Allowing up to 9th level potions

[Mike Miller]

Would this really be a big deal? I feel like it would be fine. I was thinking to make them weigh more above 3rd so the players can't load up on too many, though. But they could still load up on scrolls so it really doesn't matter, right?

[ericgrau]

It's more of a trap than anything. 1st level potions are an excellent way to keep non-casters from wasting their buff round. Later 2nd level and eventually 3rd. It's hard for a 4th+ level potion to be worth it on any level.

I'd allow it in a heartbeat, but with a warning to players to mostly stick to level 1-2. Worst case there's an obscure abusable spell from some splatbook, and then you ban that individually. But that seems unlikely or very rare. I don't think giving them a higher weight will accomplish much, if anything at all. Yeah, loading up on them doesn't matter. Even if someone finds something nice to spam it's likely a fair price (if not too expensive until very high level) and totally ok to allow. If a high level rogue wants to start every fight with greater invis for 1,400 gp, then have at it. Which isn't as horrible as it sounds with high level income and the super low number of fights D&D has, but likewise it isn't abusing anything.

[Kayblis]

It's a very big money sink for consumables. A player is mostly hurting himself when using high-level potions, so it probably won't break anything unless there's some spell clearly not intender for martials, but then again gishes have access to this kind of thing and no one thinks of them as really broken. Sadism is level 2 and I'm sure there's hardly any martial buff on higher levels that can compare to that, save Polymorph.

[SLOTHRPG95]

There's an old White Wolf book (Relics & Rituals: Excalibur) that essentially has a Craft (Alchemy) synergy bonus on the maximum potion level that you can brew. I've used that plenty of times in my own campaigns without a problem. Granted, it's not quite 9th-level potions, as it'd take you 'til level 27 to have enough skill ranks, but I don't think there's that big of a difference at mid-level play. Under this system, the first point at which you potentially can cast spells that you can't brew into potions is 6th-level spells (which require 15 ranks).

[Darth Ultron]

It's a big power shift.

Potions are simple 'spell effects' that anyone can use. Even with only 3rd and under spells, you can make a powerful character with just potions.

Adding all the other spells makes that power much more. You could quickly have every character walking around with the best spells possible at all times in combat.

And when you get to a lot of high level spells, the effects will be odd and confusing. Potion of Mage’s Disjunction? Potion of Maze?

The creation rules and money rules are just silly, so they will be abused.

Potion weight is meaningless. By the time players have potions above 3rd level spells, they will each have portable Warehouses that can carry 2000 tons.

Also, it does lower the treasure loot. A monster drinks the potion of telekinesis and it is gone....but if the monster had a ring of telekinesis, it's loot.

[Bucky]

Refluff Frostburn's skull talismans, right down to the increasing weight for higher level spells.

[Elkad]

Weight doesn't do anything useful, unless it's spelllevel squared pounds or something.
I cringe at the thought of drinking a 1oz(volume) potion that weighed 81lbs - it would tear right through your guts. The Str:8 wizard couldn't even lift it to his mouth.

At a less-aggressive 10lbs each (still 10x the density of liquid mercury), they would still fit just fine in a Belt of Many Pockets, with non-combat reloads in the Portable Hole.

[Nifft]

Refluff Frostburn's skull talismans, right down to the increasing weight for higher level spells.

"Wait, don't 'port us yet. I just need to drink this bathtub of foresight..."

[Remuko]

Potions of Wish? I like it :P

But seriously, I've always had Potions of the Heal spell (with max caster level on them) in my games, at least at appropriate levels.

[Mike Miller]

Weight doesn't do anything useful, unless it's spelllevel squared pounds or something.
I cringe at the thought of drinking a 1oz(volume) potion that weighed 81lbs - it would tear right through your guts. The Str:8 wizard couldn't even lift it to his mouth.


"Wait, don't 'port us yet. I just need to drink this bathtub of foresight..."

Thank you for the input, I am still laughing. That sounds like Fortitude checks will be required!

[inuyasha]

It hasn't come up enough in my games, but I've always assumed that 9th level potions exist. The Nyambe setting for 3.5 drastically lessened the restrictions on potions, even allowing for two spells to be in the same potion. and I always kinda liked that, and have used it without explicitly mentioning it.

[ngilop]

I se no issue with it.


I am sure player's would love to get their hands on potions of Heal for 3,300 gold.

[Covenant12]

Somewhere I saw a PrC for an alchemist who could make better potions, so they in theory exist. Don't think 9th's were on the table.

I don't see a real issue, oddball spell I'm not thinking of aside. Costs gold and a standard action. I wouldn't balance by weight, everyone has haversack as well as party has larger storage by that point.

[tiercel]

...

The creation rules and money rules are just silly, so they will be abused.

...

Also, it does lower the treasure loot. A monster drinks the potion of telekinesis and it is gone....but if the monster had a ring of telekinesis, it's loot.

I’d argue that if the game runs roughly by WBL guidelines (at least some kind of relatively limited-resource guidelines that preclude arbitrary moneymancy), then it’s unlikely that PCs will use high-level potions to break the game because there are generally more efficient ways to convert money into power — and if moneymancy is on the table, then cheap plentiful wondrous items (for example) are still more likely to break the game than potions.

On the other hand, in the hands of NPCs/monsters, high-level potions are more problematic both because of the “drinking the treasure” problem Darth Ultron brings up and because enemies are often designed for a single encounter with PCs, so making more one-shot power-ups available helps them disproportionately compared to PCs.

[SLOTHRPG95]

Somewhere I saw a PrC for an alchemist who could make better potions, so they in theory exist. Don't think 9th's were on the table.

I don't see a real issue, oddball spell I'm not thinking of aside. Costs gold and a standard action. I wouldn't balance by weight, everyone has haversack as well as party has larger storage by that point.

I believe you're referring to the Master Alchemist PrC from MoF? Yes it does eventually get 9th-level potions, just in time for 9th-level spells if you're a non-spontaneous primary caster.

[Mike Miller]

I believe I will do this but keep it to range:personal for spells over 3rd with the exception of cure critical wounds. I would also deny domain-only spells from going into potions (personal preference) and only spells with a casting time of one standard action (personal preference).

[SLOTHRPG95]

I believe I will do this but keep it to range:personal for spells over 3rd with the exception of cure critical wounds. I would also deny domain-only spells from going into potions (personal preference) and only spells with a casting time of one standard action (personal preference).

Spells with a range of Personal generally cannot be made into potions, and for good reason. Under regular potion rules, this'd allow things like Alter Self, Blink, and Glibness, and at higher levels this'd allow things like Shapechange or Time Stop. Perhaps if you want to limit the mid-to-high level potions, restrict them to spells with a range of Touch.

[Mike Miller]

Spells with a range of Personal generally cannot be made into potions, and for good reason. Under regular potion rules, this'd allow things like Alter Self, Blink, and Glibness, and at higher levels this'd allow things like Shapechange or Time Stop. Perhaps if you want to limit the mid-to-high level potions, restrict them to spells with a range of Touch.

XD whoops. That is amusing. I should have looked into that a wee bit more. Excellent advice

[r2d2go]

It's really broken in Pathfinder because of Accelerated Drinker, Sipping Vests and Battlepots which let you use potions as move actions, swift actions and AoOs respectively. In 3.5 I think it's fine.

[Mike Miller]

It's really broken in Pathfinder because of Accelerated Drinker, Sipping Vests and Battlepots which let you use potions as move actions, swift actions and AoOs respectively. In 3.5 I think it's fine.

That is interesting. I don't do PF material, so no worries there.

[Kelb_Panthera]

A character concept I came up with a while back was to have a wizard prestige into setting-agnostic versions of the master alchemist and alchemist savant PrCs (MoF and MoE, respectively). Just do all of the things with potions. Under a certain interpretation, this allows spell vials of higher level spells too. Give the party twf throwing rogue a few vials of, say, fleshshriver to ruin someone's day.

[Mike Miller]

I just thought of a PrC....Candle Caster? I forget if that is it, but the PrC I'm thinking of used candles like potions. Maybe that is a good comparison for what I'm thinking about.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I just thought of a PrC....Candle Caster? I forget if that is it, but the PrC I'm thinking of used candles like potions. Maybe that is a good comparison for what I'm thinking about.

Yeah, Candle Caster can use candles first like scrolls, then later like potions as well. Also eventually gets a free way to Quicken, essentially.

[Troacctid]

Spells with a range of Personal generally cannot be made into potions, and for good reason. Under regular potion rules, this'd allow things like Alter Self, Blink, and Glibness, and at higher levels this'd allow things like Shapechange or Time Stop. Perhaps if you want to limit the mid-to-high level potions, restrict them to spells with a range of Touch.
Skull talismans already exist. 🤷


Also, it does lower the treasure loot. A monster drinks the potion of telekinesis and it is gone....but if the monster had a ring of telekinesis, it's loot.
This is a super easy problem to solve as a DM. Give the monster another potion.

[Allanimal]

Skull talismans already exist. 🤷


The skull talismans in complete arcane p.138 are listed under alternate forms for potions.
While the RAW of these potion alternatives don’t list the spell limitations of potions other than 3rd level or under, because they are called potion alternate forms the RAI is that they have all the same characteristics as potions except the delivery method. So ask your DM before assuming you can grab a skull talisman of glibness or a magic tile of alternate form...

[Kelb_Panthera]

The skull talismans in complete arcane p.138 are listed under alternate forms for potions.
While the RAW of these potion alternatives don’t list the spell limitations of potions other than 3rd level or under, because they are called potion alternate forms the RAI is that they have all the same characteristics as potions except the delivery method. So ask your DM before assuming you can grab a skull talisman of glibness or a magic tile of alternate form...

Wrong source. Skull talismans from frostburn.

[Jack_Simth]

Yeah, Candle Caster can use candles first like scrolls, then later like potions as well. Also eventually gets a free way to Quicken, essentially.
Can you really call it "free" when you have to go through the trouble of crafting a single-use item to use the ability?

[SLOTHRPG95]

Wrong source. Skull talismans from frostburn.

Erroneous citation aside, the point still stands that skull talismans don't exist in core. I believe (but could be mistaken) that this was the previous poster's point.


Can you really call it "free" when you have to go through the trouble of crafting a single-use item to use the ability?

Hence "essentially" and not "in the most precise definition of free." Some terms and conditions apply. Prestige class is not liable if metamagic deficiencies exist outside of crafted items. Must be 5th level or older to apply for. Candles not included in order.

[Troacctid]

Erroneous citation aside, the point still stands that skull talismans don't exist in core. I believe (but could be mistaken) that this was the previous poster's point.
I can't imagine why you would believe that, given that a. literally nowhere in this thread has that point been brought up at all, and b. the post in question quoted a non-core book as a reference.

[Allanimal]

Wrong source. Skull talismans from frostburn.

I should have known that WOTC would have two very similar (but not quite the same) things with the exact same name in two different books...

[Kelb_Panthera]

I should have known that WOTC would have two very similar (but not quite the same) things with the exact same name in two different books...

It's not the only instance of it either. Check out the Effigy creature in Complete Arcane and Monster Manual 2. Although those really aren't that similar I suppose.

[SLOTHRPG95]

I can't imagine why you would believe that, given that a. literally nowhere in this thread has that point been brought up at all, and b. the post in question quoted a non-core book as a reference.

I mean, as a response to "skull talismans already exists," saying, "yeah they're found as an alternate potion form in this non-core book" seems to me to imply one of two arguments being made. One, the argument hinges on the alternate part, which given the erroneous citation this'd now be a moot point. Two, the argument hinges on the non-core part (which is in its own way a form of alternate rule from core), which is what I read. I fail to see how my belief should be unimaginable.