Brewing potions question

[Kershek]

If you don't like shield, make a potion of Tenser's Transformation and give it to a fighter to drink.
That's unbalancing!

But nice to imagine...

You'd have the have the Master Alchemist PrC to be able to make a potion out of a 6th level spell..

 

[KarinsDad]

Yes, but what about potions of Shield? Do you really want your fighters walking around with +7 AC for a minute? Plus, that would mean that they would be available for general sale. After all, 1st level potions shouldn't be too hard to find. To me, potions of Shield seems unbalancing.

Actually, any personal spell should be more difficult to make into a potion. They make the spells difficult for just anyone to have cast on them, and then turn around and allow them in the second cheapest form of magic item to create.

Sigh.

I think the original intent of the Brew Potion wording ("that targets a creature or creatures") was to prevent personal spells from being placed into potions (although the target is a creature, the target indicator in the spell states personal, i.e. literal interpretation). However, with Alter Self being in the list of potions in the DMG, I'm fairly sure that even if that was the original intent, some of the designers either forgot it or were not aware of it and took the generic interpretation (i.e. personal must refer to a creature).

 

[Berk]

As a dm I would either not allow certain spells to be able to be made into potions, ie shield, or if I did allow them, I would just fiddle with prices a bit =op

As a player, please please please please please please please please please allow it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LordAO]

I don't see the problem. Even if someone could get a potion of tenser's transformation it would be extremely expensive! Shield is the same way. Since its caster level affects the duration, a 1st level shield would only last 1 round. And the higher the caster level, the more expensive. And once they used the potion, it's gone. But if you think potions of shield are bad, a ring of shield would only cost 2000 gold, by the rules (perfectly legal), and then it is always on! I'd much rather let the PCs have a potion of it!

 

[Nail]

I don't see the problem. Even if someone could get a potion of tenser's transformation it would be extremely expensive! Shield is the same way. Since its caster level affects the duration, a 1st level shield would only last 1 round.

You mean: 1 minute.

 

[0-hr]

I don't see the problem. Even if someone could get a potion of tenser's transformation it would be extremely expensive!.

a ring of shield would only cost 2000 gold, by the rules (perfectly legal),

For 50gp you can have +7 AC for 10 rounds. That's a pretty good deal I think. We've been playing a "by the rules" campaign for almost a year now and these potions are definitely on the "must-have" list for every adventurer (in other words, clearly out of balance).

If a "ring of shield" is not listed in the DMG then, by the rules, the cost is "DM's discretion". There are some guidelines and suggestions for pricing custom magic items but the rule is that any such activity must be adjucated by the DM on a per-item basis.

 

[LordAO]

If a "ring of shield" is not listed in the DMG then, by the rules, the cost is "DM's discretion". There are some guidelines and suggestions for pricing custom magic items but the rule is that any such activity must be adjucated by the DM on a per-item basis.

Of course that's true, but by the rules printed say that a ring of shield would only cost 2000 gold. Of course any sane DM won't allow rings of Shield in his campaign. But when it comes to potions, that's a little different. Even 1 minute will probably only last a single battle, and when compared to potions of Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace (which last hours), I personally don't think it's really that bad. I don't understand how people could think potions of shield are "broken" when people can buy potions of glibness. That's unbalanced! It gives you a +30 to bluff AND makes your lies undetectable! And when used with quicker than the eye, it's EXTREMELY ridiculous!

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

1) Shield isn't "broken".

It gives a spellcaster a decent AC for a short time. However, everytime he casts it he loses out on helping the party in other ways, especially at lower levels. Anytime he casts it on someone else, thats one less for himself AND he loses his use to the party.

2) Potions of shield are not "broken".

If you want them to last a fight, they have to at least be a second level potion. This means either someone is making them losing gold, time, and XP, or they are being bought, which means more gold and you are choosing to sell them. It also means fewer healing potions. Why not just call sponateous casting "broken"? After all clerics are over powered anyway.

Then there are the AoO from drinking potions, the fact that it only protects them in front, and that any fall or AoE spell is going to nuke those potions.

Also, this won't stack with other cover modifiers, wich anyone in their right mind would take if available, including the bad guys. Not to mention that right in the PHB it states that certain spells wrap around cover, like fireball, lessening the effectiveness of cover modifiers.

If the fight lasts for a couple of rounds, have their opponents run, forcing them to use more potions. Most creatures are not so stupid as to stay the fight if they need 20's to hit. Use tactics.

And the ultimate rule 0, if YOU can have them...


Shield is an advantage, and a powerful one, but not a perfect one. Besides, if a ring of shield is so insane, what about a bow of true arrows?

 

[Kershek]

1) Shield isn't "broken".

It gives a spellcaster a decent AC for a short time. However, everytime he casts it he loses out on helping the party in other ways, especially at lower levels. Anytime he casts it on someone else, thats one less for himself AND he loses his use to the party.

I agree that the Shield spell isn't broken, but your last comment isn't necessarily true, since 1st level scrolls are either easy to make or easy to purchase in most any town or city. Using scrolls, of course, doesn't lessen the spellcasting ability of a wizard.

2) Potions of shield are not "broken".

If you want them to last a fight, they have to at least be a second level potion. This means either someone is making them losing gold, time, and XP, or they are being bought, which means more gold and you are choosing to sell them. It also means fewer healing potions. Why not just call sponateous casting "broken"? After all clerics are over powered anyway.

I don't know where you get that. In games I play, most combats are finished in the first 10 rounds, especially once you get through the first few character levels and are more effective.

Also, potions of 1st level shield, at 50gp to purchase or 25gp to create, is pittance to an adventurer. They could get several and not affect buying other potions. Same as Cure Light Wounds. And no, I don't call spontaneous casting broken.

Then there are the AoO from drinking potions, the fact that it only protects them in front, and that any fall or AoE spell is going to nuke those potions.

What is an AoE spell? Also, you really make all potions break from falling over?

Also, this won't stack with other cover modifiers, wich anyone in their right mind would take if available, including the bad guys. Not to mention that right in the PHB it states that certain spells wrap around cover, like fireball, lessening the effectiveness of cover modifiers.

I agree that cover helps, when it is available. Same with spread spells. Shield is not infallible, but, as a 1st level spell, it is still immensely powerful for a non-spellcaster.

If the fight lasts for a couple of rounds, have their opponents run, forcing them to use more potions. Most creatures are not so stupid as to stay the fight if they need 20's to hit. Use tactics.

Agreed.

And the ultimate rule 0, if YOU can have them...

Well, I think that I'm going to rule that the characters can have it, but with a caveat. Any potions not listed in the DMG are not easily available and the party will have to make them themselves. This will limit their supply due to time constraints more than money or xp. However, this will mean that most enemies won't have them, either.

Shield is an advantage, and a powerful one, but not a perfect one. Besides, if a ring of shield is so insane, what about a bow of true arrows?

Bows of True Strike require a standard action to activate, which means you're only using them every other round and only for the first shot in the round. Not overpowered at all.

 

[Jondor_Battlehammer]

The entire idea of my post was to say that shield is just a spell like any other, and that allowing it is not unbalancing.

My comments on clerics being too powerful was sarcastic, refering to the many on this board who seem to think they are too powerful, as others see the ranger as being weak.

Spells and scrolls are cheap, but as I said, only IF you sell them in your game. There need not be a Ye' Old Magik Shoppe in ever thorpe you run across.

Sorry, too many abreviations. AoE is area of effect. While I wouldn't OVER use the effects of a fall or a fireball on harming a PC's items, you have to take it into account. That is what saves are for, and even if the item uses your save because it is on you, figters, for example, have poor reflex saves, which would be used in both the above accounts. Scrolls burn, vials are fragile. I say this only to point out that one bad role can cost you these "must have" items, so you can't plan on having them available always. If you do, it will bite you in the ass eventually.

Enemy wizards have spell books, fighters have tower shields, (portable cover). There is no reason why the odd spellcasting nemisis of your party could not also brew his own potions, and supply them to his underlings. They have all the possibilities of the PC's, and are usually better funded, and have a base of opperations. They should have all the possible advantages that the PC's have. It could get just as over used by the DM as the players, but it is still not a far flung possibility. And as you said, time constraints. Would the PC's rather have potions of shield or endurance? Not to mention it takes a feat to make, which is no small price to pay for anyone.

Finally, the comment on the bow was also sarcasm. I have no problems with it, especially since it takes not only an action to activate, but a spell trigger as well, limiting who can use it. I was using it as an illustration of another item that is commonly percived as being over powered. Likewise, a ring of shield, while powerful, and under priced at the 2000gp stated in other posts, is really only a weightless, 75% effective tower shield, since it can't give 9/10 or total cover. It would be a great item, but not in every situation.

I have played and DM'ed 3E since it came out, and I have yet to find anything that I would say is game breakingly unbalanced, or even close. I simply get frustrated when I hear someone complain about a spell that can be defeated by a good pair of sneakers and a knife to the kidney.