OSR Potions identification in B/X. How do you handle it?

[Maxperson]

I respect your opinion, but somewhat disagree, if there are no adequate testing conditions for a specific magic item nowhere near to be found, then said magic item is not helpful to the party in this environment and can be safely stored for later use (and for identification by an NPC MU).

An example is a water breathing potion in a dungeon with no water. It's not an item that can be immediately useful to the players, so it's irrelevant the party can't identify it at this moment.

A sip is all you need for it to clear some moisture from your lungs and make breathing a hair easier, identifying it as a Potion of Water Breathing, though. It's really not hard to follow RAW that a sip identifies potions.

 

[Cruentus]

I respect your opinion, but somewhat disagree, if there are no adequate testing conditions for a specific magic item nowhere near to be found, then said magic item is not helpful to the party in this environment and can be safely stored for later use (and for identification by an NPC MU).

An example is a water breathing potion in a dungeon with no water. It's not an item that can be immediately useful to the players, so it's irrelevant the party can't identify it at this moment.

Listening to 3d6DowntheLine, they had this come up, and the DM had the character who took a sip begin to have trouble breathing, and small gills appeared on his neck. This quickly passed, and the character then knew what the potion did. They could then decide to store it away, or keep it around. But it becomes another tool for the characters to potentially use later.

We've always played with the sip being sufficient and telling the players what the potion did. From 1983ish onwards.

 

[Vrindlevine]

My only question after all this sipping (this thread makes me thirsty).

If a sip is sufficient, which the rules imply, then would it be OK to just tell the players what the potion does when they find it? If we assume they sip everything, and there's no risk involved it sort of becomes standard procedure right?

 

[conankeep]

Thank you. I do feel I have been a target of organized bullying for being a non-native speaker. The fact that someone else not only acknowledges the asymmetrical exchange but stands up to the mob means a lot for me.

They've been on the receiving end of a dogpile (never an enviable position) I think in part caused by going up against you, the resident forum golden child (back from a year of prodigality),

That would explain why some of the posters joined the discussion with strong opinions opposing mine only to later confess they don't actually know the rule being discussed here.

It doesn't support either position because it is a scenario where both positions agree on how the exchange would go down.

I can't speak for others after all this is my interpretations of what they've written, not what they actually think, but I do not believe both sides indeed consider that exchange to be by the book. In support I'm providing a quote specifically after I provided an example of play (there were just far too much posts, far too much, for me to include all of them).

At this point, most people (IMHO) simply look at the language of the rule and using (5e again!) natural language say that the rule for potions is simple- you identify a potion by taking a sip. Once you take a sip, you know what type of potion you have

This is from another thread on the same topic by the same user but there are others in the same vein in this one, it's just easier to look up a first page of a thread.
So if I interpret their post correctly, there is no exchange, Player A takes a sip and the DM tells the player it's a control undead potion.

 

[conankeep]

if there's no risk involved it sort of becomes standard procedure right?

there are potions of poison and potions of delusion, so it's not exactly safe

 

[Cadence]

Thank you. I do feel I have been a target of organized bullying for being a non-native speaker.

In general, if something is going off the rails ( Terms and rules ) the report button at the bottom of each post summons one of the mods to take a look ( Morrus [owner], Umbran, or Dannyalcatraz ). The only thing is that they prefer discussions with them to be by private message and not in the thread (so do not reply to red ink in the thread).

Snark and exasperation crop up fairly regularly and the mods (summoned or just strolling through) will often ask folks to separate in those cases.

And maybe I was reading too quickly and missed something, but I totally didn't know (until the post you made saying so) that you weren't a native speaker. Your use of English in your posts seems fine to me.

 

[aco175]

I wonder how many people still have the players go through all this testing and back and forth to determine what an item is?

I find that for myself, I can just say you find a Potion of Invisibility and Boots of Elvenkind and assume that the PCs go through some actions to determine what they are. This could even be over a short rest but I tend to just reward and move on.

I tend to suspect most threads like this fall into the same as why I no longer use a 10ft pole, or worry what darkvision really is, or need a standard open door sequence or open a chest.

 

[Vrindlevine]

there are potions of poison and potions of delusion, so it's not exactly safe

Right thats what I was thinking. So the sip would have at least some negative effect, ill keep that in mind.

For what it's worth I am also sorry you were treated poorly.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Thank you. I do feel I have been a target of organized bullying for being a non-native speaker. The fact that someone else not only acknowledges the asymmetrical exchange but stands up to the mob means a lot for me.

It's been costly, so don't fault others too harshly for not doing likewise. It's important to me how we argue points, as well as what our arguments are, and I do not think you've been given a fair shake.

It also helps that I don't have a horse in this race. To me, the hyper-specifics of the rules as they were written are interesting historical footnotes at best. Back in that era, we all found a way that worked for us and went from there.

I can't speak for others after all this is my interpretations of what they've written, not what they actually think, but I do not believe both sides indeed consider that exchange to be by the book. In support I'm providing a quote specifically after I provided an example of play (there were just far too much posts, far too much, for me to include all of them).

This is from another thread on the same topic by the same user but there are others in the same vein in this one, it's just easier to look up a first page of a thread.
So if I interpret their post correctly, there is no exchange, Player A takes a sip and the DM tells the player it's a control undead potion.

I think I understand your position. You see the exchange where Morgan tries on the boots and is told they start moving very quietly to be functionally different from the player saying they test the item and are told that they are elven boots? Is that right? I would call those two to be functionally the same (in a game where there is only one type of boots which make one quiet) -- just one with more artistic license in the exchange. To me, the functional parts there is the players saying they are trying out the boots, and the DM describing the effects (in a way that effectively identifies the magic item type). Both sides of this debate would expect that in this scenario, which is why I don't think it influences the discussion.

I wonder how many people still have the players go through all this testing and back and forth to determine what an item is?

I'm going to guess it correlates strongly with whether people still use lots of cursed items.

 

[conankeep]

I think I understand your position. You see the exchange where Morgan tries on the boots and is told they start moving very quietly to be functionally different from the player saying they test the item and are told that they are elven boots? Is that right? I would call those two to be functionally the same (in a game where there is only one type of boots which make one quiet) -- just one with more artistic license in the exchange.

Yes, your understanding of my interpretation is correct as far as I understand. While I agree there is no functional difference with elven boots specifically and many other items, disagreements arise when some potion with no clearly apparent effect. Specifically some potions, like a potion of control undead from my previous example.