PDA

View Full Version : What *should* poison be? [3.5]



Zaq
2009-04-08, 02:25 AM
So I think we can all more or less agree that poison got the shaft as a viable tactical option in 3.5 (and probably 3.0, but I've never played it so I won't comment). The arguments are tired: By the time you can afford the good stuff, everything will save against it anyway. It's expensive for something that has a chance to fail. Half the high-level stuff is immune to it anyway. It's twice as effective against PCs as against NPCs unless your combats routinely last over 10 rounds. There's no real way to increase the save DC. It takes actions to apply it, so you can really only realistically use one per combat more often than not. Yada yada yada, we've heard it all before, and the conclusion's pretty much the same: poison sucks.

That said, I like poison. It's flavorful, it's different, and I like it... but it's ridiculously hard to make a really poison-heavy character in 3.5 due to the way that poison is handled. So I ask you, what SHOULD poison be like? What changes would make poison a viable tactic without simply toppling the balance to "well, now EVERYONE uses poison, all the time, for everything. Except paladins." or something similar? Should the costs be adjusted? Should the whole primary/secondary ability damage paradigm be reworked? How long should poison be good on the blade? Etc. etc. etc. If you were starting over, what do you think should be changed in order to make poison usable but not universal?

Farlion
2009-04-08, 03:42 AM
Im going to try to answer your thread topic question.

Poison should be used rarely and carefully. It shouldn't be used all the time, since the crippling effect on attributes is very harsh. The low DCs are just fine the way they are, because most poisons are safe or suck types. Getting 2d6 constitution/strength/dexterity dmg is something that will ruin almost every character. And then again, you might have a secondary effect with the same amount, which in the end will most likely render any character useless.

Now on the fluff side, poison is evil. It's used by cowards, usurpers, assasins and underdogs. You can use poison to achiev something good, but there's nothing heroic about poisoning the tyrann. Using poison will always make you an outsider, will postmark you as a coward or even make you an outlaw. Poison is deceitful and will never make you any friends. If people know you work with poison, they will fear you, always.

Well, thats how I answer your question. Happy for any comments or discussions =)

Cheers,
Farlion

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-08, 03:46 AM
I disagree about it being evil due to classing honour as an irrelevant concept if you're using it to save lives (unless you're lawful). I think it should either be cheaper to reflect how the save DCs aren't that high, or it should be harder to resist due to being created to make people suffer like G did (I'd assume poisoners would attempt to perfect their recipes over time).

kamikasei
2009-04-08, 03:51 AM
Now on the fluff side, poison is evil. It's used by... underdogs. You can use poison to achiev something good, but there's nothing heroic about poisoning the tyrann. Using poison will always make you an outsider

It's evil to be the underdog? Or just to maximize your advantages when you are? It's evil to be unheroic? To be "an outsider"?

Zaq
2009-04-08, 04:02 AM
Now on the fluff side, poison is evil. It's used by cowards, usurpers, assasins and underdogs. You can use poison to achiev something good, but there's nothing heroic about poisoning the tyrann. Using poison will always make you an outsider, will postmark you as a coward or even make you an outlaw. Poison is deceitful and will never make you any friends. If people know you work with poison, they will fear you, always.


While I disagree with your assessment that poison is evil, what if that's what I want? There are plenty of other patently evil methods of fighting that make perfectly viable tactics, so why not poison as well?

Here's just something I came up with off the top of my head. It's spoilered primarily because it's separate from my response to Farlion, but I don't want to make two posts, but it is relevant to the discussion, so please read it.

What about a "Poison Use" skill? Craft (poisonmaking) is sort of a poisoner's skill, but I mean an actual skill. I'd give it to probably (off the top of my head) rogues, rangers, druids, ninjas, scouts, hexblades, wilders, shadowcasters, swordsages, dread necromancers, dragon shamans, lurks, and maybe a few others, and probably also available via a feat. It would, naturally, be trained-only. Using it wouldn't take any special materials, unless you wanted a bonus on it (just like how you don't need to pay for special paper to use Forgery unless you want a circumstance bonus); it would be assumed that anyone with ranks in it would have the materials they needed. It would be used to poison a blade before combat, to determine the severity of that poison, and maybe even to re-envenom a blade in combat (perhaps with the length of the action dependent upon the check? Just brainstorming here). I'm thinking that only the highest checks would actually deal ability damage; most of it would deal HP damage or inflict penalties such as fatigued or sickened. In addition to that, anyone could purchase and use a poison just as they can right now; the Poison Use skill represents using generic poison frequently and expertly, whereas smearing a bottle of drow knockout juice on your axe just represents a special, out-of-the-ordinary effort. This would make poison use have a cost (skill points and in-combat actions), but still be viable at all levels for those who chose to specialize in it.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 04:02 AM
I always ignored the evil thing. IMHO, is dumb. In some istance i make poison use dishonorable, but that's all.

About poison effectiveness, against the right targets are veery effective. Simply, you have to select the right weapon against the right target.

Zaq
2009-04-08, 04:06 AM
About poison effectiveness, against the right targets are veery effective. Simply, you have to select the right weapon against the right target.

While that's true, it's almost impossible to use poison as your primary tactic. It's all well and good to use a vial or two as a secret weapon against a major enemy, but as it stands it's highly impractical to make someone who uses poison almost all the time, simply because it's way, way too expensive. There's no such thing as "general use" poison, like certain Ranger builds from Guild Wars or certain Assassin builds from Ragnarok Online.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 05:04 AM
While that's true, it's almost impossible to use poison as your primary tactic. It's all well and good to use a vial or two as a secret weapon against a major enemy, but as it stands it's highly impractical to make someone who uses poison almost all the time, simply because it's way, way too expensive. There's no such thing as "general use" poison, like certain Ranger builds from Guild Wars or certain Assassin builds from Ragnarok Online.

Or Wow Rogue (damned Crippling Poison).

About my personal tastes, "spamming" poison let them lose their "special substance" thing.

One of my player loves assassination (IN GAME, or at least, I hope so) so I let him play an avenger (april's fool but works fine!). He's Rogue 10 // Psywarrior 5 / Avenger5.

He likes a lot poisons, so I let him craft them, through:

- Gathering Poison directly from monsters

- Gathering reagents from monsters (wraith dust from some undead and so on)

- Gathering from herbs the party herbalist find

- Buy

This allows him to use them a little bit more times. There are "poisons" for undead and evil outsiders too (BoEC and BoBL), but he has to discover them, yet.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-08, 05:42 AM
I've always had a problem with poisons.
A wizard at level 1 can have a wand of enfeeblement worth 750g, that gives D6+1 strength damage 50 times with no save.
A rogue at level 1 needs 35'000g in order to have the same effect with a DC 20 save available.

I drew up a quick system for a friend of mine who wanted to use poisons for his character. (Native American flavoured Rogue/Ranger)
He said poison would fit well, and I agreed.

I came up with the following system, which we're now testing out.

The following is useable 1/week. No retry. (You may wish to change the time period depending on how frequent you want poison used).

Step 1) Choose a poison from the table below. This is important. Always do this first.
Step 2) Roll a skill check. If you beat the Find DC, you find it. If not, you don't. For every 5 over the find DC, you gain another dose.

Other points of note:
You can either take a skill specific to it, Craft(Poison), and use that as the skill check.
Alternatively you may wish to cost your player a feat (Poison Use) to be able to use his Survival check.
Take away the chance of poisoning yourself, and give your players the above "Poison Use" feat, or skill focus Craft(Poison) instead of the ability that removes the risk of poisoning yourself.

So far the system is working ok.

{table] Find DC | Effect 1 | Effect 2 | Fort Save
10 | 1D2 Dex | 1D2 Dex | 10
10 | 1 Str | 1 Dex | 11
12 | 1D2 Wis | 1D2 Wis + 1D2 Int | 13
12 | | 1D4 Con + 1D3 Wis | 12
13 | 1 Dex | 1D4 Dex | 12
13 | 1 Wis | 2D6 Wis + 1D4 Int | 11
14 | Unconscious 1 Min | Unconscious 1D3 Hours | 14
15 | Stunned 1 round | Stunned 1D4 rounds | 12
15 | 1 Con | Unconscious 1D3 Hours | 13
15 | 1D4 Int | 2D6 Int | 14
15 | 1D4 Con | 1D4 Con + Paralysis | 12
15 | Paralysis (2D6 Mins) | | 13
15 | 1 Con | 1D2 Con | 13
15 | 1D4 Str | 1D4 Str | 12
15 | 1D4 Dex | 1D4 Dex | 15
16 | 1 Con | 1D8 Con | 13
16 | | Unconscious D3 hours | 15
15 | Paralysis (1 min) | | 13
16 | Nausea | 1D4 Dex | 13
17 | 1D4 Str | Unconscious D4 hours | 12
17 | 1D6 Con | 1D6 Con | 12
18 | 1D2 Str + 1D2 Dex | 1D4 Str | 14
17 | 1D8 Dex | 1D4 Con | 14
19 | | 3D6 Con | 13
20 | 1D4 Con | 1D4 Con | 14
20 | 1D6 Dex | 1D6 Dex | 14
22 | 2D6 Str | 1D6 Str | 17
22 | 1D4 Dex + 1D4 Wis | 1D6 Dex + 1D8 Wis | 15
22 | 2 Cha | 1D6+1 Cha | 15
22 | 2D12 HP | 1D6 Con | 16
22 | 1 Dex | 2D4 Dex | 16
22 | 2 Str | 1D6 Dex | 17
23 | 1D6 Con | 2D4 Con + 2D4 Dex | 14
23 | 1D4 Wis | 2D6 Wis | 15
23 | 1D6 Str | 2D6 Str | 25
25 | 1D6 Con | 1D6 Con | 16
26 | 1D6 Dex | 2D6 Dex | 16
28 | 2D6 Con | 1D6 Con + 1D6 Str | 18
28 | Confusion | 1D4 Int | 20
28 | 1D4 Int + 1D4 Wis | 1D4 Int + 1D4 Wis | 20
28 | 2D6 Con | 2D6 Con | 17
29 | 1D6 Con | 2D6 Con | 20
29 | 1D6 Con + Nausea (1 min) | 3D6 Con | 18
30 | 2 Con | 3D6 Con | 18
31 | 1D4 Con | 2D4 Con | 19
35 | 3D6 Str | | 26
37 | 3D6 Con | 3D6 Con | 20
[/table]

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2009-04-08, 05:45 AM
I houserule poison to work similar to disease: Initial save vs initial damage, 1 minute later secondary save vs secondary damage, 1 minute later secondary save vs secondary damage, 1 minute later secondary save vs secondary damage, etc. until it's cured or they make two successful saves in a row. Poison effects created by spells deal secondary damage once per two caster levels, then it automatically ends. Multiple doses of the same poison while already infected deal initial damage and add +1 to the DC of the current ongoing secondary damage.

I also like to run E6, poison is still relatively viable under that system, and particularly dangerous with this houserule.

bosssmiley
2009-04-08, 05:52 AM
useful and clever stuff about poisons in D&D

Or you could just take a simple route and allow Craft (Alchemy) to do something useful like, oh say, emulating level-appropriate spell effects. That means you can have bad-ass magical poisons at high level without resorting to the b0rkage of Epic "Anti-Magic Poisons" (Oh! how we laughed).

Poison stops being something that makes the rogue cry, and instead makes them not-disimilar to oil-anointed weapons. You can have different poison effects by using different spells: poison of enfeeblement/sleep/blindness/slow/paralysis/death.

No, this isn't broken. Poisons are still expensive, difficult-to-produce quasi-magical items that require close contact and in-game rolls (either combat or sleight of hand) to use successfully. And that's on top of their in-game infamy.

Myrmex
2009-04-08, 10:23 AM
I think poison should be a class feature for rogues and other sneaky types, but usable by other classes if they take feats for it.

It should go by uses/day- sometimes with expensive material components, like wizard spells. There's no reason a rogue should have to shell out 500 gp for a save or take 1d6 str when the wizard does that for free without a save. The rogue should basically carry a "poison's bag", much like the wizard's spell component pouch, and just assumed that the rogue keeps it well stocked.

DC should be 10 + (1/2 rogue level) + int modifier. Feats, spells, and expensive components, as well as items, would increase the save DC. For non-rogues who want to use poison, the feat would give them a rogue level = 1/2 their character level for the purposes of poisoning. For instance, after killing a red dragon, the rogue could harvest it for 1 dose per age category for an alchemical substance that increases the save against one poison attack he uses by 1 (+2 vs cold subtype), and adds 1d6 damage to the primary and secondary effects of his poison (no save). This would have no effect against creatures immune to fire.

Poisons for rogues should be roughly on par with shadow hand and stone dragon maneuvers for the swordsage, focusing mostly on partial save effects. Terinav root, for instance would instead do 1d/1d6 dex damage and slow on a failed save, but if the target made the save, they would just be slowed instead.

Telonius
2009-04-08, 10:51 AM
It should be exactly like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-89314.html). :smallbiggrin:

[/self-plug]

In general, it ought to be a tricky proposition, but not an outright impossibility. You need to work at it to be specialized. It should skate on the line of good and evil, law and chaos. Using a poison to subdue rather than kill? Probably more towards the good, and possibly even the lawful. (Think tranquilizer dart or taser, instead of bullet to the head). Slipping arsenic into a spouse's coffee? Probably evil and chaotic.

Myrmex
2009-04-08, 10:59 AM
It should be exactly like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-89314.html). :smallbiggrin:

[/self-plug]

In general, it ought to be a tricky proposition, but not an outright impossibility. You need to work at it to be specialized. It should skate on the line of good and evil, law and chaos. Using a poison to subdue rather than kill? Probably more towards the good, and possibly even the lawful. (Think tranquilizer dart or taser, instead of bullet to the head). Slipping arsenic into a spouse's coffee? Probably evil and chaotic.

Your self-plug is ok, but I think it goes the wrong way. Poison needs a revamp, make it a class feature. It's a nice patch, if you like the current system, where you spend all your feats trying to make your class features worth a damn, unless you are a full caster, in which case you're awesome without doing anything but preparing some spells.

Telonius
2009-04-08, 11:18 AM
It seems a little too specialized of a skill for it to be an "every rogue" sort of thing. There are lots of different sorts of Rogues - con men, fencing-types, catburglars. It just doesn't jive with me that every Rogue out there is going to know how to poison somebody. Everybody could put in the effort and know how to do it, if they chose to; but it doesn't seem like it ought to be an automatic thing.

Harperfan7
2009-04-08, 11:40 AM
I think it's fine the way it is. Here's why...

-A wizard can do rays of enfeeblement that do 1d6+1 str at 1st, up to a couple times a day, many more if he has a wand. A rogue can do +1d6 damage an infinite number of times per day. Giving a rogue ability damage capabilities is like giving the wizard sneak attack bous damage.

-Poison is added in immediately with an attack, so it's Base Damage + Precision Damage + Miscellaneous damage/effects + Poison. Not just the poison itself. You're getting two effects (at least) in one action.

-Poison is expensive, yeah, but so are potions. If I'm not mistaken, there are potions that cost as much as the most expensive poison. So it's a matter of A) making yourself better or B) making your enemies worse.

-Low DC's. Yes poison has somewhat low DC's relative to level or whatever. But that only matters when you try to poison a Fire Giant (or any other Tough). If you, the skillmonkey, come up against an Fire Giant, do you A) drink the potion of Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment +5 (3,000gp for either) or B) use the Wyvern Poison (3,000gp)? Ok, instead, now you are up against a 10th level wizard. Which now? The Greater Magic X potions might give you an advantage against the wizard, but not as much if he fails his save against the poison (and remember, he can dispel your potions). In the same light, even if the fire giant fails his save against the poison (he would have to roll a 2 to fail), that 2d6 con damage probably isn't as helpful as +5 attack and damage or +5 AC for you.

-Many things are immune to poison (or have a high enough Fort save to where it doesn't matter). True, but not as many humanoids (with class levels) do, which is mostly what poisons are used against. Even if they are, usually because of a magic item, the magic item can be stolen (whether by stealth or disarm attempt) or destroyed with targeted attacks.


As for poison being evil, I don't think that was well thought out. It's ok to shoot someone in the eye with a freaking crossbow from the shadows but god forbid you dip it in a dead insect first.

It should not be evil, at least not any more than killing your opponent.

EDIT: Poison use should be a skill or feat (assassins should get it for free, regardless, because they specialize in death).

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 11:49 AM
I think it's fine the way it is. Here's why...

-A wizard can do rays of enfeeblement that do 1d6+1 str at 1st, up to a couple times a day, many more if he has a wand. A rogue can do +1d6 damage an infinite number of times per day. Giving a rogue ability damage capabilities is like giving the wizard sneak attack bous damage.

-Poison is added in immediately with an attack, so it's Base Damage + Precision Damage + Miscellaneous damage/effects + Poison. Not just the poison itself. You're getting two effects (at least) in one action.

-Poison is expensive, yeah, but so are potions. If I'm not mistaken, there are potions that cost as much as the most expensive poison. So it's a matter of A) making yourself better or B) making your enemies worse.

-Low DC's. Yes poison has somewhat low DC's relative to level or whatever. But that only matters when you try to poison a Fire Giant (or any other Tough). If you, the skillmonkey, come up against an Fire Giant, do you A) drink the potion of Greater Magic Weapon/Vestment +5 (3,000gp for either) or B) use the Wyvern Poison (3,000gp)? Ok, instead, now you are up against a 10th level wizard. Which now? The Greater Magic X potions might give you an advantage against the wizard, but not as much if he fails his save against the poison (and remember, he can dispel your potions). In the same light, even if the fire giant fails his save against the poison (he would have to roll a 2 to fail), that 2d6 con damage probably isn't as helpful as +5 attack and damage or +5 AC for you.

-Many things are immune to poison (or have a high enough Fort save to where it doesn't matter). True, but not as many humanoids (with class levels) do, which is mostly what poisons are used against. Even if they are, usually because of a magic item, the magic item can be stolen (whether by stealth or disarm attempt) or destroyed with targeted attacks.


As for poison being evil, I don't think that was well thought out. It's ok to shoot someone in the eye with a freaking crossbow from the shadows but god forbid you dip it in a dead insect first.

It should not be evil, at least not any more than killing your opponent.

EDIT: Poison use should be a skill or feat (assassins should get it for free, regardless, because they specialize in death).

Great. I agree with you.

If someone is interested, in Drow of The Underdark you can find rogue ACF and a feat to deliver poison without risk.

Tehnar
2009-04-08, 12:02 PM
I think poison is fine as is.

1) You can craft your own poisons, and if you have RAW material components handy, you only pay 1/6th of the price to make a dose of poison. (I think that is in the Complete Scoundrel).

2) If you are a poison maker, you can select feats that make your poisons more deadly/harder to resist.

3) You still fail on a natural 1, unless immune to it.

4) It feels like a realistic model (to me).

Its useful in some situations, but not in most.

Narmoth
2009-04-08, 12:10 PM
The only way I've found use for poison on high lvl is this tactic:
1. poison with DC 20+ (still mostly saved against, but you have a slim chance)
2. use it on ranged weapons (bows or crossbows) to get 20 poisonous items for the price of 1
3. use only con-poison, as that's the one who will give the most effect in battle (hp reduction)
4. look at it as a boost: if it works, cool, if no, then that weren't your main plan anyway

I think basically, the fix should be a way to increase the dc of the poison in some way.
There's no by rules-way of doing this? (Increase virulence doesn't count, as it doesn't last long enough to be applied with the above method)

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 12:28 PM
I think basically, the fix should be a way to increase the dc of the poison in some way.
There's no by rules-way of doing this? (Increase virulence doesn't count, as it doesn't last long enough to be applied with the above method)

Deep poisoning, ambush feat - xd6 less sneak attack, +x to poison CD - MAX 5 (Dragon Magaz 322).

Complete Scoundrel has Poison Expert to raise CD of 1 (and poison Master to increse die stat damage).

Hope can be useful.

Telonius
2009-04-08, 12:29 PM
I don't mind the fact that, in the abstract, poisons are expensive. They should be. But what's crazy to me is the absurd amount of time (under the current system) that you would need to spend in order to produce even the weakest of them.

Let's take arsenic, for example. 120 gp, 1Con/1d8Con damage, ingested DC 13. 1200 silver pieces, craft DC is 15. Let's say there's a 12th-level Rogue who's put max ranks in Craft (Poison), who has an INT of 14, took Skill Focus (Craft Poison), and has a masterwork poisonmaking tool (whatever that is). He pays 40gp of raw materials. Let's say he rolls a 20. 20+2(int)+15(ranks)+3 (skill focus)+2(MW tools)=42. 42*15=630.

Okay, let's say he puts a +10dc to speed it up. Again, assuming all 20s: 42*25=1050

A twelfth-level Rogue, who specializes in poison and rolled a 20 on his craft check, is unable to finish one of the weakest poisons in the book, in a week's work. Hextor help him if he thinks about crafting a poison that might actually affect something at his level! Even a Wizard with CON 10 gets a +4 to Fort at 12. He needs to roll a 9 or better to save. For two weeks of downtime and 40gp spent, you get something that will fail over half the time.

That same Rogue levels up to 20. His INT is now 18. Craft Result: 52 on a natural 20. Great, this time you make 1300/1200 progress. Whee, at level 20 you're able to make a 120-gp item in a week!

That level 20 Rogue says, okay, I'm good enough with arsenic. I'm going to make some black lotus extract. Craft DC is 35, price is 45,000 silver, +10dc to speed it up. 52*45=2340 maximum. Rolling nothing but natural 20s, you will need 20 weeks - or about five months - to produce the poison. A more average result, 42*45=1890, means you need 24 weeks (or close to six months) to finish it, assuming you make all of your checks.

Six months. For a 20th-level character whose focus is producing poison, and who is doing nothing but trying to make that poison. There is something very wrong with that.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-08, 01:08 PM
Complete Adventurer says the result of CD x Roll is expressed in Gold



To figure out how much poison you are able to create in a week, make a Craft (poisonmaking) check at the end of the week. If the check is successful, multiply the check result by the DC for the check.

That result is how many gp worth of poison you created that week. When your total gp created equals or exceeds the market price of one dose of the poison, that dose is finished


English is not my main language... maybe I missed something but say a rogue 20, 27 rank + int + item in poison making

Average roll 37, say black lotus 35

37 x 35 is 1295 in four weeks you are done. You one shot a caster with that, I'm fine.

Assuming that I didn't misquoted CA (in that case, is enough... houserule my misunderstanding!) if it's so apologies, but I've PH in italian and CA in english :smalltongue:

Mushroom Ninja
2009-04-08, 01:18 PM
I think it's fine the way it is. Here's why...

-A wizard can do rays of enfeeblement that do 1d6+1 str at 1st, up to a couple times a day, many more if he has a wand. A rogue can do +1d6 damage an infinite number of times per day. Giving a rogue ability damage capabilities is like giving the wizard sneak attack bous damage.

I do not think your analogy works. If you give wizards sneak attack, you're boosting the power of an already overpowered class. If you give rogues ability damage, you're boosting the power of a mid-low powered class.
Boosting overpowered class =/= Boosting mid-low powered class

SurlySeraph
2009-04-08, 01:21 PM
Or you could just take a simple route and allow Craft (Alchemy) to do something useful like, oh say, emulating level-appropriate spell effects. That means you can have bad-ass magical poisons at high level without resorting to the b0rkage of Epic "Anti-Magic Poisons" (Oh! how we laughed).

Poison stops being something that makes the rogue cry, and instead makes them not-disimilar to oil-anointed weapons. You can have different poison effects by using different spells: poison of enfeeblement/sleep/blindness/slow/paralysis/death.

No, this isn't broken. Poisons are still expensive, difficult-to-produce quasi-magical items that require close contact and in-game rolls (either combat or sleight of hand) to use successfully. And that's on top of their in-game infamy.

This. Poisons need to be cheaper, and easier/faster to make, but giving them effects other than generic stat damage is the most important thing. I mean, real poisons can paralyze or blind you. Fantasy poisons should be able to do that and more.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-08, 01:32 PM
Edit: Sorry Kaiyanwang I totally misunderstood you and thought you were talking to me. My bad. I'm leaving the post up anyway.


Complete Adventurer says the result of CD x Roll is expressed in Gold



English is not my main language... maybe I missed something but say a rogue 20, 27 rank + int + item in poison making

Average roll 37, say black lotus 35

37 x 35 is 1295 in four weeks you are done. You one shot a caster with that, I'm fine.

Assuming that I didn't misquoted CA (in that case, is enough... houserule my misunderstanding!) if it's so apologies, but I've PH in italian and CA in english :smalltongue:

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say here, but you've definitely mistaken my system. :) It doesn't work on gold at all.

Black Lotus is a Find DC 35 say. Find DC is something I invented, not a cost.

What this means is the Rogue says "I want black lotus poison this week".
He now rolls D20 + 27 and tries to beat 35.

Here is a table. On the left, the result of his roll. On the right, what he gets this week. I hope this makes clear my intention.

{table]Result | Number of doses
28 | 0
29 | 0
30 | 0
31 | 0
32 | 0
33 | 0
34 | 0
35 | 1
36 | 1
37 | 1
38 | 1
39 | 1
40 | 2
41 | 2
42 | 2
43 | 2
44 | 2
45 | 3
46 | 3
47 | 3[/table]

Stormthorn
2009-04-08, 01:41 PM
I divide poison up into three types

Combat (now, 1 minute later)
Swift (1 minute, 1 hour, 1 hour)
Subtle (6 hours, 6 hours, 6 hours, 6 hours)

It takes 2 hours to find the stuff to make the poison and 2 more hours to brew it. If you have a poisonmakers kit it takes no time to find the items (but you still have to pay for making the poison).

Then for crafting it i make the DC equal to the DC of the save+2 (for a 1d4 damage injury poison).

+4 for a d6 poison

+6 for a 2d4 poison

+8 for a 2d6 poison

Plus any of these other factors:
1 of the poisons saves has its normal effect replaced by: sleep/1d4 hr effect- +1
'' '' Unconscous 1/hr +6
'' '' Paralysis 1/min- +4
'' '' sickened 1/hr- +2
'' '' Nauseated 1/min- +2
'' '' Fatigued +1
'' '' Blindness 2/hr +4
Poison is contact: +3
Poison is Ingested: -2
Brewing time reduced to 10 minutes: +2
Character also has an alchemists kit: -2

The poisons cost equal to the craft DCx3 in gold pieces. Poisons can be made a 1/3 cost but it takes an additional 48 hours to do so.

Telonius
2009-04-08, 01:42 PM
Complete Adventurer says the result of CD x Roll is expressed in Gold



English is not my main language... maybe I missed something but say a rogue 20, 27 rank + int + item in poison making

Average roll 37, say black lotus 35

37 x 35 is 1295 in four weeks you are done. You one shot a caster with that, I'm fine.

Assuming that I didn't misquoted CA (in that case, is enough... houserule my misunderstanding!) if it's so apologies, but I've PH in italian and CA in english :smalltongue:

... ::jawdrop::

How could I have missed that?! Well, I withdraw my main objection, then. :smalltongue:

Harperfan7
2009-04-08, 01:51 PM
I do not think your analogy works. If you give wizards sneak attack, you're boosting the power of an already overpowered class. If you give rogues ability damage, you're boosting the power of a mid-low powered class.
Boosting overpowered class =/= Boosting mid-low powered class

That's only if you cater to the whole, x class is better than y class stuff. In my experience, only the druid is more powerful than others, and that's easy to fix as a DM (I stick to core mostly).

EDIT: I think the complete equipment book has poisons that do other status effects.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-08, 02:24 PM
... ::jawdrop::

How could I have missed that?! Well, I withdraw my main objection, then. :smalltongue:

Wait, was that sarcasm? 4 weeks per dose on a character that does nothing but poisons? That doesn't seem fast enough for me.

Zaq
2009-04-08, 02:27 PM
I can see people have been ignoring my earlier spoiler'd post. Here, let me repost it.

What about a "Poison Use" skill? Craft (poisonmaking) is sort of a poisoner's skill, but I mean an actual skill. I'd give it to probably (off the top of my head) rogues, rangers, druids, ninjas, scouts, hexblades, wilders, shadowcasters, swordsages, dread necromancers, dragon shamans, lurks, and maybe a few others, and probably also available via a feat. It would, naturally, be trained-only. Using it wouldn't take any special materials, unless you wanted a bonus on it (just like how you don't need to pay for bandages and ointments for Heal unless you want a circumstance bonus); it would be assumed that anyone with ranks in it would have the materials they needed. It would be used to poison a blade before combat, to determine the severity of that poison, and maybe even to re-envenom a blade in combat (perhaps with the length of the action dependent upon the check? Just brainstorming here). I'm thinking that only the highest checks would actually deal ability damage; most of it would deal HP damage or inflict penalties such as fatigued or sickened. In addition to that, anyone could purchase and use a poison just as they can right now; the Poison Use skill represents using generic poison frequently and expertly, whereas smearing a bottle of drow knockout juice on your axe just represents a special, out-of-the-ordinary effort. This would make poison use have a cost (skill points and in-combat actions), but still be viable at all levels for those who chose to specialize in it. The exact numbers would require work by someone with a better sense of balance than me, but I think it's a viable idea.

Myrmex
2009-04-08, 02:54 PM
... ::jawdrop::

How could I have missed that?! Well, I withdraw my main objection, then. :smalltongue:

It takes a month to craft something that would take a wizard days, and be cheaper.

You'd be better off buying scrolls of lesser shivering touch.

Chronos
2009-04-08, 03:26 PM
From the OP:
It's twice as effective against PCs as against NPCs unless your combats routinely last over 10 rounds.Or unless the PCs use poison tactics. Venomous animals generally use a tactic of bite prey once, hide, wait for prey to run away, follow prey at a distance, wait for prey to die, eat it. If poison were a major part of the players' planning, they could use similar tactics.

Of course, this doesn't negate the other problems with poison (most notably the high cost in gold and/or time to get it).

Tehnar
2009-04-08, 03:26 PM
Hmm I think a poison use skill would not be a good idea. Either it would be so good that everyone would want it, or so bad that no one did. It would be hard to balance as a skill that has regular and effective use in combat.

As for crafting poisons, even with the result coming up in gold coins, you will have a hard (long) time making effective poisons. I recommend you houserule that its DCxskill result = gp/day. This nicely balances with the casters need to make scrolls/items and other general downtime.

Besides you want to use poisons when and where they can do the most damage. You wont use them against dragons, dwarves or giants, but against casters and humanoids. It wont work every time, but how much does it cost a level 10 character to carry around 10 doses of drow knockout, some sassone leaf residue, and other poisons that deliver the best bang for their buck.

I really like the poison system, because I think its a very realistic model. You want a poison that paralyzes? Dex or Str DMG poison. Arsenic deals ability drain, which means prolonging poisoning of someone to death is possible. Want someone blinded? Wis damage poison. Etc.

The only problem with poison I have is when I apply it to PCs. Tell anything to PCs in the line of your character feels a little weaker this morning, or is throwing up, you can bet your last copper that the player will stop their character on whatever quest he is on, take any possible and available cure, magical or mundane, which kind of defeats the point.

lsfreak
2009-04-08, 04:13 PM
Wait, was that sarcasm? 4 weeks per dose on a character that does nothing but poisons?

That's one of the single most expensive poisons, as well. Take a more average poison (DC18, 1d6 Str or Dex damage) and that month of work nets you 25 doses.

Deepblue706
2009-04-08, 06:32 PM
...

Now on the fluff side, poison is evil. It's used by cowards, usurpers, assasins and underdogs.

You forgot Hercules.

Fizban
2009-04-08, 07:05 PM
I like the disease-esque continual damage idea and the price like a magic item idea, though I'd only use one of them at a time. A while back on one of the alchemy threads I did a little math on the PHB items and decided to price them at roughly 15gp*spell level*caster level of a similar spell, the same price as one charge of a wand. Maybe do the same with with a poisonmaking skill and price them as scrolls or potions. Come to think of it, you could make a whole line of non-magic crafting skills that cost relatively the same but are much less convenient. Or instead of either of those, you could come up with some rank based bonuses for alchemy and poisonmaking/poison use, or feats to gain such bonuses.

theMycon
2009-04-08, 09:13 PM
You forgot Hercules.

Well, yeah, but it (quite literally) got back to him in the end.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-09, 01:11 AM
That's one of the single most expensive poisons, as well. Take a more average poison (DC18, 1d6 Str or Dex damage) and that month of work nets you 25 doses.

But then again, that's DC 14 Fort. It's only really useful at level 1, where your average roll is say 20, and your max is say 30. (4+ Skill Focus + 3 modifier).

So a poison useful for... lets say 6 levels.

Meanwhile with a wand of ray of enfeeblement, I can paralyze a Medusa in 2 rounds. It takes you a minimum of 4 with that poison.

Kylarra
2009-04-09, 01:26 AM
You forgot Hercules.Alternatively, you could consider Hercules an underdog given how much Hera wanted him dead.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-09, 02:14 AM
@ Baalthazaq: I see. Nevermind, a lot of times I edit my post because a misread. BTW, since I homebrewed with my players a gather-and-craft system, I found your ideas interesting.

@ Telonius: Anyway, T, you are right IN CORE. I've got to see in CA to find the rule. One of the first example of splatbook-fixing? :smalltongue:

@ Everybody: If someone is interested in status or continuous effect poison, take a look in Dragon magazine Compendium. There are very good poisons, forcing three saves instead of one, blinding, paralizyng etc. Some of them are very good out of combat (de facto, sometimes are good to start a combat with a big advantage).

@ Zaq I'd leave the poison as they are, but increasing maybe availability (if you lower price, you lower the level you get them and the time of crafting, as an example). Why? see Tenhar answer.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-09, 02:24 AM
It takes a month to craft something that would take a wizard days, and be cheaper.

You'd be better off buying scrolls of lesser shivering touch.

I don't understand why it's always assumed that you can buy every magic item, and in the number of copy you want.

I don't understand why class features cannot be used together as a team, so the necromancer enfeebles a foe, a bard UMD and a rogue the poison, and you have the prisoner/s you needed for you plan.

I don't understand why characters cannot take time between the adventures, plotting, crafting, or whatelse. Wizard is faster to craft, so what? He uses XP. Not so many, but he uses them.

xanaphia
2009-04-09, 02:30 AM
Poison should be an expensive but deadly attack, to be used rarely.

Look at fantasy. Poison is used for assassination of a few important people. It is almost never used in a standard battle type scenario.

I believe poison should have higher DCs and damage weighted towards the one-minute-later column. I think that the use of poison is killing people sneakily.

Dhavaer
2009-04-09, 02:39 AM
Meanwhile with a wand of ray of enfeeblement, I can paralyze a Medusa in 2 rounds.

How? Ray of Enfeeblement can't reduce strength below 1 and doesn't stack with itself.

Baalthazaq
2009-04-09, 04:43 AM
Fair point Dhaever. I considered it non stacking, but I may be mistaken about a certain metamagic feat stacking with it in the way I assumed it did. (Fell Weaken).

So lets look at something obviously equatable: A wand of ghoul touch.

90g per charge. Contact. DC 13. Paralysis D6+2 rounds.

Closest equivalent is identical (DC 13, contact, Paralysis).
The differences are, duration (10 rounds), and cost (750g per charge).

Even if that is fair (which I don't think it is at 8 times the price), you have the disadvantage of it being poison. Longer to craft, takes a round to apply it between attacks, and there's a chance of poisoning yourself.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-09, 05:00 AM
Fair point Dhaever. I considered it non stacking, but I may be mistaken about a certain metamagic feat stacking with it in the way I assumed it did. (Fell Weaken).

So lets look at something obviously equatable: A wand of ghoul touch.

90g per charge. Contact. DC 13. Paralysis D6+2 rounds.

Closest equivalent is identical (DC 13, contact, Paralysis).
The differences are, duration (10 rounds), and cost (750g per charge).

Even if that is fair (which I don't think it is at 8 times the price), you have the disadvantage of it being poison. Longer to craft, takes a round to apply it between attacks, and there's a chance of poisoning yourself.

Wait. You can put poison on ranged weapon, you cannot use Ghoul Touch as a ranged action. Not to forget that you could fire more than once per round your poison paralysis..

There is also the point of Spell Resistance...

Baalthazaq
2009-04-09, 07:00 AM
Wait. You can put poison on ranged weapon, you cannot use Ghoul Touch as a ranged action. Not to forget that you could fire more than once per round your poison paralysis..

There is also the point of Spell Resistance...

Well done, I'd take you seriously if we didn't have this discussion in real life about how poison sucks, especially since you helped me develop the system we use!

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-09, 07:12 AM
Well done, I'd take you seriously if we didn't have this discussion in real life about how poison sucks, especially since you helped me develop the system we use!

Hey, no need to get personnal, Mister. First of all, I wasn't happy with the way you tried to solve the problem.

I think, personnally, that how poison works should be re-hauled completely. There should be more "save for half" in the list... Maybe some poisons should be 2 points of Con Damage/round for 2d6 rounds.. etc...

Roderick_BR
2009-04-09, 07:48 AM
I always ignored the evil thing. IMHO, is dumb. In some istance i make poison use dishonorable, but that's all.

About poison effectiveness, against the right targets are veery effective. Simply, you have to select the right weapon against the right target.
I'll have to agree. Poison is easier listed as un-lawful (chaotic?) instead of evil. Would still be forbidden for paladins and knights.
And yeah, pick a poison that target a weak save, and deals damage in an area that is crippling, and you are good to go. No point in using a Fort Save (the most common) poison in a fighter, or a poison that deals strength damage on a wizard (except in hopes of paralyzing him).

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-09, 08:09 AM
I'll have to agree. Poison is easier listed as un-lawful (chaotic?) instead of evil. Would still be forbidden for paladins and knights.


I see, too, poisoning more as achaotic act.. we can see reach the achievement through a less common way.

Of course, this not make an assassination mede through poison less evil, if the campaing states assassination as evil (generally is).

ericgrau
2009-04-09, 10:19 AM
You gotta remember that you're using the poison as part of normal attacks, without costing you any actions. And you could make multiple attacks in one round. That's like a wizard tossing in quickened glitterdust or quickened grease on top of his normal spells. Except you could make multiple attempts against the same target. It's still effective.

At level 10 you have 49,000gp, and let's say you spend 1,500gp for an important fight to get dragon bile. DC 26, 3d6 strength. An average CR 12 monster has a fort save of 15, so you have about a 50:50 chance of taking him down. A monster that you'd probably lose against in a 1:1 fight, whom your entire party can take down but with some difficulty. And only if he's alone. If he's leading a group, that could spell trouble. Or you could fire off 20 arrows of drow knockout poison against lower save creatures. Or get the jump on a low fort save caster and you SoD him in round one before he can do anything about it. All at range or melee, without consuming a standard action beyond your regular attacks. These and other uses make poison seem pretty powerful as-is.

Spells like ray of enfeeblement that give an ability score penalty don't stack with themselves; you need ability score damage or drain to do that. Like poison. Those spells can't take the ability score below 1 anyway, except for shivering touch which is broken specifically for this reason. It's a no save no SR way that lets low level characters take out high level baddies automatically. Shame on any DM that allows it.

Draz74
2009-04-09, 01:02 PM
except for shivering touch which is broken specifically for this reason. It's a no save no SR way that lets low level characters take out high level baddies automatically. Shame on any DM that allows it.

IIRC, Shivering Touch does actually allow SR, at least. So you need to combo it with Assay SR to make its broken-ness complete.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-09, 01:07 PM
I think that part of the issue is that there are 2 seperate types of poisons. One type is used in combat as part of a full-attack to weaken or incapacitate the enemy, the other is snuck to someone out of combat to kill them secretly. They have different purposes and effects and their mechanics should reflect that.

Draz74
2009-04-09, 11:35 PM
I think that part of the issue is that there are 2 seperate types of poisons. One type is used in combat as part of a full-attack to weaken or incapacitate the enemy, the other is snuck to someone out of combat to kill them secretly. They have different purposes and effects and their mechanics should reflect that.

Yeah ... a couatl bite should have very different effects from a Black Lotus Extract that the assassin slips into a politician's drink.

Jack_Simth
2009-04-09, 11:38 PM
If poisons are nasty, crippling, affordable, high save DC things where one dose has a reasonable chance of crippling/killing the target...
Then that Ranger-16 that's using poison is spitting out four or five save-or-lose effects per round, at high DC. That's a balance problem.

If poisons are extremely expensive, have a low save DC, and are unlikely to disable the target even when they work...
... then there's little-to-no point in having it in game.

There isn't really a good way to handle it - someone will always complain that their either "worthless" or "overpowered" - in 3.5 D&D, they've mostly ended up on the "worthless" side - but for the most part, that's the better side for it to end up on.

For the proper assasinations, use potions of hostile spells. A potion of Extended Acid Arrow, at a high caster level, makes for a very amusing way to kill someone, for instance.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-09, 11:56 PM
If poisons are nasty, crippling, affordable, high save DC things where one dose has a reasonable chance of crippling/killing the target...
Then that Ranger-16 that's using poison is spitting out four or five save-or-lose effects per round, at high DC. That's a balance problem.

If poisons are extremely expensive, have a low save DC, and are unlikely to disable the target even when they work...
... then there's little-to-no point in having it in game.

There isn't really a good way to handle it - someone will always complain that their either "worthless" or "overpowered" - in 3.5 D&D, they've mostly ended up on the "worthless" side - but for the most part, that's the better side for it to end up on.

For the proper assasinations, use potions of hostile spells. A potion of Extended Acid Arrow, at a high caster level, makes for a very amusing way to kill someone, for instance.That's why I said there need to be 2 types of poisons. One type is high-DC, high-cost, and almost guaranteed death without immediate treatment, but must be ingested or similar and usually comes with an onset delay. The other is low-cost, moderate DC, causes a temporary penalty, and maybe comes with the following line: Poisons are dangerous to both the wielder and the victim. Any attack made with a poisoned weapon has a 20% chance of accidently poisoning the wielder instead(roll before the attack roll is made) unless the wielder takes special care, making the attack take 1 standard action.

Zaq
2009-04-10, 12:42 AM
Precisely. Poisons DON'T need to be stuck in the "primary and secondary ability score damage" scheme. I'd be totally happy with poisons that caused fatigue, or ability score PENALTIES (non-stacking, as all penalties are), or sickness, or blindness, or HP damage (possibly every round), or similar effects. I think we should move AWAY from the save-or-die paradigm. The fact that poisons only work once (you get one shot, in other words, unless you spread it over ammunition), are so expensive, and have a chance to fail means that people expect a big boom from them when they do work, but that causes problems on the OTHER end of the scale. The whole paradigm is messed up and self-defeating.

VirOath
2009-04-10, 01:17 AM
All I can do is clarify the note of poison being evil. Poison use in game has limited uses, but were it is used it is often better than magic.

The thing to remember about poisons is that it is a form of torture. That is, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a creature. It also often falls into premeditated murder beyond needed means.

In short, you are planning to cause alot of pain and suffering to what you want to kill before you even get in combat.


Now this is a HUGE difference between that and having Bane on your weapon, or even planning on hunting down XXXX and killing them. Magic weapons and combat against creatures is for a reason, and it is those reasons that define it.

Poisons are painful. It's akin to crippling a creature to the point that it can't fight back and torturing it to death. That also completely nulls the normal argument that you're killing him anyways, it's much different.

Combat to defeat and kill X creature, involving maiming, burning and even blasting and debuffing it. Thing is, it is intending to end it quickly, done for reasons.

Now, do the same, but don't kill the creature quickly, rather prolong it's suffering and torture it before you kill it. Poison is the same, also why the Poison Spell is evil. It just can't be justified in any way, shape or form.

Deepblue706
2009-04-10, 01:23 AM
Alternatively, you could consider Hercules an underdog given how much Hera wanted him dead.

Perhaps. Although eventually she accepts him when she gives him that fake birth thing.

Anyway, I just wanted to help tone down the stigma against poison use. It may not be honorable, but it's no more or less evil than killing someone with a sword.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-10, 10:08 AM
All I can do is clarify the note of poison being evil. Poison use in game has limited uses, but were it is used it is often better than magic.

The thing to remember about poisons is that it is a form of torture. That is, causing unnecessary pain and suffering to a creature. It also often falls into premeditated murder beyond needed means.

In short, you are planning to cause alot of pain and suffering to what you want to kill before you even get in combat.


Now this is a HUGE difference between that and having Bane on your weapon, or even planning on hunting down XXXX and killing them. Magic weapons and combat against creatures is for a reason, and it is those reasons that define it.

Poisons are painful. It's akin to crippling a creature to the point that it can't fight back and torturing it to death. That also completely nulls the normal argument that you're killing him anyways, it's much different.

Combat to defeat and kill X creature, involving maiming, burning and even blasting and debuffing it. Thing is, it is intending to end it quickly, done for reasons.

Now, do the same, but don't kill the creature quickly, rather prolong it's suffering and torture it before you kill it. Poison is the same, also why the Poison Spell is evil. It just can't be justified in any way, shape or form.All of that is rendered moot by one item:Drow Knockout Poison. It is fluffed as just knocking the target unconcious instantly without any negative effects. It can bring fights to a close without killing, and it is still Evil. Why? Can you give me any justification at all?

elliott20
2009-04-10, 10:43 AM
I personally think that the problem with the 3.5 poison schema is that it's too confining by the RAW. You either have ability damage, or a status effect, with two saves. (or multiple for each ability)

The problem is, poisons come in all shapes and sizes and there are far more to it than just "what kind of damage does it do" after ingestion. Poisons, in addition to just having their effects, also need a subtlety rating for detection.

Really, in general, I think poison needs the following attributes defined for it

1. application method
2. acting speed
3. how long it lasts
4. effect of
5. how to cure it
6. detection method

you're all probably looking at this and thinking "well, duh", but in D&D, you only have 1 and 3, with 2 generally being "right now and 1 minute later" and 5 being "an antidote" or a "neutralize poison" spell (a level 4 spell). That is, beyond 8th level, you have no reason to keep using that unless your poison is a one hit killer. (that or your GM somehow manages to keep magic out of your reach.)

what poison needs is to have a model that allows for a more robust variety of poisons to be created, and then calculate the price of the poison the same way you'd calculate the price of magical items.

i.e. a poison that is fast, strong, and undetectable would, by this model, be obscenely expensive and probably something that requires the highest level crafter with the most exotic ingredients to create. Hell, it could very well be magical by that point.

there are two more problems that need to be fixed. neutralize poison pretty much negates any usefulness of poison. And in any standard game where a cleric or some magic user capable of a 4th level spell is around, you might as well not bother. This model needs to change. I propose that you change that spell so that the caster needs to beat make a caster level check with a DC equivalent to the poison's save DC to undo it's effects.

there's more to this, but it's late over here and I'm tired. I'll write more later if people seem receptive to this.

Tehnar
2009-04-10, 10:44 AM
I think it is said in the books that Drow knockout poison is one of the few (or the only) that good aligned characters can use. It is also one of the best poisons, giving the most value. Those Drow know what they are doing :smallcool:

Anyway, Im not the one to label all poison as inherently evil. Unhonorable sure, but evil probably not. But such a thing is easily refluffed in your campaign that it doesnt matter much.

elliott20
2009-04-10, 10:51 AM
meh, it's clear to me that the OP was not asking about the fluff, RP aspects, or even the morality of poison, just it's mechanics and it's viability for character usage. Seriously people, stop talking about it in connection to alignment! it's not what the OP wants at all!

Tehnar
2009-04-10, 06:25 PM
Well I think there are two camps here:

a) The poison system needs a workaround to make it viable

b) its fine the way it is, and does not need a change


I feel its very viable in certain situations, not something your character will focus almost exclusivly on. Maybe its a different way of thinking about things. to go off on a little tangent here, but I think the crux of the problem is when you try to poison your PCs. So you either have method 1) where you homebrew a poison that the PCs auto fail their save against, and you need a McGuffin to cure. Or you use one of the poisons from the DMG, and the PCs spend 2 hours of ingame time to cure it. And I think the problem with the second approach is not the poison itself, but the presentation the DM makes to the PCs.

The typical aproach:
DM: ok, Bob, you feel weaker. You cant seem to hold any thing you eat, and keep throwing up in the morning.
PC: Oh that cant be good. I ask Bones to use a heal check on me too see whats wrong with me.
Bones: Has a average heal result, but doesn't have a idea whats wrong with Bob.
PC: "starts to panic now, and digs through his backpack." Ok, I drink a potion of lesser restoration. How do I feel?
DM: You feel a little better.
PC: Aha! "Drinks potion of cure disease". How do I feel now?
DM: You still feel good, but can feel you are still sick...
PC: Hmm, ok, then I drink a potion of neutralize poison. How do I feel?
DM: You feel healthy...
PC: Haha, got rid of that poison, and at only 600gp cost...

Jack_Simth
2009-04-10, 07:52 PM
I think it is said in the books that Drow knockout poison is one of the few (or the only) that good aligned characters can use. It is also one of the best poisons, giving the most value. Those Drow know what they are doing :smallcool:

In Core, there is absolutely nothing that says use of poison is inherently evil. The only time the alignment of using Poison is mentioned at all is in the Paladin's code... and there it's not listed as "evil" but it's covered under the "dishonorable" segment (e.g., it's Chaotic to use poison, but otherwise it's no more alignment-affecting than a standard sword).

In order to get the "Poison is Evil" bit, you have to go to ... I think it was the Book of Exalted Deeds. Poison is Evil is not Core, even though poisons are.


Anyway, Im not the one to label all poison as inherently evil. Unhonorable sure, but evil probably not. But such a thing is easily refluffed in your campaign that it doesnt matter much.
Yup.

Now, if you want cool ingested poisons, all you need to do is make a potion of a hostile spell, and slip that into someone's drink. A potion of Extended Acid Arrow is a 3rd level spell effect (suitable for potions). At caster level, oh, 6, it markets at 900 gp - and (over the course of six rounds) deals 12d4 Acid damage to the imbiber. At caster level 18, it deals 28d4 damage to the Imbiber (over the course of 14 rounds), and markets at 2,700 gp. A simple Magic Aura spell (costs 10 gp at caster level 1, if you hire it out) makes the aura vanish for a day, so it goes undetected (it's not technically a poison, so Detect Poison doesn't find it; it's not registering as magic, so Detect Magic doesn't find it...).

Then there's the Potions of Blindness/Deafness, Scorching Ray, Suggestion (now THERE's a funny one), and so on.

elliott20
2009-04-11, 07:13 AM
that's not a bad idea (except for the fact that you forgot to mask the odor with prestigiditization, and you forgot to disguise the liquid appearance with an illusion spell.)

But the real issue here is that this still means poisons, (at least in it's mundane form) is still largely useless and pointless. Just because you have a work around doesn't mean the problem just went away. The poison needs an overhaul, not an alternate way of doing poison.

Jack_Simth
2009-04-11, 08:59 AM
that's not a bad idea (except for the fact that you forgot to mask the odor with prestigiditization, and you forgot to disguise the liquid appearance with an illusion spell.)

But the real issue here is that this still means poisons, (at least in it's mundane form) is still largely useless and pointless. Just because you have a work around doesn't mean the problem just went away. The poison needs an overhaul, not an alternate way of doing poison.
Stuff that's suitable for applying to weapons needs to be at least one of: crazy-expensive, low DC, or very low effect. Otherwise, you've got the case where you've got a fighter-11 using darts, quickdraw, and the two-weapon fighting chain to spit out six save-or-lose effects at a noticable DC per round - which isn't balanced.

Use the existing poisons for weapon poisons (they're fine, for that), potions of spells for the more classical poisons.

Tehnar
2009-04-11, 09:16 AM
So what should be overhauled?

1) Method of delivery: Contact, Inhaled, Injury and Ingested. Doesn't seem much that you could improve here and yet keep it simple.

2) Acting speed: Most poisons have a initial and secondary effect one minute after initial exposure. Natural poisons (such as bite from a cobra) should act quickly. Some chemicals act slowly, like lead poisoning in small amounts, or rat poison that works after a few days. Changing the acting speed of the poison could offer more realism, but would it needlessly complicate things?

3) Method of resisting poison: Poison by definition affects the physical body, and thus the logical thing is to assume you counteract it with a fortitude save. I see little to change here.

4) Effect of: poisons can do HP damage, ability damage, ability drain, cause blindness, paralysis, or unconsciousness. Poisons that cause ability drain can model poisons that are introduced to people over a large period of time. Other condition afflicting poisons can represent more immediate acting poisons. You can add that poisons that cause confusion or injury poisons that inflict intelligence damage fairly easily.

5) Cure:aside from the magical, in the DnD world not a whole lot exists to cure poisons. Sure you could create alchemical substances that remove ability damage done by poison of a certain type, but wouldn't that be needlessly complicated?

6) Detection: Aside from detect poison, I am not aware of any other kind of detection. And in modern medicine, its very hard to detect some types of poison. Maybe if you have a substance that you suspect is poison, you could make a craft(alchemy) check to make sure. If you want to make sure that poisons are more prevalent in your campaign, you could remove spells like neutralize poison, or detect poison.


Also what is important is how you handle the majority of NPCs in your campaign. Does the village mayor have levels in wizard, or is he a 8 Con commoner/expert/aristocrat? If most of the NPCs are of the latter categories, then poison against them is remarkably effective and deadly. But you cant expect the same poison to work against Krum the scourge of Beholders.

Eldariel
2009-04-11, 09:30 AM
2) Acting speed: Most poisons have a initial and secondary effect one minute after initial exposure. Natural poisons (such as bite from a cobra) should act quickly. Some chemicals act slowly, like lead poisoning in small amounts, or rat poison that works after a few days. Changing the acting speed of the poison could offer more realism, but would it needlessly complicate things?

I feel this should be poison specific with the fastest ones requiring save/round, while the slower ones forcing a save every minute or hour or so on. Would make all kinds of sense and make the poisons more usable in combat. Also, some should offer a Will-save instead - you know, compliance poisons, sleep poisons, wis/int/cha damage poisons, things that hit the mind. Just to keep the saves in balance.

The other thing is the cost - if a dose of poison costs you 100th of the cost of a castle, things are wrong. Compare poisons to potions (which are also overpriced and should never be used by players who care about their money) and you'll notice that even the cheapest poisons are just in a different price class, and they present a similar investment of a short term effect for a singular fight. Further, you need a feat to even apply 'em at a swift action - otherwise you'll be hitting only once per turn.


Also, we need to stop pretending that poisons are any more or less evil than swords. Chaotic, probably (although I wouldn't blink twice at a Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good character using poison; Lawful Good is a bit hairy, but it's mostly 'cause of the "stick-up-the-ass" feel Paladins give it), but nothing evil in them (nothing more than any weapon or offensive spell, at any rate).

VirOath
2009-04-11, 09:32 AM
All of that is rendered moot by one item:Drow Knockout Poison. It is fluffed as just knocking the target unconcious instantly without any negative effects. It can bring fights to a close without killing, and it is still Evil. Why? Can you give me any justification at all?

Sure, slipping a girl a roofie in her drink isn't an evil act at all *Golfclap*

Intentions used behind it's creation, it's a freaking Drow poison! Killing a sleeping target, kidnapping, etc. is the point of it, and what good uses it has there are less questionable methods of getting.

Same goes with the paralysis poison.

So why do you need the target unconscious? Why can't other methods such as social skills be used to avoid the fight instead? Why do you have to force drugs into their system?

Edit: And people are missing the point of poisons. It's not supposed to be a viable tactic used in every combat. Heck, it's not supposed to be tactical at all!

Poisons are meant as Save or Screwed against key targets. An assassin won't use poison against every guard he comes across, but will likely on his target, or on anything that outmatches him like the Captain of the Guard.

And comparing it to a wizard isn't right or fair. A wizard has to expend limited uses on spells, prepare them ahead of time and once he is out he is out. Wands take exp to craft, so if he is making his own then he is shunting off his own exp to get around the limitation of his daily spell limits.

Even then, if he misses with a Ray of Enfeeblement then that spell is lost (And people that say it's impossible to have a high touch AC are kidding themselves. I've played builds that had nearly the same touch AC as my regular.). Miss with a poisoned knife, oh well, try again at no cost.

And using poisons properly shouldn't be applying them in the thick of battle. Best method is preparing them ahead of time, having a poison weapon in a sheath doesn't remove the poison. And all poisons can be crafted, investing skill points into them greatly reduces the cost. Another thing that wizards can't do.

Even then, there are ways of stopping spell entirely. Doesn't really work against poisons, even if there are magic preemptive spells and items that you can use. Those themselves can be negated, and the only thing really stopping poisons in the end is high saves and immunity, which isn't much of a point since poisons are supposed to be used on humanoids anyways.

Eldariel
2009-04-11, 09:39 AM
Sure, slipping a girl a roofie in her drink isn't an evil act at all *Golfclap*

Intentions used behind it's creation, it's a freaking Drow poison! Killing a sleeping target, kidnapping, etc. is the point of it, and what good uses it has there are less questionable methods of getting.

Same goes with the paralysis poison.

So why do you need the target unconscious? Why can't other methods such as social skills be used to avoid the fight instead? Why do you have to force drugs into their system?

The intention is the evil part, not the poison. If you use poison to remove the need to kill someone, using the poison is a good act. Not every guy is just gonna go "What a beautiful day!" when you try to talk with them - some people have orders to kill you or guard that passage or such that conflict with your intentions and the conflict is going to happen whether you play the fancy wordcling or don't. And Knockout Poison is a more "good" solution than blowing their head up or cleaving their body in half.

Also, if it's assumed that killing is ok (as per most D&D games assume for adventurers at least with regards to monstrous races), then lethal poisons are no more or less wrong than spells or weapons.

Jack_Simth
2009-04-11, 09:56 AM
Now, do the same, but don't kill the creature quickly, rather prolong it's suffering and torture it before you kill it. Poison is the same, also why the Poison Spell is evil. It just can't be justified in any way, shape or form.
The Poison spell doesn't have the Evil descriptor. You're thinking of Contagion (which inflicts a disease).

Also - consider such spells as Bestow Curse, most of the Symbol spells (Symbol of Pain has the Evil descriptor, the rest don't), and Insanity. there's a lot of spells in D&D that do massive bad stuff, some of which are quite Permanent.

Eldariel
2009-04-11, 09:59 AM
The Poison spell doesn't have the Evil descriptor. You're thinking of Contagion (which inflicts a disease).

Also - consider such spells as Bestow Curse, most of the Symbol spells (Symbol of Pain has the Evil descriptor, the rest don't), and Insanity. there's a lot of spells in D&D that do massive bad stuff, some of which are quite Permanent.

There're lots of weapons that do very bad stuff too (most importantly death) and I don't see anyone giving them "Evil"-description.

VirOath
2009-04-11, 10:00 AM
The intention is the evil part, not the poison. If you use poison to remove the need to kill someone, using the poison is a good act. Not every guy is just gonna go "What a beautiful day!" when you try to talk with them - some people have orders to kill you or guard that passage or such that conflict with your intentions and the conflict is going to happen whether you play the fancy wordcling or don't. And Knockout Poison is a more "good" solution than blowing their head up or cleaving their body in half.

Also, if it's assumed that killing is ok (as per most D&D games assume for adventurers at least with regards to monstrous races), then lethal poisons are no more or less wrong than spells or weapons.

Again, WHY do you need to knock them out? WHY are they trying to kill you? Start providing situations here, cause you are avoiding the question. Spells and the like can take him out of combat without harming him if that is what you are after. Just going on saying that "Oh, they won't always talk!" isn't helping your case.

And if it's because your DM is railroading you through a planned campaign with no chance of using other methods, then there is where your problems lay, not with the fuddled poison system.

And yes, killing is acceptable under the right morale situations. That is, the whole Alignment actually works once to stop looking at it as cut and dry, black and white, and start applying it to the shades of gray that the world live in. This is why good people will fight and kill good people, without it being an evil act. Good people won't go roaming around the country side just looking for things to kill without reason.

And again, killing is not in the same bracket as killing with poison. There is a good reason why certain spells are evil, because they purposely put the target through immense suffering. Lethal poisons are the same, they tear at you from the inside. Even if it's an instant kill in mechanics, it's by no means quick or even remotely painless. It's closer to killing with torture.

Which is why good characters won't use poisons. You can get away with using an evil method for a good act, but that's called Neutral, not good.

Edit: Thanks for the correction on the poison spell, and yes, it was another I was thinking of. Could have sworn I had seen the evil descriptor on it though.

But about weapons. Nine Lives Soul Stealer, Unholy, anything along that lines. Evil right in the description.

Jack_Simth
2009-04-11, 10:04 AM
There're lots of weapons that do very bad stuff too (most importantly death) and I don't see anyone giving them "Evil"-description.Right. Because there's a lot of non-evil reasons to kill things.

Wait... was it not obvious I was arguing that poison use isn't inherently any more evil than most weapons? Just, you know, it's icky and chaotic.

Eldariel
2009-04-11, 10:08 AM
And again, killing is not in the same bracket as killing with poison. There is a good reason why certain spells are evil, because they purposely put the target through immense suffering. Lethal poisons are the same, they tear at you from the inside. Even if it's an instant kill in mechanics, it's by no means quick or even remotely painless. It's closer to killing with torture.

That's bull****. Sticking a sword to a guy is just as evil as sticking poison to his food. Death is never good or painless - there's no vindication for hitting with swords or shooting fireballs at them, no more than there is for poisoning them. Evil spells tend to deal with evil energies or create undeath hence their description.

I'm not giving you situations because I don't need to. This is a D&D forum. Every player has played a D&D game. People die. That's a fact and it's an accepted part of the game. I don't need to explain why they die, because you know that out of your own experience. You can come up with the situations yourself. You don't need me to do it for you. And hell, specific situations aren't even relevant. The relevant part is that a lot of time, you have to kill things and how you kill them is immaterial - it doesn't make your actions any more or less evil.

Are you telling me Two-Weapon Fighting is evil because of the hundreds and thousands of cuts you inflict upon the enemy before he finally bleeds to death? No, D&D does not determine alignment by the amount of pain you inflict.


EDIT:


Right. Because there's a lot of non-evil reasons to kill things.

Wait... was it not obvious I was arguing that poison use isn't inherently any more evil than most weapons? Just, you know, it's icky and chaotic.

It was - I was merely adding to your list of "things that do bad stuff and aren't evil".

VirOath
2009-04-11, 10:14 AM
Right. Because there's a lot of non-evil reasons to kill things.

Wait... was it not obvious I was arguing that poison use isn't inherently any more evil than most weapons? Just, you know, it's icky and chaotic.

Hmm, maybe, if I saw the mechanics as working that way. I see poisons as a form of torture, so my stance on it won't change.

And even if you take some that are close to exceptions like Drow Knockout Poison, okay, you've got them unconscious, now what? You going to leave them to their fate where they are? Most times that's worst than killing them. Taking them with you? Then what do you plan to do? Just wanted to avoid the conflict in the first place? Then why resort to poisons?

There are plenty of ways to get around it without using poisons, and Drow Knock Out is normally used for knocking out people for assassinations and kidnapping. Getting it, unless you are an evil drow, should be a problem.

If you say that poisons are a good act in some situations then give the full picture, not just a glimpse saying "They were ordered."


That's bull****. Sticking a sword to a guy is just as evil as sticking poison to his food. Death is never good or painless - there's no vindication for hitting with swords or shooting fireballs at them, no more than there is for poisoning them. Evil spells tend to deal with evil energies or create undeath hence their description.

I'm not giving you situations because I don't need to. This is a D&D forum. Every player has played a D&D game. People die. That's a fact and it's an accepted part of the game. I don't need to explain why they die, because you know that out of your own experience. You can come up with the situations yourself. You don't need me to do it for you. And hell, specific situations aren't even relevant. The relevant part is that a lot of time, you have to kill things and how you kill them is immaterial - it doesn't make your actions any more or less evil.

Are you telling me Two-Weapon Fighting is evil because of the hundreds and thousands of cuts you inflict upon the enemy before he finally bleeds to death? No, D&D does not determine alignment by the amount of pain you inflict.




Yes, killing is fine, people die. But there is a world of difference between poisoning someone's food and running them through with a sword. The former purposely makes it more painful than it was needed, while the latter tries to make it as quick as possible. Good aligned characters don't jump the gun on killing people, or shouldn't be. I'm not saying that if they are attacked then they shouldn't defend themselves right away, or that they shouldn't seek out the evil necromancer planning on bringing death and destruction to the land and slay him.

But disabling them then torturing them, even it is before killing them, isn't a good act. That's down right evil. And it's to the point that many weapons favored by evil people actually inflict more pain than the wound the weapon causes. Using a weapon like that for that reason is an evil act in itself!

Just because you are good doesn't mean you don't understand that sometimes people need to die, and that killing is killing. But there is an underlying reason and motivation for every action, and that controlled action and decision should be biased toward your alignment. So making the conscious decision to torture a creature or person, for whatever reason, goes right against your alignment. Neutral at best, evil at worst.

Eldariel
2009-04-11, 10:56 AM
Just because you are good doesn't mean you don't understand that sometimes people need to die, and that killing is killing. But there is an underlying reason and motivation for every action, and that controlled action and decision should be biased toward your alignment. So making the conscious decision to torture a creature or person, for whatever reason, goes right against your alignment. Neutral at best, evil at worst.

Have you ever cut yourself with a knife? Maybe broken your arm? It's pretty ****ing painful. When fighting, you're trying to sever someone's hand, impale someone on a sword and so on. Against opponents on your level, the fight is decided by hundreds of cuts (HP damage) and lesser wounds. Can you truly claim that to be less torturous than having your breathing stop or blood freeze?

What about a variety of damage spells - different fireblasts scorching your flesh a dozen times along with ice blasts freezing your blood and lightning causing convulsions throughout your body. Acid slowly burning through your skin into your nerves and eventually bone... Do you truly claim that'd be less painful? Have you ever seen someone recieve burns? Imagine what would happen if you found yourself in the area of effect of three fireballs, or someone shooting three Scorching Rays at you.


All of those are painful enough to be classified as "torture". Poison is often the easiest way to kill someone. You're being "recieved" by the Evil Overlord™ and are to have dinner with him with all his henchmen present. Fight there would be a suicide. Poison him during the dinner and you'll save a ****ton of lives and his allies while also saving the lives of your party. If you don't use poison, you're through your inaction ensuring continued deaths and pain throughout the realm.

You use Knockout Poison, question the prisoners and if they're lower ranking adversaries, just let 'em go after making 'em vow on whatever they hold dear that they'll never align with the BBEG again. If you just knocked out the BBEG, deliver him to proper authorities and see to his fair trial and imprisonment. Seriously, how is that more evil than just killing the said guys?


Oh, and it's very, very simple to make a poison that numbs the senses, so you feel no pain at all while dying. It can be a completely painless way of death, something dying to a sword will never offer you - even cleaving someone's head off means they'll feel their throat being severed, they'll see the departure from their body, they'll be alive every single moment before their death and they'll experience every gruesome detail vividly. Is that your idea of mercy?

nd as far as swords go, that's pretty much the cleanest death imaginable. Impaling someone's lung has them slowly coughing themselves to death, their lungs fill with blood, them again feeling every second of it. How can you honestly accept that and yet call poison torture? Poison doesn't even have to cause pain! It doesn't have to kill! Do you have such options with a sword? You can deal non-lethal damage, but that's much harder and if you're up against an opponent who's a threat to you, doing that means you die. Not so with poison.


I just can't see where you're coming from. To me it seems like you don't comprehend how much pain every creature is in before they die, that they'd somehow have it worse when poisoned.

Deepblue706
2009-04-11, 12:47 PM
meh, it's clear to me that the OP was not asking about the fluff, RP aspects, or even the morality of poison, just it's mechanics and it's viability for character usage. Seriously people, stop talking about it in connection to alignment! it's not what the OP wants at all!

I think most of us to bring it up were responding to the previous comments of others who brought morality to question. Is it not worth discussing?

Deepblue706
2009-04-11, 01:12 PM
Hmm, maybe, if I saw the mechanics as working that way. I see poisons as a form of torture, so my stance on it won't change.

Poisons are not inherently involved with torture. Pain (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/torture) is inherently involved with torture. Poison (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/poison) is about killing or disabling. Destroying life or impairing health. Swords kinda do the same thing.



And even if you take some that are close to exceptions like Drow Knockout Poison, okay, you've got them unconscious, now what? You going to leave them to their fate where they are? Most times that's worst than killing them. Taking them with you? Then what do you plan to do? Just wanted to avoid the conflict in the first place? Then why resort to poisons?


It's not inherently worse to knock someone out than kill them; if you're infiltrating a fortress, and just want to kill the BBEG, the little baddie you knocked-out will eventually wake up, find his boss dead, offer prayers to his gods in thanks of mercy and leave.

Taking them with you? Well, if you're drugging an enemy to take them somewhere, you might be a Justiciar who can't resort to just his manacles. You might be delivering the person to an official authority. Or maybe you're an evil kidnapper. Poison use is independent of intent, and intent (by many moral standards) determines whether or not an act is evil.



There are plenty of ways to get around it without using poisons, and Drow Knock Out is normally used for knocking out people for assassinations and kidnapping. Getting it, unless you are an evil drow, should be a problem.


Because you fail to find situations where it can be applied in a good manner does not make it inherently evil.



Yes, killing is fine, people die. But there is a world of difference between poisoning someone's food and running them through with a sword. The former purposely makes it more painful than it was needed, while the latter tries to make it as quick as possible.

Really? I thought both were applied solely out of belief they were the most efficient tool for the job. Because, I doubt always marching up to King Evil with sword in hand is always the best way to go about removing a bad-guy from power.


But disabling them then torturing them, even it is before killing them, isn't a good act. That's down right evil. And it's to the point that many weapons favored by evil people actually inflict more pain than the wound the weapon causes. Using a weapon like that for that reason is an evil act in itself!

Disabling them THEN torturing them? If these are two separate actions (and not both involved with using poison, which you earlier claim is torture in itself), then you're talking about presumed associations with poison-use. Not actual poison-use.



Just because you are good doesn't mean you don't understand that sometimes people need to die, and that killing is killing. But there is an underlying reason and motivation for every action, and that controlled action and decision should be biased toward your alignment. So making the conscious decision to torture a creature or person, for whatever reason, goes right against your alignment. Neutral at best, evil at worst.

I still don't see how poison is inherently torture.

lsfreak
2009-04-11, 03:38 PM
Is Cloudkill evil? What about Bloodletting Strike? Feeblemind? Ray of Exhaustion? Shivering Touch? Because those all do exactly what poisons do, just in spell form. If those aren't inherently evil, poisons shouldn't be either.

Teron
2009-04-11, 05:01 PM
Is Cloudkill evil? What about Bloodletting Strike? Feeblemind? Ray of Exhaustion? Shivering Touch? Because those all do exactly what poisons do, just in spell form. If those aren't inherently evil, poisons shouldn't be either.
My favourite counter example is slow, melty death by acid arrow. If that's not evil, there's no way poison is.

VirOath, suppose I'm a low-level aristocrat. Through no fault of my own, I have reason to fear assassination (politically motivated, perhaps), so I carry a rapier around. Assuming the law isn't a problem, why shouldn't I poison the rapier? I'll be bloody lucky to get one hit on a competent assassin, a professional murderer for hire, so why shouldn't I do what I can to make that one hit a good one that hampers the assassin's ability to cut my throat before I can get away or find help? If it even matters (I'd think it's OK to make my would-be murderer suffer if it directly contributes to my survival), I'm sure there are poisons that hurt less than the rapier itself -- they certainly exist in real life.

elliott20
2009-04-12, 01:03 AM
I think most of us to bring it up were responding to the previous comments of others who brought morality to question. Is it not worth discussing?

while worthwhile discussion, it does not address the OP's initial concern, and often such a discussion devolves into another alignment discussion and how it applies to some often very personal morality code. (Not to mention this discussion has been done before) While a valid and interesting discussion of it's own right, it's not going to do the OP any good. He wants to know how to make poisons viable, not why it's wrong for someone to use it. and so far, people have responded generally with the following:

1. poison works fine as it is because otherwise it will be too powerful

or

2. don't use actual poison! just hostile spells in a bottle and make people drink that!

There is nothing wrong with either response per se, it's just that again it doesn't really address what the OP is asking for, mechanical changes.

#1 is an entirely valid concern, and that's why a system re-haul would need controls put in place to prevent abuse, while #2 being a totally cool idea, is just a work around and kind of misses the point.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-12, 01:27 AM
Every rules can already be abused. I personnally think that poisons should be more Save Fortitude (Half), because it's ludicrous that somebody simply shrug off the effect of a deadly poison. Poison should also sometimes cause sickness/fatigue, etc... There should be poisons against which there are no saves..

In short, it'd be great if we could come up with:

1) New acceptable prices for the poison listed in the DMG ('cause they ARE too expensive)
2) A proper rule-mechanic regarding poison prices so we can come up with poisons that are save (half), poisons that do hit point damage, poison that causes multiple effect, etc.. Maybe also make some poison work just like a disease..

Exemple of new poison:

On injury. The victim is considered fatigued (no save), and you have to take a fortitude save (half) every minute or loose 1d4 constitution point. After succeeding 3 tests, you survive the effect of the poison.

It's a deadly poison all right, I am aware of it. But it also gives time to players, etc... to help the poisoned party member with antitoxin kit, which could grant +5 to fortitude saves... etc..

Some spells like "delay poison" also would be much more useful. A new mechanic would required some in-game adjustment about how to deal with it.

Reaper_Monkey
2009-04-12, 10:18 AM
Okay, I keep reading that poisons are spam friendly, and that you can pull off several save-or-suck attempts a turn with multiple attacks etc, but I really think people haven't considered the actual way poison is used properly here.

First off, some poisons lose potency when exposed to air for long periods, will be washed off in water (or rain) and often require a certain "dose" to be introduced into the system for it to have truly deliberating effects. Poisons used in drinks or food are massively different from those you'd put on blades, and poisons often have to be refined and mixed to make them useful for either of those tasks.
Second, if you apply poison to a blade, you are only applying a set quantity to it, even if its water and air resistant due to second reagents you've added, there is still a limit to the amount on the blade and thus a limit to how much that can be transferred to a foe in combat through stabbing em with it.

As such, my suggests are as follows:
Poisons come in two distinct types, blade poisons and ingested poisons (for food and drink)
Ingested poisons have a chance of being detected when consuming the food/drink the poison is in, and thus are able to save themselves from introducing multiple doses to their system and ensuring their doom. Again skill checks or class features will allow competent poison brewers to disguise the taste and decrease the likelihood of it being detected.
Blade poisons should have a potency time, ie how long they last in air after being applied to a weapon.
Blade poisons should have a yield which can be applied, unless you are skilled this is often one "dose" however come more concentrated or potent poisons can have more by default, certain skill checks or class features will allow those who dedicate themselves to using poisons can increase the number of doses applied to a weapon, and in some cases the number of doses applied in a single attack.
Applying blade poison is a standard action, and has a chance of poisoning yourself when doing so. Dealing a dose of blade poison from a weapon is considered instant and unavoidable should it be applied correctly as soon as that weapon makes a hit against a foe.
For every dose introduced to someones system, they are required to make a save against that poison, with +1 DC for every dose still in their system even if they succeeded the save against it. If they fail they are affected by the poison normally, if they have already failed a previous save then they don't take the primary damage again, but the secondary damage is applied another minute after the last doses secondary damage is dealt. A dose is considered removed from a persons system as soon as the secondary damage would be dealt, this is after the standard amount of time if the save was successful, but a failed save means it will not leave their system until it has actual dealt the damage (which can be multiple of time periods later if multiple saves are failed).
The time for the secondary damage to take effect is often one minute for blade poisons (but can vary), and in the hours or days for ingested poisons.


Poisons can no longer be spammed, as they take time to apply and have limited "active" time in the case of blade poisons (unless they are brewed to be more potent, and therefore more expensive) which also means that you have to know when your going to need them and can be caught without them.
Poisons are no longer any more powerful for the average joe, but can still be a primary offensive power for those who specialise in it due to the limit in doses that are able to be applied to weapons. This also limited their use in large fights where the first foe will fall to them but by the time you get around to fighting the last it will have all been used up. Thus the advantage is not persistent and requires a different play style to take advantage of fully.
The upshot of all of this is that the lower DC's can be made higher if you can flood someones system with the poison, and food based poison can be much more aimed at causing a gradual decline over time (as they are often used in real life) so poisons can still be very useful in some peoples hands, but do not become something everyone would bother to use.

Thats my 2cp anyway, I hope its readable and understandable, I'm kinda in a rush and need to get back to my work =S

Deepblue706
2009-04-12, 03:20 PM
while worthwhile discussion, it does not address the OP's initial concern, and often such a discussion devolves into another alignment discussion and how it applies to some often very personal morality code. (Not to mention this discussion has been done before) While a valid and interesting discussion of it's own right, it's not going to do the OP any good. He wants to know how to make poisons viable, not why it's wrong for someone to use it.

Eh...if the OP doesn't like it he/she can FIGHT ME. I am accepting challenges to Fisticuffs and/or Rock Paper Scissors.

elliott20
2009-04-12, 09:46 PM
Eh...if the OP doesn't like it he/she can FIGHT ME. I am accepting challenges to Fisticuffs and/or Rock Paper Scissors.

The holy divine challenge of the Rock Paper Scissors? Good sir, surely you jest! Such challenges carry the gravest of sincerity!! I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Tensu
2009-04-12, 10:00 PM
I don't understand why poison is viewed as evil in D&D.

I mean, what do we consider the most humane way to kill things? with poison.

What do most small creatures use to stand up to bigger, stronger beasts? poison.

poison is the weapon of the clever and merciful, not the wicked and dishonorable.

elliott20
2009-04-12, 10:16 PM
well, when I look at poison, I see it as three different types:

1. lethal poison: poison that is meant to damage, and kill opponent
2. drugs: poison that is meant to just slow down and incapacitate
3. story poison: poison that requires some exotic cure or has some really bizarre effects that requires the PCs to go on adventures

combat poison is usually of the type 1 variety.

Now, in order for poison to be effective but still controlled, there are several ways

1. application restriction: reaper monkey's idea of expiring applied poison can help make poison be something that requires a bit of planning

2. cost: create a model that allows you to build poisons from the ground up, but then make sure that the price for really good poison become pretty expensive so you don't end up with PCs running around with a thousand vials of save-or-die poisons.

3. craftman rarity: good poisons, just like anything else of quality, needs a good artisan to create it. Poison, by virtue of being something most societies frown upon, are probably bit harder to find as is. A rare poison that has some really special effects are even more difficult to find. (And if the PCs want to craft it themselves, the craft DC is probably pretty high)

monty
2009-04-12, 11:19 PM
Eh...if the OP doesn't like it he/she can FIGHT ME. I am accepting challenges to Fisticuffs and/or Rock Paper Scissors.

Surely you mean Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock?

Eldariel
2009-04-13, 05:28 AM
Surely you mean Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock?

I think he meant Rock Lobster (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=5648) Paper Tiger (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=5705) Scissors Lizard (http://ww2.wizards.com/gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?&id=5698).

742
2009-04-13, 05:51 AM
idea, for every, lets say, 5 7 or 10 points by which you increase the craft DC(announced before you make the check), the fortitude save DC increases by 1. its simple, its effective, and it gives someone a reason to put more than 10 points in the skill, figure out what number is nice and balanced, and maybe a feat that removes chance to poison self+applying poison is a swift action, or you can have multiple (1/3 your craft(poison)?) doses layered on a weapon or something. makes it worth it.

pricing however could become tricky.

on the subject of poison being bad: yes, but if its a choice between feeling like crap for a week+a tiny cut on my arm, and getting stabbed in the face, ill take the poison. besides, con loss poison, the nastiest type in the direct approach, results in lost hit points. smite evil, which paladins have, results in lost hit points.

mdhb
2009-04-13, 07:00 AM
As a player of a poison-using PC, my experience is mixed.

As a political weapon, a high-cost, long-term, ability draining effect is just about perfect. We could argue on balance details, but it feels broadly there. Admittedly it's easy to overcome or replace with magics, but that's a discussion on magic v. mundane and how poison is most effective in a low-magic campaign.

But as a combat tool, poison is nigh-on useless. It's a high-cost, easily-avoided, irrelevant effect. No critter should ever live long-enough to suffer from the secondary effects, and the primary effect, usually stat-damage, causes more DM annoyance than it does impact on the combat. As an example, you pay 100gp for Tiny Spider poison, which gives worse than 50% chance to reduce someone's attacks/damage by 1 point. (The only bonus to a poison-specialist is that the crafting rules for poison are 10x more effective than for crafting anything else.)

For combat, I most typically want something to cause conditions - nausea, fatigue, etc. In which case, the poison is little different to a spell. I accept it's on top of damage, but there's also the miss and backfire chance. The challenge to the mechanics experts is then to balance the cost and DC against the alternatives. That should stop the high-level ranger dishing out 5 saves per round routinely.

I think such poisons exist, if you can find them. From the few I've seen in others' poison compendiums they're priced very erratically, but they do exist. The big shame is that most of the core books actually contain useless poisons.

Worira
2009-04-13, 10:27 AM
Surely you mean Rock Paper Scissors Lizard Spock?

I assume he means Dynamite Tornado Quicksand Pit Chain Gun Law Whip Sword Rock Death Wall Sun Camera Fire Chainsaw School Scissors Poison Cage Axe Peace Computer Castle Snake Blood Porcupine Vulture Monkey King Queen Prince Princess Woman Baby Man Home Train Car Noise Bicycle Tree Turnip Duck Wolf Cat Bird Fish Spider Cockroach Brain Community Cross Money Vampire Sponge Church Butter Book Paper Cloud Airplane Moon Grass Film Toilet Air Planet Guitar Bowl Cup Beer Rain Water T.V. Rainbow U.F.O. Alien Prayer Mountain Satan Dragon Diamond Platinum Gold Devil Fence VideoGame Math Robot Heart Electricity Lightning Medusa Power Laser Nuke Sky Tank Helicopter. (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html)

chiasaur11
2009-04-13, 12:26 PM
I assume he means Dynamite Tornado Quicksand Pit Chain Gun Law Whip Sword Rock Death Wall Sun Camera Fire Chainsaw School Scissors Poison Cage Axe Peace Computer Castle Snake Blood Porcupine Vulture Monkey King Queen Prince Princess Woman Baby Man Home Train Car Noise Bicycle Tree Turnip Duck Wolf Cat Bird Fish Spider Cockroach Brain Community Cross Money Vampire Sponge Church Butter Book Paper Cloud Airplane Moon Grass Film Toilet Air Planet Guitar Bowl Cup Beer Rain Water T.V. Rainbow U.F.O. Alien Prayer Mountain Satan Dragon Diamond Platinum Gold Devil Fence VideoGame Math Robot Heart Electricity Lightning Medusa Power Laser Nuke Sky Tank Helicopter. (http://www.umop.com/rps101/rps101chart.html)

Nah.

That game's stunk since they nerfed Guitar. And they left the secret alcoholic robot in, even though it breaks the game in two.

lsfreak
2009-04-13, 02:15 PM
Worth noting that, with the rules as written, it's much more effective to just buy a scroll of major creation and make one check to see how much stuff you make. Assuming one dose of poison is roughly the same size as a potion, and your DM allows you to simply "make poison" rather than "make a dose of poison," you make roughly 4300 doses of poison for the scroll. Granted, your barrel-o-poison lasts a limited amount of time (convince someone to buy several doses "at cost" for lulz and profit).

As for new rules...
I threw out the "initial exposure + 1 minute later." Different poisons have different effects. Most poisons have 2-5 separate saves, and each save might do different things. Some poisons are fast-acting (generally animal poisons, and the kind you'd want in combat, where you might make saves every round), while others are much more long-term ("poison their drink" type of poisons, generally plant-based, that may take a week for full effect). The DC's are generally for half effect, and some poisons force Will saves (unconsciousness from pain, for example) rather than just Fort. There are many different effects, ranging from weakness (Str damage), pain (nonlethal + Dex damage), bleeding (Con), delirium (Wisdom damage or Will penalties), nausea, fatigue, unconsciousness, heart attacks (immediately 0 and dying), and so on.

Tensu
2009-04-13, 04:20 PM
a heck of a lot of animal venoms paralyze, and do so very quickly. there should be a lot of poisons that paralyze as their added effect.

lsfreak
2009-04-13, 05:39 PM
The system takes Dex damage as paralytic poisons, Strength damage as those that simply weaken you, and Con damage as those that cause bleeding (or at least this is my interpretation). So they already have paralytic poison.

The poison system, as it is, is incompatible with real animals though. Take mamba venom - neurotoxins that (rapidly) cause you to stop breathing, but first is minor pain (well, at least relatively speaking), then eye paralysis, moving into loss of muscle control and then convulsions. By D&D rules, this would translate into roughly 4 saves: initial -5 penalty to sight, then Dex damage, then unconciousness, then severe Con damage (possibly Wisdom damage in there too, due to extreme fever and confusion that comes with the venom as well).

Pit vipers (such as rattlesnakes) would be equally complex in game terms. There would be straight damage from the extreme pain, Dex damage from paralysis, Strength damage from muscular destruction, and persistent Con damage from hemorrhaging, as well as aforementioned Spot penalties (this time from breakdown of the blood vessels in the eyes).

(This is basically why the way I do poisons is multiple checks over differing periods of time)

Jack_Simth
2009-04-13, 06:10 PM
There is nothing wrong with either response per se, it's just that again it doesn't really address what the OP is asking for, mechanical changes.
I might point out that the OP did not put the thread in the House Rules section. Why shouldn't people be responding with rule-based answers?

elliott20
2009-04-13, 09:27 PM
well, rule based suggestions are fine. Perhaps we could have misinterpreted how the RAW works, or maybe there was a facet we missed out. But clearly, that is not the case. Poison, at least without the splat books, are not worth a damn.

Tensu
2009-04-13, 09:43 PM
The system takes Dex damage as paralytic poisons

I think that's a lame way to represent it. maybe dex damage at first, then greatly reduced movement speed, then collapse to prone position and be stuck as if Hold (blank) was cast on you, then death by organ failure seems like the best way to do it.

rampaging-poet
2009-04-14, 11:59 PM
Another means of having paralytic poisons would be to make a poison with Paralysed for 1dX [rounds/minutes] as the primary damage.
In fact, if you also take the disease-style poison idea someone mentioned awhile ago, and had poison start draining Con once whatever it normally damaged ran out, a poison with Primary paralysed 1d10 minutes Secondary 1d6 Dex damage would end up with temporary paralysis -> long term side effects -> death by organ failure.

Of course, the idea that any poison can kill of Con damage might make them a little more powerful than they need to be.

Also, I just remembered a thread (article?) on the Wizards boards from awhile ago. It's been awhile since I've looked at it so I can't really remember if it's at all useful, but if anyone wants to take a look they can find it here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=751305).

Zen Master
2009-04-15, 05:59 AM
Wow - so many people who (apparently) honestly think using poison is ok for the good guys.

Jesus people - there's a reason no one uses poison, even in war. It's seriously uncool for anyone who happens not to be Saddam Hussein to use poison in any way, shape or form.

Dunno why, you die just the same from bullets - but the fact remains: The use of poison is more generally frowned upon than the use of torture, the mistreatment of prisoners or harsh punishment like Sharia-style stoning and stuff.

And I bet you all know that. You just really want your characters to have that option open to you.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-15, 06:21 AM
Wow - so many people who (apparently) honestly think using poison is ok for the good guys.

Jesus people - there's a reason no one uses poison, even in war. It's seriously uncool for anyone who happens not to be Saddam Hussein to use poison in any way, shape or form.

Dunno why, you die just the same from bullets - but the fact remains: The use of poison is more generally frowned upon than the use of torture, the mistreatment of prisoners or harsh punishment like Sharia-style stoning and stuff.

And I bet you all know that. You just really want your characters to have that option open to you.

...what?

I personnally have no problem in term of morality regarding the use of poison - not more than the use of a gun or a sword, anyway -. They are both weapons, and both are equivalent to kill people, period. I think in a good society, all non-tool weaponry (Swords, handguns, assault rifles) shouldn't be allowed.

It's not "honorable", but that's from a lawful point of view. Not on the morality scale.

Khanderas
2009-04-15, 08:01 AM
Wow - so many people who (apparently) honestly think using poison is ok for the good guys.

Jesus people - there's a reason no one uses poison, even in war. It's seriously uncool for anyone who happens not to be Saddam Hussein to use poison in any way, shape or form.

Hard to compare really.
Cloudkill = Mustard gas, pretty much.
Cloudkill has no moral stigma attached. Using mustard gas kinda does.

DnD IS afterall a world where the Heroes kill by racial profiling, take what they want from the corpses and more often then not view killing something as positive (xp).

I think alot of the stigma from using mines and poison (gas) comes from the impersonallity of it. Drop them and forget. Not to mention you cannot take somone captive with a mine => always for personel damage.

Oslecamo
2009-04-15, 08:53 AM
I think alot of the stigma from using mines and poison (gas) comes from the impersonallity of it. Drop them and forget. Not to mention you cannot take somone captive with a mine => always for personel damage.

They're stigma for very diferent reasons.

Toxic weapons(unlike cloudkill) just spread too far too fast. They deal ridiculous colateral damage compared to any other weapon. You can see a cloudkill aproaching and run. But when you see the mustard gas bomb exploding right in front of you, is too late to run.

Mines, on the other hand, are stigma because they don't disapear. The war ends, and the soldiers go home, but the mines are still there, waiting for some unlucky guy to step on them, and there's no easy way to get them out.

Kaiyanwang
2009-04-15, 08:54 AM
Maybe the poison = bad could come from a Tolkienesque root of the game. I mean, a Morgul weapon is vile. But as poison is now (just another way to kill) IMHO is dumb associate it to evil. Maybe to a disonhorable behavior (say, you win a duel for the poison and not for the strenght of your arm) but circumstantial.

Rampagin poet, if you like paralyzing poison of that kind, take look in Dragon magazine compendium.

In race of faerun, there is a poison of savage dwarves similar to the drow paralyzing one, but with higher CD.

lsfreak
2009-04-15, 01:29 PM
-morality stuff-
You're confusing D&D-style poisons with real-life chemical weapons. One is effective against a very small number of targets and has a historic use for both peace-time hunting and for use by the underdog in military/political situations to assassinate or the like. The other is indiscriminate and used to kill people en masse on a battlefield.