Quaffing

[Darklone]

I love potions of fireballs with the grenade deviation pattern after throwing... OOPS, you threw too short, have fun with your Refl save!

 

[dcollins]

I am the DM, Mr. DaChicken, and I wanted to read from you all what potions are quaffable.

I can't avoid pointing this out because it's making you hard to understand -- "quaff" means "to drink". It seems like what you're asking is "what potions are creatable?", and you really can't use the word "quaff" for that.

All potions are "quaffable", because you drink them.

 

[0-hr]

Man, I sure do miss those potions of Shield and potions of True Strike from back in the 3.0 days... 7AC for 50gp, I can't imagine why they changed that

I've seen some people with spell databases set up, but I don't have one myself. With a little searching, you can probably find a spell summary sheet out there (I only have a 3.0 one) that will make your search a little easier.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Man, I sure do miss those potions of Shield and potions of True Strike from back in the 3.0 days... 7AC for 50gp, I can't imagine why they changed that

sure for one minute in one direction and you hve to waste an action drinking a potion - of couse in 3.5 they made it +4 ac no cover, so it sounds like the problem was it being called a 1st level spell, not that personal range spells shouldn't be potions.

The thing is, personal range spells are exactly the ones which should be potions as far as I'm concerned. They make the most sense thematicly to distill into a form where the only person who can activate them is the intended target. I guess thats yet another thing I won't be taking from 3.5 but the thing is I don't enderstand the logic of removing them, except the weak 'game balance' one. *shrug*

kahuna burger

 

[Scharlata]

I think it really means the spell entry says Target: one creature or any variation of that, such as "creature touched", "one creature/level" and so on.

Thanx! I'll try that.

Kind regards

 

[Scharlata]

It seems like what you're asking is "what potions are creatable?"...

Yepp, exactly that. quaff = drink

The title was just an eye catcher.

Kind regards

 

[Scharlata]

With a little searching, you can probably find a spell summary sheet out there.

Thanx!

Searching high and low

Kind regards



....wanders off to search the world wide web........ or Sigil, perhaps........

 

[Scharlata]

deleted

 

[Li Shenron]

The thing is, personal range spells are exactly the ones which should be potions as far as I'm concerned. They make the most sense thematicly to distill into a form where the only person who can activate them is the intended target. I guess thats yet another thing I won't be taking from 3.5 but the thing is I don't enderstand the logic of removing them, except the weak 'game balance' one. *shrug*

kahuna burger

Hi Burger!

I have questioned myself the same. In my opinion the point is simply that "personal" spells are the ones that only the caster can benefit from ("you can cast them only upon yourself"), while spells which target one or more creatures can be cast both on yourself and on someone else, and therefore they are already spells which non-casters can benefit from, if a friendly caster casts on them.

Therefore, it looks like the designers wanted potions to allow non-casters to benefit only from spells that they can already benefit in general, except that with a potion they don't need the friendly caster to be around. Otherwise, they didn't want potions to allow non-casters to benefit from spells that normally only casters can benefit from.

Quite klunky explanation...

 

[Scharlata]

Otherwise, they didn't want potions to allow non-casters to benefit from spells that normally only casters can benefit from.

I always suspected in 3.0 that Shield potions were too broken to be healthy for game balance. But your thoughts are one of the reasons why I asked for the board member's points of view.

Kind regards