WotC_Shoe on leaderless parties

[Fallen Seraph]

Well the fact that you would have limited number of potions is one, and that you can probably only fit a certain number in areas where you can gain access to.

I personally would as put in my previous post:

-a minor potion of healing could be a move action since you just take a swig and it dulls the pain of your cuts and bruises and makes it so you can't feel them.

-a major potion of healing could be a full action (perhaps even with AoO) since you have been impaled and bleeding badly so you take the potion and pour it over the wound causing it to sizzle and burn away the wound (Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade style).

That is just one example but it could work for many things, perhaps drinking power potions that cause changes to the body like enlarge, invisibility, etc. are painful because of the affects that occur.

This way you can have more powerful potions as well as weaker potions without making either useless or overpowered/underpowered.

 

[vagabundo]

I would like to see:

- Potion drinking a minor action, if the character has the potion close to hand, i.e on a belt, in a boot or something.
- Drinking too many potions in an encounter has some negative effects, maybe an optional rule in the DMG.
- Rooting around in your backback should be a full round action and give a bevy of AOOs, combat disadvantages and the rest...

It does mean some extra book keeping, as item location becomes more important, although we could have a handful of quick items on the front page of the char sheet.

I would like to see the minor action used for using some quick consumables as it would mean that these get used more and not just sold off to buy an armour upgrade.

 

[Anthtriel]

Doesn't sound good for me, personally. Not the potions bit, which makes a lot of sense to me, but rather the "group x can last one encounter more per day than group y". That strongly suggest (confirms) significant non-rechargable rescources. And we are right back at the 5 minute adventuring day. I had hoped a group would be fully replenished with no more than a one hour rest.

Meh, I'll take care of it with houserules, but I don't like the direction.

 

[Derren]

Doesn't sound good for me, personally. Not the potions bit, which makes a lot of sense to me, but rather the "group x can last one encounter more per day than group y". That strongly suggest (confirms) significant non-rechargable rescources. And we are right back at the 5 minute adventuring day. I had hoped a group would be fully replenished with no more than a one hour rest.

Meh, I'll take care of it with houserules, but I don't like the direction.

Seems my Killhealing strategy (killing low HP party members for the chance of a 25% HP recovery do to a nat 20 to save healing abilities) is not dead yet.

 

[Dausuul]

And I'm disturbed that they haven't finalized this rule yet. 15 weeks to release (and less than that to shipping off to printers)... and they're still sitting around a table going, 'Hmm, potions?'

I love it when the statements from the devs actually make me more negative...
Sigh.

These guys are tinkerers by nature--it's why they do what they do. They'll be tweaking the rules right up until the final draft goes to the printers, and they'll probably call the printers up with a last-minute change.

 

[Storminator]

Doesn't sound good for me, personally. Not the potions bit, which makes a lot of sense to me, but rather the "group x can last one encounter more per day than group y". That strongly suggest (confirms) significant non-rechargable rescources. And we are right back at the 5 minute adventuring day. I had hoped a group would be fully replenished with no more than a one hour rest.

Meh, I'll take care of it with houserules, but I don't like the direction.

At some point you probably run out of healing for the day. Everyone's used all the Second Winds, the per day powers are shot, the hit points are low. Eventually you need to rest.

And some groups are going to play more efficiently than others. It looks to me (from reading Shoe's post) that the difference in tactical/strategic ability between the two groups is greater than the difference in party effectiveness. IOW, greater skill is rewarded, but only slightly.

PS

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Drinking potions as a minor action makes the game less like an RPG, and more like .....

a) a minis game
b) a ccg
c) a video game
d) anime

I'm not sure which talking point we'll see in this thread, but it will likely be one of the above.

BTW, I like the idea of drinking potions as less than a standard action. I could go for move or minor - anything is better than a standard action IMO.

I think that it has less to do with making it less "D&D"ish and creating the problem that if you do it for healing potions, you have to do it for all potions, including buffs. That in turn will make buffing much more effective. Chug that Bulls strength, then attack. Then chug a Barks skin, attack again.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Lizard]

I think that it has less to do with making it less "D&D"ish and creating the problem that if you do it for healing potions, you have to do it for all potions, including buffs. That in turn will make buffing much more effective. Chug that Bulls strength, then attack. Then chug a Barks skin, attack again.

END COMMUNICATION

Bah! You lack imagination, and by 'imagination', I mean, 'the willingness to toss any pretense at verisimilitude to the winds in the name of game balance'.

Drinking healing potions is a minor action. Drinking other potions is a standard action, because...uh...you have to drink more...and they're in different bottles...or something.

Just like rings don't work if you're too low level, but all other magic items work fine.

Internal logic? We don' need no steenkin' internal logic!

(Actually, I rather like the concept of potions which come in different doses or densities...how about having potion "concentration" be a feature? A very concentrated potion can be drunk as a minor action, but costs 3x what a normal potion costs. Normal potions take a standard action.)

 

[jaer]

The FR campaign guide had a handy item: the potion belt. Standard one made retrieving a potion a move equivalent. The MW version(150g perhaps) made retrieval a free action. The quaff was still standard action, provoke AoO.

I disliked 3e potion drinking rules. Rarely is drinking a potion (and taking a AoO) worth it in combat, and often players and NPC don't have the time or want to drink a pot or two before combat. Sometimes things go south quick, and that potion of Haste sitting in your belt would really swing combat around for the party...but missing an opportunity to attack AND getting an AoO (which could lead to a grapple or a trip or other mishap) wasn't worth it. Or a fire resist or death ward or something. Plenty of useful potions that could really help (and help extend the 15 minute work day to 30 minutes) that just weren't worth loosing the attacks and getting an AoO. And most potion-carrying NPCs never got to use them either!

The group I DM for uses Eberron-style action points, so I house-ruled that for 1 AP, characters could swift action quaff a potion from a potion belt, no AoO. Seems to work out: those times you need the potion, you can safetly get one, but it keeps down the drinking for when it is something really useful. When 4e comes out and we see how they handle APs and potions, this house-rule might return.

 

[Zarithar]

This whole "leader" role makes little sense to me. So because I make a warlord character I am automatically a "leader"??? In every PnP game I have ever taken part in, someone within the group has more or less assumed the role of leader thruroleplaying and actions within the game... and his or her ability to get the party to act as a cohesive unit.

What if four people in the party choose to play the warlord class? To me leadership is something which hinges on roleplaying ability rather than game mechanics.