Potion spell limit?

[HearMeRoar]

I've been going over what is likely to be included in the updated rules and I'm mulling over the rule that potions can only contain up to level 3 spells.

I'm of the opinion that this is ridiculous and I want to do away with this rule. After all, as long as the cost to make and purchase the potions increases accordingly and the experience to make it increases, then where's the harm?

What do you all think?

HMR

[FireFALL]

I'm with you dude, as long as the cost to make it increases then why shouldn't you be able to have potions which contain over lvl3 spells.

[HearMeRoar]

Of course. The DM's handbook in 3.5 has a formula for working out the cost of magic items. The cost of one use items is rather simple (and it uses a potion as it's example) so I mistakenly took my cue from that and didn't impose a limit on the spell level of a potion and used to formula to work out the value.

It's a shame my campaign ended because Nailo has a potion that would turn her in to a giant warforged titan. ^_^

Methinks those kinds of potions make a noon-limit worth it.

The question is, should we let epic level spells be potions? It'd make things interesting, of course, but I wonder if it wouldn't be too powerful.

[fallennorth]

I was looking forward to see that potion put in use to, it would have been halarious. We did fine with out limits, so I reckon we shouldn't be too concerned about the spell level, though you're right some Epic spells could be to powerful to be availible in potion form. Maybe thats where you should call you limit.

[ori]

The whole point of level 3 potions and below were that anything above it gets progressively too powerful to take a long.

The biggest problem is when you start giving the warriors of the party the wizard self buffs that make them combat gods. It simply breaks the combat system. (even the level 4 spell of stoneskin would make your bog standard warrior a shed load tougher)

The only exceptions I'd make were more potent healing potions. And even then, only if the party doesn't have a cleric along for the show, which means it's the GM supplying the party with such potions.

[HearMeRoar]

Jul 11, 2008 8:54:27 GMT ori said:

The whole point of level 3 potions and below were that anything above it gets progressively too powerful to take a long.

The biggest problem is when you start giving the warriors of the party the wizard self buffs that make them combat gods. It simply breaks the combat system. (even the level 4 spell of stoneskin would make your bog standard warrior a shed load tougher)

The only exceptions I'd make were more potent healing potions. And even then, only if the party doesn't have a cleric along for the show, which means it's the GM supplying the party with such potions.

That's an interesting point. In my experience of dealing with my players it didn't make that much of an impact though.

I still think that it should be allowed, but with this point in mind I think we may need to figure out a better way to balance it. As far as I can tell, the system for working out the cost of such items is fair enough (though I'll review it again). In the meantime, progressive feats allowing a potion crafter to make progressively stronger potions (one that allows level 6, the next allows 9...or something) would mean that the players have to pay the cost of a feat to do it...and any other ones are at the discretion of the GM to give out.

The thing is, it's possible to have the same thing with Runes and they work in the same way as potions. All one needs do is use them and they carry no spell limit (in fact, their cost is worked out using the same system as potions).

I shall explore the rules further...

Jul 3, 2008 9:33:30 GMT fallennorth said:

I was looking forward to see that potion put in use to, it would have been hilarious. We did fine with out limits, so I reckon we shouldn't be too concerned about the spell level, though you're right some Epic spells could be to powerful to be available in potion form. Maybe thats where you should call you limit.

If you're a good girl, I might just let you have one some time

[ori]

A way of balancing it would be that higher level potions become attuned to their maker. This would stop characters from passing on the higher level potions to their allies, but allow casters to have a back-up of spells to use in emergency.

And, I mean no offense, but your experience with players doesn't quite match up to the years upon years of playtesting that d&d has gone through. The cap *is* there for a reason, and the reason isn't to stop you from having fun.

Of course, I'm not exactly much better. I'll be honest, I don't recognise Runes either.

Then again, the limit on potions will also just fall under the "GMs discretion" category. The guideline could be put in that there can be a limit, and it's advised to be set at level 3, but if you feel that's constricting, put in the rules on top of it to expand them.

[HearMeRoar]

Jul 13, 2008 15:04:31 GMT ori said:

A way of balancing it would be that higher level potions become attuned to their maker. This would stop characters from passing on the higher level potions to their allies, but allow casters to have a back-up of spells to use in emergency.

It's a curious suggestion. I'm dubious about the idea behind it but the mechanic itself sounds interesting.

And, I mean no offense, but your experience with players doesn't quite match up to the years upon years of playtesting that d&d has gone through. The cap *is* there for a reason, and the reason isn't to stop you from having fun.

Thanks for that. The thing is though, until we understand why that limit is there or what circumstance convinced them it was a good idea, we're in a position that allows us to leave the questiono n the table. And yes, I may not be as good a GM as you, the playtesters or the others contributing to the project; that is why you're all here, because you'll spot things I wont and vice versa.

So, I want everyone that's DMed to tell us how they operated their games and how they felt about it.

I'd also like players to give us their stories about which they prefered and why.

Then again, the limit on potions will also just fall under the "GMs discretion" category. The guideline could be put in that there can be a limit, and it's advised to be set at level 3, but if you feel that's constricting, put in the rules on top of it to expand them.

That's what I'd done in my draft of it, which is what prompted this discussion in the first place.

It's a shame runes (as they are) aren't open content or we could have the limit on potions as 3 and have runes be the alternative.

Or, feats could allow a spellcaster to create higher level potions than 3...perhaps a new feat per 3 or so level increments?