Clarification of Potion Crafting; Non-spell healing economy

[SouthpawSoldier]

All this is irrelevant to the efficiency of healing argument; the purpose of this is clarification rules and verifying the math for a medicine-focused build, for thematic reasons.

PHB crafting says 1/2 item cost in materials, + 1day's labor/5g value. However, the stated formula is for "non-magical objects"; Potion of Healing is a "common magical item". PHB also states Herbalist's Kit proficiency required. No further details. Using the formula, each potion requires 25g +10 days per potion/vial of antitoxin (non-magical item of equal cost).

DMG says crafting common magical items requires caster level 3, and 50g-100g per item, +1 day's labor/25g value.

The Sage Advice post on the topic: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/12/05/potion-time-and-cost/ ; suggest 50g +2 day's labor; doesn't outright state it though.

Commentary from Jeremy Crawford suggest that production of magical items (e.g. potions) is rare (not really a "common" magical item after all, is it?). Using these rules, a potion crafter is working at a loss; selling potions at cost, and wasting 2 days better spent on more profitable ventures. Unless NPC vendors are mass-producing potions and getting a deal on ingredients, there's no economical reason for potions to exist.

Summation; what are the requirements for PC's to craft potions? Also; 10 days to brew anti-toxin?


Potion, Healer feat w/ Kit, and Spell-less Ranger Poultice


Method
HP
Frequency
Cost


Potions
2d4+2 [7]
Action to drink/apply; inventory
50g in shop; Craft ???


Healer's Kit
1d6+4+Target's HD [7.5+HD]
Once per Target per Rest
5g/10 use kit


Poultice
1d6/2 Preparer Level (round up)*
WIS mod/day; takes one minute to apply, 1hr/day to resupply
Foraging/ DM discretion


*Starts at 3rd; avg 14hp, +7HP every odd level. At 9th level, removes one poison condition in addition to healing.

Providing my math is correct; is it worth it using every method in one character? The way I see it, the doctor could hand out weak potions for the party individuals to self-treat, use Healer's Kits when wounds are a bit more serious, and break out the poultices when someone is at death's door (once poultices become more potent than the kit). If not allowed to brew potions, the Herbalist's Kit still allows production of antitoxin, so it could still be of use.

[Kryx]

Crawford also posted that consumables are half the normal price. 50/2 = 25 + 25 for the labor = 50g.

That's the magic ingredient you're missing.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Crawford also posted that consumables are half the normal price. 50/2 = 25 + 25 for the labor = 50g.

That's the magic ingredient you're missing.

Thought his comment meant 1/2 of the stated 100g+4 days.

The way I understood the conversation;

"100g+4days/potion?"
"Halve that"
"So, 50g+2days? Same cost of a shop; profit?"
"Rules for PC's =/= rules for NPC's when magic items are rare".

Seems to match the rule on consumables having half cost in the DMG;


...consumables usually have half value of permanent magic items of equal rarity......common magic items are 50g-100g
So a consumable magic item is on the low end of the scale (50g) and a standard magic item is 100g.

Consumables=(Common=100g+(cost/25g)days)/2=50g+2days

The "consumables=1/2" seems to correlate with the Sage Advice post, not stack with it.

[Kryx]

So a consumable magic item is on the low end of the scale (50g) and a standard magic item is 100g.
Nope. Common magic items range from 50-100 with most being 50. 50/2 = 25. That's the consumable price and then add labor.

[SouthpawSoldier]

So to craft Potions of Healing:
Caster level 3rd
Cast equivalent spell (what spell? 2d4+2 [7] potion > Cure Wounds 1d8 [4.5]; no healing spell=2d4+2 HP)
Proficiency and possession of Herbalist's Kit
Formula for potion

Economy:
Example from DMG


Uncommon Magic Items cost 500g; 500/25=20 day's labor, cost to PC is 500g & 20 8hr days.

Applied to potions,

50g standard cost;
50/2= 25g consumable cost;
25g/day labor;
costs PC 25g out of pocket and 1 8-hour day's labor.

Almost not worth it compared to other healing options (Healer's Kit and Poultices). Only value apparent value is that anyone can drink a potion, instead of requiring ministrations from a healer. Unless you're running the optional rest and healing rules from DMG p. 266-267, seems not even worth it beyond first level.

[SharkForce]

alternate advice: spend some time between the DM and player working out something that will make both of them reasonably happy, and use that.

because the official magic item creation rules are bloody awful, and not worth the paper they're printed on.

[archaeo]

Only value apparent value is that anyone can drink a potion, instead of requiring ministrations from a healer. Unless you're running the optional rest and healing rules from DMG p. 266-267, seems not even worth it beyond first level.

Well, the "anyone can drink a potion" factor can in fact be pretty huge. And assuming that you find potions, keeping them around is a good idea. Actually crafting a bunch of spares for yourself? Eh. The basic healing potions, of course, will still be useful for the whole game, as they allow anyone to stabilize and revive someone at 0 HP, which is incredibly useful.


alternate advice: spend some time between the DM and player working out something that will make both of them reasonably happy, and use that.

because the official magic item creation rules are bloody awful, and not worth the paper they're printed on.

They're really not. 5e simply assumes a default wherein, if you're literally in the midst of an adventure, breaking to craft some items isn't something you can do in an afternoon's spare time, for the most part. Instead, you do all that crafting in between adventures, so that the game session doesn't fall apart midway through when the Cleric decides to do some impromptu potion brewing in the middle of the dungeon. It's just a pacing decision; you abstract away all that stuff in a big downtime accounting session, which is kept simple to speed the process up.

If you want to make crafting easier, more common, and cheaper, modifying the existing rules and cutting the time and expense by whatever factor you like is perfectly easy. Otherwise, sure, if that doesn't work, do what SharkForce says, and just come up with something that does work. Because, naturally, when the rules get in the way of you having fun, you should just come up with better rules that work.

[Shining Wrath]

I houserule that some temples are better at crafting healing potions and grant an addition 1 to 3 points of healing. They may also charge more so beware counterfeits. The reason to pay more is action economy and storage space; if the situation is dire enough you are administering potions in combat, presumably to someone who is making stabilization rolls, the difference between 7 and 10 may matter at low levels.

[SharkForce]

They're really not. 5e simply assumes a default wherein, if you're literally in the midst of an adventure, breaking to craft some items isn't something you can do in an afternoon's spare time, for the most part. Instead, you do all that crafting in between adventures, so that the game session doesn't fall apart midway through when the Cleric decides to do some impromptu potion brewing in the middle of the dungeon. It's just a pacing decision; you abstract away all that stuff in a big downtime accounting session, which is kept simple to speed the process up.

If you want to make crafting easier, more common, and cheaper, modifying the existing rules and cutting the time and expense by whatever factor you like is perfectly easy. Otherwise, sure, if that doesn't work, do what SharkForce says, and just come up with something that does work. Because, naturally, when the rules get in the way of you having fun, you should just come up with better rules that work.

no, they really are that awful. for healing potions it isn't as visible, but if you want it to be a major part of your character, it really is not a very good system.

[archaeo]

no, they really are that awful. for healing potions it isn't as visible, but if you want it to be a major part of your character, it really is not a very good system.

It's a great system, so long as you don't need crafting to be a very important part of your campaign. The 3.5 and 4e models, in my opinion, were bad gameplay; they were a section of mechanics you had to participate in, in order to keep up with the expected math at higher levels, and "crafting" in a tabletop game is often going to be about as fun as filling in a spreadsheet. The 5e model just cuts most of it entirely and replaces it with a few very simple guidelines that are tied into a "downtime" system, so that if you're into spreadsheet gaming, you can have everyone at the table participating instead of the one or two people responsible for crafting magic items.

Personally, I think if you feel that it's a big problem, a nice place to start with homebrewing a solution would be with the WotC-penned Artificer subclass (http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Eberron_v1.1.pdf). Maybe just make the subclass into a set of feats, or just let every caster treat that subclass as an additional part of their character. I think I like that solution.

[SharkForce]

no, it isn't a great system. the decisions they made on rarity are frequently baffling, consumables are overpriced compared to non-consumables, there are absolutely no guidelines whatsoever on what makes something fall on the high or low end of the price range, formulas are arbitrarily made extra-rare and so expensive as to make them not worth ever paying for in spite of being completely non-magical, and the stuff you want to be using at level 20 takes decades to make so forget about having your ancestral blade enchanted and taking it with you from 1-20.

3.x had a bad system in some ways (for example, it pretty much entirely lacked flavour unless you houseruled some in - getting a magic item just means you go to the store, pay for X amount of vaguely-defined materials, and a few days in the lab later you have your magic item as long as you have the feat to do it). but the badness of a different system does not mean that this system is good, it just means that we have multiple bad systems.

[archaeo]

the decisions they made on rarity are frequently baffling, consumables are overpriced compared to non-consumables, there are absolutely no guidelines whatsoever on what makes something fall on the high or low end of the price range, formulas are arbitrarily made extra-rare and so expensive as to make them not worth ever paying for in spite of being completely non-magical, and the stuff you want to be using at level 20 takes decades to make so forget about having your ancestral blade enchanted and taking it with you from 1-20.

Rarity decisions seem mostly concerned with giving you some broad guidelines to play with, under the assumption that you're using the magic items like the system expects you to and with the full knowledge that a DM will know which items should be readily available to a given party. Consumables are 50% off the full price, within what are admittedly big price ranges. The formula sidebar tells you how to make them far less rare. As for your ancestral blade, why should something so important be as mundane as "Oh, I spend x gold and y unobtanium, now it's a +3, hooray" instead of "Here's a quest you can go on to power up your blade"?


3.x had a bad system in some ways (for example, it pretty much entirely lacked flavour unless you houseruled some in - getting a magic item just means you go to the store, pay for X amount of vaguely-defined materials, and a few days in the lab later you have your magic item as long as you have the feat to do it). but the badness of a different system does not mean that this system is good, it just means that we have multiple bad systems.

5e's system, as I just explained, is designed specifically to try and avoid all the problems of the 3.x and 4e eras, most of which are just "crafting is tough to make interesting or flavorful in tabletop games." That whole "get materials, spend time in lab" is exactly the kind of boring nonsense 5e avoids by keeping it simple and asking the DM to make decisions about what the table wants in magic item economies.

I'm not really sure how you ever make crafting an interesting mechanic in a tabletop setting. It's always going to be "spend x resource for y item," and the only interesting thing to do is to make it part of the narrative, something you don't really need mechanics to do. Why bolt on a big, complicated system when it's as easy as saying "to get magic items or to power up your current items, complete this quest" or "negotiate with this NPC" or "obtain this artifact"?

[SouthpawSoldier]

So, back to specifics of potion crafting;


Cast equivalent spell (what spell? 2d4+2 [7] potion > Cure Wounds 1d8 [4.5]; no healing spell=2d4+2 HP)

Does this mean CW from a higher slot? Some other healing spell?

What do people think of methods for obtaining ingredients for potions the way the poultices are restocked/prepared? The same for Healer's kits?

What about scaling potions and healer's kits; still slower than poultices, but in a way to make them an effective class feature at higher levels?

[Fralex]

A large portion of LoZ: Skyward Sword is one big crafting quest. You're traveling all over the world to locate three sacred flames with which to reforge your sword. It depends on the item's importance to the story.

If you're trying to craft something that benefits the whole party, you've all agreed that the current problem you face can be solved with a certain magic item, or something else of that scale, a big quest to get what you need is appropriate.

If you're trying to craft something to make yourself better, you just really want this one item because it's cool, or any other situation where the benefits mainly apply to yourself, that's the sort of thing best done during downtime, or possibly with a solo adventure. It might even be better if you try to find a seller in a big city or something (just take the rules for selling magic items and do them backwards). Really, this kind of thing should be done sparingly, since D&D is a group activity and all the players like to be involved.

If you're trying to craft something small, something quick like a potion or other consumable item, the crafting can probably be worked into the sidelines of the current adventure. Maybe you're just gathering ingredients as you travel, waiting until you have enough of the ones you need. I plan to use an ingredient-foraging system I made based off this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385701-Foraging-Potion-Ingredients-Alchemy-Mini-Game-Idea&highlight=alchemy)'s idea. I should share it sometime, I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.

As for pricing, I just decided the DMG was being silly and made crafting magic items take half the base price in resources. So potion of healing takes 25gp to make in two days.

[SharkForce]

Rarity decisions seem mostly concerned with giving you some broad guidelines to play with, under the assumption that you're using the magic items like the system expects you to and with the full knowledge that a DM will know which items should be readily available to a given party. Consumables are 50% off the full price, within what are admittedly big price ranges. The formula sidebar tells you how to make them far less rare. As for your ancestral blade, why should something so important be as mundane as "Oh, I spend x gold and y unobtanium, now it's a +3, hooray" instead of "Here's a quest you can go on to power up your blade"?



5e's system, as I just explained, is designed specifically to try and avoid all the problems of the 3.x and 4e eras, most of which are just "crafting is tough to make interesting or flavorful in tabletop games." That whole "get materials, spend time in lab" is exactly the kind of boring nonsense 5e avoids by keeping it simple and asking the DM to make decisions about what the table wants in magic item economies.

I'm not really sure how you ever make crafting an interesting mechanic in a tabletop setting. It's always going to be "spend x resource for y item," and the only interesting thing to do is to make it part of the narrative, something you don't really need mechanics to do. Why bolt on a big, complicated system when it's as easy as saying "to get magic items or to power up your current items, complete this quest" or "negotiate with this NPC" or "obtain this artifact"?

so in other words, they didn't do a good job, shoved it in my face, and said "here, you fix it, i don't know what i'm doing anyways", and that makes it a good system? no thanks.

it's still a bad system. it is bad in different ways from previous systems, but again, that doesn't make it a good system, that just means it has company.

if i am better off just scrapping the whole thing and deciding what works best for my own games, that basically means any pages dedicated to defining the system are a waste of page space, money, and the time i took to read them and the author took to write them.

i am not saying that 3.x D&D (or for that matter, 4th ed, or AD&D 2e, the other versions i am familiar enough with to have an opinion on) has an amazing system and we should use that. i am saying that this system is bad, and it should not be used. if your game doesn't focus on crafting at all, it won't be used and is thus useless. if your game does focus on crafting at all, you want to use a better system and thus it is still useless.

[SouthpawSoldier]

I plan to use an ingredient-foraging system I made based off this guy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385701-Foraging-Potion-Ingredients-Alchemy-Mini-Game-Idea&highlight=alchemy)'s idea. I should share it sometime, I'm pretty happy with how it turned out.
You should also check out this link. (http://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/2yqrdv/5e_herbalism_alchemy_v10_fanmade_supplement/)

Really well produced supplement for foraging and herbalism, with additional potion recipes, ecology notes, and the like. Was brought up in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?409450-Herbalist-Feat-homebrew) on a homebrewed Herbalism feat.

The whole idea is for a homebrewed Medicine Man class I'm working on with help; a class built around polytheistic, nature-themed magic and herbalism. Idea is a class that better matches Hawaiian kahuna and the like; neither Cleric or Druid quite fit. A core feature of the class will be herbal medicine and [Ritual] healing.

[Chronos]

In what way is 5e's magic item creation system any more flavorful than 3e's? It's still "spend money on unspecified materials and take some time", except that it's no longer clear on just how much money or time. It's not like particular items need dragon's blood or liquid sunlight or the distilled joy of a happy man, or anything else like that that you'd need to quest for. Sure, the DM can houserule that those things are needed, but that's Oberoni, and he could have just as easily houseruled that in 3e.

[Fralex]

In what way is 5e's magic item creation system any more flavorful than 3e's? It's still "spend money on unspecified materials and take some time", except that it's no longer clear on just how much money or time. It's not like particular items need dragon's blood or liquid sunlight or the distilled joy of a happy man, or anything else like that that you'd need to quest for. Sure, the DM can houserule that those things are needed, but that's Oberoni, and he could have just as easily houseruled that in 3e.

I think the idea is that it's easier to deal with. Magic item crafting has been pushed to the sidelines, where it's entirely the DM's choice whether players are even allowed to do it. I'm not an expert on this, but I vaguely remember learning that 3.5e had magic items built into the math of the game's power curve. You had (inasmuch as a DM "has" to allow anything) to let players craft scrolls and wands if they wanted, and the mechanics for doing so weren't any more interesting than they are now, just more complicated and confusing. When I took the artificer class, I had to make like 5 or 6 pages of notes and excel spreadsheets just to keep it all straight.

The magic item crafting rules in 5e are not more flavorful, but the simplified mechanics are much more open to modification or enhancement. If I want to make crafting more interesting, I only have one or two numbers to worry about. Everything else I can safely rewrite in the knowledge I'm probably not screwing anything up, and if I am it'll be easy to change.

So it's not that the new crafting system is more flavorful. It's more that the importance of the crafting system has been lowered to a level on par with the amount of flavor it's been providing all this time, and simplified so that DMs can add their own desired level of complexity.

That said, it would be awesome to have a free supplement released that offers one suggestion for some interesting crafting mechanics beyond what was suggested in the DMG. Heck, that herbalism PDF above me is a nice start, and that's not even by an official coastal wizard.

[archaeo]

so in other words, they didn't do a good job, shoved it in my face, and said "here, you fix it, i don't know what i'm doing anyways", and that makes it a good system? no thanks.

No, they're saying "We don't think crafting is very fun, especially as it almost always takes away from the campaign. We don't want new players to feel like they have to do economics homework in the middle of their quest to slay the dragon. Here are some simple rules for those who do want crafting that have been designed especially for quick resolution."

They didn't do a "bad" job, they just declined to put a ton of effort into creating busywork for their players.


In what way is 5e's magic item creation system any more flavorful than 3e's? It's still "spend money on unspecified materials and take some time", except that it's no longer clear on just how much money or time. It's not like particular items need dragon's blood or liquid sunlight or the distilled joy of a happy man, or anything else like that that you'd need to quest for. Sure, the DM can houserule that those things are needed, but that's Oberoni, and he could have just as easily houseruled that in 3e.

I think Fralex is absolutely right here. Frankly, to have "flavorful" crafting, you'd more or less have to resort to DM fiat anyway; what use are rules when they say, "Have your party go on a level-appropriate quest to make level-appropriate magic items"?


That said, it would be awesome to have a free supplement released that offers one suggestion for some interesting crafting mechanics beyond what was suggested in the DMG. Heck, that herbalism PDF above me is a nice start, and that's not even by an official coastal wizard.

While I prefer the new crafting regime, I'll cheerfully admit that a fair number of players have evinced dissatisfaction, and given that WotC seems pretty committed to surveying players on every aspect of the system, that dissatisfaction will eventually reach Mearls & Co. I expect some kind of Unearthed Arcana article about crafting in the next year.

(Though in all fairness, Mearls did just write an article that included an Artificer, and as I said upthread, it's a pretty good platform to work from for those who want more crafting in their games. Make the subclass into a feat chain, or into a single feat that grows as you level, or as a set of mechanics any player who can cast magic can use.)

[SharkForce]

No, they're saying "We don't think crafting is very fun, especially as it almost always takes away from the campaign. We don't want new players to feel like they have to do economics homework in the middle of their quest to slay the dragon. Here are some simple rules for those who do want crafting that have been designed especially for quick resolution."

They didn't do a "bad" job, they just declined to put a ton of effort into creating busywork for their players.

no, they did do a bad job, and the system they gave is not suitable for use by anyone. it isn't well done, it requires that the DM go through everything and know which items are *actually* reasonable to make available at a given rarity because there is absolutely no distinction between anything at a given rarity, and yet it straight up tells you that not everything in a given rarity is equally useful or valuable.

or, to put it another way, when was the last time someone posted a thread that says "my DM is giving each player an uncommon item of their choice, what should i pick" or similar, and was told that it was a good idea, that any uncommon item that relates to their character would be a good choice (ie don't choose a sword for a single-classed wizard) because they're all about equally valuable.

because the last couple of times that came up, i seem to recall everyone came up with the same 2-3 items for the situation, and they tended to lead to discussions along the lines of "here is an item that is way better than almost anything else in this rarity category, you should probably choose it and ignore everything else".

if it's supposed to be for people who don't want to pay any attention to it, then it is poorly done, because they're going to need to know what each individual item does. if it's supposed to be for those who don't want to put in work, it should have been better balanced so that the DM won't have to do the balancing.

[archaeo]

I'll just give this one more go, since we're off topic and you should feel free to have the last word, if you'd like it.


no, they did do a bad job, and the system they gave is not suitable for use by anyone. it isn't well done, it requires that the DM go through everything and know which items are *actually* reasonable to make available at a given rarity because there is absolutely no distinction between anything at a given rarity, and yet it straight up tells you that not everything in a given rarity is equally useful or valuable.

Presumably, this is because the designers didn't think it was all that worthwhile to bother with ensuring perfect balance. I would say that the game assumes you'll either a) give out items a la carte, with attention paid to make each item important and special, or b) use the random treasure tables, which the DMG straight up tells you how to use in an average adventure.

This would all be a big problem if items had a ton of bonuses or complicated mechanics to consider, but for the most part, they're all dead simple and do exactly what they say on the tin. Adjudicating what's balanced and what's unbalanced is easy for anyone who hasn't been lobotomized.


or, to put it another way, when was the last time someone posted a thread that says "my DM is giving each player an uncommon item of their choice, what should i pick" or similar, and was told that it was a good idea, that any uncommon item that relates to their character would be a good choice (ie don't choose a sword for a single-classed wizard) because they're all about equally valuable.

because the last couple of times that came up, i seem to recall everyone came up with the same 2-3 items for the situation, and they tended to lead to discussions along the lines of "here is an item that is way better than almost anything else in this rarity category, you should probably choose it and ignore everything else".

I don't regard this as a problem. There aren't that many magic items of any given category, each class is going to have some obvious choices, and there are just always going to be a few items that are super meaningful. Ideally, your players aren't just picking things that are strictly optimal, but are looking for items that complement their character, or that open up a fun new way of playing the game.

Plus, you completely discount the degree to which a PC's magic item needs will depend on the individual campaign. An item that may otherwise seem worthless may be exactly what you need in a given situation.


if it's supposed to be for people who don't want to pay any attention to it, then it is poorly done, because they're going to need to know what each individual item does. if it's supposed to be for those who don't want to put in work, it should have been better balanced so that the DM won't have to do the balancing.

Oh no! The DMG expects that you've actually read it to use its (optional) content! The game expects DMs to put in a bit of work, because the game expects DMs to treat magic items as special rather than ordinary. Those who don't want to put in work can easily use the random treasure tables, those who do can lovingly select items for their players or open it up for them. Then, instead of spending sleepless nights worrying over the precious game balance, you just play it and see how it goes, and ratchet up the difficulty (or tone it down) if it seems you've overdone it. However, assuming you stick to the item rarities suggested by the DMG, I imagine that the game maintains its (admittedly loose) sense of balance.

D&D isn't a competitive sport, and it's ok, if you're using magic items (or anything at all, really), to have a session or two where the players are a little overpowered. It's just not a big deal, and fine-tuning balance for every individual group is not so arduous as to put me off the system. Your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.

And, like I said, I'll leave it at that. Sorry, OP, for mucking up your topic; I think your proposed changes sound fine, though I'll put in another plug for adapting the Artificer background for your campaign's magic item crafting needs.

[SharkForce]

so the system is great because you can totally ignore it even though it sucks, and nobody ever wants to actually use it?

on that basis, every system is great. heck, if that makes things great, FATAL may be one of the best games out there on account of the sheer volume of bad design you get to ignore.

[SouthpawSoldier]

Shift in focus, and segueing from my OP; worthwhile having multiple avenues of healing? Potions, Poultices, and Healer Feat+ kit all have different restorative and action vallues. Healer Feat seems to make Poultices unneccessary; 1d6+4+Target HD > 1d6/2 caster levels until mid-level play. Poultices have unlimited use and foraging mechanic. As far as use is concerned, it's not often that a Ranger will need to burn every poultice in one day on a single Patient. More efficient to take a couple days with Healer's kit. Using all of the poultices to fully heal leaves the Ranger dry of their main feature until the next rest.

Arguably, foraging mechanic can be applies to refilling the Healer's kit and finding potion ingredients.

It seems very rare that aa Ranger will botcher reaching for a poultice as vs the kit.