Search results

You still run a high risk of just plain losing the potions. If they are easy to grab out of a belt, they will fall out pretty easily as well when things are rough, like in combat, climbing a cliff, and so on. Edit: This is assumption, but I always assumed they used glass for a reason and that...

I'm not saying that the way you do it doesn't make sense. It does. It just isn't RAW. If you're going to give Survival a bunch of what Nature encompasses, you can't then say that Nature as a skill doesn't have enough. That's an issue you created by ignoring what is written. It's like if...

No, but if you go to a park it can.

Only if you are in the forest.

Survival is only for the roll to get food. There is plenty that has no risk like mushrooms do. Survival is for that, not which mushrooms are poisonous or not. Per RAW, that requires Nature which is for plant lore. You don't need to know every possible ill effect from a plant, animal or fungi...

Nah. There are plenty that aren't poisonous at all, like rabbits, squirrels, apples, etc. You just gather those with your survival check. Lore is Nature. Putting lore into Survival is a house rule. There is a reason that Nature is Int, and Survival is Wis.

Right. All similar to traps that you have to recognize to avoid. Unlike a poisonous mushroom which you can walk by a never know it's name, let alone if it's poisonous. The Nature skill is explicitly lore of plants, which includes mushrooms, and other lore aspects of Nature. Survival =/= lore...

Look up hazards. Optional mushrooms are not one.

No they aren't. A hazard in D&D is a dangerous obstacle, not food. Look up hazards in the DMG. Mushrooms won't be listed. Essentially, hazards function as a kind of trap.

For your house rule, sure. By RAW that's simply not the case. Which is a fine house rule.

You asked for A thing. Identifying which mushroom is poisonous is also something Survival cannot do, but Nature can. Knowledge of plants is by RAW a part of the Nature skill.

You'd really need a magical container for specially made for it. Slots on the belt or wherever would just make it incredibly likely that you'd lose the potions in travel over rough terrain, combat, etc. as they would fall out or break. Personally, I'm not going to worry about it. I use them...

One doesn't, unless you add the second one to it. As written, they are two distinctly different skills.

Identify a Narrowleaf Cottonwood tree.

I've already said more than once. Survival doesn't cover anything you might possibly need to know to survive something. It's just hazards, hunting, building fires, etc. Specific knowledge about natural things is Nature.

Yes. Absolutely, though Acrobatics also allows you to flip under the trap blade that come out of the wall, bound across a river on exposed rocks, etc. It's not as limited as some folks in this thread have painted it, but Athletics still surpasses it pretty handily for amount of use.

Okay. You made it sound like any clever roleplay couldn't reveal what you didn't find with a perception roll. I see perception as what you see just standing there looking around. You might or might not notice the small gem sticking a little bit out from behind the jar on the desk, but if you...

Survival would not tell you about what is dangerous to eat or touch. It's about natural hazards like recognizing unstable rocks or quicksand, hunting for food, making/finding shelter, etc. Any overlap would be much more limited. Survival would let you know not to eat any mushrooms, because...

So if the outline of the trapdoor was possible to be seen in the rug and the perception failed, you would not allow the PC to lift the rug and find the trapdoor? But if it wasn't possible to see and the investigation failed and the PC wanted to lift the rug, you'd allow it?

I don't agree. The differences are distinct enough and we already have too much blending of skills. Getting rid of one more wouldn't be a good idea.