5E Potions of spells which require concentration

baradtgnome

Villager
Last adventure my character went to zero hp while invisible. 2nd level spell from potion. This raised the question I had not considered - does the imbiber of a potion have to concentrate on the spell if that spell normally requires same?

I only have the basic rules at the moment, not sure if this questioned is answered anywhere. I get the implications both ways. Just wanted to know if there was a rule somewhere on this... or is this a ruling. :)
 

KarinsDad

Villager
The person drinking the potion is not casting a spell. The person who put the spell into the potion cast the spell. I suspect that the answer in the DMG will be that drinking a potion does not require concentration.
 

Jaelommiss

Villager
The LMoP booklet makes no mention of requiring concentration for either potion of invisibility or potion of flying. Both say that they affect the user for one hour, and until you attack or cast a spell in the case of the invisibility potion. No other conditions for ending the effect are mentioned.
 

Tormyr

Adventurer
Check the Potion of Growth in the Rise of Tiamat supplement. It specifically mentions that no concentration is required to maintain the enlarged size for the duration. I imagine that other concentration spells will be similar.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
Not requiring concentration also has the benefit of providing an in-game reason for why spellcasters would spend time making all of these potions you get handed to you like candy, when it's generally a lot cheaper and easier to just cast the spell.
 

Psikerlord#

Explorer
Yeah this makes potions more valuable. I think that's good, provided potions cant be bought ie are relatively rare. If potions are easily bought, caster utility becomes considerably less valuable.
 
Not requiring concentration also has the benefit of providing an in-game reason for why spellcasters would spend time making all of these potions you get handed to you like candy, when it's generally a lot cheaper and easier to just cast the spell.
It's also cheaper and easier to hire a bunch of low level casters to follow you along and buff you with all that gold you can't spend on magic items and have a hard time spending on poison since it's illegal.
 
Yeah this makes potions more valuable. I think that's good, provided potions cant be bought ie are relatively rare. If potions are easily bought, caster utility becomes considerably less valuable.
It worries me that you could end up stacking a bunch of potions to fly around while
Invisible and stoneskinned. Obviously the DM can prevent that, if they keep a close tally of what the pcs have stashed away in their bags for 10 levels.
 

Tortoise

Villager
It worries me that you could end up stacking a bunch of potions to fly around while
Invisible and stoneskinned. Obviously the DM can prevent that, if they keep a close tally of what the pcs have stashed away in their bags for 10 levels.
This makes me think bringing back the Potion Miscibility Table would be a fun idea.
 

AmerginLiath

Villager
It's also cheaper and easier to hire a bunch of low level casters to follow you along and buff you with all that gold you can't spend on magic items and have a hard time spending on poison since it's illegal.
HIRELINGS!!!

(Pro-tip: Choose bards; they can also sing of your legend as you go, in-between buffs!
 

Tormyr

Adventurer
It worries me that you could end up stacking a bunch of potions to fly around while
Invisible and stoneskinned. Obviously the DM can prevent that, if they keep a close tally of what the pcs have stashed away in their bags for 10 levels.
There was a potion miscibility table in the September 2013 play test, so it is defintitely possible.
 

baradtgnome

Villager
5E has a different bias in the rule language which I have not completely absorbed yet. If it is silent on a topic, it means it is not a requirement/concern. This is more than just a subtle difference from previous editions. Not good or bad, but different. Thanks for the comments all - it does help.

I can see that potions will become an important addition to the arsenal in the future. Various threads have asked, what do I do with my gold. I think the answer may be - buy potions.
 

Plaguescarred

Villager
A potion that creates a magical effect usually provide the duration. If the duration doesn't state "Concentration, up to 1 hour" but instead "for 1 hour" for exemple, then it means it doesn't require concentration IMO.
 
If rules are silent and DMs must make rulings, perhaps a possible idea is to require concentration only if the spell originally targets the caster only (and requires concentration in the first place). That's because it is always the caster who needs to concentrate, not the target.
 

Sage Genesis

Villager
A potion doesn't cast a spell on you. It has its own unique, self-contained effect. This is most obvious when contrasting a potion of flying with the Fly spell. There's no reason to assume that the rules for spellcasting apply to something that isn't spellcasting. Asking whether you need to maintain concentration on a potion is like asking if you need to maintain concentration on wearing your armor.
 

Authweight

Villager
A potion doesn't cast a spell on you. It has its own unique, self-contained effect. This is most obvious when contrasting a potion of flying with the Fly spell. There's no reason to assume that the rules for spellcasting apply to something that isn't spellcasting. Asking whether you need to maintain concentration on a potion is like asking if you need to maintain concentration on wearing your armor.
This. Potions are not just "bottled spells" in 5e. They do their own thing. The fact they often have similar effects to spells does not mean they act like spells or follow any of the rules that govern spells.
 

Sword of Spirit

Adventurer
5E has a different bias in the rule language which I have not completely absorbed yet. If it is silent on a topic, it means it is not a requirement/concern. This is more than just a subtle difference from previous editions. Not good or bad, but different. Thanks for the comments all - it does help.
Good point. I think we often come to 5e with more rule-biases than are warranted. I think it's easiest to see it when "that other guy" has some wonky idea, but we probably ought to watch our own assumptions.

One that I picked up on fairly early in the playtest(others might disagree with my interpretation) is that when an effect is silent on whether you have to declare using something before attempting it, 5e seems to me to generally intend that you don't. The released game is clearer in many occasions about whether or not you need to declare things before you roll the dice, but the spirit of the edition makes me want to rule that you don't have to unless indicated if the rules don't clearly say you do.
 

Advertisement

Top