Epinephrine
2009-08-16, 01:31 PM
So, I have something to say about Pathfinder poisons -
I love it, and I hate it.
Why do I love it? It's a great idea. They wanted to put some dread back into poisons, make them deadlier, and came up with some neat ideas on how to make it work.
Why do I hate it? They failed, since apparently they don't actually know how the math works. They weakened poisons, really.
So what are the changes?
Well, poisons no longer have a 1st and a 2nd save a minute later. Instead they have numerous saves (generally 6), and the frequency can vary, though it's often 1/round. That's potentially 6 saves in a row, if you keep failing them. We'll assume 6 rounds, 1 save per round.
There is also a save condition - this can be interesting, and is actually a way of making poisons deadlier - but they select 1 save as the save condition for most poisons, and the conversion document recommends 1 save.
Since the saves can be spread over 6 rounds, they try to spread the total damage that the poison would have delivered (at its average effect) over those 6 rounds.
Take a 1d6/2d6 Str poison, for example. In 3.5, if you fail the first save, you take an average of 3.5 damage. Later you may have to roll again, but you may well get a neutralise poison of a heal check before then. In Pathfinder, they take the maximum possible damage (18), and look it up on a table. That suggests taking 1d3 a round for 6 rounds. But it ends after the first save, so it's not that nasty.
Running the numbers, if you have a 20% chance of failing the save against this poison in 3.5, it deals an expected 0.98 damage, or roughly 1 damage on average. The Pathfinder version deals 0.506368, or about half that amount. That's pretty bad.
Even if you ignore the 2nd save in the 3.5 version (so you are just assuming it will be treated with neutralise poison within 9 rounds - but after the Pathfinder version has finished , so really, in 7-9 rounds), the average damage in 3.5 is 0.7 damage, which still beats the ~0.5 damage that Pathfinder has it dealing.
Adjusting the percentage chance for failing the save shows Pathfinder and 3.5 breaking even at about a 78% chance of failing the save. So yes, the multiple saves over 6 rounds is deadlier if you need a 17+ to make the save. Unfortunatly, looking at a list of poisons from creatures and their CRs, you won't find that those are the odds you are looking at. Very few poisons are so strong that characters of the correct level, with gear and so on, will have a nearly 80% chance of failing their fort saves.
==============
Now, Pathfinder came up with a neat idea for posions, which would work great if they had different rules. If you are currently poisoned, and are hit again with the poison, the DC goes up by 2 for the save, and the duration is extended.
So if you are currently taking 1d3 damage a round for 6 rounds, and you get stung again, the DC goes up by 2 and the duration is extended by 3 rounds.
Getting repeatedly stung by something could get very deadly, except that by the time you make your second save against it you likely cleared the poison, so the DC doesn't go up. The only times that the Pathfinder poison system gets to be effective are:
The few poisons requiring multiple saves to cure them (Wyvern Venom) - these have the advantage of automatically adding to the DC on successive applications. Poisons like this are few and far between, however.
Creatures capable of poisoning the opponent multiple times per round - not likely, as most poisonous creatures deal their poison with a stinger or other natural weapon,and only get one attack with the poisoned weapon. A shuriken throwing ninja could quickly bump the DC though, and a trio of shuriken throwing ninjas could land enough hits in a round to make nearly any poison deadly. Probably not the effect they were going for?
Multiple venomous creatures. Ok, they got this right - if you get bitten by 3 spiders in a round the DC of the save is 4 higher than it would have been, and you take poison damage for longer than you otherwise would have. Multiple poisonous creatures do present a threat.
So while I like the change in principle (multiple doses being deadlier, making poison something to worry about, the impending demise feeling of a save each round), the manner in which it was applied is missing something. Moreover, it opens itself to abuse by characters (or parties) that can repeatedly deliver poison with their attacks.
Will it make poison nastier?
Overall, no. Most posionings (getting stung by a scorpion, or the like) will actually be much less effective, as the average damage is substantially reduced when the saves are in the right range for adventuring. Multiple venomous foes are seldom encountered, and using several lower level foes reduces the poison's DC as well as the chances that the enemies will successfully manage to hit.
Could it work?
Yes. I think some tweaking to the poison system could be made that would end up about right. A Wyvern or other beast with a multi-save venom gets pretty scary, since it has the potential to sting again, raising the DC, which is already pretty decent. Multiple venomous foes could be dangerous, if they manage to hit repeatedly. Unfortunately, the only way it is likely to be deadly is if a DM is really trying to use venomous creatures, or if someone were to start using venom coated missiles, as they allow multiple poisoned attacks per round (groups of drow, derro, etc., I'm looking at you). If an angry pair (or worse, flight!) of wyverns were to attack a party and deliver venom to a single opponent it could indeed get nasty, with the DC boosted by quite a bit, and requiring consecutive successes to cure it, so there certainly are instances in which the Pathfinder rules will result in deadliness to poisons that previously didn't exist.
=============
I'm busily putting all the poisons from the Monster Manual into a spreadsheet and looking at the converted values - they're not very impressive. I'll probably use a deadlier conversion for my campaign, bumping up the damage per round, or playing with the save conditions.
I love it, and I hate it.
Why do I love it? It's a great idea. They wanted to put some dread back into poisons, make them deadlier, and came up with some neat ideas on how to make it work.
Why do I hate it? They failed, since apparently they don't actually know how the math works. They weakened poisons, really.
So what are the changes?
Well, poisons no longer have a 1st and a 2nd save a minute later. Instead they have numerous saves (generally 6), and the frequency can vary, though it's often 1/round. That's potentially 6 saves in a row, if you keep failing them. We'll assume 6 rounds, 1 save per round.
There is also a save condition - this can be interesting, and is actually a way of making poisons deadlier - but they select 1 save as the save condition for most poisons, and the conversion document recommends 1 save.
Since the saves can be spread over 6 rounds, they try to spread the total damage that the poison would have delivered (at its average effect) over those 6 rounds.
Take a 1d6/2d6 Str poison, for example. In 3.5, if you fail the first save, you take an average of 3.5 damage. Later you may have to roll again, but you may well get a neutralise poison of a heal check before then. In Pathfinder, they take the maximum possible damage (18), and look it up on a table. That suggests taking 1d3 a round for 6 rounds. But it ends after the first save, so it's not that nasty.
Running the numbers, if you have a 20% chance of failing the save against this poison in 3.5, it deals an expected 0.98 damage, or roughly 1 damage on average. The Pathfinder version deals 0.506368, or about half that amount. That's pretty bad.
Even if you ignore the 2nd save in the 3.5 version (so you are just assuming it will be treated with neutralise poison within 9 rounds - but after the Pathfinder version has finished , so really, in 7-9 rounds), the average damage in 3.5 is 0.7 damage, which still beats the ~0.5 damage that Pathfinder has it dealing.
Adjusting the percentage chance for failing the save shows Pathfinder and 3.5 breaking even at about a 78% chance of failing the save. So yes, the multiple saves over 6 rounds is deadlier if you need a 17+ to make the save. Unfortunatly, looking at a list of poisons from creatures and their CRs, you won't find that those are the odds you are looking at. Very few poisons are so strong that characters of the correct level, with gear and so on, will have a nearly 80% chance of failing their fort saves.
==============
Now, Pathfinder came up with a neat idea for posions, which would work great if they had different rules. If you are currently poisoned, and are hit again with the poison, the DC goes up by 2 for the save, and the duration is extended.
So if you are currently taking 1d3 damage a round for 6 rounds, and you get stung again, the DC goes up by 2 and the duration is extended by 3 rounds.
Getting repeatedly stung by something could get very deadly, except that by the time you make your second save against it you likely cleared the poison, so the DC doesn't go up. The only times that the Pathfinder poison system gets to be effective are:
The few poisons requiring multiple saves to cure them (Wyvern Venom) - these have the advantage of automatically adding to the DC on successive applications. Poisons like this are few and far between, however.
Creatures capable of poisoning the opponent multiple times per round - not likely, as most poisonous creatures deal their poison with a stinger or other natural weapon,and only get one attack with the poisoned weapon. A shuriken throwing ninja could quickly bump the DC though, and a trio of shuriken throwing ninjas could land enough hits in a round to make nearly any poison deadly. Probably not the effect they were going for?
Multiple venomous creatures. Ok, they got this right - if you get bitten by 3 spiders in a round the DC of the save is 4 higher than it would have been, and you take poison damage for longer than you otherwise would have. Multiple poisonous creatures do present a threat.
So while I like the change in principle (multiple doses being deadlier, making poison something to worry about, the impending demise feeling of a save each round), the manner in which it was applied is missing something. Moreover, it opens itself to abuse by characters (or parties) that can repeatedly deliver poison with their attacks.
Will it make poison nastier?
Overall, no. Most posionings (getting stung by a scorpion, or the like) will actually be much less effective, as the average damage is substantially reduced when the saves are in the right range for adventuring. Multiple venomous foes are seldom encountered, and using several lower level foes reduces the poison's DC as well as the chances that the enemies will successfully manage to hit.
Could it work?
Yes. I think some tweaking to the poison system could be made that would end up about right. A Wyvern or other beast with a multi-save venom gets pretty scary, since it has the potential to sting again, raising the DC, which is already pretty decent. Multiple venomous foes could be dangerous, if they manage to hit repeatedly. Unfortunately, the only way it is likely to be deadly is if a DM is really trying to use venomous creatures, or if someone were to start using venom coated missiles, as they allow multiple poisoned attacks per round (groups of drow, derro, etc., I'm looking at you). If an angry pair (or worse, flight!) of wyverns were to attack a party and deliver venom to a single opponent it could indeed get nasty, with the DC boosted by quite a bit, and requiring consecutive successes to cure it, so there certainly are instances in which the Pathfinder rules will result in deadliness to poisons that previously didn't exist.
=============
I'm busily putting all the poisons from the Monster Manual into a spreadsheet and looking at the converted values - they're not very impressive. I'll probably use a deadlier conversion for my campaign, bumping up the damage per round, or playing with the save conditions.