potential victim of the opportunity attack would be choosing to subject himself/herself to it here. My understanding is that if you start to mess with things like the rules for Concentration, it might be game breaking, but adding an optional scenario that would provoke seems qualitatively different. Separately -- even if it isn't game-breaking, it might not be ideal for other reasons. What would you suggest in its place? Just everything minus the provoking? Or perhaps that any attacks made the same turn would be done at disadvantage? Or perhaps any attacks against that target until the start of its next turn bre made with advantage? I thought about both of those options but they seem to flow less organically from the idea of dropping your guard to dangerously drink a potion hastily. A player of mine who requested the special rule specifically suggested that it provoke, which definitely influenced my thinking here.
(Reply to #4) AaronOfBarbaria	teron82 wrote:
#9 Theros Oct 03, 2014 4:00:01	I think drinking a potion as an action is fine as written. If your looking for penaties for drinking potions, I would give Advantage to any enemies attacking that character on the turn they drank the potion.
#10 TrueManiek Oct 03, 2014 4:35:57	To be fair the actions resets really quick. In 4ed it was a minor cause you waited a long time for another turn. This is not the case in 5 ed, turns are much faster. And if it is as an action it is still a meaningful choice “Do I chug a drink to heal myself, or do I attack and maybe take somebody down?”
(Reply to #8) Timborama	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#12 Bennedict Oct 03, 2014 7:46:39	That's what the 3rd level thief achetype ability under rogue is for. It's called fast hands. If they want to be able to drink potions fast, make then take 3 levels of rogue. Just like if I want to Rage, I should have to take a level of Barbarian. I'm never keen on giving away other class abilities without paying the cost for it. Or otherwise make fast hands a feat that requires 13 dex so anyone could pick it up and the rogue would effectively get the feat as part of their class.
#13 bawylie Oct 03, 2014 8:41:25	What marketplaces are you guys running with infinite supplies of healing potions? Do you even hospital, bro?
(Reply to #13) AaronOfBarbaria	bawylie wrote:
#15 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 11:28:33	Theros wrote:
#16 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 11:31:14	TrueManiek wrote:
#17 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 11:33:10	Bennedict wrote:
(Reply to #14) Timborama	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#19 MrRob Oct 03, 2014 13:03:08	Drinking a potion seems to work with the rules as they are: you get the benefit, but it takes an action. Simple. Fragile bottle, sealed; must be retreived and opened and consumed. Balance. Simple balance.
#20 Yunru Oct 03, 2014 14:02:15	bawylie wrote:
#21 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 14:14:12	MrRob wrote:
#22 AaronOfBarbaria Oct 03, 2014 14:56:39	Paulstrait, I'm sorry if I contributed to you feeling like you aren't being treated well by the community here responding to your post. That said, there are many things which really can't be balanced by offsetting them with a penalty - things which are either far too punitive because the penalty outweighs the benefit (like if characters could drink a potion without spending an action if they spent 2 hit dice to do so and gained no healing from them), or far too beneficial to even consider the drawback as being a drawback. Some of us, myself at the very least, look at drinking a potion without spending an action on it as one of the things which falls into that realm.
#23 MrRob Oct 03, 2014 15:37:59	paulstrait wrote:
#24 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 15:59:01	The reply didn't bother me as much as just being not what I was looking for, and my frustration was partly with myself for not communicating clearly in the first place. I didn't feel mistreated, just a little bewildered (most of my experience on these boards over the years is in posting realmslore-related stuff, rather than the gamey mechanics side of things). I suppose I'll just try my proposed rule out with the caveat that it can change if it seems poorly balanced. Certainly the point about the rules being new is well-taken. Having played systems much more complicated than 5e, I suppose my group is not averse to adding some optional complication here or or there, and I suppose also that having started the hobby playing 2e, in which creating houserules was more or less part of the game, probably influences my approach to the game. In any event, I thank you guys for your feedback, and I'll view this as an experiment and collect some empirical data. Drinking potions isn't exactly the biggest part of the game, so I suspect consequences are going to be relatively minimal one way or the other. I do think that, indepedent of the application of this particular rule, there is some value in hypothetically trying to balance things within a new game system in terms of understanding the system better,
#25 Gruff_Ironfist Oct 03, 2014 17:22:14	paulstrait wrote:
#26 paulstrait Oct 03, 2014 19:00:00	Nice! I definitely like the inspiration idea -- I like the idea of making it kind of like an action point for non-combat actions more generally. I also like the exhaustion idea, maybe not for potions, but for say if a PC wants to move farther than they can -- I totally forgot about the exhaustion rules and they seem like they could definitely be used as a balancer for certain things.
#27 Dandrix Oct 04, 2014 10:48:16	Here is a very simple idea on healing potion taking on your turn. 1 Action to take healing potion you get full bonuses of 2d4+2 healing. Becasue you are taking it out of your backpack, trying not to waste any of it while uncorking it, and trying not to get hit by monsters around you. Or 1 Bonus Action to take healing potion you only get part of the bonus 1d4+1 healing. You are taking it out of your backpack in haste and trying not to get hit by monsters, so you may not get all of it in your mouth. Spilling some on yourself and the gound.
#28 Nevvur Oct 04, 2014 11:30:52	Dandrix wrote:
#29 Noon Oct 05, 2014 3:26:31	1) I think the current rule in the PHB is balanced. I'm not dissatisfied with it. I don't need you to tell me that it is balanced. Of course it is. My players have requested that I come up with a houserule that will let them consume potions differently and more dangerously so as to not consume their action, if the circumstances call for it. I could tell them "No," but I'd rather tell them Yes and come up with a balanced way to do so.
#30 paulstrait Oct 05, 2014 13:46:41	Dandrix wrote:
#31 paulstrait Oct 05, 2014 13:50:11	Nevvur wrote:
#32 Jet_Jordan Oct 05, 2014 15:03:34	Lets get creative: DC 12 constitution check to make sure you can sucessfully drink hastely as a bonus action. Fail and you choke and spit it up, losing the potion and gaining no effect! Any small-large creature directly in front you is healed of any lingering skin ailments like exzema and poison ivy. yeah?
#33 Kishri Oct 05, 2014 16:17:22	Introducing, the Potion Camelback. The adventure wears this item under his pack on his back. It is full of any liquid of his choice. In this case, healing potion liquid. The camelback has a small tube the runs over the shoulder to provide easy sipping with minimal movement and effort. As a bonus action, the user may sip and the will receive 1d8+5 (or whatever amout the DM deems appropriate) of healing. The camelback holds 100 sips. Note, to fill and refill, the character still must buy the equivalent amount of potion material-- 100 potions worth in this case, so the camelback is not a bargain, but it does provide that healing feeling immediately when needed. Cost: 100gp + cost for the potions to fill it. The breakspot heal vial: looks like a little perfume sampler on a string. It is delicate and is worn about the neck. As a free action, the adventurer can smack the vial against the chest gaining the equivallent of a base cure potion. The broken vial must be replaced. A maximum of 3 may be worn at a time. Cost: 50gp per single vial. Note, on both items, over consumption may lead to dependency (depending on campaign). The Positive Elemental. This friendly denizen of the Positive Material Plane resides in a small bottle. "He" can be let out where he will faithfully follow his owner. The elemental appears as a small glowing ball of subtle changing colors. He can imbue his owner owner (Bonus action/once per round) and his allies upon request (Stanard action/once per round) once per round with his abundant positive energy healing them as per a basic cureing potion (DM chooses the amount of healing). After 12 heals in a day, the elemental returns to its vessel to recharge. Once the party completes a long rest, the elemental is recharged. Cost: Normally must be found as this guy is too useful for any sane person to sell. If sold, it will go for no less than 2500gp. Ring of First Aid: When the wearer takes any hit point damage, the adventurer may use his/her reaction to activate the ring receiving the effect of a cure light wounds potion. Hit points recovered can never take the character over maximum and any excess healing is wasted. The wearer must use the ring as a reaction at the point the injury was taken to be healed. If not, the user must wait until he takes another injury to activate the ring via reaction. It cannot be activated by "will" for it simply detects injury and bestows healing at that point. It only heals the wearer. The Ring of First Aid can be activated this way 3 times per extended/long rest. Cost: Rare, 1500gp if one can find a person willing to part with such a beneficial item. The point is, you don't have to change the rules to accomodate your players. Just come up with cool items/ideas instead.
#34 paulstrait Oct 05, 2014 16:27:08	Kishri wrote:
(Reply to #34) Kishri	paulstrait wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

paulstrait

Oct 02, 2014 13:51:54

So, I recently realized that Drinking a Potion is an action; in our last session, I allowed the PCs to drink potions as part of their actions. Obviously this was an error, but I was thinking that it might be nice to make it possible to drink an a potion without spending an action, at a cost. Here is what I am thinking:

Drink a Potion -- Bonus Action. Requirements: Potion must be readily accessible (e.g., attached to belt -- probably would require a special bandalier or something to have more than one or maybe two accessible), and you must have a hand free (using a two handed weapon is okay if it can be held in one hand, but if you are using two weapons, you would have to drop or sheathe your offhand weapon). If you are within the reach of an enemy, you provoke a melee opportunity attack.

This way, they are a) limited to a certain amount per battle, and they have to be placed in a slightly more vulnerable position than in your pack to be used in this way (vulnerable to perhaps breaking if they fall prone, or maybe to being stolen or disarmed); b) constrained from doing this in a round in which they are already taking a bonus action; c) are limited in their ability to combine potion use with multiple attacks; and d) provoke opportunity attacks while at melee. Obviously none of those restrictions apply to using a potion as a normal action.

The drawbacks are much less prominent if they are using it while moving or at range compared to if they are using it while in the heat of melee, which seems about right to me.

So--- are these drawbacks sufficient? are they too much? Are there any parts I should reconsider? For example, by making it a bonus action, that makes it better for characters that don't usually get bonus actions -- drinking a potion in this manner is more costly for the rogue who gets cunning action than for other characters who aren't losing out on a bonus action necessarily. Is that an undue burden? What about provoking an opportunity attack--alternatives might include attackers gaining advantage for the round when they attack, or your attack gets made at disadvantage. Essentially, I want to give my players an option that won't break the game (or significantly alter game balance) that gives them a legitimate tactical choice.

----

EDIT--Some clarifications:

1) I think the current rule in the PHB is balanced. I'm not dissatisfied with it. I don't need you to tell me that it is balanced. Of course it is. My players have requested that I come up with a houserule that will let them consume potions differently and more dangerously so as to not consume their action, if the circumstances call for it. I could tell them "No," but I'd rather tell them Yes and come up with a balanced way to do so.

2) Under the proposed houserule, one still has the option to spend an action to drink a potion, and that would work as per the rules. I am not looking to make drinking potions more dangerous in general.

3) Beyond finding a way to say yes to my players, this is an exercise in game balance and understanding 5e better. So I am looking for thoughts on whether certain things will break the game -- but please explain why if you think something is game-breaking (i.e., provide a scenario under which the brokenness of the proposed houserule becomes apparent).

I apologize if I sound frustrated, but I am looking for assistance, not affirmations of the soundness of the non-houseruled system.

bawylie

Oct 02, 2014 14:12:59

To me, youve done overthought the issue.

Works fine as written. Works just as well if you change from action to bonus action.

Im not moved by the drawbacks. The action economy is strict enough IMO.

paulstrait

Oct 02, 2014 14:28:37

Well, if they can use it as a bonus action, there is no reason for them to ever use it as an action, and my hope was to create a meaningful choice, a risk/reward judgment...

I certainly wouldn't make a bonus action without any other restriction--if you rely on fighting with both hands and you have a potion buried deep in your pack, it strikes me as a bit much to say you can find a way to drink that potion without letting your guard down or temporarily freeing up a hand. I mean, this is the basis for why it generally takes an action to drink a potion, no?

In any event, I can understand why someone would want to leave the rules as they are -- I'm instead looking for suggestions on how to create a balanced choice.

teron82

Oct 02, 2014 16:47:14

I still find it odd you can down a whole flagon of ale for free but drinking a potion takes an entire action.

paulstrait

Oct 02, 2014 18:35:45

Yeah, I think that is part of my thinking. If nothing else, if the player wants to be a little more reckless in their drinking/use of a potion, they should be able to do it less safely than is entailed in an action. Or at least, that is the prevailing view among my players at the moment which is why I'm trying to devise a rule to accomodate...

Oraibi

Oct 02, 2014 19:03:59

Provoking an opportunity attack is a bad idea. There's only one thing that generally provokes opp attacks in 5e, and it's intentionally that such is the case. You overcomplicate and break the game by adding in special exceptions that provoke OAs.

paulstrait

Oct 02, 2014 19:33:33

If I might ask you to elaborate -- what is the scenario in which it would break the game? I mean, I could see if it were only possible to drink a potion in this manner, but the potential victim of the opportunity attack would be choosing to subject himself/herself to it here. My understanding is that if you start to mess with things like the rules for Concentration, it might be game breaking, but adding an optional scenario that would provoke seems qualitatively different.

Separately -- even if it isn't game-breaking, it might not be ideal for other reasons. What would you suggest in its place? Just everything minus the provoking? Or perhaps that any attacks made the same turn would be done at disadvantage? Or perhaps any attacks against that target until the start of its next turn bre made with advantage? I thought about both of those options but they seem to flow less organically from the idea of dropping your guard to dangerously drink a potion hastily.

A player of mine who requested the special rule specifically suggested that it provoke, which definitely influenced my thinking here.

(Reply to #4)

AaronOfBarbaria

teron82 wrote:

Theros

Oct 03, 2014 4:00:01

I think drinking a potion as an action is fine as written.

If your looking for penaties for drinking potions, I would give Advantage to any enemies attacking that character on the turn they drank the potion.

#10

TrueManiek

Oct 03, 2014 4:35:57

To be fair the actions resets really quick. In 4ed it was a minor cause you waited a long time for another turn. This is not the case in 5 ed, turns are much faster.

And if it is as an action it is still a meaningful choice “Do I chug a drink to heal myself, or do I attack and maybe take somebody down?”

(Reply to #8)

Timborama

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#12

Bennedict

Oct 03, 2014 7:46:39

That's what the 3rd level thief achetype ability under rogue is for. It's called fast hands. If they want to be able to drink potions fast, make then take 3 levels of rogue. Just like if I want to Rage, I should have to take a level of Barbarian. I'm never keen on giving away other class abilities without paying the cost for it. Or otherwise make fast hands a feat that requires 13 dex so anyone could pick it up and the rogue would effectively get the feat as part of their class.

#13

bawylie

Oct 03, 2014 8:41:25

What marketplaces are you guys running with infinite supplies of healing potions?

Do you even hospital, bro?

(Reply to #13)

AaronOfBarbaria

bawylie wrote:

#15

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 11:28:33

Theros wrote:

#16

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 11:31:14

TrueManiek wrote:

#17

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 11:33:10

Bennedict wrote:

(Reply to #14)

Timborama

AaronOfBarbaria wrote:

#19

MrRob

Oct 03, 2014 13:03:08

Drinking a potion seems to work with the rules as they are: you get the benefit, but it takes an action. Simple.

Fragile bottle, sealed; must be retreived and opened and consumed. Balance. Simple balance.

#20

Yunru

Oct 03, 2014 14:02:15

bawylie wrote:

#21

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 14:14:12

MrRob wrote:

#22

AaronOfBarbaria

Oct 03, 2014 14:56:39

Paulstrait, I'm sorry if I contributed to you feeling like you aren't being treated well by the community here responding to your post.

That said, there are many things which really can't be balanced by offsetting them with a penalty - things which are either far too punitive because the penalty outweighs the benefit (like if characters could drink a potion without spending an action if they spent 2 hit dice to do so and gained no healing from them), or far too beneficial to even consider the drawback as being a drawback.

Some of us, myself at the very least, look at drinking a potion without spending an action on it as one of the things which falls into that realm.

#23

MrRob

Oct 03, 2014 15:37:59

paulstrait wrote:

#24

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 15:59:01

The reply didn't bother me as much as just being not what I was looking for, and my frustration was partly with myself for not communicating clearly in the first place. I didn't feel mistreated, just a little bewildered (most of my experience on these boards over the years is in posting realmslore-related stuff, rather than the gamey mechanics side of things).

I suppose I'll just try my proposed rule out with the caveat that it can change if it seems poorly balanced. Certainly the point about the rules being new is well-taken. Having played systems much more complicated than 5e, I suppose my group is not averse to adding some optional complication here or or there, and I suppose also that having started the hobby playing 2e, in which creating houserules was more or less part of the game, probably influences my approach to the game.

In any event, I thank you guys for your feedback, and I'll view this as an experiment and collect some empirical data. Drinking potions isn't exactly the biggest part of the game, so I suspect consequences are going to be relatively minimal one way or the other. I do think that, indepedent of the application of this particular rule, there is some value in hypothetically trying to balance things within a new game system in terms of understanding the system better,

#25

Gruff_Ironfist

Oct 03, 2014 17:22:14

paulstrait wrote:

#26

paulstrait

Oct 03, 2014 19:00:00

Nice! I definitely like the inspiration idea -- I like the idea of making it kind of like an action point for non-combat actions more generally. I also like the exhaustion idea, maybe not for potions, but for say if a PC wants to move farther than they can -- I totally forgot about the exhaustion rules and they seem like they could definitely be used as a balancer for certain things.

#27

Dandrix

Oct 04, 2014 10:48:16

Here is a very simple idea on healing potion taking on your turn.

1 Action to take healing potion you get full bonuses of 2d4+2 healing. Becasue you are taking it out of your backpack, trying not to waste any of it while uncorking it, and trying not to get hit by monsters around you.

1 Bonus Action to take healing potion you only get part of the bonus 1d4+1 healing. You are taking it out of your backpack in haste and trying not to get hit by monsters, so you may not get all of it in your mouth. Spilling some on yourself and the gound.

#28

Nevvur

Oct 04, 2014 11:30:52

Dandrix wrote:

#29

Noon

Oct 05, 2014 3:26:31

1) I think the current rule in the PHB is balanced. I'm not dissatisfied with it. I don't need you to tell me that it is balanced. Of course it is. My players have requested that I come up with a houserule that will let them consume potions differently and more dangerously so as to not consume their action, if the circumstances call for it. I could tell them "No," but I'd rather tell them Yes and come up with a balanced way to do so.

#30

paulstrait

Oct 05, 2014 13:46:41

Dandrix wrote:

#31

paulstrait

Oct 05, 2014 13:50:11

Nevvur wrote:

#32

Jet_Jordan

Oct 05, 2014 15:03:34

Lets get creative:

DC 12 constitution check to make sure you can sucessfully drink hastely as a bonus action. Fail and you choke and spit it up, losing the potion and gaining no effect!

Any small-large creature directly in front you is healed of any lingering skin ailments like exzema and poison ivy.

yeah?

#33

Kishri

Oct 05, 2014 16:17:22

Introducing, the Potion Camelback. The adventure wears this item under his pack on his back. It is full of any liquid of his choice. In this case, healing potion liquid. The camelback has a small tube the runs over the shoulder to provide easy sipping with minimal movement and effort. As a bonus action, the user may sip and the will receive 1d8+5 (or whatever amout the DM deems appropriate) of healing. The camelback holds 100 sips. Note, to fill and refill, the character still must buy the equivalent amount of potion material-- 100 potions worth in this case, so the camelback is not a bargain, but it does provide that healing feeling immediately when needed. Cost: 100gp + cost for the potions to fill it.

The breakspot heal vial: looks like a little perfume sampler on a string. It is delicate and is worn about the neck. As a free action, the adventurer can smack the vial against the chest gaining the equivallent of a base cure potion. The broken vial must be replaced. A maximum of 3 may be worn at a time. Cost: 50gp per single vial.

Note, on both items, over consumption may lead to dependency (depending on campaign).

The Positive Elemental. This friendly denizen of the Positive Material Plane resides in a small bottle. "He" can be let out where he will faithfully follow his owner. The elemental appears as a small glowing ball of subtle changing colors. He can imbue his owner owner (Bonus action/once per round) and his allies upon request (Stanard action/once per round) once per round with his abundant positive energy healing them as per a basic cureing potion (DM chooses the amount of healing). After 12 heals in a day, the elemental returns to its vessel to recharge. Once the party completes a long rest, the elemental is recharged. Cost: Normally must be found as this guy is too useful for any sane person to sell. If sold, it will go for no less than 2500gp.

Ring of First Aid: When the wearer takes any hit point damage, the adventurer may use his/her reaction to activate the ring receiving the effect of a cure light wounds potion. Hit points recovered can never take the character over maximum and any excess healing is wasted. The wearer must use the ring as a reaction at the point the injury was taken to be healed. If not, the user must wait until he takes another injury to activate the ring via reaction. It cannot be activated by "will" for it simply detects injury and bestows healing at that point. It only heals the wearer. The Ring of First Aid can be activated this way 3 times per extended/long rest. Cost: Rare, 1500gp if one can find a person willing to part with such a beneficial item.

The point is, you don't have to change the rules to accomodate your players. Just come up with cool items/ideas instead.

#34

paulstrait

Oct 05, 2014 16:27:08

Kishri wrote:

(Reply to #34)

Kishri

paulstrait wrote: