Search results

It may not be perfect, but it's a better solution than making them useless and almost never used because they take a full action and are almost always inferior to class/real magic item options.

As often as PCs get slammed backwards, knocked prone, fall 10+ feet, get hit by giants, ogres, trolls, weapons, etc., exposed potions like that(or on a belt) are likely going to be lost or shatter before you ever get to drink them.

Castles, bastions, houses, land, orphanages, the occasional item that comes up for sale that isn't in a magic mart, feeding the poor, a lot of other stuff that the PCs come up with.

If the wizard has the option to regain HP every turn by drinking a potion, that's the DM's fault for putting too many healing potions into the game.

Yes. Quote me saying it's impossible. Then I will quote me saying it's possible for it to be a physical hazard, but saying that poisonous is not a hazard since you don't have to eat them. Hazards are obstacles. Poison is not an obstacle.

There are also all kinds of things with NO poisonous versions, and those are what you forage. It's what's written. If you think it's ludicrous, take it up with WotC.

What specific mushrooms? You didn't forage any with Survival in that area. You made a roll and got X pounds of foraged food. If you want to forage mushrooms safely, per RAW you need Nature to discern which mushrooms are safe and which are not. Otherwise you either forage other things and...

Medium rare is my go to. I'll tolerate rare or medium, but if you go to medium well or worse I'm probably sending it back.

That doesn't show me to be wrong at all. Hazards are like traps. Brown Mold and this Fireball Fungus are hazards, not mushrooms you are trying to eat. Hazards like Brown Mold, Quicksand, Rockslides, etc. are Survival. Knowing which mushroom is poisonous is Nature. The former are hazards...

What?! No. Who said the area doesn't contain mushrooms? You aren't foraging every single possible plant in the area. You're just skipping mushrooms because you don't know which ones might be poisonous.

1) It's lore, so by RAW it's Nature. So it is true. 2) You can just forage and hunt stuff that has no poisonous versions. You don't HAVE to get mushrooms to survive.

If you stuck potions in your belt in my game, there would be rolls when things got rough for them to break and/or fall out of the belt. It's not a safe space for potions.

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.