[Rogue] How to be more effective in combat?

[Erian]

Well, that's basically my concern. I'm playing a Rogue in a Campaign that just started (we only played ONE session so far), but I found myself being near-to-useless during combat. I've been unable to use my Sneak Attack (mostly because our first and second encounters were both an ambush; and the third had this large door that we needed to open before starting).
Good part is: I'm now level 2. I have Cunning Action now.
My questions would be:
1.- How do I Sneak Attack more often? (I know that the 5' away ally is the easiest path, but then again, my comrades might not be very helpful)
1a- Is it possible to hit with a Bow, Dash as a bonus action and re-Hide so as to get another SA in the next round? (this wouldn't require an ally)
1b- Is it possible to do something similar in Melee?
1c- If 2 rogues are in Melee against the same enemy, do they both apply SA every turn? (guts say yes)

2.- Which kind of weapon/s should I use to do more damage?
(P.s.: from what I've read, the best option/s is/are Shortsword/s)

3.- Any other suggestion is GREATLY appreciated, I'm totally new to D&D Next/5e so I have almost no idea what I'm doing

[Demonic Spoon]

Unless your party is completely devoid of melee combatants, how did you fail to attack the same target as someone else?


1a: Hide is an action, which you can use cunning action on, so no Dash. Depending on how you're doing it, the DM may or may not let you do this. For example, I wouldn't let you pop up from a box, but I'd let you hide and attack from a different angle.

1b: Moving out of cover breaks hiding for the purposes of advantage

1c: Yup.

2: Rapier is the best finesse weapon for damage. If you're dual-wielding, any kind of D6 finesse weapon.

You're probably jumping the gun in asking for help. One session isn't really evidence of a whole lot in terms of party balance. I'm guessing you just need to make sure you're attacking enemies your allies are. If you're going first and your allies aren't in position yet, use the Ready action to attack when they are in position.

[JAL_1138]

You're probably jumping the gun in asking for help. One session isn't really evidence of a whole lot in terms of party balance. I'm guessing you just need to make sure you're attacking enemies your allies are. If you're going first and your allies aren't in position yet, use the Ready action to attack when they are in position.

Agreed. A single session, especially in a combat system as (deliberately) swingy and luck-dependent as 5th, probably isn't a sign that things are terribly unbalanced. Give it a few sessions of multiple encounters.

The thing about 5e combat is that it's often going to be chaotic and luck-based to a larger degree than, say, 4th was. One character might be the star of a session and lay waste to all enemies in his/her path, and the next session be much less useful because the unique circumstances of the fights don't play to their strengths like the last batch did. For the most part this applies regardless of class or build.

[Ohnoeszz]

Well, that's basically my concern. I'm playing a Rogue in a Campaign that just started (we only played ONE session so far), but I found myself being near-to-useless during combat. I've been unable to use my Sneak Attack (mostly because our first and second encounters were both an ambush; and the third had this large door that we needed to open before starting).
Good part is: I'm now level 2. I have Cunning Action now.
My questions would be:
1.- How do I Sneak Attack more often? (I know that the 5' away ally is the easiest path, but then again, my comrades might not be very helpful)
1a- Is it possible to hit with a Bow, Dash as a bonus action and re-Hide so as to get another SA in the next round? (this wouldn't require an ally)
1b- Is it possible to do something similar in Melee?
1c- If 2 rogues are in Melee against the same enemy, do they both apply SA every turn? (guts say yes)

2.- Which kind of weapon/s should I use to do more damage?
(P.s.: from what I've read, the best option/s is/are Shortsword/s)

3.- Any other suggestion is GREATLY appreciated, I'm totally new to D&D Next/5e so I have almost no idea what I'm doing

As others have said, you should be fine going forward.

1 - What are your allies playing? I have a tough time picturing a group where absolutely no one is geared towards melee. Even if it's one person, just stick with them and gang up. A lot of abilities in the game can provide you with advantage on your attacks. Also, if you roleplay combat well, you can ask your DM if situations you create would offer you advantage on your attack.

1a - No, but you shouldn't need to. Why dash with a bow? As long as you have cover, just pop out to shoot before moving back - using cunning action to hide.

2 - Rapier is 1d8. Most of your damage will end up coming from sneak attack though.

3 - A 2nd attack gives you a much better chance at landing your sneak attack every round. Using a dagger in your offhand, let's you use a bonus action to attack with the dagger - you won't get to add your proficiency on attack rolls and the weapon damage is only a d4, but if you miss on your sword swing, landing your sneak attack with the dagger can keep you from missing it on that round.

Multi-classing is very viable for Rogue. If you do so, I would suggest picking one of the classes that eventually provides you a way to create advantage and get an extra attack (usually at lvl 5 in that class). 5 levels of Battlemaster fighter will give you maneuvers to help create advantage as well as an extra attack (archery. Pact of the Fey Warlock would give you access to Faerie fire (and other utility spells) to provide advantage as well as an extra attack at lvl 5.

Multi-classing is something to think about later if you aren't satisfied with how things are going, but it tends to take a bit of planning to get the most out of it. I mention Warlock and Fighter because those are pretty easy and good multiclasses for a rogue but there are many options if you go that route.

[Mandragola]

I think daggers are a really good weapon option for rogues. You can have one in each hand, to use as bonus actions to attack if your first swing misses, and you can throw them at people. It does marginally less damage than a shortsword or shortbow, and the bow is obviously better at longer ranges, but daggers are always useful to have around.

Mostly what I've seen rogues do is to skulk at the back row. On their turn they move in, stab something and use cunning action to get out again. I think we might have been playing that a bit wrong though, as friends are treated as difficult terrain now (I think).

[Erian]

Well I've read and I appreciate all the responses I've read. Thank you all.

So, for melee, either 1 Rapier or 2 Shortswords (it's 1d8, with the option to use Cunning Action's Bonus Action VS 2d6, spending the Bonus Action for an offhand attack).

I prefer the Shortsword to the Dagger for melee (both are Finesse & Light, but Sw is 1d6 and Dagger is 1d4; the Dagger can be thrown, tho).
Demonic Spoon: Nothing to argue.
JAL: Nothing to argue.
Ohnoeszz: in my party, we got ambushed so in order to sneak attack someone else's (melee) target I would've required to: a.- Provoke an AoO from the 2 I had next to me (I got bad luck and got the extra Wraith) b.- Use a Ranged Weapon against their target, at disadvantage since I was also in melee or c.- Disengage and move away (thus, losing the attack for that round and leaving our mage surrounded by 3 people so, not happening)

1a.- Once I've shot once from a hiding spot, I no longer have advantage on the attack roll. This was agreed on several threads in this forum (I agree to it, too).

[Demonic Spoon]

Ohnoeszz: in my party, we got ambushed so in order to sneak attack someone else's (melee) target I would've required to: a.- Provoke an AoO from the 2 I had next to me (I got bad luck and got the extra Wraith) b.- Use a Ranged Weapon against their target, at disadvantage since I was also in melee or c.- Disengage and move away (thus, losing the attack for that round and leaving our mage surrounded by 3 people so, not happening)


You can Disengage with cunning action, so you could've used that and attacked.

[Person_Man]

I've played a lot as a Rogue. Here's my basic advice and answers to your questions:

First, I've found that the basic optimal attack routine decision tree for Rogues is:

1) If I can get Advantage on an enemy without moving next to them, throw a dagger at them. I do not use a ranged weapon unless I'm far away from my target, because using a ranged weapon limits me to one attack, and most of my damage comes from a successful Sneak Attack, and not from the weapon damage. The dagger is a finesse/light/thrown weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d4 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. I then move away (preferably around a corner or heavy cover), and use use my Bonus Action to to Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks. I don't mind giving up the chance at an additional 1d4 damage from a potentially successful second attack in exchange for the security of being farther away from and/or hidden from enemies.

2) If I can't get Advantage on an enemy, I move so that I'm "flanking" an enemy and then attack it with a shortsword, a finesse/light weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d6 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. Then use my Bonus Action to Disengage and then move away from the enemy (assuming that he won't follow me, since my flanking buddy can get an Opportunity Attack against him) or if I succeed in killing my target I move away and Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks from his surviving friends. Again, I don't mind giving up the chance at +1d6 damage for the safety of being out of melee and potentially hidden.

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.

How do I Sneak Attack more often?

Coordinate with your team to ambush/surprise enemies as often as possible, because doing so gives you Advantage. The easiest way to do this is generally to have allies without Stealth hang back at a rally point while you and other Stealth capable players explore, attack/surprise, then fall back to the rally point. And/or you can use divination magic to scout, invisible familiars, and so on.
Have allies use spells that impose status effects that grant Advantage.
Have allies get good at the Shove maneuver (Athletics).
Have an ally use Enchantment magic that forces enemies to move using their own movement or Action or Reaction, provoking one or more Opportunity Attacks.
Get a mount, which becomes an automatic flanking buddy. I suggest a Druid party member, or have someone Animate/Conjure something you can ride.
Find a way to add attacks during other creatures' turns - Mage Slayer, Sentinel, Battlemaster Fighter, etc. But note that once you get Uncanny Dodge, you'll often want to use your Reaction for it and not making another Opportunity Attack (even if it means giving up another Sneak Attack) because it can potentially prevent you from taking a lot of damage. So I wouldn't go overboard on this.


Is it possible to hit with a Bow, Dash as a bonus action and re-Hide so as to get another SA in the next round? (this wouldn't require an ally)

Depends on your DM and the specifics of the situation.


1b- Is it possible to do something similar in Melee?

You can use Cunning Action to Hide as a Bonus Action. But you need to get out of your enemy's sight first. That means running around a corner, into full concealment, or getting Invisible. Again, coordinate with your allies, who can cast create walls, concealment, etc.


1c- If 2 rogues are in Melee against the same enemy, do they both apply SA every turn?

Yes. Each Rogue can apply Sneak Attack once per turn.

[Yoroichi]

Multiclass with 1-3 levels of wild magic Sorcerer :0, that is the character concept i have in mind at least :P

[Darlos9D]

"How do I sneak attack more often?"

Get two levels in Barbarian and use Reckless Attack repeatedly :P

[Dalebert]

No one has mentioned Clerics with the trickster domain yet. That's mildly surprising.

[Darlos9D]

No one has mentioned Clerics with the trickster domain yet. That's mildly surprising.

Man, is it just me or is multiclassing super cool and fun in 5th? Haha.

[MeeposFire]

"How do I sneak attack more often?"

Get two levels in Barbarian and use Reckless Attack repeatedly :P

Go up to level 5 to get more movement and an extra attack. It is not a bad trade and is perfect for a str based rogue type.

[Erian]

You can Disengage with cunning action, so you could've used that and attacked.

I really couldn't have, we were lvl 1.

And Person_Man, your answer's what I was looking for, TYVM.

Feel free to close the thread if you feel like it, admin.

[Ellington]

If you're playing a Thief you should try to get hold of an item that has some sort of blasting (circlet, wand, etc.). You can activate those as a bonus action which will grant you lots of damage output when used in conjunction with your basic attacks. You can also use stuff like Alchemist's Fire, Caltrops and Acid while still being able to attack but it might become a bit costly.

If you're playing an Assassin, you are probably dealing tons of damage but for very high levels you could try to add poison into the mix. A level 17 assassin doubles the damage from poison which is pretty crazy. The criminal background might be a good way to get access to poison.

[Darlos9D]

Go up to level 5 to get more movement and an extra attack. It is not a bad trade and is perfect for a str based rogue type.

Well, yeah, obviously the idea would be taken a bit farther. Your first major goal would likely be 5 levels of Barbarian and 3 levels of Rogue. And then after that you can just kinda do whatever.

[Shadow]

If you're playing a Thief you should try to get hold of an item that has some sort of blasting (circlet, wand, etc.). You can activate those as a bonus action which will grant you lots of damage output when used in conjunction with your basic attacks. You can also use stuff like Alchemist's Fire, Caltrops and Acid while still being able to attack but it might become a bit costly.

Wands are magic items. Fast Hands allows you to use an item. Using a magic item is not covered by this under the rules, as per the magic items.
Page 141, DMG: "If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item."
So no, unfortunately by the rules you can't use a magic item as a bonus action.


If you're playing an Assassin, you are probably dealing tons of damage but for very high levels you could try to add poison into the mix. A level 17 assassin doubles the damage from poison which is pretty crazy. The criminal background might be a good way to get access to poison.

The damage caused by poison is not due to the weapon. Your attack roll is not the determining factor in whether or not a poison is effective, so it isn't part of your weapon damage.
So no, unfortunately by the rules poison damage isn't doubled by that ability.
It is also not doubled on a crit, because once again, it is not weapon damage.

[Dalebert]

So no, unfortunately by the rules poison damage isn't doubled.

I don't consider that unfortunate at all. I'm sure one day one of my PCs will be on the receiving end of one of those poisoned blades!

[Shadow]

I don't consider that unfortunate at all. I'm sure one day one of my PCs will be on the receiving end of one of those poisoned blades!

I meant it was unfortunate in the sense that he believed it to be true and it isn't.

[Demonic Spoon]

Wands are magic items. Fast Hands allows you to use an item. Using a magic item is not covered by this under the rules, as per the magic items.
Page 141, DMG: "If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Item action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item."
So no, unfortunately by the rules you can't use a magic item as a bonus action.



The damage caused by poison is not due to the weapon. Your attack roll is not the determining factor in whether or not a poison is effective, so it isn't part of your weapon damage.
So no, unfortunately by the rules poison damage isn't doubled by that ability.
It is also not doubled on a crit, because once again, it is not weapon damage.

Your attack roll is absolutely the determining factor in whether or not a poison is effective. If you miss, you don't apply poison.

RAW, sneak attack damage isn't really weapon damage either. Nor is the paladin's smite, which is commonly understood to be doubled on a crit. Yours is a reasonable interpretation, but there's nothing in the rules that backs what you're suggesting.

[Shadow]

Your attack roll is absolutely the determining factor in whether or not a poison is effective. If you miss, you don't apply poison.

RAW, sneak attack damage isn't really weapon damage either. Nor is the paladin's smite, which is commonly understood to be doubled on a crit. Yours is a reasonable interpretation, but there's nothing in the rules that backs what you're suggesting.

The intent is no. The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/24/critical-poison/) So poison can't crit because it doesn't have an attack rll, it has a save.
Any dice that are part of an attack's damage are rolled again on a crit. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/06/double-dice-on-critical/) That includes sneak attack and smite.

[MeeposFire]

The intent is no. The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/24/critical-poison/) So poison can't crit because it doesn't have an attack rll, it has a save.
Any dice that are part of an attack's damage are rolled again on a crit. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/06/double-dice-on-critical/) That includes sneak attack and smite.

Do all poisons use a saving throw or do some just do straight damage? If a poison does not have a save then it would be doubled with a crit in that case.

EDIT: Also realize that the answer given implies that the rules actually say you should deal extra damage with the crit with the poison but that they did not plan it to be that way. So based on that the poison does crit but at least one designer did not think of it that way when making it. So go with what was written with unintended consequences or go with what the designer thought he might have wanted rather than what was written. The choice is now yours.

[Shadow]

Do all poisons use a saving throw or do some just do straight damage? If a poison does not have a save then it would be doubled with a crit in that case.

EDIT: Also realize that the answer given implies that the rules actually say you should deal extra damage with the crit with the poison but that they did not plan it to be that way. So based on that the poison does crit but at least one designer did not think of it that way when making it. So go with what was written with unintended consequences or go with what the designer thought he might have wanted rather than what was written. The choice is now yours.

Poisons do not deal auto-damage. Every single poison in the DMG has a save.
And that isn't just any old designer. That is the guy that the Lead Designer proclaimed as the "rules guy," so his word is basically law. Crawford is the D&D Rules God.
Mearls has specifically stated that when he and Crawford give different answers, Crawford's answer supersedes his own.
If you want to play it differently at your table you are welcome to, but the D&D Rules God says otherwise.

[MeeposFire]

Poisons do not deal auto-damage. Every single poison in the DMG has a save.
And that isn't just any old designer. That is the guy that the Lead Designer proclaimed as the "rules guy," so his word is basically law. Crawford is the D&D Rules God.
If you want to play it differently at your table you are welcome to, but the D&D Rules God says otherwise.

Your "rules god" just essentially admitted that what is in the book is the opposite of what he was thinking and I quite clearly wrote that you could either do what is in the book or do what the author thought he was trying to do. Perhaps what you should write "You can choose to play the game like it is in the book or you can choose to do what the writer thinks he would like" that would actually be more accurate.

Also before you try to make some case that RAW is not important and that it is what the DM decides I would like to point out that this particular statement does not help you here as neither you nor Mr. Crawford (or I for that matter though I am not currently sure which way I would choose to run though I tend to run RAW unless I can see a good reason not to) are the arbiter in this situation so whether Crawford's suggestion is better in the OP's game or the RAW is to be determined by the OP.

Of course I can be swayed if you can actually find the rule that actually says what the author wanted and that his answer to the question was unintentionally making it sound like he made a mistake. If you can do that that would be most helpful since then we can keep it to the actual rules and not having to choose between different people house rules and passing them off as the actual rules rather than the house rules that they are.

[Shadow]

He admitted no such thing. You're reading things that aren't present.
The question was asked if poison is doubled on a crit.
The answer given was that the save determined the poison's effectiveness, not the attack roll, so the intention is that it doesn't get doubled on a crit.
The rest of your rant is nothing more.... just a rant.

[visitor]

Poisons do not deal auto-damage. Every single poison in the DMG has a save.
And that isn't just any old designer. That is the guy that the Lead Designer proclaimed as the "rules guy," so his word is basically law. Crawford is the D&D Rules God.
Mearls has specifically stated that when he and Crawford give different answers, Crawford's answer supersedes his own.
If you want to play it differently at your table you are welcome to, but the D&D Rules God says otherwise.

Are you counting things like Drider (MM p120) Bite: hit:2 (1d4) piercing damage plus 9 (2d8) poison damage.

Also, Carrion Crawler (MM p37) Tentacles: hit: 4 (1d4 +2 ) poison damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 13 Con saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute.

The Carrion Crawler actually inflicts the paralyzed condition on a fail, so not a great example, but I'm pretty sure there are a few monsters that do straight damage and failed saves inflict the poisoned condition. Sorry can't think of them off the top of my head.

[Shadow]

Are you counting things like Drider (MM p120) Bite: hit:2 (1d4) piercing damage plus 9 (2d8) poison damage.

Also, Carrion Crawler (MM p37: Tentacles hit: 4 (1d4 +2 ) poison) damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 13 Con saving throw or be poisoned for 1 minute.

The Carrion Crawler actually inflicts the paralyzed condition on a fail, so not a great example, but I'm pretty sure there are a few monsters that do straight damage and failed saves inflict the poisoned condition. Sorry can't think of them off the top of my head.

damage from the attack
poison effect
In the case of the Drider the DM may include the poison damage at his own discretion, but in the case of PCs every poison available has a save.

[MeeposFire]

He admitted no such thing. You're reading things that aren't present.
The question was asked if poison is doubled on a crit.
The answer given was that the save determined the poison's effectiveness, not the attack roll, so the intention is that it doesn't get doubled on a crit.
The rest of your rant is nothing more.... just a rant.

He says the intent is that it should not work. He does not actually says the rules say that. Typically if there was an actual rule that said so they give it such as whether you can sneak attack with a longsword they would say "no the rules for sneak attack says that it only works with finesse weapons" not that "the intent of sneak attack does not work with the long sword".

And despite your comments you still have not mentioned an actual rule. Can you actually find me the rule that you say the writer is referencing in a sideways manner or not?

[Shadow]

The intent is no.
The first sentence was telling the questioner, No, that's not what was intended.
The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit.
The second sentence was telling him why.

If you ignore the first sentence completely, the answer was still given properly.

DMG Poisons: If you crit with a poison coated weapon, do you double poison dice because crit, or not because saving throw?

The intent is no. The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit.

He's saying flat out that the attack roll is not the determining factor, and as such it should not crit.
There's no ambiguity here.

[MeeposFire]

The intent is no.
The first sentence was telling the questioner, No, that's not what was intended.
The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit.
The second sentence was telling him why.

If you ignore the first sentence completely, the answer was still given properly.

So in other words you can't give an actual rule. I ask you a simple question and you are unable to do so. I have given you an easy way to prove your case and instead you hide behind an answer that could be a potential houserule.

So where is the rule? Does it actually exist or is this something made up on the spot by the designer when he realized he did not write what he wanted?

Where is your proof?

[Shadow]

My proof is that poison damage applied to a weapon is not in itself weapon damage.
It's not damage from the attack. It's damage from the poison.
I need no other proof.
You're the one that would need to prove that the poison applies. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.

[MeeposFire]

Just to be fair I went back to the rules in question to see if I can find the rule in question. Now I don't have the DMs guide on me right now to see if it has additional rules on crits but in the PHB it says this...

"Roll all of the attack's damage dice twice and add them together...if the attack involves other damage dice...you roll those damage dice as well" (removed the parts about examples, sneak attack, and how to roll the dice).

Nowhere in that section does it make any stipulations about saving throws at all. It also says roll the attacks damage dice. The poison is certainly part of the attack even if it is not part of the weapon. If the poison deals damage dice then by this rule it would be doubled. Particularly if the poison damage is not affected by a save since the whole of the damage is determined by attack roll and not by the saving throw mechanic. The only way to have this not work is to have the poison not be considered part of the attack which flies in the face of the simple language ideal that the rules work with. How would you consider poison not to be part of the attack? Certainly most people would say that if you were stabbed with a poisoned blade once that you were attacked once and not twice and if you are being assaulted with poison I think that would certainly count as an attack of some sort.

As an another example if you hit with a special flaming long sword that deals +2d6 fire damage per hit that also makes you save to avloid catching on fire in addition to the standard fire damage that it is no longer doubled but if it did not catch you on fire potentially and just had the extra fire damage then it would be doubled? Do you not think such a rule makes little sense?

Of course the easy way to fix this if you did not want poison to every crit would be to ensure it did not deal dice of damage and instead gave a flat bonus since that is not doubled on a crit. Nice and easy and gets the job done.

[MeeposFire]

My proof is that poison damage applied to a weapon is not in itself weapon damage.
It's not damage from the attack. It's damage from the poison.
I need no other proof.
You're the one that would need to prove that the poison applies. The burden of proof is on you, not on me.

I apply oil and fire to my sword and there is no save for the damage just an extra d6 of damage. It is applied just as much as any poison and yet there is no argument that it should be doubled.

Further you have changed the argument. Now you are saying that it is the application of poison to the weapon that is causing the issue and not necessarily the save you need to keep your arguments straight.

By the wya I just quoted the rules and there is NOTHING about applying things to weapons as being a stipulation. In fact there is nothing really specific about weapons at all. It specifies attacks not weapons. So I don't need to prove what you are asking I only have to prove the poison is part of an attack.

If you make an attack with a sword that has poison on it that would normally be thought as one attack as in "I got attacked by a poisoned blade". You do not normally break the two apart when they come from the same motion. Now if you stabbed a foe and then threw poison on the wound (or some other method) then you could legitimately say it was two different attacks but when both are delivered with the same mechanism and the same blow I cannot say that in any standard English that it was two attacks I would say that it is one attack. If it is part of an attack it is doubled and there is nothing in the rules that makes a special consideration for a saving throw either.

[Shadow]

Every kind of attack in the game, every single one, requires either an attack roll or a saving throw.
If something has both an attack roll and a saving throw, the saving throw's part is always a secondary effect. You sometimes roll an attack roll and force a saving throw. In these cases if the attack roll misses, the saving throw is not forced. That's because the saving throw is a secondary effect of the attack, but not actually part of the attack itself in every case.
There are no cases of which I am aware which force a saving throw and then require an attack roll if the save is successful.

Once again, you may play it as you like, but Crawford clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, and with zero ambiguity, that "the saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit."
The poison requires a successful attack, but that attack doe not determine whether the poison is effective. The saving throw does that. Since the saving throw does that, and not the attack, the poison damage does not get rolled twice on a crit.

edit:
--Sneak attack damage: automatically added to the damage from the original attack roll, no extra roll required, and as such is damage from that attack.
--Divine Smite damage: automatically added to the damage from the original attack roll, no extra roll required, and as such is damage from that attack.
--Rage damage: automatically added to the damage from the original attack roll, no extra roll required, and as such is damage from that attack.
--Divine Strike damage: automatically added to the damage from the original attack roll, no extra roll required, and as such is damage from that attack.
--Poison damage from a coated weapon: requires a saving throw to determine its effectiveness, and as such is not damage from the attack, but rather damage from the poison.

[MeeposFire]

Every kind of attack in the game, every single one, requires either an attack roll or a saving throw.
If something has both an attack roll and a saving throw, the saving throw's part is always a secondary effect. You sometimes roll an attack roll and force a saving throw. In these cases if the attack roll misses, the saving throw is not forced. That's because the saving throw is a secondary effect of the attack, but not actually part of the attack itself in every case.
There are no cases of which I am aware which force a saving throw and then require an attack roll if the save is successful.

Once again, you may play it as you like, but Crawford clearly stated, in no uncertain terms, and with zero ambiguity, that "the saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit."
The poison requires a successful attack, but that attack doe not determine whether the poison is effective. The saving throw does that. Since the saving throw does that, and not the attack, the poison damage does not get rolled twice on a crit.

You can play it how you like but once again you do not actually list any rules. IN fact you are once again making a statement with no rules backing. Looking at page 192-194 I see nothing of what you are talking about. It does say you need an attack roll but since the poison affect is started with a successful attack roll with the weapon it certainly fits with that definition and then later on page 194 it says "some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage". I think poison would be a special effect so that part would certainly leave the option open (notice that I am actually quoting the rules here to make sure we are on the same page?).

Looking farther down I see no rule that says anything about secondary saves that are initiated by a successful attack are not also part of the attack and the part I quoted allows for special effects to also apply to attack rolls.

It later even says that "if you are making an attack roll you are making an attack" and the poison effect is certainly being applied with an attack roll (the saving throw adjudicates the effectiveness of the poison the attack roll actually applies it especially if it deals damage regardless of the save).

Particularly with the carrion crawler I don't see why the damage would not be doubled in particular. The damage has no save (only the additional special effect which by the above rule can be considered part of the attack) so that part does not apply even if it were true and the poison is always on the tentacle so it is not applied later and even so I see no rule that says that there is even a problem with that.

[Shadow]

The fact that it requires a saving throw independent of the attack is all the proof I need.
I don't need a page number to cite.
The saving throw separates it from the attack by virtue if it being a secondary attack which only applies if the original attack hits. As a secondary attack requiring it's own roll via saving throw, it is not part of the original attack, because that's what a secondary attack is by definition.

I'm still waiting for your page number and proof. Burden of proof is still on you, and so far all you've shown me is misinterpreted conjecture. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this any longer. The Rules God agrees with me, and the only agreement that you have is lack of evidence. So you want to throw the term "house rules" around? Fine, do so. But yours is the true house rule, even if you wont admit it.

[MeeposFire]

The fact that it requires a saving throw independent of the attack is all the proof I need.
I don't need a page number to cite.
The saving throw separates it from the attack by virtue if it being a secondary attack which only applies if the original attack hits. As a secondary attack requiring it's own roll via saving throw, it is not part of the original attack, because that's what a secondary attack is by definition.

I'm still waiting for your page number and proof. Burden of proof is still on you, and so far all you've shown me is misinterpreted conjecture. Lack of evidence is not evidence.

Anyway, I'm not going to debate this any longer. The Rules God agrees with me, and the only agreement that you have is lack of evidence. So you want to throw the term "house rules" around? Fine, do so. But yours is the true house rule, even if you wont admit it.

I GAVE YOU PAGE NUMBERS AND ACTUAL RULES QUOTES.

You have done neither. You have not provided anything of proof and in fact the one thing you hide behind does not even contradict me because as I said before Mr.Crawford said "intends" which means that is what he wanted it to say and I am not arguing what he wanted or did not want only in what the rules allow and if the rules say what I say then his statement is 100% true since he intended it to work the other way but it actually is written another way.

But since you asked for it page 194 it says an attack can have special effects in addition to or instead of damage. The carrion crawler makes an attack roll it deals poison damage and the save is not even for the damage it should certainly be doubled. The save effect is an additional effect but is still part of the attack as well. If it is part of the attack it is doubled (this is on page 196) where it says that all damage dice of the attack (not the weapon the attack) are doubled and then later specifies this includes bonus additional abilities of which sneak attack is the most common. AS the poison is part of the attack along with the rest of the tentacle then the damage is doubled for any damage dice which includes the poison damage dice (the save is irrelevant in this case because the save does not apply to damage in any way).

All of these rules work together with no contradictions so in order for the poison to not work they would need to make a special rule stating specifically that it does not. An example of this would be in the DMG with magic items and fast hands where they specifically call out that magic item usage is separate from standard item usage so the fast hands ability does not work with it (this was an added change since they did make a statement that fast hands was not intended to work so they made sure they made a rule to make it not work in the later book).

An example would be "any effect related to a saving throw is not part of an attack even if delivered by an attack roll". You have to put the related in there or otherwise the carrion crawler can still crit with poison damage because the damage is not affected by the save.

By the way it is really rude to call somebody out to prove something when that other person has given references several times (rules quotes and page numbers) to help his position especially when the accuser does not seem to want to return the courtesy. It would be fair at least to debate my reading but it is not fair to say that I need to provide proof when I have and you do not actually address it.

Also I have given my proof for why I think this works. I cannot prove a negative easily and it is not fair. It is unfair to expect me to prove that your statement does not exist but that is what you expect me to do when you do not cite yourself from the books. The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is an actual rule for what you are saying as I have already found a rule on page 194 that leaves this open to being true.


If an a saving throw is delivered as part of an attack roll it could certainly be classified as "a special effect in addition to damage" that was delivered with an attack which is found on page 194. This means it is part of the attack which means as per 196 that it can be part of a crit as per the definition which says all damage dice related with an attack are doubled.

The poison damage from a carrion crawler is separate from the saving throw and are dealt via an attack roll just as much as the rest of the tentacle damage it should be doubled on a crit.

[visitor]

damage from the attack
poison effect
In the case of the Drider the DM may include the poison damage at his own discretion, but in the case of PCs every poison available has a save.

Sorry, I don't quite understand your answer. Are you saying just because the drow attack is classified a poison damage type (and poison is listed in PHB p 196 as one of the various damage types (necrotic, fire, piercing, etc.)) it doesn't count as "damage dice"?

Or do you mean, only poisons used by player characters are not counted as "damage dice" and not part of a critical?

By the way, I found an example of what I was thinking: Bone Devil (MM p71) Sting: Hit: 13 (2d8 + 4) piercing damage plus 17 (5d6) poison damage, and the target must succeed on a DC 14 Con saving throw or become poisoned for 1 minute.

[visitor]

Sorry, a somewhat off the track question: I read somewhere one of the designers saying that for critical hits, only one of the damage dice is rolled (type of dice I guess), not all the dice.

So Greatsword 2d6 crit would be 2d6 + 1d6, not 2d6 + 2d6.

I can't find that again, and I don't think it reads that way in the PHB. Did I dream that?

[visitor]

Sorry to post so many times in a row.

Just curious, I looked through the PHB spells. As far as I can tell, spells requiring "to hit" rolls, do NOT have saves. Spells that have saves, do NOT have to roll "to hit".

One could therefore say, the spells that roll to hit can critical, and those requiring saves (because there's no "to hit" roll) canNOT critical.



So while the rules are not explicit, you could extrapolate that poison damage (or any damage) that uses a save (even though you roll to hit with your weapon) would not be included in the critical hit. But "poison damage" that does not require a save, i.e. Bone Devils, would be included.

Of course, the designers might have been only thinking of spell damage when they were discussing critical hits and saves. Because that makes sense, you can't critical a fireball when you don't roll to hit. Maybe they just overlooked poison on weapons that require a "to hit" roll first.

Edit: Actually, I think that's the big difference: you can't critical a "save" damage-type because (as spells) they auto hit. If you drank poison, or ate poisoned food, you couldn't be "criticaled" either. But a poisoned weapon isn't delivering the poison damage as an autohit. So it's a little bit of both circumstances.

I suppose you could say, "when I hit with my weapon (and possibly crit), the poison coated on it automatically activates and does x damage unless my target saves vs. poison (and so doesn't crit)". That's pretty consistent with how it seems spells are handled. But it does require a LOT of reading between the lines of the description of Critical Hits.

[holygroundj]

Sorry, a somewhat off the track question: I read somewhere one of the designers saying that for critical hits, only one of the damage dice is rolled (type of dice I guess), not all the dice.

So Greatsword 2d6 crit would be 2d6 + 1d6, not 2d6 + 2d6.

I can't find that again, and I don't think it reads that way in the PHB. Did I dream that?

You definitely dreamed that, but you might be confusing the half-orc ability savage critical with general critical hits. Half orcs, when they crit, add ONE damage die in addition to the dice added for a crit.

So a great sword crit for a non half orc would be 2d6+2d6, but for a half orc would be 2d6+3D6.

[odigity]

I've played a lot as a Rogue. Here's my basic advice and answers to your questions:

That's a fantastic Rogue tactics mini-guide -- thanks!

I'd suggest adding it to one of the Rogue guides, but both of the ones I know are on the Wizards forums:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?377491-Guides-Tables-and-other-useful-tools-for-5E-D-amp-D

[visitor]

You definitely dreamed that, but you might be confusing the half-orc ability savage critical with general critical hits. Half orcs, when they crit, add ONE damage die in addition to the dice added for a crit.

So a great sword crit for a non half orc would be 2d6+2d6, but for a half orc would be 2d6+3D6.


a ha! Thanks!

[Myzz]

don't many poisons specify half dmg on a successful save?

and would that not count as auto dmg regardless of the save?

In those cases the save is not necessarily to stop dmg, but to avoid having the poisoned condition... which is far worse imo.

[visitor]

don't many poisons specify half dmg on a successful save?

and would that not count as auto dmg regardless of the save?

In those cases the save is not necessarily to stop dmg, but to avoid having the poisoned condition... which is far worse imo.



yes, so that's one way to justify "no poison damage added to critical damage"; because that seems to be the way they handled spells. and its just tough luck you have to roll to hit with your weapon first.

[Dalebert]

Any dice that are part of an attack's damage are rolled again on a crit. (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/11/06/double-dice-on-critical/) That includes sneak attack and smite.

Crap. I think we may have been playing that wrong. I don't think we've been doubling the sneak attack dmg.


He says the intent is that it should not work. He does not actually says the rules say that.

I would concede that he is conceding that the rules may have overlooked something and created an exploit if you're going to engage in rules-lawyering. Do you really want to do that though? Don't you care about the intent? They took a lot of balance issues into account to derive those rules.


I think daggers are a really good weapon option for rogues. You can have one in each hand, to use as bonus actions to attack if your first swing misses, and you can throw them at people. It does marginally less damage than a shortsword or shortbow, and the bow is obviously better at longer ranges, but daggers are always useful to have around.

Is the loss in dmg compared to, for instance, two shortswords worth it? As far as I can tell, the only benefit to a dagger over a shortsword is you can throw it. Seems to me you could use shortswords by default and pull out daggers if you want two thrown attacks. Also, if you're planning to melee and want to have the option to throw, you could do one shortsword and one dagger. I haven't played a rogue yet (doing my rogue and Trickery cleric tonight!) so I'm going purely on conjecture.

[Easy_Lee]

Is the loss in dmg compared to, for instance, two shortswords worth it? As far as I can tell, the only benefit to a dagger over a shortsword is you can throw it. Seems to me you could use shortswords by default and pull out daggers if you want two thrown attacks. Also, if you're planning to melee and want to have the option to throw, you could do one shortsword and one dagger. I haven't played a rogue yet (doing my rogue and Trickery cleric tonight!) so I'm going purely on conjecture.

Dagger loses one damage vs a shortsword on the average, so it's not a big deal for a rogue. That said, a safe compromise would be shortsword in one hand and dagger in the other.

Remember that at no point in the PHB does it say which hand is your dominant "primary" hand, nor that you must have one. You can dual wield and attack with whichever hand you choose for that attack. The only time you're forced to use a specific hand is when you use your bonus action attack from dual wield, which requires you use the hand that you didn't use for the triggering attack.

So a rogue with a shortsword plus dagger gets his bonus attack when he wants it, gets his extra +1 in melee when he wants it, and gets the ranged option too. You also always have a weapon out for opportunity attacks.

[Myzz]

if it works with a spell adder like smite, it should therefore work with any fire adder, and if in doing so why not let it work with poisons? because poisons are much worse dmg wise?

The mechanic of disallowing poison in that case does not make sense to me.

Dalebert, the reason he would want to utilize daggers... is he has 'dozens'? all with poised sheaths? So he can attack at range if needing to, he can apply poisons multiple times to whichever targets he desires. Some DM's are likely to run, the once its used on the blade its gone idea... I would (and I usually play a rogue type when I play).

giving up 1d4 of potential dmg to not have to switch weapons to get your ranged attack in when u need to, and function as a controller utilizing your poisons to give multiple character disadvantage on attacks and all ability checks, is perhaps worth it. The multiple poison application itself on sneak attacks will more than make up for that d4.

[Myzz]

Now if you could get a DM to say that using Darts can be given advantage on attack rolls with successfull sleight of hand checks... I'd probably use them quite frequently, even if their base dmg is 1 P

+sneak attack +poison on nearly every (expertise into SoH) attack that you make regardless of any other considerations....

Of course I'd probably go Fighter after my 3 Assassin Dip to get as many attacks as possible and use the darts as a controller...

[visitor]

if it works with a spell adder like smite, it should therefore work with any fire adder, and if in doing so why not let it work with poisons? because poisons are much worse dmg wise?

The mechanic of disallowing poison in that case does not make sense to me.

Dalebert, the reason he would want to utilize daggers... is he has 'dozens'? all with poised sheaths? So he can attack at range if needing to, he can apply poisons multiple times to whichever targets he desires. Some DM's are likely to run, the once its used on the blade its gone idea... I would (and I usually play a rogue type when I play).

giving up 1d4 of potential dmg to not have to switch weapons to get your ranged attack in when u need to, and function as a controller utilizing your poisons to give multiple character disadvantage on attacks and all ability checks, is perhaps worth it. The multiple poison application itself on sneak attacks will more than make up for that d4.

In regards to poison, the discussion had focused down to whether or not damage with saves should be considered during a critical hit.

I thought that was an arbitrary distinction, but it seems spells follow this.

But I'm not sure how you make the leap of logic to apply this to weapon critical hits, as weapons require "to hit" rolls. And the text on critical hits doesn't make the connection either

[Dalebert]

I'm leaning toward shortsword and dagger as my default but occasionally going with two daggers depending. I feel like I should know this, but how do you get poison with every attack? Is the poisoned sheath a common magic item or something? I only see standard poison which is a straight 1d4 extra damage and it's costs 100g per dose! Right? No? I'm aware you can potentially get more and better poison from milking monsters but that's still a very limited supply.

[Myzz]

In regards to poison, the discussion had focused down to whether or not damage with saves should be considered during a critical hit.

I thought that was an arbitrary distinction, but it seems spells follow this.

But I'm not sure how you make the leap of logic to apply this to weapon critical hits, as weapons require "to hit" rolls. And the text on critical hits doesn't make the connection either

My point is half the dmg is going to be done regardless of a saves result. Poison doing damage is not resultant of a failed save, the poisoned condition is (and it does twice as much damage)...

Poison is and adder, if you allow crits to do x2 dmg to adders as specifically stated it does, then all adders should crit.

If the poison doesnt do dmg on a successfull save then "maybe" it should'nt crit... And the effect being poisoned that you are saving for can NOT be crit... as its an effect

[Myzz]

I'm leaning toward shortsword and dagger as my default but occasionally going with two daggers depending. I feel like I should know this, but how do you get poison with every attack? Is the poisoned sheath a common magic item or something? I only see standard poison which is a straight 1d4 extra damage and it's costs 100g per dose! Right? No? I'm aware you can potentially get more and better poison from milking monsters but that's still a very limited supply.

The idea is that you have a special sheath that seals when the weapon is sheathed...

You put poison in sheath, weapon in sheath, weapon is poisoned, sheath is sealed so it doesnt decay. When you pull weapon out, weapon is poisoned, poison in sheath is used up, next successful weapon attack deals poison (if before poison dries on weapon rendering it inert), poison is used up on weapon...

With darts, you could theoretically actually put several into your "test tube" that has your poison in it, remove one at a time, then fling them that way.

So if you have enough weapons sealed in these sheaths, and you use one per attack, each attack results in poison dmg...

[metaridley18]

My point is half the dmg is going to be done regardless of a saves result. Poison doing damage is not resultant of a failed save, the poisoned condition is (and it does twice as much damage)...

Poison is and adder, if you allow crits to do x2 dmg to adders as specifically stated it does, then all adders should crit.

If the poison doesnt do dmg on a successfull save then "maybe" it should'nt crit... And the effect being poisoned that you are saving for can NOT be crit... as its an effect

I was looking for spells that had both attack rolls and saves and found Lightning Arrow. What a weird spell. Should the damage to the first target be multiplied on a crit? It's not actually dependent on the attack roll as it does half damage on a miss. Should the AOE damage be multiplied on a crit?

I'm firmly in the camp that if a save is involved, crits shouldn't multiply the damage. But for those that think that poison should multiple regardless of save, how does the above situation fit in with that (if there's a conflict at all)?


The idea is that you have a special sheath that seals when the weapon is sheathed...

You put poison in sheath, weapon in sheath, weapon is poisoned, sheath is sealed so it doesnt decay. When you pull weapon out, weapon is poisoned, poison in sheath is used up, next successful weapon attack deals poison (if before poison dries on weapon rendering it inert), poison is used up on weapon...

With darts, you could theoretically actually put several into your "test tube" that has your poison in it, remove one at a time, then fling them that way.

So if you have enough weapons sealed in these sheaths, and you use one per attack, each attack results in poison dmg...

Maybe I'm confused, but where does it say the poison from the PHB goes away after one hit? It looks like it applies on EVERY hit for a full minute. e.g. there's nothing saying "on a hit, the poison loses potency", but rather it says "Once applied the poison retains potency for 1 minute before drying."

[visitor]

My point is half the dmg is going to be done regardless of a saves result. Poison doing damage is not resultant of a failed save, the poisoned condition is (and it does twice as much damage)...

Poison is and adder, if you allow crits to do x2 dmg to adders as specifically stated it does, then all adders should crit.

If the poison doesnt do dmg on a successfull save then "maybe" it should'nt crit... And the effect being poisoned that you are saving for can NOT be crit... as its an effect

I understand. I was mainly responding to the heated back and forth of Shadow and MeeposFire.

Shadow seems to be taking the spell mechanic (auto hit = no crit, roll to hit = chance to crit) and applying it to poisoned weapons based on some developers comment (I think)

So I think I see where he's arguing from, but I don't think its RAW.

[Dalebert]

The idea is that you have a special sheath that seals when the weapon is sheathed...

Is this actually an item I can rely on or is it a home-brew that I have to convince my DM to allow to exist?

My understanding of crits is they have to require an attack roll and be single-target. That's seem intuitive because the idea of a crit was you targeting them well enough to hit in a vital spot. Poison seems to be mostly irrelevant to vitals. That's why the villain often just tries to nick the good guy in the big arena battle and wait for it to work its magic. Once its in the bloodstream, you're good. By fluff, I don't think it should crit even if there is some loophole that allows it. And some of it does so much damage in one hit that it seems like it shouldn't anyway. It could get really obnoxious really fast.

[Easy_Lee]

The idea is that you have a special sheath that seals when the weapon is sheathed...

You put poison in sheath, weapon in sheath, weapon is poisoned, sheath is sealed so it doesnt decay. When you pull weapon out, weapon is poisoned, poison in sheath is used up, next successful weapon attack deals poison (if before poison dries on weapon rendering it inert), poison is used up on weapon...

With darts, you could theoretically actually put several into your "test tube" that has your poison in it, remove one at a time, then fling them that way.

So if you have enough weapons sealed in these sheaths, and you use one per attack, each attack results in poison dmg...

Just to be clear, this isn't in the PHB. Applying poison takes an action by the book. Blowguns used to allow poisoning as part of the attack, but it didn't make it into release (making blowguns the worst weapon type). RAW, the only way to use poison for an attack every round is to fast hands it as a thief.

[metaridley18]

I understand. I was mainly responding to the heated back and forth of Shadow and MeeposFire.

Shadow seems to be taking the spell mechanic (auto hit = no crit, roll to hit = chance to crit) and applying it to poisoned weapons based on some developers comment (I think)

So I think I see where he's arguing from, but I don't think its RAW.

His (correct IMO) argument is that only Attacks can be critical hits. (PHB 194, under Attacks header.) Sneak attack (p96) says that you deal "extra" damage, Smite (p85) says "in addition to the weapon's damage", Flame Tongue from the DMG (p172) says that it deals an "extra 2d6 fire damage". All of these seem incredibly clear that they are part of the attack and thus, the attack's damage for multiplication on crits.

Poison, OTOH, is an effect that hits the target "if it had been hit." Then the target makes a save, and takes damage if they fail. This is separate from the normal Attack damage. I'll admit that it's fairly vague, so can understand ruling it either way. It's not like I can point to a part of the book that says, "Poison damage is not multiplied on a crit, unless no save was involved- PHB (ABC)."

But a careful reading plus the intent of the designers leads me to read it this way.

[metaridley18]

Just to be clear, this isn't in the PHB. Applying poison takes an action by the book. Blowguns used to allow poisoning as part of the attack, but it didn't make it into release (making blowguns the worst weapon type). RAW, the only way to use poison for an attack every round is to fast hands it as a thief.

Is there anything that says poison is "used up" on a hit? By my read it lasts for 1 minute, (up to 10 rounds of poison!), possibly dealing damage on every hit during that period. I think this way is the only way it could possibly be useful, as a possible 1d4 damage on a DC10 save for 100g (PLUS using an action to apply) is a terrible cost-benefit ratio.

[Shadow]

His (correct IMO) argument is that only Attacks can be critical hits. (PHB 194, under Attacks header.) Sneak attack (p96) says that you deal "extra" damage, Smite (p85) says "in addition to the weapon's damage", Flame Tongue from the DMG (p172) says that it deals an "extra 2d6 fire damage". All of these seem incredibly clear that they are part of the attack and thus, the attack's damage for multiplication on crits.

Poison, OTOH, is an effect that hits the target "if it had been hit." Then the target makes a save, and takes damage if they fail. This is separate from the normal Attack damage. I'll admit that it's fairly vague, so can understand ruling it either way. It's not like I can point to a part of the book that says, "Poison damage is not multiplied on a crit, unless no save was involved- PHB (ABC)."

But a careful reading plus the intent of the designers leads me to read it this way.

Exactly this.
The fact that the poison requires a save keeps it from being a normal part of the attack.
Sticking your dagger into your enemy's kidney doesn't suddenly make the poison more effective.
The poison does what the poison does, regardless of your attack roll, and can therefore not crit.

The fact that 3.x lawyer-players need a damned page number citing things when the D&D Rules God has clearly stated how it should work really boils my blood.
If it has a save, it cannot crit. End of story.

[Easy_Lee]

Is there anything that says poison is "used up" on a hit? By my read it lasts for 1 minute, (up to 10 rounds of poison!), possibly dealing damage on every hit during that period. I think this way is the only way it could possibly be useful, as a possible 1d4 damage on a DC10 save for 100g (PLUS using an action to apply) is a terrible cost-benefit ratio.

If the book doesn't say otherwise then technically yes, though the fact that poison comes in doses may work against you. As a DM, I'd give it the full minute.

Seems to me, though, that the best way to handle poison acquisition is to take the Nature skill on a rogue (possibly with expertise if your DM supports the strategy) and always attempt to scrounge up poison from creatures, plants, trash, etc.

[visitor]

His (correct IMO) argument is that only Attacks can be critical hits. (PHB 194, under Attacks header.) Sneak attack (p96) says that you deal "extra" damage, Smite (p85) says "in addition to the weapon's damage", Flame Tongue from the DMG (p172) says that it deals an "extra 2d6 fire damage". All of these seem incredibly clear that they are part of the attack and thus, the attack's damage for multiplication on crits.

Poison, OTOH, is an effect that hits the target "if it had been hit." Then the target makes a save, and takes damage if they fail. This is separate from the normal Attack damage. I'll admit that it's fairly vague, so can understand ruling it either way. It's not like I can point to a part of the book that says, "Poison damage is not multiplied on a crit, unless no save was involved- PHB (ABC)."

But a careful reading plus the intent of the designers leads me to read it this way.

Well, yes, I agree with you too.

But Poison is listed as a damage type, along with Fire, necrotic, piercing, etc. There are monsters in MM (I think it was bone Devils I mentioned before) whose poison damage has no save (except for status effects) and are straight damage rolls. I think those should obviously be able to crit.

Weapon poison with saves is not explicitly spelled out in the books, and why you should make the connection between saves and any other damage "conditioners" so to speak may be internally consistent in some regards, it's still a personal interpretation. Which is probably the best anyone can expect in most of these cases

[Z3ro]

If it has a save, it cannot crit. End of story.

I'm trying to make sure my group is doing critical hits right; can you point me to a page number for this rule?

[metaridley18]

If the book doesn't say otherwise then technically yes, though the fact that poison comes in doses may work against you. As a DM, I'd give it the full minute.

Seems to me, though, that the best way to handle poison acquisition is to take the Nature skill on a rogue (possibly with expertise if your DM supports the strategy) and always attempt to scrounge up poison from creatures, plants, trash, etc.

The PHB poison doesn't come in doses, it comes in a vial. I didn't read them thoroughly, but the DMG poisons all look like they last for one hit and then work their magic, as none appear to have the duration kicker that the PHB poison has.

Since all of those are in the DMG anyway, they'll require pretty heavy consultation with the DM to make sure that expectations are all the same. (That taking the Nature skill will actually be viable for harvesting, etc).

[Dalebert]

Is there anything that says poison is "used up" on a hit? By my read it lasts for 1 minute, (up to 10 rounds of poison!), possibly dealing damage on every hit during that period. I think this way is the only way it could possibly be useful, as a possible 1d4 damage on a DC10 save for 100g (PLUS using an action to apply) is a terrible cost-benefit ratio.

I had assumed that it gets used up the first time you hit. Given that, when they made this 1d4, DC 10, and 100gp per dose, they were basically saying "Yeah, don't bother. We just don't want you to use poison."

[Easy_Lee]

The PHB poison doesn't come in doses, it comes in a vial. I didn't read them thoroughly, but the DMG poisons all look like they last for one hit and then work their magic, as none appear to have the duration kicker that the PHB poison has.

Since all of those are in the DMG anyway, they'll require pretty heavy consultation with the DM to make sure that expectations are all the same. (That taking the Nature skill will actually be viable for harvesting, etc).

Ah, my mistake. But yeah, the conclusion is the same. Like many things, poison usage is going to depend on the DM. A good DM will reward the players who are constantly looking for poison, whereas a bad DM might just tell the player they wasted a skill choice and no take backs. It's fiat.

[metaridley18]

I'm trying to make sure my group is doing critical hits right; can you point me to a page number for this rule?

In case you're not just being snarky to make fun of Shadow, I'd reference you to this post: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18652476&postcount=58

No, there's not anything that says that things with a save cannot crit. However, only ATTACKS can crit, and most things with saves do not require ATTACKS (such as secondary effects due to poison or similar monster abilities, dragon breath weapons, Fireball spells,etc).

[metaridley18]

I had assumed that it gets used up the first time you hit. Given that, when they made this 1d4, DC 10, and 100gp per dose, they were basically saying "Yeah, don't bother. We just don't want you to use poison."

That was my first thought, but poison has a long and storied tradition etc etc, so why would they gimp it immediately from the PHB? I think the long duration read is much more fair and actually downright effective for the savvy rogue.

Although that read of the basic poison makes Fighters better poison users (due to Extra Attack), ironically.

[Z3ro]

In case you're not just being snarky to make fun of Shadow, I'd reference you to this post: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18652476&postcount=58

No, there's not anything that says that things with a save cannot crit. However, only ATTACKS can crit, and most things with saves do not require ATTACKS (such as secondary effects due to poison or similar monster abilities, dragon breath weapons, Fireball spells,etc).

It was a serious inquiry; I'm mainly looking at the assassinate ability, which turns any hit into a critical both as the ability itself, as well as potential future abilities that force critical hits.

Here's the example I'm thinking: page 194 of the PHB says "You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". That says, to me, you can have a hit that doesn't involve straight damage dice. The assassinate ability says "any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit". So, going by these two, I can score a hit without doing damage directly, and that hit is a critical.

At the moment, there is one attack that resolves damage entirely by save, but would probably require an attack roll; touch an opponent with contact poison. This would fulfill requiring a die roll (to hit, which if successful would result in a "hit"), which, if done via assassinate, is a critical. If something with a save cannot crit, then end of story. Otherwise there's a grey area that needs DM adjudication, hence my question for a specific reference. (And yes, we have a player who has expressed interest in such a tactic)

[Easy_Lee]

That was my first thought, but poison has a long and storied tradition etc etc, so why would they gimp it immediately from the PHB? I think the long duration read is much more fair and actually downright effective for the savvy rogue.

Although that read of the basic poison makes Fighters better poison users (due to Extra Attack), ironically.

The way I see it, poison is setup to be used in two ways:

Reward players who take the time to extract their own poison. The crafting rules are absolute ****, but who is going to use those anyway?
Use the extra damage from poison to put you over a damage threshold you need to kill a boss. Alternatively, research a boss' weakness so you know exactly what to bring

Back in the day (earlier editions and games bases on them), poison was much harder to acquire than it was in 3.5. Back when I played everquest, which was heavily inspired by AD&D, poison was something rogues only pulled out in emergencies/boss fights, because it was expensive and time-consuming to make. I think that's how it's meant to be treated in 5e.

[Dalebert]

My rogue/cleric took prof with poison kits from his background (replaced thieve's tools from urchin). I'm starting to feel that was a mistake. I still have time to change it to something else. I'm playing with a new DM tonight whom I know little about. He has said he allows any optional rules from the DMG as long as we have them down pat and don't slow the game down looking them up. What do you folks think?

[Easy_Lee]

My rogue/cleric took prof with poison kits from his background (replaced thieve's tools from urchin). I'm starting to feel that was a mistake. I still have time to change it to something else. I'm playing with a new DM tonight whom I know little about. He has said he allows any optional rules from the DMG as long as we have them down pat and don't slow the game down looking them up. What do you folks think?

Ask if he'll allow you to use the Nature skill to find poison and poison ingredients from creatures and the environment, and how often those would come up. Alternatively, you could possibly use a poisoner kit for that. If it won't come up very often, then thieves tools might be better.

[Shadow]

It was a serious inquiry

There are two ways to resolve an attack.
The first way is by attack roll. In this case, the attack roll determines if it was successful. Attacks with an attack roll can crit, because the rules state that a natural roll of 20 is a critical hit.
The second way is by saving throw. In this case, the save is what determines if the attack was successful. Attacks with a save cannot crit. If they could, it would say so just like it does for attack rolls.

There are a certain things which require both an attack roll and a save. These circumstances, in every single case, are effects which persist until the hit is landed or a certain amount of time has passed. The initial hit delivers the secondary attack. The secondary effect automatically takes effect as soon as the hit is landed, and is resolved separately.
Hence the saving throw independent of the attack.

Effects which require a save cannot crit, because there is no attack roll involved. In the cases cited above about delivery upon a hit, that is incidental, and merely serves as a delivery method.

If effects which required a saving throw could crit, it would state as much, just like it does for attack rolls. But effects which require a save cannot crit. Not in 5e, not in 3.x, not ever in this system.

Plus.... there's the whole "the designer just said you can't" thing going on....

[Myzz]

Is this actually an item I can rely on or is it a home-brew that I have to convince my DM to allow to exist?

not RAW... nor is there a historical equivalent... mostly because as previously mentioned poison is not nearly as combat versatile as in D&D. It's a theoretical item that you would likely have to craft yourself or hire a skilled artisan to craft


My understanding of crits is they have to require an attack roll and be single-target. That's seem intuitive because the idea of a crit was you targeting them well enough to hit in a vital spot. Poison seems to be mostly irrelevant to vitals. That's why the villain often just tries to nick the good guy in the big arena battle and wait for it to work its magic. Once its in the bloodstream, you're good. By fluff, I don't think it should crit even if there is some loophole that allows it. And some of it does so much damage in one hit that it seems like it shouldn't anyway. It could get really obnoxious really fast.

there is quite a difference between taking poison into an organ and taking in at your pinky... this difference via game mechanics would be represented by the crit mechanic

[metaridley18]

It was a serious inquiry; I'm mainly looking at the assassinate ability, which turns any hit into a critical both as the ability itself, as well as potential future abilities that force critical hits.

Here's the example I'm thinking: page 194 of the PHB says "You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". That says, to me, you can have a hit that doesn't involve straight damage dice. The assassinate ability says "any hit you score against a creature that is surprised is a critical hit". So, going by these two, I can score a hit without doing damage directly, and that hit is a critical.

At the moment, there is one attack that resolves damage entirely by save, but would probably require an attack roll; touch an opponent with contact poison. This would fulfill requiring a die roll (to hit, which if successful would result in a "hit"), which, if done via assassinate, is a critical. If something with a save cannot crit, then end of story. Otherwise there's a grey area that needs DM adjudication, hence my question for a specific reference. (And yes, we have a player who has expressed interest in such a tactic)

I don't think that this is a grey area. I outlined my position in the post I linked. If your player wants to assassinate with a contact poison, they would automatically hit (due to the critical) with their attack, but there are no damage dice from the attack the rogue made, just the application of the poison. The poison would then trigger its separate effect, and be unaffected by the critical. That being said, all the contact poisons in the DMG don't damage dice either, so there's nothing to multiply no matter how you rule.


My rogue/cleric took prof with poison kits from his background (replaced thieve's tools from urchin). I'm starting to feel that was a mistake. I still have time to change it to something else. I'm playing with a new DM tonight whom I know little about. He has said he allows any optional rules from the DMG as long as we have them down pat and don't slow the game down looking them up. What do you folks think?

I don't know that I would have replaced thieves tools with a poisoner's kit unless I was REALLY gung ho on poisons. I would definitely ask your DM about the availability of poison and such, but if you get the minute duration read that Easy_Lee and I have been talking about on the basic poison, I think it's a perfectly valid playstyle even without access to the exotics. The exotic, expensive ones are the ones that you pull out when you need the big guns.

[Myzz]

My rogue/cleric took prof with poison kits from his background (replaced thieve's tools from urchin). I'm starting to feel that was a mistake. I still have time to change it to something else. I'm playing with a new DM tonight whom I know little about. He has said he allows any optional rules from the DMG as long as we have them down pat and don't slow the game down looking them up. What do you folks think?

Are there any druids? or rangers? or wizards? or warlock?

Take Ritual Caster to get a Wizard familiar... poisonous snake? milk your familiar lol sounds so bad...

Basically its ok as long as you have a perma source of poison, imo... if you do not, you have to go get it! which makes it really up to DM discretion. If you have a poisonous snake familiar, or access to someone who does, or access to someone who can turn into one, or other such state.

I'd start off with basic poison that pretty much sucks (but better than no poison)... Just so DM doesn't shy away from the idea. Then as you level up start leveling up poisons appropriately... Going Purple Worm anywere before level 12 is a good way to get your poison nixxed. (the level being arbitrary and really up to what the DM feels comfortable with).

[visitor]

There are two ways to resolve an attack.
The first way is by attack roll. In this case, the attack roll determines if it was successful. Attacks with an attack roll can crit, because the rules state that a natural roll of 20 is a critical hit.
The second way is by saving throw. In this case, the save is what determines if the attack was successful. Attacks with a save cannot crit. If they could, it would say so just like it does for attack rolls.

There are a certain things which require both an attack roll and a save. These circumstances, in every single case, are effects which persist until the hit is landed or a certain amount of time has passed. The initial hit delivers the secondary attack. The secondary effect automatically takes effect as soon as the hit is landed, and is resolved separately.
Hence the saving throw independent of the attack.

Effects which require a save cannot crit, because there is no attack roll involved. In the cases cited above about delivery upon a hit, that is incidental, and merely serves as a delivery method.

If effects which required a saving throw could crit, it would state as much, just like it does for attack rolls. But effects which require a save cannot crit. Not in 5e, not in 3.x, not ever in this system.

Plus.... there's the whole "the designer just said you can't" thing going on....

You know, you can just as easily use your premise to argue the other side: once the poison on a weapon needs to hit first, it has become an attack capable of a critical hit by virtue of needing an attack roll.

Plus the wording of critical hits and the assassinate skill seem to support allowing the crit. No crits needs more reading between the lines and pulling general rules to a specific rule set

[visitor]

Are there any druids? or rangers? or wizards? or warlock?

Take Ritual Caster to get a Wizard familiar... poisonous snake? milk your familiar lol sounds so bad...

Basically its ok as long as you have a perma source of poison, imo... if you do not, you have to go get it! which makes it really up to DM discretion. If you have a poisonous snake familiar, or access to someone who does, or access to someone who can turn into one, or other such state.

I'd start off with basic poison that pretty much sucks (but better than no poison)... Just so DM doesn't shy away from the idea. Then as you level up start leveling up poisons appropriately... Going Purple Worm anywere before level 12 is a good way to get your poison nixxed. (the level being arbitrary and really up to what the DM feels comfortable with).

Haha! That's hilarious (and a little disturbing) to abuse your Druid to make him your poison supply! How about if you're hungry, make him shape to a cow for some milk and nice juicy steaks before he reverts!

[Easy_Lee]

If trying to collect poison I would further have your character inspecting fauna, piles of refuse, and other such sources in hopes of finding something salvageable. It gives your DM more opportunities for homebrewed and fun poisons.

[MeeposFire]

In case you're not just being snarky to make fun of Shadow, I'd reference you to this post: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18652476&postcount=58

No, there's not anything that says that things with a save cannot crit. However, only ATTACKS can crit, and most things with saves do not require ATTACKS (such as secondary effects due to poison or similar monster abilities, dragon breath weapons, Fireball spells,etc).

Exactly so most of the time there is a save there is no question that it does not crit because it lacks an attack roll which is the definition of "attack" in the PHB. Oddly things that only use a save would not technically be an attack (isn't that odd?). However just because it is usually true does not make it a rule in and of itself.

I actually am not trying to influence how you should play in your home game. For me this discussion is just to know what the rules say rather than people making assumptions based on no actual rules source. I may not even use poison crits but I would like to know what I am changing or not changing when I rule something. Plus I just like making sure when I say a rule exists that I have some justification for it.

Another interesting case are fighter battlemaster attacks. These add dice to your damage with attacks and often add a save vs an effect. That is just the same as the poison for the carrion crawler in how they work mechanically (adding damage dice and an effect that uses a save but does not increase or reduce the damage but instead resolves an additional effect).

I am still looking for a rule that actually says this should not work but like you I have had no luck yet.

[Easy_Lee]

I am still looking for a rule that actually says this should not work but like you I have had no luck yet.

I think it's just the attack roll text, like you said. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. Attacks can crit, dice that are part of the attack can crit, but effects from saves don't crit.

To help understand this from a mechanics perspective, lets take an example of making an attack roll to shove someone off of a cliff. If you crit the attack roll, you might shove them, but you don't double their falling damage. The falling damage was caused by the fall, not shoving the person. Similarly, the poison damage a poison may deal is caused by the poison, not the injury that introduced the poison to the target's body.

[MeeposFire]

I think it's just the attack roll text, like you said. If you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack. Attacks can crit, dice that are part of the attack can crit, but effects from saves don't crit.

To help understand this from a mechanics perspective, lets take an example of making an attack roll to shove someone off of a cliff. If you crit the attack roll, you might shove them, but you don't double their falling damage. The falling damage was caused by the fall, not shoving the person. Similarly, the poison damage a poison may deal is caused by the poison, not the injury that introduced the poison to the target's body.

Ahh but the carrion crawler is very different as the damage from the poison is more analogous to the flaming sword example and the save effect has nothing to do with the damage.

Also while I would fully agree that being pushed off a cliff and taking falling damage should not crit as the fall is an incidental effect from the attack and rather than an effect directly based off of the attack.

[Easy_Lee]

Ahh but the carrion crawler is very different as the damage from the poison is more analogous to the flaming sword example and the save effect has nothing to do with the damage.

If you have an effect that does damage on hit, regardless of save, then that would probably crit. In that case it's like getting that much more poison into the person's body, and the poison is acting more like acid than just a regular poison. It depends. I think the attack rolls can crit, saves can't rule is good enough to cover pretty much any situation.

[Myzz]

If you have an effect that does damage on hit, regardless of save, then that would probably crit. In that case it's like getting that much more poison into the person's body, and the poison is acting more like acid than just a regular poison. It depends. I think the attack rolls can crit, saves can't rule is good enough to cover pretty much any situation.

I'd say all initial poison dmg can crit, effects to linger due to failing a save don't.

Attacker crits (x2 dmg), Target saves poison (1/2 dmg) => roll normal dmg dice for poison dmg, target takes full dmg since its a crit, but takes no other lasting effect... not status condition, no additional ongoing effects for saving.


I realize that essentially is a house rule, but tbh its pretty much the way my group has played poisons for a very long time...

[Dalebert]

If you're foraging for poison supplies, like poisonous plants that can be boiled down and concentrated, etc., would you use nature or survival? Does your proficiency with poisoner's kit help with that?

[Easy_Lee]

If you're foraging for poison supplies, like poisonous plants that can be boiled down and concentrated, etc., would you use nature or survival? Does your proficiency with poisoner's kit help with that?

I believe the DMG says nature, and I'm unsure if prisoners kit can stand in for that.

[Dalebert]

not RAW... nor is there a historical equivalent... mostly because as previously mentioned poison is not nearly as combat versatile as in D&D. It's a theoretical item that you would likely have to craft yourself or hire a skilled artisan to craft

I'm not even comfortable asking for this as I have a rule not to ask for anything that I wouldn't also allow in my own game. They've made poisons require an action and a simple item that overrides the action economy just seems OP to me. I don't think he would allow such a thing. At the very least, I imagine it would have to be something expensive and of limited usage.


there is quite a difference between taking poison into an organ and taking in at your pinky... this difference via game mechanics would be represented by the crit mechanic

You're right. Now that you made me think of it, getting bitten by a snake (it's venom actually and the use of the word "poison" is bugging me but that's what the book uses so I'm running with it but I just HAD to get that off my chest) in the toe is not nearly so dangerous as getting bitten by one on the inner thigh where there are major vessels. It works much more quickly that way and is harder to treat. So it's perfectly arguable fluff-wise. It just comes down to whether it should for mechanical or balance reasons.


I don't know that I would have replaced thieves tools with a poisoner's kit unless I was REALLY gung ho on poisons.

Just to be clear, I had thieves' tools twice--once from rogue and once form urchin background, so I replaced the duplication with poisoner's kit. I didn't give up proficiency with thieves' tools. That would have felt quite silly. I gave up... something else, but the other options aren't that spectacular and this one fit well with my character.


I believe the DMG says nature, and I'm unsure if prisoners kit can stand in for that.

I will make the case to my DM thusly: that being proficient in making poisons means I'm proficient in the knowledge of the substances needed to make poisons. That should mean I know about the specific types of plants, animals, fungi, etc. that are ingredients of poisons and should know what to look for. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not proficient in nature but if I was, wouldn't I get that AND the bonus from the kit? I thought that's how tools worked. Or is it either/or? I seem to recall re-reading the section on tools recently and this is how it was described.

[Myzz]

I will make the case to my DM thusly: that being proficient in making poisons means I'm proficient in the knowledge of the substances needed to make poisons. That should mean I know about the specific types of plants, animals, fungi, etc. that are ingredients of poisons and should know what to look for. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm not proficient in nature but if I was, wouldn't I get that AND the bonus from the kit? I thought that's how tools worked. Or is it either/or? I seem to recall re-reading the section on tools recently and this is how it was described.

Pretty sure its up to the DM per RAW...

But ask similar questions:

Does being proficient with Brewer's Supplies and Nature skill mean you are better at finding your various Hops and such while foraging? Would the Brewers proficiency allow you to grow hops in your garden easier? but then not apply to carrots?

Does being profient with Calligraphy and Nature mean you can find the ochers and such easier?

I'm not saying yeah, or neigh... but it should be across the board...

[Dalebert]

I'm not saying yeah, or neigh... but it should be across the board...

I agree. It says you get to add your proficiency with the tool to your roll. It doesn't say it replaces another proficiency or instead of another. However, what I'm not certain of is whether there is a general rule explicitly stated that you only get your proficiency bonus once ever on any roll and that no two proficiencies can double up. It seems implied by the idea that I just haven't seen it done anywhere but that's all I know right now. Maybe someone here can clarify.

Is there a section where they talk about bounded accuracy? If so, that's where I'd expect to find something like that. I'll try to find it and read up.