FWIW, I did some quick reading up tonight. I can’t believe I’ve not paid attention to this in over thirty years as a DM. 5e states that a potion usually contains an ounce of liquid. A shot glass typically holds 1.25 to 1.5 ounces. There’s 2 tablespoons per ounce, for another frame of reference.
Where did you read that? The PHB only says that a potion is contained in a vial, and the description of a vial says it holds 4 ounces.
EDIT: I see, the DMG, page 139. My math in the rest of this comment makes the assumption that potions must be about the same density as water, but this development can only mean one thing: potions are four times the density of water. This makes it more dense than a rock! This has no rules implications, but it’s interesting!
Further, an empty vial has no weight listed, which means it must weigh less than a quarter of a pound (the smallest weight the rules account for). A potion weighs half a pound, which means that (assuming a similar density to water) there must be at least 3.8 ounces of liquid in the vial.
Granted, that’s still only half a cup, but the rules say it takes an action to drink a potion. We need to flavor potions to account for that, not change the rules to fit our interpretation of how we want potions to work.
My workaround is to make it so that the PC can just cronch down on the vial with a bonus action. The broken glass deals a d4 damage, but the potion still heals the same amount it normally would.
The DMG section on potions. PDF version. The file is maybe three years old? I saw no mention of weight in that section. It may be contradictory to other parts of the core rules, I dunno. I was looking specifically for potions info via TOCs and indexes.
Taking an action to drink a potion would include more than just the time to pour and swallow though. Unless you have the potion in hand, it would include retrieving it, and opening it. An action is equivalent to about six seconds, right? That seems like about the right amount of time from the outside at least.
I edited my comment with more fact checking, and the DMG mentions the 1 oz potions on page 139. That also has implications for the density of a potion–a piece of granite would float in it! Honestly I’m fine with being wrong about the volume of a potion, that’s a legit fun fact
As for your source, there are better options than a PDF from 3 years ago. Am I allowed to mention that easily googleable website that has tools that we can use for 5e on this forum?
Yeah, I tend to prefer on device resources when I can’t have physical copies. Online resources tend to be a pain in the ass when you need them most, so I never think of them.
I don’t play 5e, nor run a game with it, so I haven’t bothered to find newer copies of the PDF. If they’ve changed that much in a few years that the official site/books are no longer useful for quickly checking things, I can’t say I’ll ever bother to look for new files. It would mean that they’ve turned d&d into a churn based monetary thing rather than a reliable game system. I’m just not interested in that.
I mean, I have all the old ad&d books, most of the 3.X, and the box sets from before 2e. The 5e stuff, I’ll never buy any of if there’s not a good reason to.
Where did you read that? The PHB only says that a potion is contained in a vial, and the description of a vial says it holds 4 ounces.
EDIT: I see, the DMG, page 139. My math in the rest of this comment makes the assumption that potions must be about the same density as water, but this development can only mean one thing: potions are four times the density of water. This makes it more dense than a rock! This has no rules implications, but it’s interesting!
Further, an empty vial has no weight listed, which means it must weigh less than a quarter of a pound (the smallest weight the rules account for). A potion weighs half a pound, which means that (assuming a similar density to water) there must be at least 3.8 ounces of liquid in the vial.
Granted, that’s still only half a cup, but the rules say it takes an action to drink a potion. We need to flavor potions to account for that, not change the rules to fit our interpretation of how we want potions to work.
My workaround is to make it so that the PC can just cronch down on the vial with a bonus action. The broken glass deals a d4 damage, but the potion still heals the same amount it normally would.
The DMG section on potions. PDF version. The file is maybe three years old? I saw no mention of weight in that section. It may be contradictory to other parts of the core rules, I dunno. I was looking specifically for potions info via TOCs and indexes.
Taking an action to drink a potion would include more than just the time to pour and swallow though. Unless you have the potion in hand, it would include retrieving it, and opening it. An action is equivalent to about six seconds, right? That seems like about the right amount of time from the outside at least.
I edited my comment with more fact checking, and the DMG mentions the 1 oz potions on page 139. That also has implications for the density of a potion–a piece of granite would float in it! Honestly I’m fine with being wrong about the volume of a potion, that’s a legit fun fact
As for your source, there are better options than a PDF from 3 years ago. Am I allowed to mention that easily googleable website that has tools that we can use for 5e on this forum?
Yeah, I tend to prefer on device resources when I can’t have physical copies. Online resources tend to be a pain in the ass when you need them most, so I never think of them.
I don’t play 5e, nor run a game with it, so I haven’t bothered to find newer copies of the PDF. If they’ve changed that much in a few years that the official site/books are no longer useful for quickly checking things, I can’t say I’ll ever bother to look for new files. It would mean that they’ve turned d&d into a churn based monetary thing rather than a reliable game system. I’m just not interested in that.
I mean, I have all the old ad&d books, most of the 3.X, and the box sets from before 2e. The 5e stuff, I’ll never buy any of if there’s not a good reason to.