Search results

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.

That's a house rule, though. lore is explicitly Nature. By RAW, nature is used to know about that fruit. If you look at the skills, Survival would let you know that there is quicksand in front of you and help you avoid it. That's it. Nature would let you know if there's likely to be more in...

That's excellent roleplaying. People very rarely sit silently while one person does all of the talking everywhere they go. Everyone likes to talk and interact, even those with low charisma scores. Critical Role does it very well. They all talk and interact with people, but often there are...

Depends on how you run the skills. For me perception is to notice things right out of the gate. You walk into a room and look around, do you see the trapdoor outline under the rug. If no and you search the room, you roll investigation. During your investigation you might lift the rug and...

I get the appeal of a system like this, but it really wouldn't work for me. I'm one of those DMs who looks at 1) who the person(s) being intimidated are, 2) who the PCs are, and 3) the circumstances of the moment. Going with number 1, Obolg the Fearless, champion of the king, will not be...

A ton. Survival tells you nothing about plants, terrain lore, animals, the weather, and natural cycles. Survival is for things like hunting, avoid hazards like quicksand, etc.

I suppose if you were supernaturally fast. Like 5x faster than a normal human, you might be able to untie your pouch, fish around for the right potion, pull it out and drink it inside 6 seconds. Something else you are overlooking is that a combat round, while played out in consecutive turns...

You realize we're talking about how long it would REALLY take, not about the rules, right? Only heavy crossbow loading takes anywhere near as much time as a potion really would take. Again, we weren't discussing the rules.

Thank you for proving my point. Half of the 6 second is just drinking the thing. That leaves 3 seconds to open a tied pouch, find the potion, and pull it out. There's no way. That's fine, though. This isn't about realism. Drinking potions in combat is unrealistic fun, so we do it. I don't...