Potions and breakage

[Tanarii]

Does anyone ever rule that potions can break, under certain circumstances? DMG doesn't have any rules or mention of it, but it was certainly common enough in older editions and 'makes sense' in a way that many other Magic items don't really, due to commonly used container materials. Especially given the propensity of players to have their PCs keep them exposed belt pouches or homebrewed bandoleers.

[Ashe]

I always work under the assumption that something that valuable comes with a shatterproof bottle that can survive basically anything. Lines up with 5e's general treatment of 'objects on your person are not to be messed with'.

[nickl_2000]

We don't, generally if its on a person we assume that it's safe from pretty much anything other than pickpockets.

If you break a chest open that contains a potion in it though, good luck having it survive.

[Tanarii]

I always work under the assumption that something that valuable comes with a shatterproof bottle that can survive basically anything. Lines up with 5e's general treatment of 'objects on your person are not to be messed with'.
Are they shatterproof only while they contain the potion? Either way, I can think of more than a few players that would get very inventive with a shatterproof bottle.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I just ran it as ignoring the idea of potion breakage, which is effectively "shatterproof while on you and nothing terrible enough to destroy you in one go happens to you".

[Amnestic]

In my games, if you're carrying it around as normal and only pull it out to quaff, it's shatterproof and you never need to worry about a potion mishap from getting shoved prone or a dragon stepping on you.

If you start messing with the bottle and trying to pull off 'clever' tricks based upon its apparent immunity to damage, then suddenly it becomes very shatterable. Thankfully this hasn't ever really come up, nor do I expect it to. Most people are pretty reasonable and they'd prefer the streamlined game of "don't worry about it, and we won't mess with it". Basically, don't try and be 'clever' with it and you're safe.

[elyktsorb]

I feel like this is why shatter is designed to not effect items on your person, otherwise you could just explode a bunch of potions on someone with a spell, and buying a potion with a chance that it could break is just going to lead to putting them into a potion case with the intent that being in such a case will make them not break and then the potions don't break anymore again so why even bother.

[JackPhoenix]

Are they shatterproof only while they contain the potion? Either way, I can think of more than a few players that would get very inventive with a shatterproof bottle.

I mean, don't get me wrong, I just ran it as ignoring the idea of potion breakage, which is effectively "shatterproof while on you and nothing terrible enough to destroy you in one go happens to you".

All you need to do to make a potion shatterproof is to put it in a bladder, like small waterskin. Cuts and pointy things need to be more deliberate than blunt rauma.

[Zhorn]

In my games, if you're carrying it around as normal and only pull it out to quaff, it's shatterproof and you never need to worry about a potion mishap from getting shoved prone or a dragon stepping on you.

If you start messing with the bottle and trying to pull off 'clever' tricks based upon its apparent immunity to damage, then suddenly it becomes very shatterable. Thankfully this hasn't ever really come up, nor do I expect it to. Most people are pretty reasonable and they'd prefer the streamlined game of "don't worry about it, and we won't mess with it". Basically, don't try and be 'clever' with it and you're safe.
I think this is a fair way to run it. Items in your bags are essentially 'off screen', where damaging effects happen 'on screen'.

Now if a DM were to say in session zero that potion bottles could potentially shatter as a result of large impacts (not regular weapon hit, but things like crushing, falling, broad surface area collisions, etc) I would willingly buy in on the premise, happily accepting that as a risk in the game. But it needs to be fair, none of this "the kobold hits you with a club for *rolls...* 3 damage, and 1d4 of your potion bottles shatter"

Now I've had environmental damage happen to players' equipment in my past games, but I always foreshadow that it can happen, what could cause it to happen, and having it happen as a result of an informed player's actions. Blindsiding players with consequences when they have no information such a thing could happen has all the narrative grace of "your level 1 character walks outside the tavern and is struck by lightning *rolls 2d10* ... and they're dead"... yeah, no thankyou.

[Mastikator]

I've seen it used if you die from falling damage. I suppose explosions would have the same outcome.

[nickl_2000]

I've seen it used if you die from falling damage. I suppose explosions would have the same outcome.

So if I fall from a high place and get knocked unconscious from the damage, then the potion breaks open. If there a chance that the glass from the potion will cut me allowing some of the healing potion to get into my blood stream, healing my a hit point?

[Altheus]

All of your kit is vulnerable to breakage and theft, I don't care how magical it is, if a potion is in a thin glass container then it gets a save, if it gets broken then do be it.

I damaged a robe of eyes when the pc got thrown in to a pool of acid recently, the player wasn't happy. he now wants to see if it can be rewoven to restore the magic.....maybe it can.

[Unoriginal]

Does anyone ever rule that potions can break, under certain circumstances? DMG doesn't have any rules or mention of it, but it was certainly common enough in older editions and 'makes sense' in a way that many other Magic items don't really, due to commonly used container materials. Especially given the propensity of players to have their PCs keep them exposed belt pouches or homebrewed bandoleers.

Rules for breaking items and magic items are in the DMG.

Personaly, I rule that to hit a specific item worn, carried or wielded by a character, you need to hit said character's AC or the item's AC (determined by the material it's made of, asper the DMG), whichever is higher.

[Mastikator]

So if I fall from a high place and get knocked unconscious from the damage, then the potion breaks open. If there a chance that the glass from the potion will cut me allowing some of the healing potion to get into my blood stream, healing my a hit point?

The magic healing potion only works if you drink the whole thing. You can't inject it or portion it. You can't "physics" magic, magic works according to the laws of grammar.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have an internal headcanon that explains why attended gear and items don't get ruined by effects unless an effect specifically says it works on attended objects. It's actually the same underlying cause as to how things recharge (but you can find partially-charged objects) and why attunement is required for some objects (and is limited).

Effectively, a "soul" has a part that extends (very slightly) beyond the physical body. Call this the "nimbus"[1]. This is how you interact magically in both directions--casting spells involves creating patterns in your nimbus that interact with the surrounding magic field/weave/what have you. It also is responsible for keeping you alive (it's the soul-body interface). Its capacity to resist or overcome damage is (roughly) HP. This nimbus also surrounds your gear--anything in the nimbus is considered "part of you". Thus, damage that the attended objects would take actually becomes HP damage[2]--your nimbus protects those just like it does your body.

Items with charges or attunement need a connection to a power source to function/recharge. By wielding it/keeping it on you (ie in your nimbus) or attuning to it, you link it into your nimbus, making it part of you. This is limited, because you only have so many "connection points" (like computer power supply cables, to use a partial analogy). Artificers can extend that limit, unlike most people.

I also say that this is how you know an item is magical/how you can figure out what an item does over a short rest--your nimbus reacts to it.

[1] I'd say "aura", but that's highly overloaded of a term.
[2] Yes, I do go with the full HP == meat, solved via a limited pool of "healing factor energy". Sure, it's not very earth-like, but that's not something I care about. It solves all my issues and is a productive model in other ways.

[nickl_2000]

The magic healing potion only works if you drink the whole thing. You can't inject it or portion it. You can't "physics" magic, magic works according to the laws of grammar.

Bah, I guess I will have to go back to being a barbarian to be able to fall from orbit and survive.

[Tanarii]

All you need to do to make a potion shatterproof is to put it in a bladder, like small waterskin. Cuts and pointy things need to be more deliberate than blunt rauma.
Huh. This makes me realize all along I've been operating under assumption that 5e potions have the standard that the container is part of the enchantment, so you can't transfer it. Now I can't even say for sure that was a rule in any edition of D&D, as opposed to my assumption. :smallyuk:

[dafrca]

All of your kit is vulnerable to breakage and theft, I don't care how magical it is, if a potion is in a thin glass container then it gets a save, if it gets broken then do be it.

Of course this assumes the potion is in a "thin glass container" to begin with. :tongue:

[Kurt Kurageous]

How is this fun? Unless of course you like accounting for every CP worth of gear at every moment.

As a DM, you have to be careful what and how you given and also about what and how you take away.

[Sigreid]

my understanding is that for game convenience anything warn or carried is essentially impervious to harm unless specifically stated. I don't think this is meant to be a reflection of reality, but a convenience to cut down on things the DM and players need to keep track of and worry about.

[stoutstien]

I shifted most potions over to being powder-based that can be taken dry or mixed with liquid to enhance the effects.

[Brookshw]

Usually I consider them indestructible save for player abject stupidity, a few sessions ago a player polymorphed into a ape (dire ape?), picked up the evil altar - covered in potions and scrolls - and tossed it down a 30' cliff; later, when looting, you can be sure those potions had a chance to have broken.

[dafrca]

I shifted most potions over to being powder-based that can be taken dry or mixed with liquid to enhance the effects.

Why am I seeing in my mind a package of "Magic Kool-Aid"? :smallbiggrin:

[stoutstien]

Why am I seeing in my mind a package of "Magic Kool-Aid"? :smallbiggrin:

Or headache powder lol. I also have salves and ointments alternatives as well.

[Kane0]

Does anyone ever rule that potions can break, under certain circumstances? DMG doesn't have any rules or mention of it, but it was certainly common enough in older editions and 'makes sense' in a way that many other Magic items don't really, due to commonly used container materials. Especially given the propensity of players to have their PCs keep them exposed belt pouches or homebrewed bandoleers.

No, even Shatter specifies not worn or carried items take the damage.

[Reynaert]

Of course this assumes the potion is in a "thin glass container" to begin with. :tongue:

I don't think they could even make thin glass containers in the late middle ages. Nowadays, they're engineered to be as thin as possible, but I believe you could hit someone over the head with an olden time bottle and break their skull and not the bottle. (I'm also reminded of a scene from some old comedy police series where a thug wanted to cut a policewoman with a beer bottle, but was unable to break it on the bar counter).

[dafrca]

I don't think they could even make thin glass containers in the late middle ages.

But they did make small bottles out of metal, stone, and ceramic that I have seen. :smallbiggrin:

[Sigreid]

I don't think they could even make thin glass containers in the late middle ages. Nowadays, they're engineered to be as thin as possible, but I believe you could hit someone over the head with an olden time bottle and break their skull and not the bottle. (I'm also reminded of a scene from some old comedy police series where a thug wanted to cut a policewoman with a beer bottle, but was unable to break it on the bar counter).
A whiskey bottle (5th) can still break your skull open.

[Psyren]

Rules for breaking items and magic items are in the DMG.

Worth noting that potions and scrolls are a specific exception to those rules. They do not get any special damage resistance, so the intent seems to be that they are more easily breakable. How to do that though is unclear.


Personaly, I rule that to hit a specific item worn, carried or wielded by a character, you need to hit said character's AC or the item's AC (determined by the material it's made of, asper the DMG), whichever is higher.

I would say it should be higher than the person's AC. Consider that Sharpshooter is also fluffed as hitting a small part of someone and requires you to hit their AC+5, that's probably something I'd use for targeting potions. Either that or I'd let an aware target shield them with their body so they gain some degree of cover.

[greenstone]

Lines up with 5e's general treatment of 'objects on your person are not to be messed with'.

Agreed.

The only time I've ruled that potions broke was when the party used percussive methods to open chests ("hit it with a maul!").

[Pex]

This used to be a thing in D&D. Any equipment can break, and woe to you for failing a saving throw against Fireball. It is realistic and is fun for some people, but I am glad the game steps away from such realism. The game has evolved. It's not a mini-wargamre anymore. It's not just dungeon crawling anymore. They exist, but there's also drama and story and epic fantasy escapism. The minutiae isn't the point anymore. Rules do exist for such things, but in my opinion should be rarely enforced until overt obviousness makes them matter. For those players who like playing survivalist with bookkeeping and rationing of supplies go for it.

[Catullus64]

Thinking about this kind of thing is the reason I've started giving out poultices, herbs, and pills that have the exact same functionality as potions, but can be stored in pouches.

[JonBeowulf]

This used to be a thing in D&D. Any equipment can break, and woe to you for failing a saving throw against Fireball. It is realistic and is fun for some people, but I am glad the game steps away from such realism. The game has evolved. It's not a mini-wargamre anymore. It's not just dungeon crawling anymore. They exist, but there's also drama and story and epic fantasy escapism. The minutiae isn't the point anymore. Rules do exist for such things, but in my opinion should be rarely enforced until overt obviousness makes them matter. For those players who like playing survivalist with bookkeeping and rationing of supplies go for it.

I'm with Pex on this one. It used to be yet another thing that made adventuring dangerous (and made Player vs DM a thing) but thankfully it's been pushed aside. I've got more important things to deal with as a player and I certainly have more important things to worry about as a DM.

Implementing this increases realism, but it starts you on the path of "well, then what about <insert other thing that increases realism>?"

[Psyren]

I agree with the approach of "generally the ones you're holding are safe, the ones in the chest might not be if you smash it open or throw it at a monster/down a flight of stairs."

I also agree with "if you run around with one in your hand then a smart enemy might target it."

[nickl_2000]

I agree with the approach of "generally the ones you're holding are safe, the ones in the chest might not be if you smash it open or throw it at a monster/down a flight of stairs."

I also agree with "if you run around with one in your hand then a smart enemy might target it."

As long as this is applied all the way around. If an NPC is carrying a potion on their belt it is absolutely fair game for the Arcane Trickster to nick it before the fight begins (or during the fighter).

[Psyren]

As long as this is applied all the way around. If an NPC is carrying a potion on their belt it is absolutely fair game for the Arcane Trickster to nick it before the fight begins (or during the fighter).

Yep no issues here. By "smart enemy" I meant the players too :smallbiggrin: