A poison question not related to alignment (gasp!)

[Talakeal]

Does anyone know the logistics of actually poisoning a blade? Does it actually work in real life? How long would said poison remain effective on the blade? Would the poison only work on the first stab, or would a poisoned blade remain toxic throughout a battle?

[Shadowknight12]

Does anyone know the logistics of actually poisoning a blade?

Yes.


Does it actually work in real life?

Yes.


How long would said poison remain effective on the blade?

Depends on the poison. Several factors affect its effectiveness. Thick, sap-like poisons tend to last longer, while aqueous, thin poisons don't last long (for example). A lot of what is termed "poison" (and was used on the battlefield) is actually filth (dirt, faecal matter, rot), meant to infect the wound and produce a generalised septicaemia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septicaemia). Other types of poison were meant to affect the target potently (with unconsciousness, paralysis or death) from afar, and were delivered via dart, bolt or arrow (most commonly known: the secretions of some Amazonian frogs, used by the natives for this precise reason). Other types of poison that could be applied to a blade were fast-acting illnesses harvested from the blood of the diseased (much like in the septicaemia example above). Other types of poison were instead produced by crushing specific vegetables into a thick paste that was later applied on the blade. As you can see, the variety was quite ample.


Would the poison only work on the first stab, or would a poisoned blade remain toxic throughout a battle?

Again, depends on the type of poison. A lot of poisons wore off on the first few stabs, but a really filthy, dirt-encrusted blade could remain "poisonous" for a long, long time. Other types of poison were purposefully mixed into more lasting substances, like wax, honey, sap or other thick, sticky fluids, so that they would remain on the blade for a long time.

[Xanmyral]

Well, if we're talking real life then it would be called venom if you are using it on a blade. Unless you plan on making your enemy eat your dagger, or rub it on their arm for a good few seconds. The other stuff would all depend on the venom, I guess. The blade as well. I would say a dagger with venom on it isn't a very great way to actually transfer the venom, as a needle like object to inject it would work much better. I'm guessing you probably only got a good one stab on the venom, as I think most of it would probably be scrapped off into the wound you leave. All I got really, and take what I say with a grain of salt.

[Codemus]

Does anyone know the logistics of actually poisoning a blade? Does it actually work in real life? How long would said poison remain effective on the blade? Would the poison only work on the first stab, or would a poisoned blade remain toxic throughout a battle?

Well, I would imagine the poison would have to be a paste or gel more than a liquid, since getting to *stay* on the blade could be dificult otherwise. Most poisioning has historicaly been through food and drink, or at range with blowguns or arrows (not sure on arrows). Poisoning a blade can be very risky, since you might accidently cut yourself and... you known, poison yourself.

Though I guess you could let a liquid poison dry onto the blade, though that insn't something you do in the middle of a combat.

[TheCountAlucard]

A lot of what is termed "poison" (and was used on the battlefield) is actually filth (dirt, faecal matter, rot), meant to infect the wound and produce a generalised septicaemia.While this is no doubt true, it pissed me off to no end when our DM tried to spring it on us in a game of his. :smallyuk:

So, these hobgoblins pinged our Fighter with some arrows, and then we mowed them down with ridiculous (aka, PC-level) efficiency. However, after the battle, the DM told the Fighter that he wasn't feeling too well. After a Heal check on my part, we discovered that the hobgoblins had, in fact, defecated on the arrows. :smallannoyed:

Worse yet, when my Cleric burns through a couple of spells to try and fix him, it turns out that neither neutralize poison nor cure disease were sufficient to fix him. :smallmad:

So, lemme get this straight... hobgoblins can just defecate on their arrows and, in doing so, produce a poison for which no save is allowed, no accessible spell will fix, can easily kill the target, and doesn't cost them anything?!? :smallfurious:

The only thing that stopped me from quitting that game was the fact that I'd've been leaving the other PCs without someone to heal them; as it was, I was still adamant that if this had happened again, I would quit.

Seriously, what's the point of buying black lotus extract if your poop can do all that for free?

[Xanmyral]

-Snip-

Well, a heal check might work. It will be slower, but the DM couldn't deny a heal check for this is the situation the skill was made for.

[TheCountAlucard]

Well, a heal check might work. It will be slower, but the DM couldn't deny a heal check for this is the situation the skill was made for.Uhh, he could, and did. If you'll notice, I got a Heal check - all it did was diagnose him.

[Knaight]

Worse yet, when my Cleric burns through a couple of spells to try and fix him, it turns out that neither neutralize poison nor cure disease were sufficient to fix him. :smallmad:


Yeah, that's somewhat excessive to say the least.

[rayne_dragon]

While Shadowknight12 gave a pretty thorough answer, keep in mind that most real world poisons aren't particularly suited to being used on blades. They often need to be injected or ingested to work and take quite a while to become effective. While a dirty rusted sword would have the potential to cause illness effectively forever (and fresh blood is only going to make it worse), actual poisons, for the most part, would tend to be wiped away by contact with various surfaces and the blood of actual wounds.

That said, poison ivy is a wonderful example of a real life contact poison that is everything except consistantly deadly. It works on contact and is extremely hard to remove to the point where trying to get rid of it actually spreads it onto more surfaces causing it to have more opportunities to afflict someone. Fantasy games often have plants and creatures that are far stronger and more virulent than mundane ones, so there's no reason you can't extrapolate the existance of poisons that have the tenacity of poison ivy but do far more than just cause a nasty rash.



Worse yet, when my Cleric burns through a couple of spells to try and fix him, it turns out that neither neutralize poison nor cure disease were sufficient to fix him. :smallmad:


I can understand neutralize poison not working, but cure disease would have to. I also don't understand the no save thing (although I'd potentially give the DM the benefit of the doubt and presume they rolled the save in secret). I'm all for some gritty (and disgusting) realism in games, but it either has to work by rules that are somewhat intuitive from the system or the rules need to be explained from the beginning.

[Shadowknight12]

Worse yet, when my Cleric burns through a couple of spells to try and fix him, it turns out that neither neutralize poison nor cure disease were sufficient to fix him. :smallmad:

This is bad ruling. If the DM wants to use science, then I, as a scientific, will tell him to stop fooling around and quit doing things halfway. Septicaemia is a disease. It is, in fact, the quintessential disease. Remove Disease should cure septicaemia.

Also, this sums it up well:


I can understand neutralize poison not working, but cure disease would have to. I also don't understand the no save thing (although I'd potentially give the DM the benefit of the doubt and presume they rolled the save in secret). I'm all for some gritty (and disgusting) realism in games, but it either has to work by rules that are somewhat intuitive from the system or the rules need to be explained from the beginning.

[McStabbington]

I would also point out that any competent heal check involves things that treat septicaemia. Washing the wound out with alcohol will sting like the dickens, but it will also a) wash the fecal matter out while b) killing germs. A decent heal check would probably also involve a poultice made in part out of moldy bread, which is the basic ingredient for penicillin.

One wonders what he thinks a heal check is for:
"I roll a 17 on the Heal check."
"You now know that he has a gash in his left thigh. It will have to be treated."
"I said Heal check, not spot.":smallfurious:

[hamishspence]

Well, if we're talking real life then it would be called venom if you are using it on a blade.

"Venom" is biologically produced poison- but not all poisons are venoms- even if applied to a blade. And I think in general, they need to be ones that come with a delivery system- an animal with toxic flesh is poisonous without being venomous.

If one were to dip a sword in, say, cyanide harvested from apple pits, would that make the cyanide a venom?

By contrast, if one were to dip it in the poison from a snake's fangs- that would be a venom.

[Fri]

In real life, some Kris have special.... I forgot what it's called, basically they're specially made with some sort of channel in the middle so poisons could stay and could flow if you stab someone with it. They're specifically made to deliver poison though, I mean, the usual run-of-the-mill Kris won't be as effective to deliver poison. I think the poison is kept in the sheathe.

[Analytica]

I heard someone mention poisoning weapons by burning substances onto the blade. Not sure about the details, as that should destroy things like protein-based animal venoms at least, but it should work on minerals. Similarly, soaking the blade, then letting the liquid component (water, alcohol, what have you) evaporate, leaving a poison crust.