D&D (2024) Potion miscibility, permanent effects and using potions in the future.

[ECMO3]

Haste doesn’t give an extra Action it gives a very limited set of actions. Dash, Hide, a single Attack, Disengage or Utilize. For a barbarian, fighter or rogue this would be amazing but for a monk it is likely to be useful but not outside the pale. Monks can already do several of these things with their own abilities.

Utilize can be very effective once you consider magic items.

Finally speed is useful but a 9th level monk is already faster than any other character. Being three times as fast instead of just double doesn’t meaningfully make a difference, unless the player is cheesing that in some other way.

With Disengage and Dash as a free bonus action and Haste action the speed can make a Monk immune to melee attacks and sometimes immune to all attacks because they can get out of range. That 180 ft move a turn. With a focus step of the Wind and haste Dash it is 270 foot. 270 move will take you out of range of almost everything. That is at 9th level.

 

[TheSword]

Utilize can be very effective once you consider magic items.

With Disengage and Dash as a free bonus action and Haste action the speed can make a Monk immune to melee attacks and sometimes immune to all attacks because they can get out of range. That 180 ft move a turn. With a focus step of the Wind and haste Dash it is 270 foot. 270 move will take you out of range of almost everything. That is at 9th level.

Most magic items now require a Magic action not utilize and Magic isn’t a Haste option.

I mean a lot will depend on how you do set up. If you have a lot of combats that are in huge open areas then that will have an impact. If they’re using all their actions and bonus actions to avoid combat though they’re not really having much impact on the combat. Taking your share of monster attacks matters, as does making a dent in combat. Massive extra damage supercharges that, while some extra speed doesn’t. There are many characters that can avoid a fight (rogue stealth, fly, invisibility). Usually that isn’t very effective for one PC to do.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Your assumption is that the unknown ruling is bad, without actually knowing what it is. I can understand it because I've done the same, but it's flawed reasoning all the same.

That is not the case.

The question was whether this situation made 3.Xe's "super crunchy language" look good to us.

I stated that it did not.

One's preference for rules light vs. high-crunch id based on known understandings of the up- and downsides of each game rule strategy. Rules light systems require additional adjudication. High-crunch systems have concrete answers that may or may not be as appropriate, beneficial, or adaptable. Everyone has preferences on which style (or perhaps where on a spectrum) they prefer (or prefer in what instances).

One's position on which system one prefers is based on both personal philosophy of games and lifelong experience with the trendline of how games built on each strategy tend to perform over extended periods.

Treating a single instance that supports one position or another as conclusive evidence or a conclusive argument for such position would be the informal fallacy of hasty generalization.

Likewise, drawing conclusions on the validity of a testing scenario only after the results of the test are known does not increase the strength of the validation. The decision to drive without buckling up does not retroactively become a good or bad decision based on whether you make it to your destination safely. Knowing whether the 3X rules were in fact good in this instance would not enhance a position on whether rules light or high crunch game design is preferable*.*except as a single data point in what would hopefully be massively many, if your position was based on 'what tends to work out' rather than overarching design philosophy

 

[Deset Gled]

Treating a single instance that supports one position or another as conclusive evidence or a conclusive argument for such position would be the informal fallacy of hasty generalization.

For consideration, I was thinking about 3.x when reading this thread because the case provided involves, at minimum, three judgement calls to be made by the DM. The details of duration, definition of effects, and order of operations are all things that were more rigidly defined in 3.x, and are now left as DM fiat. It's worth thinking about the fact that many cases like this that are ostensibly single instances in play are actually multiple instances of rulings, which in turn can make it much harder to maintain consistency.

Also, my comment was meant to be at least a little tongue in cheek.

 

[BruceWright]

“Potion miscibility” is just “Potion mixability” said by Popeye.

 

[Willie the Duck]

For consideration, I was thinking about 3.x when reading this thread because the case provided involves, at minimum, three judgement calls to be made by the DM. The details of duration, definition of effects, and order of operations are all things that were more rigidly defined in 3.x, and are now left as DM fiat. It's worth thinking about the fact that many cases like this that are ostensibly single instances in play are actually multiple instances of rulings, which in turn can make it much harder to maintain consistency.

Also, my comment was meant to be at least a little tongue in cheek.

I certainly understood the later (Beuller references help). And I don't have a problem with what you said, I simply had to refute the other individual's notion that my comment was flawed reasoning when it was in fact very specifically reasoned.

I understand why you are thinking of it. Scenarios like this are the reason why people have preferences (and sometimes really strong opinions) on rules lite/high-crunch games. But that's pretty much my point* -- if you've made a decision on what level of fiat-consistency you prefer, it should be because you are aware that situations like this will arise, and already cognizant to the pros and cons of each potential choice -- and this individual instance should not change your position on it except potentially as a single straw toward the total on the camel's back**.
*And why I said no to your question in the first place.
**i.e. someday you might say "I keep having to adjudicate situations like this, and have decided I don't like it, it isn't worth the situational adaptability benefit fiat systems provide, and I'm willing to put up with rigid rulings I don't find to be actually good to be rid of it."