Poison rules!

[dev6500]

I have found poison rules in 2 sections so far. In the equipment section of the phb, there is the basic poison that can be applied as a action and lasts for 1 minute before it dries and loses effect. But it seems to actually be a specific poison as opposed to a source of general poison rules.

Then in the dmg, there is a list of poisons and their effects that you can buy but they do not list the action it takes to apply them (likely a single action like the basic poison) or how long a weapon coated with an injury based poison stays effective. Is it still 1 minute? Are there any other sources for poison rules? If all poisons coating weapons only stay effective for 1 minute, then it will be difficult for bow/crossbow users to make effective use of poison in a combat since they will need to use multiple actions just before combat to effectively have poisoned attacks during the combat.

A melee fighter who coats a sword in poison at least gets 10 rounds afterward where he can use his poisoned weapon but for an archer, each action only gets them 3 shots(which might be gone in 2 rounds). So one character gets 10 rounds of poison for 1 action vs 2 rounds for 1 action. Are there any other applicable sources of information on poison?

[calebrus]

The idea is that the weapon is coated with poison for up to one minute. Not for the whole minute. The idea is that the first attack that hits removes the poison coating the weapon as it enters the enemy struck.
They are single use applications that last for one minute before becoming useless.

The archer gets three uses because he has less surface to cover, and because if his attack misses that shot is wasted and not retrievable until that combat is over, at which point it will become useless before the next combat happens.
So the archer *might* get three hits in with his poison, or he might get none at all.
The melee character is basically guaranteed one poison hit.

[dev6500]

The idea is that the weapon is coated with poison for up to one minute. Not for the whole minute. The idea is that the first attack that hits removes the poison coating the weapon as it enters the enemy struck.
They are single use applications that last for one minute before becoming useless.

The archer gets three uses because he has less surface to cover, and because if his attack misses that shot is wasted and not retrievable until that combat is over, at which point it will become useless before the next combat happens.
So the archer *might* get three hits in with his poison, or he might get none at all.
The melee character is basically guaranteed one poison hit.


That is a nice interpretation of how the rules work. It might also be how they are intended to work. Can you point me to the sentence that leads you to believe that hitting the target with a weapon coated with poison removes the poison from the weapon? The only sentence in the description of poison that relates to poison losing effectiveness is time, not hits. I believe hits removing poison coating is specifically how it was written to work in dnd 3.5 but 3.5 rules do not have any impact on how dnd 5e rules are intended to function. OAs work drastically different compared to AoOs for example.

Please do not give me answers derived from assumption based on 3.5 or from how you imagine poison working in a real world simulating sense. That is the domain of each individual DM and is well within their right.

[LucianoAr]

id also like to know what "creature is poisoned" means.

i mean depending on the poison the condition should be different. the phb says "creature has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks" which is pretty badass if you ask me, but a little generic.

[b4ndito]

which is pretty badass if you ask me, but a little generic.

Welcome to 5e. Specificity be damned, I will never dm 3.5 again

[calebrus]

That is a nice interpretation of how the rules work. It might also be how they are intended to work. Can you point me to the sentence that leads you to believe that hitting the target with a weapon coated with poison removes the poison from the weapon?

I don't have a page number for you. I'm telling you the RAI, not quoting the RAW. That's why I said "The idea is...."

There are a few ways that you know this is the intent.
The first is that every other poison (contact, ingested, inhaled) are all single use by design and by default. The fourth type of poison (injury) follows this same trend.

The second hint is the fact that archers only get three shots, as stated above, which balances the melee's guaranteed poison strike.

The most telling hint is that adding a fistful of d6s to your damage roll for an entire combat for a few gold pieces is a balance issue. The lowest of those listed in the DMG add as much damage as a 5th level rogue's sneak attack. The highest of them adds as much damage as a theoretical 23rd level rogue.
Adding five striker levels worth of damage for an encounter (the lowest damage dealing injury poison) at the cost of some measly gold is absolutely broken. Adding *more than* an entire capped *striker's* damage for an entire encounter for some measly gold is nothing short of insane.

The intent is that poison coated weapons are single use, and then the poison is gone.
Anyone who claims that "we can't know the intent" is lying to themselves.

[HMS Invincible]

I'm intrigued by this poison mechanic you guys mention. How are you supposed to acquire it? Go up to the market and ask politely? Harvest it via side quest?

[dev6500]

I don't have a page number for you. I'm telling you the RAI, not quoting the RAW. That's why I said "The idea is...."

There are a few ways that you know this is the intent.
The first is that adding a fistful of d6s to your damage roll for an entire combat for a few gold pieces is a balance issue. The lowest of those listed in the DMG add as much damage as a 5th level rogue's sneak attack. The highest of them adds as much damage as a theoretical 23rd level rogue.
Adding five striker levels worth of damage for an encounter (the lowest damage dealing injury poison) at the cost of some measly gold is absolutely broken. Adding *more than* an entire capped *striker's* damage for an entire encounter for some measly gold is nothing short of insane.

The second is that every other poison (contact, ingested, inhaled) are all single use by design and by default. The fourth type of poison (injury) follows this same trend.

The third hint is the fact that archers only get three shots, as stated above, which balances the melee's guaranteed poison strike.

The intent is that poison coated weapons are single use, and then the poison is gone.

You have some clear misunderstandings about what RAI is. RAI is something that is not clearly stated but at least implied. Like Polearm master can only be used with polearm like weapons even though the OA it gives you could RAW interact with other feats that use OAs. There is further explanation of intent because developers have chimed in.

You are making assumptions based on how poison worked in a previous system and also based on the notion that for balance reasons, poison needs to wear off after a hit. Other types of poisons that only get 1 use are all for the most part, poisons used outside combat so of course their design has no relation to balancing combat action economy. Poisoning someone's food or putting contact poison on clothing is for importantly an RP tool, that gives an advantage in the ensuing combat. Injury poisons are used in combat, have specific action costs, and specific benefits per action.

But actually poison wearing off after a hit doesn't make a archer on equal ground as a melee character but rather breaks balance since an archer who creates an ambush can spend several rounds in hiding coating ammunition for say 5 rounds and then have 15 poisoned arrows before starting an ambush while a melee character who is hiding can really only poison 1 or at max 2 weapons before they begin their attack and only get 2 poisoned attacks. Not sure comparatively that is any more balanced than the previous scenario. Poison wearing off per hit doesn't weaken archers or stop archers from doing the shenanigans involving poison that you think are so game breaking. In fact, the archer who can attack with poisoned arrows from 450 ft or so was already a more overpowered poison user because of their higher capability to actually ambush targets with multiple rounds of preparation.

[calebrus]

You have some clear misunderstandings about what RAI is. RAI is something that is not clearly stated but at least implied.

That's not what RAI is. RAI is Rules As Intended. RAI is not Rules As Implied.
That means that the Rules As Written *should* have been written differently. There doesn't need to be any implication otherwise. In some cases it was simply written in a way that doesn't correspond with what was intended.
That's what RAI is.
In this case, the rules *should* have been written to note that a weapon is no longer coated with poison after it strikes an enemy.
That is the intention, not the implication.

You can rule it however you want at your table, but believe me, you'll be changing it to follow the RAI as soon as your players get their hands on some poison, because they will utterly decimate anything you throw at them if the poison lasts for the entire minute.
And then you'll have to beef up encounters to compensate.
And then they'll run out of poison and you will be forced to choose between wiping the party and waving your hand to let them survive.

[WickerNipple]

You have some clear misunderstandings about what RAI is. RAI is something that is not clearly stated but at least implied....
...You are making assumptions based on how poison worked in a previous system...

Honestly, I think he's just making stuff up.

[Typewriter]

Honestly, I think he's just making stuff up.

What did he make up? He explained the rules of how one type of poison worked and said that he was using that knowledge to determine the intended rules for another kind of poison. Further he explained why it made sense from a balance perspective. None of it was made up, you may disagree with his interpretation, but I don't see what he 'made up'.

[dev6500]

What did he make up? He explained the rules of how one type of poison worked and said that he was using that knowledge to determine the intended rules for another kind of poison. Further he explained why it made sense from a balance perspective. None of it was made up, you may disagree with his interpretation, but I don't see what he 'made up'.

Not sure whether WickerNipple is referring to me Calebrus and not sure whether you reply assumed WickerNipple was reffering to me or Calebrus... confused.

[WickerNipple]

Not sure whether WickerNipple is referring to me Calebrus and not sure whether you reply assumed WickerNipple was reffering to me or Calebrus... confused.

I was talking about it wearing off after one hit. Which isn't written or implied anywhere that I can see. Never even discussed. Happy to wrong, but I can't find it.

There has to be some clue somewhere to find Intent.

[pwykersotz]

I find nothing by RAW that you have not found already. This might be worth tweeting Crawford about.

[calebrus]

There has to be some clue somewhere to find Intent.

There are clues to the Intent. You can find them right here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18851919&postcount=6).

[WickerNipple]

I don't find those convincing.

But then that's the real problem with RAI, it's always means Rules as I Intend them.

[calebrus]

I don't find those convincing.

Whether or not you're convinced has no bearing on what was intended.
But hopefully we'll find out soon enough. I tweeted Crawford/Mearls/Rodney about it.

[Gritmonger]

A single application, to me, implies a single use... hence why arrows and blades are different. Otherwise, it would seem somebody is drastically undercharging. Or overcharging.

Plus, a Rogue Thief archetype can reapply poison as a cunning action each round if they so choose...

Oh, and I agree: poison rules! WOOOO!

[Typewriter]

I don't find those convincing.

But then that's the real problem with RAI, it's always means Rules as I Intend them.

I'm not really sure that's a fair comment to make though - the guy explained his point based off of balance and similar examples in the book. If his points are valid, and they seem to be, then isn't that a good argument for the RAI? If you are looking at a rule and it can be interpreted two ways - one of which is overpowered, the second isn't - then which one is likely to be the intended desire of the rule.

I'm away from my book, but based off of what I'm seeing it makes sense to me the way he stated things. If the three other types of poison listed in the book are 1x use then it makes sense for this type to work that way as well. I also don't know how expensive poisons is (again, away from book) but I'd think that adding massive amounts of damage to your weapons for ten rounds of damage dealing combat would be sort of excessive unless it was cost prohibitive to do so.

[WickerNipple]

Whether or not you're convinced has no bearing on what was intended.
But hopefully we'll find out soon enough. I tweeted Crawford/Mearls/Rodney about it.

You're absolutely right, it doesn't have any bearing on what was intended. But whether or not you're convinced has no bearing either. Neither of us have magical knowledge of what the authors intended.

But I look forward to their response.

[WickerNipple]

If the three other types of poison listed in the book are 1x use then it makes sense for this type to work that way as well.

The problem is comparing them to the other poisons isn't that useful, since we know ammunition gets 3x uses. The comparison breaks itself right then and there, and we have absolutely no other guidelines to go by.

Having the designers respond to rules tweets is a wonderful tool this edition. I hope they continue to.

[calebrus]

A single application, to me, implies a single use... hence why arrows and blades are different. Otherwise, it would seem somebody is drastically undercharging. Or overcharging.

Plus, a Rogue Thief archetype can reapply poison as a cunning action each round if they so choose...

Oh, and I agree: poison rules! WOOOO!

Exactly.
One application, in the hands of a high level fighter, potentially has up to 68 uses (a Hasted Fighter with 2 Action Surges and reactions factored in).
Does that make any sense at all? One application working up to 68 times?
That's 952d6 +340 = average 3672 damage for that ten rounds. That's 367 damage per round.
Does that make any sense at all in 5e?
Of course it doesn't.
Single application = single use.

[Typewriter]

Having the designers respond to rules tweets is a wonderful tool this edition. I hope they continue to.

I agree. Of course I also like the way the system is sort of vague about certain things and leaves a lot up to DM rulings. Having them tweet is great for forum theory crafting and discussion because it allows for a neutral PoV for discussion, but DMs can still make their own individual judgments about how stuff like this works. Of course, the same could be said about 3.5/PF, but it always seemed to me that players felt entitled to things with the way the rules were written in those where as here they're more open to DM modifications.

[WickerNipple]

Balance is a great reason to rule against an issue as a DM, it just doesn't convince me re: their intent, because their intent is not always balanced.

I'd never have thought their intent was to allow shield + hand crossbow to double-tap, but they proved me wrong there, and that's a major balance issue.

But we're going in circles. The rules say nothing, everyone get to decide what they want at their own table, and if we're lucky the designers will respond with what they intended.

[dev6500]

A single application, to me, implies a single use... hence why arrows and blades are different. Otherwise, it would seem somebody is drastically undercharging. Or overcharging.

Plus, a Rogue Thief archetype can reapply poison as a cunning action each round if they so choose...

Cunning Action has 3 specified uses. Dash, Disengage, or Hide. Can't use it for poison.



I'm not really sure that's a fair comment to make though - the guy explained his point based off of balance and similar examples in the book. If his points are valid, and they seem to be, then isn't that a good argument for the RAI? If you are looking at a rule and it can be interpreted two ways - one of which is overpowered, the second isn't - then which one is likely to be the intended desire of the rule.

I'm away from my book, but based off of what I'm seeing it makes sense to me the way he stated things. If the three other types of poison listed in the book are 1x use then it makes sense for this type to work that way as well. I also don't know how expensive poisons is (again, away from book) but I'd think that adding massive amounts of damage to your weapons for ten rounds of damage dealing combat would be sort of excessive unless it was cost prohibitive to do so.

Well I argued against his point about balance pretty well. In fact, archers who benefit most from poison aren't hindered in anyway by his supposed RAI interpretation of poison. So the strongest use of poison is still the most broken(hiding from someone at 450 ft spending 5 to 7 rounds coating arrows with poison and then unloading 15-20 poisoned arrows with no action investment).

His balancing concept does restrain the use of poison by melee combatants since they have to apply poison while hidden but much closer to their target and then they only get 1 attack before using poison costs them actions in combat. That's not compelling or sensible.

He then tries to show that non-combat poisons only get 1 use so that should show intent. But non combat poisons do not participate in the action economy and therefore do not show intent about how poisons should relate to action economy.

Finally, there is 0 text about strikes removing poison. Basic poison only states that poison loses potency over time not over number of strikes. That rule was in 3.5 and in fact poison didn't lose potency over time in 3.5 so basically the new mechanism is a time based control instead of a per hit control. None of this has any bearing on a developers intent for the rules. He is just making his own ideas up and declaring it as general RAI which makes no sense.

[calebrus]

I'd never have thought their intent was to allow shield + hand crossbow to double-tap, but they proved me wrong there, and that's a major balance issue.

That wasn't the intent.
Crawford tweeted on the RAW, and said Yes.
Mearls tweeted on the intent, and said No.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Cunning Action has 3 specified uses. Dash, Disengage, or Hide. Can't use it for poison.

Except for Thieves, who gain Fast Hands, which expands the uses of cunning action to include: a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves’ tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, or take the Use an Object action.

[pwykersotz]

Cunning Action has 3 specified uses. Dash, Disengage, or Hide. Can't use it for poison.

Fast Hands modifies Cunning Action to allow Use an Object.

Edit: Shadow Monk'd

[Easy_Lee]

I'm intrigued by this poison mechanic you guys mention. How are you supposed to acquire it? Go up to the market and ask politely? Harvest it via side quest?

You can purchase it on a black market with DM approval and the contacts a rogue is assumed to have / make. You can also get it via the nature skill, using it to harvest a source. This is in the DMG somewhere; no idea why it's not in the PHB where players could use it to plan their characters.


id also like to know what "creature is poisoned" means.

i mean depending on the poison the condition should be different. the phb says "creature has disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks" which is pretty badass if you ask me, but a little generic.

Not all poisons apply the poisoned condition, but this is indeed what that condition does. Some poisons have other effects in addition to the standard poisoned status.

[WickerNipple]

That wasn't the intent.
Crawford tweeted on the RAW, and said Yes.
Mearls tweeted on the intent, and said No.

Heh we're going to get into even more trouble there, cause I don't think those two even intend the same things, or think of rules in the same way.

Mearls tweets tend to be about he would run a game, which only tells us so much about their intention when writing the rules. Crawford seems to have a better understanding of why games have rules.

But both are useful to read.

[calebrus]

I'd like one of you claiming that it lasts for the full minute to address this post, please.


Exactly.
One application, in the hands of a high level fighter, potentially has up to 68 uses (a Hasted Fighter with 2 Action Surges and reactions factored in).
Does that make any sense at all? One application working up to 68 times?
That's 952d6 +340 = average 3672 damage for that ten rounds. That's 367 damage per round.
Does that make any sense at all in 5e?
Of course it doesn't.
Single application = single use.

A 20th level fighter with a greatsword dealing 3672 damage over the course of ten rounds.
Plus 304 for a +3 weapon = 3976.
4000 damage in ten rounds.
400 damage per round.
But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....

[Typewriter]

I'd like one of you claiming that it lasts for the full minute to address this post, please.



A 20th level fighter with a greatsword dealing 3672 damage over the course of ten rounds.
Plus 304 for a +3 weapon = 3976.
4000 damage in ten rounds.
400 damage per round.
But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....

Someone sort of addressed that - they said that balance isn't a factor in determining intent. At that point there's really nothing more to be said other than to wait for the tweet. One thing I was curious about - what does it say about the application of the poison - are you applying a 'dose' or anything, are you applying a single application? Or is it more vague? It sounds to me like the honest contention here is whether the dose/application is '1' that is being applied to the weapon giving the weapon the poisoned status for a minute or is it a single 'dose/application' of poison - meaning that it can only be used to poison once because it is a single dose/application.

[WickerNipple]

But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....

Because ramifications are not intent. Intent means what they had in mind when they designed it.

I completely agree with you it's imbalanced, and I wouldn't use poison like this in one of my games... But for all I know they simply never thought the balance factor through properly - see Hand Crossbow and a thousand other rules over the previous decades.

Other than 4e they've never even aimed for balance. This just tells me there's a broken mechanic in the rulebook, not what they were thinking when they wrote it.


At that point there's really nothing more to be said other than to wait for the tweet.

Sure there is. Make a house rule. Play it however you want to. Just don't try to sell me that you have magical mind reading powers. :smallbiggrin:

[Typewriter]

Sure there is. Make a house rule. Play it however you want to. Just don't try to sell me that you have magical mind reading powers. :smallbiggrin:

You don't even know about my mind reading powers.

Pervert

[WickerNipple]

You don't even know about my mind reading powers.

Pervert

Says the fighter to the mind flayer! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[dev6500]

I'd like one of you claiming that it lasts for the full minute to address this post, please.



A 20th level fighter with a greatsword dealing 3672 damage over the course of ten rounds.
Plus 304 for a +3 weapon = 3976.
4000 damage in ten rounds.
400 damage per round.
But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....

Your fix doesn't balance out poison in general. I assume you are talking about purple worm poison. Well your 1 hit per application rule doesn't stop this. A regular archer can from ambush coat 3 arrows with poison for 8 rounds and make 24 shots from 450 ft away using purple worm poison. If this archer is a ranger he has atleast 4 ranged attacks a round, so he has 6 rounds of this. If they multiclassed even 3 levels into rogue, they can use bonus actions to coat 3 arrows in poison a round which is enough to spend every round firing purple worm poison arrows. Are you going to talk cost? Well RAW you can't buy magic items, so a high level character might as well purchase really powerful poisons.

This is worse than your greatsword wielding fighter because at least he has to come to you.

The other thing you forget, is that the DM controls what poisons and items player's can find. Even if you goto the black market, it doesn't mean that they will have any of the overpowered poisons. And you can't necessarily make the poisons using magic yourself because the DM still decides if they are in the world. The robe of archmagi and the staff of magi are both insanely powerful items that will change game balance but just because it is in the dmg doesn't mean the dm has to give it to you.

[Easy_Lee]

Someone sort of addressed that - they said that balance isn't a factor in determining intent. At that point there's really nothing more to be said other than to wait for the tweet. One thing I was curious about - what does it say about the application of the poison - are you applying a 'dose' or anything, are you applying a single application? Or is it more vague? It sounds to me like the honest contention here is whether the dose/application is '1' that is being applied to the weapon giving the weapon the poisoned status for a minute or is it a single 'dose/application' of poison - meaning that it can only be used to poison once because it is a single dose/application.

As i recall, poisons are bought in doses and each does can be used as an action (use an object) to put the "this weapon causes poison" status on a weapon.

From usage of the word "dose," it seems likely that each dose only works for one hit (when the save is triggered), though this is not stated.

It seems likely that damage dealt by poison is not doubled on a crit, since the damage is triggered by failing the save rather than getting hit, though this is also not stated. I personally would handle this by giving the target disadvantage on the poison save, but that's a house rule.

It seems unlikely to me that a DM is going to let the fighter poison his weapon to double his effective DPR for an entire combat. At the end of the day, this is the only part that, I think, matters.

[WickerNipple]

Or is it more vague?

I debated whether to respond to this because of rules against posting rules or whatever, but I think this is a small enough slice to get away with fair use, and it's hardly going to allow someone to play without the rules.

What we have to work with are two statements. (Please correct me if there's more I'm missing.)

PHB pg 153
Poison, Basic. You can use the poison in this vial
to coat one slashing or piercing weapon or up to three
pieces of ammunition. Applying the poison takes
an action. A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or
ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving
throw or take 1d4 poison damage. Once applied, the
poison retains potency for 1 minute before drying.

DMG pg 257
Injury [Poison] A creature that takes slashing or piercing
damage from a weapon or piece of ammunition coated
with injury poison is exposed to its effects.

The rules tell us how to coat a poison, and how long the coat lasts before it dries. That's it.

As I said, if you have balance issues -- change it. But I don't see how you can infer intent from that.

[calebrus]

You guys want yet another example of Intent?
OK

Dagger of Venom Weapon (dagger), rare
You have a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls for attacks you make with this magic weapon. If you apply poison to the dagger, other than its own poison, its saving throw DC increases by 2.
Once per day, you can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until you hit with an attack using this weapon. When you hit a creature with the poisoned dagger, the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target becomes poisoned for 1 minute and takes 2d10 poison damage.

You think that a magic weapon designed specifically for poison damage would be *ten times less effective* than an actual vial of poison? Or in the case of a fighter, it would be *up to 67 times less effective* than a vial of poison?
Single dose = single use.
That's the Intent. That Intent is crystal clear.
If you claim otherwise, you're lying to yourself.

[WickerNipple]

Unfortunately that just tells us how that one magical weapon works. You could just as well argue that because they were so explicit on that item and not on poisons in general that the intent was the reverse.

[dev6500]

As i recall, poisons are bought in doses and each does can be used as an action (use an object) to put the "this weapon causes poison" status on a weapon.

From usage of the word "dose," it seems likely that each dose only works for one hit (when the save is triggered), though this is not stated.

Does isn't used in phb equipment section. On adventuring gear table it says Poison, basic (vial) which only implies it is kept inside a glass container. Ink is sold in 1 ounce bottles and chalk is sold in quantities of one piece but will the chalk or ink run out the first time it touches something? The word does does not also come up in the description of basic poison and basic poison was the only poison was the only one I could find with rules on duration of application.



It seems unlikely to me that a DM is going to let the fighter poison his weapon to double his effective DPR for an entire combat. At the end of the day, this is the only part that, I think, matters.
Yet it is super likely that the dm will be ok with the archer doubling his effective dpr? The real control here will not be duration of application but which poisons you actually have access to. That will be the control that both reigns in melee and ranged poison user damage. Lets not pretend that anyone can just automatically get the strongest poisons in the dmg( the dm's book remember) and lets not pretend that the one application per hit rule balances out poisons in general because it doesn't.

[Easy_Lee]

Does isn't used in phb equipment section. On adventuring gear table it says Poison, basic (vial) which only implies it is kept inside a glass container. Ink is sold in 1 ounce bottles and chalk is sold in quantities of one piece but will the chalk or ink run out the first time it touches something? The word does does not also come up in the description of basic poison and basic poison was the only poison was the only one I could find with rules on duration of application.

Check the DMG, that's where I found the most poison info. For instance, that's how I know that nature is the relevant skill when one wants to harvest poison from a dead snake.

[JFahy]

Check the DMG, that's where I found the most poison info. For instance, that's how I know that nature is the relevant skill when one wants to harvest poison from a dead snake.

Crap. My group's rogue is proficient with his poisoner's kit
and I assumed that's what he'd roll with. (I think I'll stay
with that because it makes sense to me, but it's galling
when I try to read the designer's mind and fail.)

[calebrus]

Crap. My group's rogue is proficient with his poisoner's kit
and I assumed that's what he'd roll with. (I think I'll stay
with that because it makes sense to me, but it's galling
when I try to read the designer's mind and fail.)

That (as in Nature) would be appropriate for harvesting poison from a creature.
For making basic poison (the one in the PHB), a poisoner's kit should suffice. DM fiat, of course, but that makes the most sense. If you want to harvest, Nature. If you want to concoct from ingredients, Poisoner's, Herbalism, or Alchemist's kit.

I'd rule that proficiency with the Herbalism or Alchemist's kit allows creation of basic poisons (better if you have Expertise), but you risk poisoning yourself when making it. Proficiency with Poisoner's kit removes that risk.

As far as the rest goes:


The idea is that the weapon is coated with poison for up to one minute. Not for the whole minute. The idea is that the first attack that hits removes the poison coating the weapon as it enters the enemy struck.
They are single use applications that last for one minute before becoming useless.

The archer gets three uses because he has less surface to cover, and because if his attack misses that shot is wasted and not retrievable until that combat is over, at which point it will become useless before the next combat happens.
So the archer *might* get three hits in with his poison, or he might get none at all.
The melee character is basically guaranteed one poison hit.


I don't have a page number for you. I'm telling you the RAI, not quoting the RAW. That's why I said "The idea is...."

There are a few ways that you know this is the intent.
The first is that every other poison (contact, ingested, inhaled) are all single use by design and by default. The fourth type of poison (injury) follows this same trend.

The second hint is the fact that archers only get three shots, as stated above, which balances the melee's guaranteed poison strike.

The most telling hint is that adding a fistful of d6s to your damage roll for an entire combat for a few gold pieces is a balance issue. The lowest of those listed in the DMG add as much damage as a 5th level rogue's sneak attack. The highest of them adds as much damage as a theoretical 23rd level rogue.
Adding five striker levels worth of damage for an encounter (the lowest damage dealing injury poison) at the cost of some measly gold is absolutely broken. Adding *more than* an entire capped *striker's* damage for an entire encounter for some measly gold is nothing short of insane.


Exactly.
One application, in the hands of a high level fighter, potentially has up to 68 uses (a Hasted Fighter with 2 Action Surges and reactions factored in).
Does that make any sense at all? One application working up to 68 times?
That's 952d6 +340 = average 3672 damage for that ten rounds. That's 367 damage per round.
Does that make any sense at all in 5e?
Of course it doesn't.
Single application = single use.


A 20th level fighter with a greatsword dealing 3672 damage over the course of ten rounds.
Plus 304 for a +3 weapon = 3976.
4000 damage in ten rounds.
400 damage per round.
But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....


You guys want yet another example of Intent?
OK

Dagger of Venom Weapon (dagger), rare
You have a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls for attacks you make with this magic weapon. If you apply poison to the dagger, other than its own poison, its saving throw DC increases by 2.
Once per day, you can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until you hit with an attack using this weapon. When you hit a creature with the poisoned dagger, the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target becomes poisoned for 1 minute and takes 2d10 poison damage.

You think that a magic weapon designed specifically for poison damage would be *ten times less effective* than an actual vial of poison? Or in the case of a fighter, it would be *up to 67 times less effective* than a vial of poison?
Single dose = single use.
That's the Intent. That Intent is crystal clear.
If you claim otherwise, you're lying to yourself.


You can rule it however you want at your table, but believe me, you'll be changing it to follow the RAI as soon as your players get their hands on some poison, because they will utterly decimate anything you throw at them if the poison lasts for the entire minute.
And then you'll have to beef up encounters to compensate.
And then they'll run out of poison and you will be forced to choose between wiping the party and waving your hand to let them survive.

If that isn't enough to convince you guys of the Intent, then you will not be convinced without direct divine intervention from the designers.
And that's honestly a true shame.

[Bubzors]

Yet it is super likely that the dm will be ok with the archer doubling his effentice dpr?

You keep bringing up this archer standing 450 ft away being able to have time to ready a bunch of arrows then unload them on someone. Thats a very niche example, not effectively doubling dpr. You need to A) have set up a nice ambush, B) have that much poison to start with, C) be in a open area with no terrain features the enemy can hide behind.

If a player managesee to set this up, by golly let him double his dpr. He put in a lot of work. But don't act like it's an every day occurence. Meanwhile if you used that the application lastseason one minute no matter how many times you hit, then the fighter greatly benefits. Apply once, go to town for a minute. works in almost any scenario

[Dark Tira]

You guys want yet another example of Intent?
OK

Dagger of Venom Weapon (dagger), rare
You have a +1 bonus to attack rolls and damage rolls for attacks you make with this magic weapon. If you apply poison to the dagger, other than its own poison, its saving throw DC increases by 2.
Once per day, you can use an action to cause thick, black poison to coat the blade. The poison remains for 1 minute or until you hit with an attack using this weapon. When you hit a creature with the poisoned dagger, the target must make a DC 15 Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target becomes poisoned for 1 minute and takes 2d10 poison damage.

You think that a magic weapon designed specifically for poison damage would be *ten times less effective* than an actual vial of poison? Or in the case of a fighter, it would be *up to 67 times less effective* than a vial of poison?
Single dose = single use.
That's the Intent. That Intent is crystal clear.
If you claim otherwise, you're lying to yourself.

This is actually evidence against your argument. Since this is specifically phrased to wear off after one hit the fact that poisons in general do not have the same exemption certainly implies that they were not intended to wear off after one hit.

[calebrus]

This is actually evidence against your argument. Since this is specifically phrased to wear off after one hit the fact that poisons in general do not have the same exemption certainly implies that they were not intended to wear off after one hit.

Not at all.
That's certainly one way to read it.
But does it make sense that way, or does it make sense that the person who wrote up this description was following what was supposed to be in the poison rules to begin with?
Either interpretation can be viewed as valid.
One of those interpretations makes more sense than the other.

Rule on the side of common sense.

[WickerNipple]

Rule on the side of common sense.

And we're done here. As soon as anyone declares their sense to be the common one, there's no reason to even write another word.

[Shining Wrath]

I think the intent of 5e is that the classes be more or less balanced, and that bounded accuracy keep anyone from being absurdly powerful. That seems to me to be the overarching design philosophy.

As a meta-RAI, then, when trying to determine RAI, you should prefer the choice which respects balance between classes and bounded accuracy.

I think that poison lasting for a minute when applied to a 20th level fighter's weapon breaks both of these design goals.

[hawklost]

Heres the scenarios

A) Poison stays on Weapon for 1 whole minute
In this case the following is true.
1) This helps Melee Fighters over any other class, increasing their damage up to x5 times a round (depending on hits)
2) This makes ranged less effective since they only have 3 arrows before they are out
3) This makes the magical Dagger (which is a Rare weapon) seem way overpriced compared just using poison since the dagger is 1 hit deactivated

B) Poison stays on Weapon for 1 minute or until hit
In this case the following is true.
1) This harms most non-Thief melee. They must use an action to apply the poison and only get the first time they hit.
2) This is better for those who have limited attacks per round compared to those who have lots of attacks.
3) This helps ranged somewhat better than Melee (3 arrows with potential vs 1 hit, but each arrow has a chance to miss and be lost, making it only slightly better instead of 3x better)
4) This makes a rare weapon be on par or better in the long run

Both of these interpretations are viable, although I would want the ability to cover more arrows than just 3 (you know a whole bundle) to even out the melee vs ranged discrepancy.

[calebrus]

From another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?399804-Magic-item-rarity-question) that popped up concerning poison:

Basically, if one interpretation is balanced, and one interpretation bends the game over its knee and snaps it like a twig, then the balanced interpretation is obviously the one that was intended and should be used.
And that means Single Dose = Single Use.

[dev6500]

You keep bringing up this archer standing 450 ft away being able to have time to ready a bunch of arrows then unload them on someone. Thats a very niche example, not effectively doubling dpr. You need to A) have set up a nice ambush, B) have that much poison to start with, C) be in a open area with no terrain features the enemy can hide behind.

If a player managesee to set this up, by golly let him double his dpr. He put in a lot of work. But don't act like it's an every day occurence. Meanwhile if you used that the application lastseason one minute no matter how many times you hit, then the fighter greatly benefits. Apply once, go to town for a minute. works in almost any scenario

What is it that stealth characters are normally involved in? Could it be scouting? doesn't seem terribly niche to me. I only need to be able to maintain stealth within 450 feat of a target? seems pretty easy to me. It turns every ambush into an auto-kill because you now have 20 arrows poisoned before you start your attack. 20 attacks is something like 4 to 8 rounds of shooting with doubled dpr. Thats a serious balance issue and you guys can pretend it isn't but it still is and like I said, the only thing that balances this out is that a DM will control what poisons you can get either through a black market or through nature or magic. Also for people who mention the higher cost for archers, remember, you can't buy magic items by default in this game. Even at 2000g a pop at level 20, you have nothing else to spend your money on at level 20. Unless your DM recreates the magic mart, you will just be donating your gold to the poor because it weighs too much and you don't want to have to carry it.

My interpretation is currently RAW and better from a balance perspective at least. Both ranged characters and melee characters benefit nearly equally from the poison and the DM still controls what poison they can find because thats also how DMs handle items in 5e.

Poison that goes away after a hit still requires the DM to make the same balancing effort of restricting overpowered poisons. The problem is not poison lasting a minute, the problem is the effect of the poison that can last a minute and regardless of how long it sticks to a sword, it will still have major balance issues for the arrows it attaches to.

[JNAProductions]

I have to agree with Calebrus. It's not perfect, no. Rangers get a bit of an edge on melee people because they're highly accurate.

But it is one hell of a lot more balanced than 10 rounds of pure poisoning goodness. RAW it might not be, RAI it might not be, but RACS it sure is.

[Naanomi]

I'd rule that proficiency with the Herbalism or Alchemist's kit allows creation of basic poisons (better if you have Expertise), but you risk poisoning yourself when making it. Proficiency with Poisoner's kit removes that risk
Note that under current rules there is no way to get expertise on tools other than thief tools

[HoarsHalberd]

I have to agree with Calebrus. It's not perfect, no. Rangers get a bit of an edge on melee people because they're highly accurate.

But it is one hell of a lot more balanced than 10 rounds of pure poisoning goodness. RAW it might not be, RAI it might not be, but RACS it sure is.

I agree with you and not calebrus, nor the posters eager to crush every boss not immune to poison.It is neither RAI or RAW but it is RACS and In Need of Errata. Without clearly defined intent or sufficient language to draw intent from, RAI cannot be put forth as an argument.

[JNAProductions]

I haven't played TTRPGs long enough to know that RAI and RACS are different things. And I am perfectly happy not being disabused of the notion. Isn't doublethink plusgood?

[Tarrab]

Poison KICKS ASS. But to answer plainly, I think this explains why there are so many creatures immune to poisoned and resistant to poison damage.

[Giant2005]

I'd like one of you claiming that it lasts for the full minute to address this post, please.



A 20th level fighter with a greatsword dealing 3672 damage over the course of ten rounds.
Plus 304 for a +3 weapon = 3976.
4000 damage in ten rounds.
400 damage per round.
But you claim that we can't possibly know the intent....

Firstly you are talking about a highly illegal poison that costs 2,000 gold.
Under your interpretation, a Fighter without poison would do 16D6+40 damage (Average 96) over two rounds.
Under your interpretation, a Fighter using that poison would do 20D6+20 damage (Average 90) over two rounds.

So tell me, what do you think is more likely: The developers expect the Fighter to both spend a fortune and risk his own freedom by breaking the law, all in order to lower his damage potential; or that your interpretation is simply wrong?
Logic suggests the latter.

[JNAProductions]

Firstly you are talking about a highly illegal poison that costs 2,000 gold.
Under your interpretation, a Fighter without poison would do 16D6+40 damage (Average 96) over two rounds.
Under your interpretation, a Fighter using that poison would do 20D6+20 damage (Average 90) over two rounds.

So tell me, what do you think is more likely: The developers expect the Fighter to both spend a fortune and risk his own freedom by breaking the law, all in order to lower his damage potential; or that your interpretation is simply wrong?
Logic suggests the latter.

How are you getting those numbers? Poison adds damage, it doesn't replace damage.

In addition, check your math over 10 rounds. Part of his point is that poison adds, under the "lasts a minute" interpretation, 10 rounds of constant damage boost. We all know Fighters can nova like nobody's business for two rounds, but they can't keep it up over 10.

[Giant2005]

How are you getting those numbers? Poison adds damage, it doesn't replace damage.

In addition, check your math over 10 rounds. Part of his point is that poison adds, under the "lasts a minute" interpretation, 10 rounds of constant damage boost. We all know Fighters can nova like nobody's business for two rounds, but they can't keep it up over 10.

It takes an action to apply the poison - that is an action that you aren't inflicting damage.
To find out how well it functions under the "1 use only" houserule over 10 rounds, simply multiply the numbers by 5.
The first numbers are simply 2D6+5 per attack * 8 attacks (2 rounds of 4 attacks).
The second is 2D6+5 per attack * 4 attacks (1 round of 4 attacks) +12D6 for the poison (Which replaces the first round of damage)

[Cap'n Kobold]

3) This makes the magical Dagger (which is a Rare weapon) seem way overpriced compared just using poison since the dagger is 1 hit deactivated
Isn't the big thing about the dagger that it increases the DC of any other poison used on it? Not just the one that it can generate itself?

[JNAProductions]

It takes an action to apply the poison - that is an action that you aren't inflicting damage.
To find out how well it functions under the "1 use only" houserule over 10 rounds, simply multiply the numbers by 5.
The first numbers are simply 2D6+5 per attack * 8 attacks (2 rounds of 4 attacks).
The second is 2D6+5 per attack * 4 attacks (1 round of 4 attacks) +12D6 for the poison (Which replaces the first round of damage)

The general idea is that you apply poison before a fight and don't reapply till your next fight. It's an ambush/assassination tool, and (in my opinion) isn't something to use every round of every combat. So the fact that using poison round after round gives you worse damage? Is a good thing.

[Xetheral]

How are you getting those numbers? Poison adds damage, it doesn't replace damage.

In addition, check your math over 10 rounds. Part of his point is that poison adds, under the "lasts a minute" interpretation, 10 rounds of constant damage boost. We all know Fighters can nova like nobody's business for two rounds, but they can't keep it up over 10.

Except that most combats don't last anywhere near 10 rounds.


From another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?399804-Magic-item-rarity-question) that popped up concerning poison:

Basically, if one interpretation is balanced, and one interpretation bends the game over its knee and snaps it like a twig, then the balanced interpretation is obviously the one that was intended and should be used.
And that means Single Dose = Single Use.

You're taking the class that would most benefit from the interpretation, at the level where it gets the most attacks, using the most-damaging poison, ignoring saving throws, and then assuming an exactly ten round combat. That's the absolute worst-case scenario, and as such isn't an appropriate example from which to try to divine the writers' intent. There are always going to be corner cases that produce absurd results.

If you want to use balance considerations to try to divine intent you should consider a typical example that the designers are more likely to have had in mind when crafting the poison rules. I'd suggest a non-fighter melee character, between levels 5 to 10, and a 3-4 round combat (the first of which is spent applying the poison). Also, don't forget to factor in the saving throw. If you still get absurd results, then your argument is much, much stronger and more people will find it convincing. If you don't still get absurd results, then your argument that balance considerations can resolve this debate becomes flimsy indeed.

[hawklost]

Except that most combats don't last anywhere near 10 rounds.



You're taking the class that would most benefit from the interpretation, at the level where it gets the most attacks, using the most-damaging poison, ignoring saving throws, and then assuming an exactly ten round combat. That's the absolute worst-case scenario, and as such isn't an appropriate example from which to try to divine the writers' intent. There are always going to be corner cases that produce absurd results.

If you want to use balance considerations to try to divine intent you should consider a typical example that the designers are more likely to have had in mind when crafting the poison rules. I'd suggest a non-fighter melee character, between levels 5 to 10, and a 3-4 round combat (the first of which is spent applying the poison). Also, don't forget to factor in the saving throw. If you still get absurd results, then your argument is much, much stronger and more people will find it convincing. If you don't still get absurd results, then your argument that balance considerations can resolve this debate becomes flimsy indeed.

Well, unless the battle is completely unexpected, most people would be able to prepare the poison the round before they attack.
Less than a third of the battles in DnD are the players being surprised by an enemy (either ambush or just shock that they are there)

Lets Look at some scenarios then, we will take a lvl 5 Fighter.

Enemies will have a +1 Con.

Lvl 5 has 2 attacks a round and 4 attacks on a single Round.

Drow Poison, DC 13
If the player uses this poison and gets a minutes worth of this poison.
2 attacks, enemy has a 40% chance of success each time or be poisoned. A 20% chance of being knocked out. So a single enemy has a 42% chance of being out of the combat by failing a save by 5 or more and has less than 20% chance of being effective since poisoned means they have all ability checks and attack rolls be at disadvantage.

A Fighter can garranty to take out pretty much any single target with 1 round of combat if he uses all 4 attacks even if the enemy has a huge HP pool. No damage needed. And even better, if the enemy fails the first time, he can immediately switch to a different enemy to attempt to knock out or kill.

Now lets look at a damage poison.
Serpent Poison, DC 11
Enemy has a 55% chance to take half damage. Fighter does 2d6+3 (+3d6 or half) damage per hit. He is doubling his damage per hit on an enemy failing a save and adding 50% increaes on a successful save each hit

Double DPR for a fighter for a full minute for 200 gold (not terribly cheap but not super expensive for a character).

In 5 rounds of combat that will be
R1: (Spend action or apply poison) OR if applied before, average of 15.25-20.5 (Average 17 damage) x 4 (Action surge first round) .
R2: 17x2 (or x4 if R1 was applying a poison.
R3: 17x2
R4: 17x2
R5: 17x2

Now lets compare Damage per round for no Poison, already added poison, Add poison R1

R1: 40, 68, 0
R2: 60, 102, 68
R3: 80, 136, 102
R4: 100, 170, 136
R5: 120, 204, 170

So, for 200 gp the player can add 50-80 points of damage over 5 round (also note that even if the enemy saves every round, they still take an average of 15 damage vs 10 damage without poison so a 50% increase in damage).

So, if a player is awash in gold even if they have to spend the first round not striking (but note the Fighter can move and place himself to still be a shield) they just need 2 rounds of combat to make the poison worth while and any round over that is just bonus and makes it even better.

(Yes, I know I didn't bother doing calcs vs AC since the damage would be scaled all the same and the % of better would never chance since poison doesn't effect chance to hit)

EDIT Lets not even get into Crits, which with the way RAW is written means the Poison damage is multiplied as well so 3d6 is now 6d6 (save half) and so in 5 rounds of combat there is a 60% chance of critting during those 5 rounds

[Cactuar]

EDIT Lets not even get into Crits, which with the way RAW is written means the Poison damage is multiplied as well so 3d6 is now 6d6 (save half) and so in 5 rounds of combat there is a 60% chance of critting during those 5 rounds

Crits don't affect poisons with savings throws for damage. IIRC it was tweeted by Crawford.

[HMS Invincible]

Crits don't affect poisons with savings throws for damage. IIRC it was tweeted by Crawford.

Can someone tell Crawford that mearls is contradicting him and its really aggravating when it happens ?

[pwykersotz]

{scrubbed}

It's not a "Why wouldn't they" situation. They don't. So it is written, so it is clarified by the sage. Poison has a separate mechanic for dealing damage as provided by the saving throw. You can change it, but that's a table thing. :smallamused:

[calebrus]

{scrubbed}

There are a few reasons.
Firstly, it's damage from the poison, not damage from the weapon.
Secondly, your attack roll has nothing to do with it. If you miss, your weapon is still coated with poison, and the next attack that hits will apply it. There is zero risk involved. The moment you coat your weapon, it becomes guaranteed damage.
Thirdly, and most importantly, the poison's effectiveness is not determined by an attack roll. The poison's effectiveness is determined by a saving throw. And you can't crit with an attack that requires a save, you can only crit with an attack that requires an attack roll.
If you want to argue that you need to hit with the weapon that applies the poison, I suggest you reread numbers 2 and 3 above.
Poison damage is not double dice on a crit.

[pwykersotz]

{scrubbed}

So, your argument is that we should ignore an explicitly stated and clarified rule because if you squint sideways and selectively interpret an unrelated rule it seems to thematically contradict the explicitly stated and clarified rule?

:smallsigh:

It wouldn't matter if something were introduced in a future supplement called a Ravage that was almost just like poison but it explicitly DID double dice on a crit. It doesn't enable poison to crit.

[calebrus]

pwyk, arguing with Eslin Logical DM I'm Back Martial Options is a wasted endeavor.

[pwykersotz]

pwyk, arguing with Eslin Logical DM I'm Back Martial Options is a wasted endeavor.

Eh, I know he's stubborn, but I like to think there's hope. :smallsmile:

[xyianth]

...
So, for 200 gp the player can add 50-80 points of damage over 5 round (also note that even if the enemy saves every round, they still take an average of 15 damage vs 10 damage without poison so a 50% increase in damage).

To put this in perspective, 200gp at level 5 is not insignificant. Spending 200gp for what is effectively equivalent to a single use 3rd-4th level spell's effect doesn't seem that bad to me. However, under the 'it applies to 1 hit' interpretation, 200gp seems way too overpriced for such a weak effect.


pwyk, arguing with Eslin Logical DM I'm Back Martial Options is a wasted endeavor.

Given some of the comments in this thread, I find this to be quite a hilarious statement. Let's at least attempt to keep this discussion civil.

[calebrus]

To put this in perspective, 200gp at level 5 is not insignificant. Spending 200gp for what is effectively equivalent to a single use 3rd-4th level spell's effect doesn't seem that bad to me. However, under the 'it applies to 1 hit' interpretation, 200gp seems way too overpriced for such a weak effect.

But you have to remember that the poison damage is above and beyond what you *should* be able to do at that level.
That's the difference.
Take the lowest form of injury poison in the DMG. It's 3d6, save for half.
That's the equivalent of five levels of rogue, with the removal of the need to set up sneak attack offsetting the save for half.
You are effectively adding 5 levels to your ECL for that encounter for a measly 200gp. And anyone can do it, at any time, just by spending a little coin. Even hypothetically at level 1.

That. Is. Not. Balanced.

Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an encounter? No way.
Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an attack? Sure, why not.

[xyianth]

But you have to remember that the poison damage is above and beyond what you *should* be able to do at that level.
That's the difference.
Take the lowest form of injury poison in the DMG. It's 3d6, save for half.
That's the equivalent of five levels of rogue, with the removal of the need to set up sneak attack offsetting the save for half.
You are effectively adding 5 levels to your ECL for that encounter for a measly 200gp. And anyone can do it, at any time, just by spending a little coin. Even hypothetically at level 1.

That. Is. Not. Balanced.

Couldn't you say the same thing for, say, a scroll of haste? It gives you +2 AC, boosted speed, and an extra attack per round. An extra attack is worth 5+ levels of several classes. Now I have no idea what a scroll of haste is supposed to cost, and if a scroll of haste should cost far greater than 200gp, then I agree with you about the balance of the poison. If the two are similar in cost (say 500gp for the scroll since it lasts longer and has other effects beside the hasted action) then I still fail to see the problem.

Note: if there is something I have overlooked that gives estimates for scroll costs in the DMG, I'd appreciate being pointed to it. Absent that, pricing will be controlled by the DM's campaign design.

[calebrus]

Couldn't you say the same thing for, say, a scroll of haste? It gives you +2 AC, boosted speed, and an extra attack per round. An extra attack is worth 5+ levels of several classes.

Haste can be stopped by a concentration check, or an anti-magic zone of any sort, or a counterspell, or a dispel magic, and probably a few other ways I'm not thinking of.

Poison damage gets stopped by immunity, and to a lesser degree by resistance. And if you come up against a creature with that and try to use poison, then you're literally just wasting it.

These are two wildly different scenarios, and can't be compared in the way that you attempted to compare them.

You missed my edit from before, so I'll add it here.
Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an encounter? No way.
Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an attack? Sure, why not.

[xyianth]

Haste can be stopped by a concentration check, or an anti-magic zone of any sort, or a counterspell, or a dispel magic, and probably a few other ways I'm not thinking of.

Poison damage gets stopped by immunity, and to a lesser degree by resistance. And if you come up against a creature with that and try to use poison, then you're literally just wasting it.

These are two wildly different scenarios, and can't be compared in the way that you attempted to compare them.

You missed my edit from before, so I'll add it here.
Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an encounter? No way.
Spend a little bit of cash and get a virtual five levels of rogue for an attack? Sure, why not.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think I still disagree. The concentration check can sort of be mitigated by having an archer/back-liner use the scroll on the front-liner, and is effectively equivalent to the risk of having your poisoned weapon disarmed. The presence of anti-magic zones is essentially the same risk as running into poison immune foes as far as I am concerned. Both counterspell and dispel magic are 3rd level spells, protection from poison is 2nd level. (yes, I am aware it doesn't provide immunity; maybe there should be a 3rd level spell that provides poison immunity) Personally, I don't think the situations are as different as you make them out to be, but I'll agree to disagree.

[calebrus]

Look at it this way.
By the XP rules in the DMG, a party of four level 4 players has Hard encounter XP range between 2725 through 3899.
If it goes above that, from 3900 up, it becomes Deadly.

If you add one poison user in there, with the weakest poison in the DMG, and recalculate based on those five virtual levels of rogue that are being added (so now three level 4s and one level 9), the Hard encounter becomes Easy, and the Deadly encounter only becomes Medium.
If you allow poisons to work for an entire minute, one single person using the weakest poison in the DMG turns a Deadly encounter into a Medium encounter. It turns a Hard encounter into a cake walk.

[xyianth]

Look at it this way.
By the XP rules in the DMG, a party of four level 4 players has Hard encounter XP range between 2725 through 3899.
If it goes above that, from 3900 up, it becomes Deadly.

If you add one poison user in there, with the weakest poison in the DMG, and recalculate based on those five virtual levels of rogue that are being added (so now three level 4s and one level 9), the Hard encounter becomes Easy, and the Deadly encounter only becomes Medium.
If you allow poisons to work for an entire minute, one single person using the weakest poison in the DMG turns a Deadly encounter into a Medium encounter. It turns a Hard encounter into a cake walk.

Only if you think 5 levels of rogue is only equal to +3d6 damage per attack. It's not. By the same logic, the extra attack from haste does the exact same thing.

[calebrus]

Only if you think 5 levels of rogue is only equal to +3d6 damage per attack. It's not. By the same logic, the extra attack from haste does the exact same thing.

OK, then tell me what else a Rogue brings to the table.
A Rogue is there for damage. That's basically it. He doesn't bring any utility to the table in combat. He's a striker. He's there to roll d6s, and that's all he's there for once combat begins.
So yes, I think 5 levels of Rogue is worth 3d6 damage.

And once again, ignore Haste. There are things that can be done to counter Haste. It is not an appropriate analogy.

[Giant2005]

OK, then tell me what else a Rogue brings to the table.
A Rogue is there for damage. That's basically it. He doesn't bring any utility to the table in combat. He's a striker. He's there to roll d6s, and that's all he's there for once combat begins.
So yes, I think 5 levels of Rogue is worth 3d6 damage.

And once again, ignore Haste. There are things that can be done to counter Haste. It is not an appropriate analogy.

Does that mean that an actual level 5 Rogue that brings more to the table (Assassinate, Cunning Action etc) should be treated as more than a level 5 character when determining encounter difficulty?

Either way it is a moot point - even if it is the equivalent of an extra 5 levels of Rogue, that is hardly the entire equation. Applying the poison takes an action, so it is more akin to +5 levels of rogue - X amount of levels that you have in the class that isn't getting any bonuses due to applying poison.

EDIT: Things can be done to counter poison too - worse really. Simply disarming your opponent and using their poisoned weapon against them would be something that stopped players overusing poison a whole lot.

[Xetheral]

So, if a player is awash in gold even if they have to spend the first round not striking (but note the Fighter can move and place himself to still be a shield) they just need 2 rounds of combat to make the poison worth while and any round over that is just bonus and makes it even better.

One may or may not consider the cost for such benefits to be adequately balanced. But because the results of the full-minute interpretation are not absurd or game-breaking in a typical case, I'd argue that balance concerns are insufficiently persuasive to settle the debate.


Look at it this way.
By the XP rules in the DMG, a party of four level 4 players has Hard encounter XP range between 2725 through 3899.
If it goes above that, from 3900 up, it becomes Deadly.

If you add one poison user in there, with the weakest poison in the DMG, and recalculate based on those five virtual levels of rogue that are being added (so now three level 4s and one level 9), the Hard encounter becomes Easy, and the Deadly encounter only becomes Medium.
If you allow poisons to work for an entire minute, one single person using the weakest poison in the DMG turns a Deadly encounter into a Medium encounter. It turns a Hard encounter into a cake walk.

I disagree that 3d6 (save half) is equivalent to 5 levels of rogue. It's not even as good as the sneak attack feature, which is only a small part of what rogues get from leveling (prof, HP, other features, etc.).

[xyianth]

OK, then tell me what else a Rogue brings to the table.
A Rogue is there for damage. That's basically it. He doesn't bring any utility to the table in combat. He's a striker. He's there to roll d6s, and that's all he's there for once combat begins.
So yes, I think 5 levels of Rogue is worth 3d6 damage.

And once again, ignore Haste. There are things that can be done to counter Haste. It is not an appropriate analogy.

5 levels of rogue adds: cunning action, uncanny dodge, 5d8+(5*Con) hp, +1 proficiency bonus, 1 ASI, and 5 levels worth of treasure. Unless all that counts for nothing in the determination of how difficult an encounter is?

And haste was just one of many different scrolls/potions that could be considered similar: animate dead, crusader's mantle, elemental weapon, fly, etc... The point of the analogy was that one aspect of a class is not equal to the entire class. I've already stipulated that a scroll use is quite similar to a poison use, the fact that you don't agree does not mean I will argue the merits of poison using your virtual rogue level logic.

Bottom line, I don't see a problem with a group of level 4 adventurers spending a significant portion of wealth to trivialize a single encounter, regardless of whether they do so via scroll, or poison, or potion, or hired mercenary. If you do, great! Don't make 200gp poisons available for purchase in your games, problem solved. Personally, I think it's fine as is. If anything, I think the poison rules are only a problem because they make poison more useful for melee over ranged. I'd prefer it apply to the same number of hits regardless of style, with ranged fighters risking misses in exchange for greater safety and targeting ability.

[calebrus]

I disagree that 3d6 (save half) is equivalent to 5 levels of rogue. It's not even as good as the sneak attack feature, which is only a small part of what rogues get from leveling (prof, HP, other features, etc.).

There are four levels where a Rogue gets any offensive striker capability other than sneak attack.
At level 3 one subclass gets an offensive option.
At level 13, one subclass gets advantage on attacks basically at-will.
At level 17, two subclasses get an offensive option.
At level 20, all Rogues get one.
If you're an Assassin, only 3 of those apply.
If you're a Trickster, only 2 of those apply.
If you're a Thief, only 2 of those apply.
A Rogue's contribution in combat is rolling a handful of d6s.

The other 16 levels (which is really 17 or 18 depending on your subclass) are filled with defensive options and skill options and such.

The HP and prof and other features are all already covered by the character using the poison.
Not having to set up a sneak attack evens out with the save for half.

So once again, yes, I think that 5 levels of Rogue is worth 3d6 damage.

[dev6500]

Haste can be stopped by a concentration check, or an anti-magic zone of any sort, or a counterspell, or a dispel magic, and probably a few other ways I'm not thinking of.

Poison damage gets stopped by immunity, and to a lesser degree by resistance. And if you come up against a creature with that and try to use poison, then you're literally just wasting it.

These are two wildly different scenarios, and can't be compared in the way that you attempted to compare them.

You have a habIt of declaring any opinions that do not agree with you as irrelevent or incomparable. A scroll or potion with a buff is very comparable to applying poison.

1. A scroll of haste takes a action to use.
2. It is actually a stronger buff than poison. A haste scroll should be around 500g vs the 200 for that poison so the cost is similar. Haste nets you 2 ac. Statistically, bumps to hit chance and penalties to hit chance have a much larger impact than damage boosts. Haste also gives you an extra attack which can lead to an extra 15-20 damage a round.
3. The concentration check when damaged is also not a difficult hurdle. Ranged characters get hit less often and most melee characters have a high constitution save. Plus haste improves your defense so you get hit less often.
4. Poison only gives you bonus damage and it is typed so resistances and poison immunity weaken it. Also poison has to bypass 2 layers of defense. Ac and a saving throw.
5. Haste while similarly priced to the poison scales well with level (10% reduction to enemy hit chance and extra Attack maintain value at all levels). It helps you in most encounters as where poison can be completely ignored if the enemy is resistant and can consistently beat the saving throw.
6. If a melee character can force the enemy to waste an action using counterspell to prevent your use of a scroll that is a good thing. Now your party caster can cast a spell without worrying about being countered. That's a good trade. Antimagic field is a 8th level spell right. So you will not encounter it until high levels. If Antimagic appears frequently in other forms, that is an example of the dm targeting a specific ability which they can do against poison as well and high frequencies of Antimagic will be a much bigger concern for party spellcasters, as opposed to scroll using melee combatants. Loss of haste is the least of your problems then.

So not only are they comparable but haste is actually better.

[Knaight]

Your fix doesn't balance out poison in general. I assume you are talking about purple worm poison. Well your 1 hit per application rule doesn't stop this. A regular archer can from ambush coat 3 arrows with poison for 8 rounds and make 24 shots from 450 ft away using purple worm poison. If this archer is a ranger he has atleast 4 ranged attacks a round, so he has 6 rounds of this. If they multiclassed even 3 levels into rogue, they can use bonus actions to coat 3 arrows in poison a round which is enough to spend every round firing purple worm poison arrows. Are you going to talk cost? Well RAW you can't buy magic items, so a high level character might as well purchase really powerful poisons.
Somehow I doubt large featureless plains with no cover are all that common. A sufficiently high level ranger might get 8 shots in the context of something that actually comes up in a campaign.


The other thing you forget, is that the DM controls what poisons and items player's can find. Even if you goto the black market, it doesn't mean that they will have any of the overpowered poisons. And you can't necessarily make the poisons using magic yourself because the DM still decides if they are in the world. The robe of archmagi and the staff of magi are both insanely powerful items that will change game balance but just because it is in the dmg doesn't mean the dm has to give it to you.
This gets into implicit setting issues. Magical artifacts are explicitly listed as extremely rare things nearly impossible to get ahold of, them warping the game heavily makes sense in that context. Poison shows up on fairly straightforward equipment lists, and equipment lists are one of the ways that settings are implied. That poison makes the cut with a fairly low price is indicative of it likely ending up in settings, even if it wouldn't were the settings made from scratch. It's what GMs are going to pull from unless they explicitly change things, and the number of GMs explicitly changing things is likely less than those that just wouldn't include them if they weren't working off an existing list.

Given all that, balance issues with poison are a real problem.


I haven't played TTRPGs long enough to know that RAI and RACS are different things. And I am perfectly happy not being disabused of the notion. Isn't doublethink plusgood?
It's less TTRPGs and more D&D. RAW, RAI, RACS, and similar come up a great deal in D&D discussions and a lot less everywhere else. With that said, RAI and RACS not being the same thing is hardly double think. All it takes for them to diverge is for a designer to write a rule with an intended outcome that is somewhat ridiculous, where the rule is ambiguous enough to interpret in a non-ridiculous fashion.

[dev6500]

Somehow I doubt large featureless plains with no cover are all that common. A sufficiently high level ranger might get 8 shots in the context of something that actually comes up in a campaign.

Featureless planes aren't the only area where a stealth based character can get into range of enemies and make use of poison. 450 is just their max range. Sharpshooter feat also helps with cover. So anytime you can think of a scenario where a melee character could sneak up on an enemy (would require getting within one rounds movement of them) a ranged stealth character could pull it off more easily and have 20 poisoned arrows prepared. Since ranged fighting style also improves hit chance by 2, they should definitely be landing more than 8 arrows.



This gets into implicit setting issues. Magical artifacts are explicitly listed as extremely rare things nearly impossible to get ahold of, them warping the game heavily makes sense in that context. Poison shows up on fairly straightforward equipment lists, and equipment lists are one of the ways that settings are implied. That poison makes the cut with a fairly low price is indicative of it likely ending up in settings, even if it wouldn't were the settings made from scratch. It's what GMs are going to pull from unless they explicitly change things, and the number of GMs explicitly changing things is likely less than those that just wouldn't include them if they weren't working off an existing list.

That poison list is in the dmg not the phb. Player's have no expectation to having any specific item on the list just like magic items. Player's can reasonably expect to be able to go looking for a black market with poisons for sale just as they might be able to go looking for a merchant who sells magic items. But will the merchant have high level magic items or just potions. Will the black market merchant have the specific poison they are looking for? That will always be a dm judgment that is setting specific. The dmg poison list is not a player equipment table. Those are in the phb.

[Knaight]

Featureless planes aren't the only area where a stealth based character can get into range of enemies and make use of poison. 450 is just their max range. Sharpshooter feat also helps with cover. So anytime you can think of a scenario where a melee character could sneak up on an enemy (would require getting within one rounds movement of them) a ranged stealth character could pull it off more easily and have 20 poisoned arrows prepared. Since ranged fighting style also improves hit chance by 2, they should definitely be landing more than 8 arrows.
It's not just about getting into range and making use of poison, it's about the target getting shot and not being able to get completely behind cover of some sort - Sharpshooter only helps with cover when it isn't absolutely complete. A few arrows can likely be fired before line of sight is completely lost.



That poison list is in the dmg not the phb. Player's have no expectation to having any specific item on the list just like magic items. Player's can reasonably expect to be able to go looking for a black market with poisons for sale just as they might be able to go looking for a merchant who sells magic items. But will the merchant have high level magic items or just potions. Will the black market merchant have the specific poison they are looking for? That will always be a dm judgment that is setting specific. The dmg poison list is not a player equipment table. Those are in the phb.
It's in the DMG with fairly low prices, and is likely only there because of it being a new subsystem. Plus, even with it being in the DMG that it has explicit rules, explicit prices, and similar (as opposed to the rarity system for magic items) suggests that it is in the setting. It's the same way that the existence of the telescope in the PHB suggests that the setting has some degree of lenses, or that the armor listing implies that plate armor has been developed, or a whole bunch of other things.

[dev6500]

It's not just about getting into range and making use of poison, it's about the target getting shot and not being able to get completely behind cover of some sort - Sharpshooter only helps with cover when it isn't absolutely complete. A few arrows can likely be fired before line of sight is completely lost.

that may be true if you couldn't move every round in addition to attacking but you can. Higher level players might even have movement exceeding 30 ft depending on buffs, class abilities or magic items. If the enemy you are ambushing includes multiple targets, you should be able to move in order to have at least 1 or 2 viable targets a round.



It's in the DMG with fairly low prices, and is likely only there because of it being a new subsystem. Plus, even with it being in the DMG that it has explicit rules, explicit prices, and similar (as opposed to the rarity system for magic items) suggests that it is in the setting. It's the same way that the existence of the telescope in the PHB suggests that the setting has some degree of lenses, or that the armor listing implies that plate armor has been developed, or a whole bunch of other things.
Even with explicit prices, the dmg doesn't have explicit values set for player wealth by level. Only wealth rewards from encounters. The value of the gold in a campaign is still a very subjective thing. Player's are only meant to have access to the PHB. The dungeon master's guide and the monster manual are not resources that player's are meant to have access to. In fact, since a DM will often utilize unchanged monsters from the monster manual for example, it is a form of cheating or meta-gaming to be actively using these books as a player.

If the poisons were a resource player's could expect to have, it would be in the phb, not the dmg. There is no other suggestion to take. Everything that a DM provides you from the dmg or the mm (a monster pet and its stats for example) is 100% up to the DM. None of it should be assumed to automatically exist. Whether all the poisons are available to player's, or just some of them, it will remain a DM determination. How is your player supposed to know a certain poison or monster exists? Based off of knowledge skill check. Who determines the results of a knowledge check? The DM. This is a scenario that is under 100% dm control in every campaign.

[Knaight]

If the poisons were a resource player's could expect to have, it would be in the phb, not the dmg. There is no other suggestion to take. Everything that a DM provides you from the dmg or the mm (a monster pet and its stats for example) is 100% up to the DM. None of it should be assumed to automatically exist. Whether all the poisons are available to player's, or just some of them, it will remain a DM determination. How is your player supposed to know a certain poison or monster exists? Based off of knowledge skill check. Who determines the results of a knowledge check? The DM. This is a scenario that is under 100% dm control in every campaign.

I'm not saying that it isn't under DM control, I'm saying that the explicit listing and implicit setting will lead most DMs to create settings where poisons show up. You bring up the monster manual here, which is also very much a book of implicit setting. Tons of settings in general will not have orcs, will not have 'monsters', and even if they do have monsters will have a very wide variety. D&D settings on the other hand routinely have MM creatures in them even if the setting is of the DM's creation. They will generally have orcs, dragons (of particular colors with particular elemental affinities), demons and devils as distinct evil groups with particular ones showing up, D&D specific stuff like gelatinous cubes and rust monsters, etc.

The selection of what monsters to put into the MM has a lot of influence on the settings that end up getting made. It's the same thing as the equipment list in the PHB, or the influence of the rules on varying character power, or a whole bunch of other things. The collection of game defined things that are thus disproportionately likely to appear in campaigns is exactly what I'm talking about when I use the term "implicit setting", and the PHB is in no way the only book that has one. The MM is basically one big book of implicit setting, and even the DMG has a fair amount in it. Take magic items - while the level of magic is going to be highly variable, the particular items that show up will disproportionately be pulled from the DMG list, which affects the feel of the setting.

[hawklost]

that may be true if you couldn't move every round in addition to attacking but you can. Higher level players might even have movement exceeding 30 ft depending on buffs, class abilities or magic items. If the enemy you are ambushing includes multiple targets, you should be able to move in order to have at least 1 or 2 viable targets a round.


Even with explicit prices, the dmg doesn't have explicit values set for player wealth by level. Only wealth rewards from encounters. The value of the gold in a campaign is still a very subjective thing. Player's are only meant to have access to the PHB. The dungeon master's guide and the monster manual are not resources that player's are meant to have access to. In fact, since a DM will often utilize unchanged monsters from the monster manual for example, it is a form of cheating or meta-gaming to be actively using these books as a player.

If the poisons were a resource player's could expect to have, it would be in the phb, not the dmg. There is no other suggestion to take. Everything that a DM provides you from the dmg or the mm (a monster pet and its stats for example) is 100% up to the DM. None of it should be assumed to automatically exist. Whether all the poisons are available to player's, or just some of them, it will remain a DM determination. How is your player supposed to know a certain poison or monster exists? Based off of knowledge skill check. Who determines the results of a knowledge check? The DM. This is a scenario that is under 100% dm control in every campaign.

Ummm, everything the DM provides you, from class choices, Backgrounds, Any item in the PHB, Feats is fully up to the dm. Anything in the game can and should be removed if the DM decides it does not fit his setting (Arcane Magic users being rare? No PC can play Wizard/Sorc/Warlock. Gods have abandoned the material plane? No Clerics allowed.).

As long as the Players know what is and isn't going to be in a campeign before they start, then the DM can restrict it. If the DM starts a game up and then tells the PCs, "Oh, btw, there will be no magical items in this game or any poisons" Then the PCs have a right to be upset.

I am not saying a DM can't say that specific items do not exist or do not cost what they say in the books or even that they do exactly what they say in the books, but wholesale removing a logical feature of a game just so you can claim it shouldn't be used is BS.

Btw, if you believe a DM should remove Poisons from the Setting then you shouldn't really be arguing about why Poisons should be 1 hit or 1 minute because you have no interest in it (If there are no poisons then whats it matter if the hypothetical poison is 1 hit or 1 minute). Unless the DM wishes to remove all poisonous plants and animals from a game as well as all magical creatures that contain poison then there is poison in the game. The DM might be a jerk and say no one is allowed to make poison (although making something poisoness is very easy, any chef could poison people with food and spices in a kitchen with ease) then that is a House Rule, not the norm.

[dev6500]

Btw, if you believe a DM should remove Poisons from the Setting then you shouldn't really be arguing about why Poisons should be 1 hit or 1 minute because you have no interest in it (If there are no poisons then whats it matter if the hypothetical poison is 1 hit or 1 minute). Unless the DM wishes to remove all poisonous plants and animals from a game as well as all magical creatures that contain poison then there is poison in the game. The DM might be a jerk and say no one is allowed to make poison (although making something poisoness is very easy, any chef could poison people with food and spices in a kitchen with ease) then that is a House Rule, not the norm.

Who said wholesale removal of poisons or magic items? I know I didn't so I am confused as to whose argument you are addressing. A DM provides player's access to magic items without telling them before the game which ones they might find. Similarly, a DM provides players access to specific poisons but even in games where I played an assassin, I have never expected that the DM would give me access to all poisons ever listed in a dnd book. The DM is the one who fills the campaign world and its not like every region a campaign takes place in will have every poison or poisonous creature in reach. If you try making a poison from scratch, you are requesting the DM to work together with you to create the rules for a poison. Even if you find a number of dangerous chemicals, the DM still has to quantify their effect. I have played in zero campaigns where every resource listed in the dmg or supplemental rules books were in the game by default. No player assumes that every game must have purple worm poison in specific. Sure, if the DM doesn't say otherwise, they assume that they should be able to ask around a mildly large town and find someone selling some variety of poison but specific expectations versus general expectations are 2 are very different things.

And once again, regardless of whether you go with RAW (poison lasts 1 minute) or you change it to poison wears off after a hit, the DM will still need to balance powerful poisons against archers since they are not affected by the difference between the 1 minute poison or the 1 hit poison rule. Either way, an archer can sneak up and poison 20 some arrows (more if they are a rogue due to bonus action arrow poisoning).

If you went rogue 3/ranger 17 the most extreme scenario I know. You have an ranged character skilled in stealth, who can poison 6 arrows a turn, can dash as a bonus action to keep targets from having full cover, who can shoot 4 arrows per turn with swift quiver, and each arrow fired can have upwards of +16 to hit(6 prof, 5 dex, 3 magical weapon, and 2 from archery style) which is the highest hit chance of any player. Remove the rogue and you only lose the bonus action dashes. Swap out the rogue/ranger for 20 levels of fighter and you have 4 attacks, or 8 attacks on an action surge which means the ambush round may very well end the entire encounter if they have access to purple worm poison(12d6 per arrow dc 19 con save).

Compare this to caleb's fear of fighters making the same 4 or 5 attacks a round in melee with a lower chance to hit and its obviously pretty silly. The 1 hit poison is not a rule that provides more balance to poison. It just penalizes melee poison users while leaving ranged poison users untouched. So if your player's are mildly smart, they will just take advantage of poison with a ranged character instead and you, the dm, are once again forced to deal with poison balance.

[hawklost]

Who said wholesale removal of poisons or magic items? I know I didn't so I am confused as to whose argument you are addressing. A DM provides player's access to magic items without telling them before the game which ones they might find. Similarly, a DM provides players access to specific poisons but even in games where I played an assassin, I have never expected that the DM would give me access to all poisons ever listed in a dnd book. The DM is the one who fills the campaign world and its not like every region a campaign takes place in will have every poison or poisonous creature in reach. If you try making a poison from scratch, you are requesting the DM to work together with you to create the rules for a poison. Even if you find a number of dangerous chemicals, the DM still has to quantify their effect. I have played in zero campaigns where every resource listed in the dmg or supplemental rules books were in the game by default. No player assumes that every game must have purple worm poison in specific. Sure, if the DM doesn't say otherwise, they assume that they should be able to ask around a mildly large town and find someone selling some variety of poison but specific expectations versus general expectations are 2 are very different things.

And once again, regardless of whether you go with RAW (poison lasts 1 minute) or you change it to poison wears off after a hit, the DM will still need to balance powerful poisons against archers since they are not affected by the difference between the 1 minute poison or the 1 hit poison rule. Either way, an archer can sneak up and poison 20 some arrows (more if they are a rogue due to bonus action arrow poisoning).

If you went rogue 3/ranger 17 the most extreme scenario I know. You have an ranged character skilled in stealth, who can poison 6 arrows a turn, can dash as a bonus action to keep targets from having full cover, who can shoot 4 arrows per turn with swift quiver, and each arrow fired can have upwards of +16 to hit(6 prof, 5 dex, 3 magical weapon, and 2 from archery style) which is the highest hit chance of any player. Remove the rogue and you only lose the bonus action dashes. Swap out the rogue/ranger for 20 levels of fighter and you have 4 attacks, or 8 attacks on an action surge which means the ambush round may very well end the entire encounter if they have access to purple worm poison(12d6 per arrow dc 19 con save).

Compare this to caleb's fear of fighters making the same 4 or 5 attacks a round in melee with a lower chance to hit and its obviously pretty silly. The 1 hit poison is not a rule that provides more balance to poison. It just penalizes melee poison users while leaving ranged poison users untouched. So if your player's are mildly smart, they will just take advantage of poison with a ranged character instead and you, the dm, are once again forced to deal with poison balance.

Wow, and I thought that action economy existed in the game.

No person no matter the optimization can do all that in a single turn.
1) Poison 3 arrows is an Action
2) Poison 3 more arrows is a Bonus Action (only usable by a single sub-class)
3) Swift Quiver to cast is a bonus action (1 min)
4) Swift Quaver to use is a Bonus Action (2 extra attacks)

Somehow your Rogue/Ranger is getting 3 Bonus Actions in a single turn and will Still run out of poisoned arrows. Lets look at the optimized amount they could do in combat.

R1) Poison 3 Arrows, Poison 3 arrows, Move (6)
R2) Poison 3 Arrows, Poison 3 arrows, Move (12)
R3) Poison 3 Arrows, Cast Swift Quiver, Move (15)
R4) Fire 4 Arrows, Move (11)
R5) Fire 2 Arrows, Poison 3 arrows, Move (12)
R6) Fire 4 Arrows, Move (8)
R7) Fire 2 Arrows, Poison 3 Arrows, Move (9)
R8) Fire 4 Arrows, Move (5)
R9) Fire 2 Arrows, Poison 3 Arrows, Move (6)
R10) Fire 4 Arrows, Move (2)

So, he gets in 10 round and 7 Poisons (Meaning at 2000 g a pop, costing 14000 gold) and will get 22 shots, even assuming that an enemy has an 18 AC (his +16, Nat 1 missing, of course). He would do a Massive amount of damage but will be worse than a Fighter in the same amount of time

EDIT: Lets not even go into the fact that Swift Quiver magically creates the arrows and places it into the bow string, therefore those arrows would need to have poison applied after every single shot

Now to look at a Fighter 20

R1) Poison 1 Sword (infinite)
R2) 4 Attacks, 4 Attacks
R3) 4 Attacks, 4 Attacks
R4) 4 Attacks
R5) 4 Attacks
R6) 4 Attacks
R7) 4 Attacks
R8) 4 Attacks
R9) 4 Attacks
R10) 4 Attacks

That is 44 attacks of the sword and a cost of 2000 gold. Even with 10% less chance to hit an AC 18 (so we will drop 5 attacks assuming he misses those) he gets 40 attacks

40 Attacks vs 22 (Almost double)
2000 g vs 14000 g (1/7th the cost)
2 Action Surges vs 1 lvl 5 spell (More resources lost on Fighter)

Yea, I would say that a Melee Fighter is far better with the poison than a Ranger even with the ranger getting 10% chance of higher to hit.

----------------------------------

A Figher 17/Rogue 3 would get slightly more attacks on average but would still cost him a decent bit a damage and a huge amount more cost

R1-10) Poison 3 Arrows, Fire 3 Arrows, Move (each turn would be exactly the same)

Cost is 20,000 gp. Attacks is 30. (Not using Action Surge because that will not help in the optimized attacks of 10 Rounds, only waste resources)

Now its
40 Attacks vs 30 (33% More for Melee)
2000 g vs 20,000 g (1/10th the cost for melee)
2 Action Surges vs 0 action economy used (More resources lost on Melee Fighter by a decent margin now)

[calebrus]

It's 48-58 attacks if he's using a two-hander or sword/board and has no bonus action attack, because then there's the possibility of reaction attacks.
If he's a dual wielder or PM, add 10 attacks for that, plus 10 more for possible reaction attacks, and he doesn't have 48 attacks, he has 58-68 attacks.

[hawklost]

It's 48-58 attacks if he's using a two-hander or sword/board and has no bonus action attack, because then there's the possibility of reaction attacks.
If he's a dual wielder or PM, add 10 attacks for that, plus 10 more for possible reaction attacks, and he doesn't have 48 attacks, he has 58-68 attacks.

If he is Duel Weilding he would require 2 rounds to apply poison, losing out on 4 attacks for an increase of 8 extra (total gain of 4 attacks)

You are correct in Reactions, but that is a potential, not a 'garrentied' because most combats the player does not get the Reaction. Assuming he is a BM and uses all his Dice for Reposte, he would get 7 more attacks (assuming an enemy misses him so we will cut that down to 3 more attacks over 10 rounds)

That means he is up to 44+4+5 so 53 Attacks with high liklihood with a potential of 58 attacks if he gets his Reaction every round.

lose 10% of those because he has a lower chance to hit and he is at 53 attacks in the whole minute, which is better than 40 but still, the 40 did a pretty good job showing the huge difference in both Cost and Damage potential

At 40 we are talking about 12d6x18 (42x18) which is an average of 756 more damage than the Ranger Rogue without all your calculations And 420 more damage than a Optimized Fighter.

With your additions we are talking about 1302-1512 over the Ranger/Rogue and 966-1176 damage over the Ranged Fighter/Rogue. Still for only 2000 gp vs 14000 or 20000 depending

[calebrus]

https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/569938380428939264

calebrus44 @calebrus44
Is poison applied to a weapon intended to last for the full minute, or until the weapon strikes? @JeremyECrawford @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@calebrus44 I'm not ready to give the official answer, since this is part of my potential-errata analysis. @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

What this tells me is that because the wording is ambiguous enough to allow for the full minute, but causes possible major balance issues, he's contemplating official errata which would limit it, but hasn't decided for certain to include that errata yet.
And that, in turn, tells me that it probably wasn't intended to last the full minute, but they don't want to remove that option from a DM's game unless they decide it's just too much (which I absolutely believe that it is).

So if you allow it to last for the full minute, just keep your eyes on when the errata is released, because it may officially change.

[Myzz]

I think the most viable way to rule it would be:

1 dose = 1 use on a weapon, or able to coat 3 pieces of ammunition (darts, arrows, bolts, bullets?)

Each vial has X doses...

If you dump the whole vial on a sword you get X uses within 1 min of application.

X should most defiantly be less than 10... AND costs listed would most likely be per dose.


reasoning is that just slashing someone once with a blade is NOT going to remove all the poison off the blade if a significant amount was dumped onto the blade, and that's ignoring if its a double edged weapon or not.

ON poison and crits: You could also now rule that poisons 'crit' IF there are multiple doses on the weapon that crits and that the crit uses up an extra dose (sunk in deeper, and more poison was therefore applied than normal).

I do realize that the above is all 'homebrew', but personally think the errata will reflect something very close.

[Easy_Lee]

https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/569938380428939264

calebrus44 @calebrus44
Is poison applied to a weapon intended to last for the full minute, or until the weapon strikes? @JeremyECrawford @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@calebrus44 I'm not ready to give the official answer, since this is part of my potential-errata analysis. @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

Pras on getting the official response, +1.

I'm very happy to hear that WotC is looking at errata for poison. The rules for poison in general felt very incomplete from the start. For example, the fact that one uses nature to extract poison was only listed in the DMG, but that's information that a player might very well need for planning their character.

[Knaight]

reasoning is that just slashing someone once with a blade is NOT going to remove all the poison off the blade if a significant amount was dumped onto the blade, and that's ignoring if its a double edged weapon or not.

It's ignoring a lot more than that. You could break down poison efficiency by weapon, and have rules about how poisoned spears work better than poisoned swords and poisoned crossbow bolts are frequently inefficient due to going entirely through the target too often, and whatever else. Some games do this, but they tend to be either really rules heavy or to be the sorts of games where the precise mechanics of how poisoning works is really important to the setting. D&D 5e is trying to simplify to some degree, and it's not exactly focused on intrigue.

[HMS Invincible]

https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/569938380428939264

calebrus44 @calebrus44
Is poison applied to a weapon intended to last for the full minute, or until the weapon strikes? @JeremyECrawford @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

Jeremy Crawford @JeremyECrawford
@calebrus44 I'm not ready to give the official answer, since this is part of my potential-errata analysis. @wotc_rodney @mikemearls

What this tells me is that because the wording is ambiguous enough to allow for the full minute, but causes possible major balance issues, he's contemplating official errata which would limit it, but hasn't decided for certain to include that errata yet.
And that, in turn, tells me that it probably wasn't intended to last the full minute, but they don't want to remove that option from a DM's game unless they decide it's just too much (which I absolutely believe that it is).

So if you allow it to last for the full minute, just keep your eyes on when the errata is released, because it may officially change.

What this tells me is maybe, just maybe, WOTC is finally giving some thought to their random twitter rulings. Instead of the usual he says she said crap they gave us before. Unfortunately, they still don't' understand their own game.

[HoarsHalberd]

What this tells me is maybe, just maybe, WOTC is finally giving some thought to their random twitter rulings. Instead of the usual he says she said crap they gave us before. Unfortunately, they still don't' understand their own game.

I'd say they understand it better than you. What probably happened with poison is that they balanced it against rogues, who are supposed to be the best poisoners in fantasy archetypes, and gave it a minute duration, for potentially ten attacks with it, and maybe a lucky reaction attack or two. They completely forgot the effect on balance of a class that does 2.2+ times as many attacks in that time frame.

[calebrus]

I'd say they understand it better than you. What probably happened with poison is that they balanced it against rogues, who are supposed to be the best poisoners in fantasy archetypes, and gave it a minute duration, for potentially ten attacks with it, and maybe a lucky reaction attack or two. They completely forgot the effect on balance of a class that does 2.2+ times as many attacks in that time frame.

No, what probably happened was that poisons were intended to only apply for the first strike that occurs within that minute, but that part got left out of the actual text.
But since a DM can interpret it to work for the entire minute, they don't want to officially remove that interpretation unless they feel that they need to.

[xyianth]

Well, personally, I am glad they are giving it a proper rules update. Based solely on this thread, it is quite obvious that the RAW for poison are fairly ambiguous. Regardless of how they decide to update it, I am looking forward to the details. Thanks calebrus for contacting them and updating us here.

On a separate, but somewhat related, note: How are level 1 commoners supposed to afford poison to kill each other? I know arguing based on simulation of reality is never a good idea, but poison is quite possibly the easiest thing in the world to make. (just mess up normal recipes and you get poisons, even grabbing a handful of fertile soil and rubbing it on a blade would make festering wounds) Do commoners in 5e just not use poisons when killing each other? Note: I am not trying to argue a balance issue. I'm just wondering if there are, or you would create, cheaper poisons that are less reliable for use by the populace of the world. (who likely wouldn't make 200gp in a year of work)

[Xetheral]

No, what probably happened was that poisons were intended to only apply for the first strike that occurs within that minute, but that part got left out of the actual text.
But since a DM can interpret it to work for the entire minute, they don't want to officially remove that interpretation unless they feel that they need to.

I'm still not convinced that your interpretation of designer intent is any more probable than the alternative. It seems just as likely to me that they intended exactly what they wrote and either 1) evaluated the balance considerations differently than you are or 2) simply didn't consider the balance considerations in depth.

[Balor777]

Using it for a full minute is not too powerfu alltho it IS 1 hit per dose RAI, but it is allmost useless if its 1 dose per hit.
Remember 3d6 save half including some rough save chances its about ~ +5.5 damage per hit.
Its too much imo for 200g to deal including miss(35%) average for 6 rounds(average combat) having 2 attacks:
8 attacks x 5.5 = +44 damage.
The same minute FRENZY adds 8 attacks(with the same logic) of lets say 1d12+4+2 ~> 8 x 12 = 96 damage.
The paladin to add 44 damage must spend 2x 1st level slots of 2d8(9 average) and 2x 2nd level slots 3d8(13.5 damage).
Thats 75% of his resources.If he spends the remaining 2x 1st level smites totals 62 damage.

My conclusion is that:
1 dose 1 hit is TOO low,
and 1 dose 1 minute is higher than it should be.
Till the errata is out ill have the players roll a d3(1-2 on the d6) giving 33% chances for the poison to be removed from the weapon after succesfull hit,
still using the 1 minute duration.This way the damage is lowered to acceptable total damage, and makes the poison usage balanced.
If you REALLY wanna make it dose per hit id rule that the poison user can have the poison in the bottom of the sword scabbard and have it there for 24 hours
taking a good 5 minute to put it there from the actual vial.

[HoarsHalberd]

No, what probably happened was that poisons were intended to only apply for the first strike that occurs within that minute, but that part got left out of the actual text.
But since a DM can interpret it to work for the entire minute, they don't want to officially remove that interpretation unless they feel that they need to.

Except, as has been shown to you throughout the thread, this interpretation is far too weak for the prices involved which has made you misrepresent it as equal to equal CL of rogue in order to bolster your argument. The fact he didn't give an immediate answer suggests to me that the poison length was intended, however extra attack and bonus attacks interactions with it were not. Were it just a missing sentence, given the balance issues at the top end he'd give an immediate clarification. However the fact he's testing for errata suggests a more complex balancing issue. Such as finding a middle ground between a mediocre cost-damage ratio at one use magically wiping all of the poison off and 48-58 +bonus action attacks (GWM) and OA over poweredness.

[Myzz]

Except, as has been shown to you throughout the thread, this interpretation is far too weak for the prices involved which has made you misrepresent it as equal to equal CL of rogue in order to bolster your argument. The fact he didn't give an immediate answer suggests to me that the poison length was intended, however extra attack and bonus attacks interactions with it were not. Were it just a missing sentence, given the balance issues at the top end he'd give an immediate clarification. However the fact he's testing for errata suggests a more complex balancing issue. Such as finding a middle ground between a mediocre cost-damage ratio at one use magically wiping all of the poison off and 48-58 +bonus action attacks (GWM) and OA over poweredness.

BUT... The prices can be skirted by inventive PC's that want a continuous free supply of poisons.

AND... for commoners who poison each other, they are likely to use an injested poison instead of an injury poison, Hemlock being the most common (probably) and all that takes is a Nature skill to know what it does and what it looks like. Barring that, pick some random mushrooms and steep it in juices...

[xyianth]

BUT... The prices can be skirted by inventive PC's that want a continuous free supply of poisons.

AND... for commoners who poison each other, they are likely to use an injested poison instead of an injury poison, Hemlock being the most common (probably) and all that takes is a Nature skill to know what it does and what it looks like. Barring that, pick some random mushrooms and steep it in juices...

So commoners don't stab each other with poisoned daggers? I agree that injested poison is one possibility, but I think there probably should be some injury poisons in use too. Maybe its extracted from snakes or something, therefore using the same Nature skill to bypass cost. Thanks for reminding me of the Nature skill angle.

[calebrus]

Except, as has been shown to you throughout the thread, this interpretation is far too weak for the prices involved

I would argue that I have "shown" you throughout the thread why this was indeed the intention.
Nothing has been "shown" to anyone. Different viewpoints have been explained as they are seen by different people. Nothing conclusive has been "shown" by either party.

Furthermore, gold piece cost is not a factor of balance. The cost is irrelevant.
If there were level requirements on items and poisons then depending on those requirements you might have an argument to be made about that point, but there aren't.


The fact he didn't give an immediate answer suggests to me that the poison length was intended, however extra attack and bonus attacks interactions with it were not.

How could they have intended it to last for one full minute and yet also not remember that every single melee class except Rogues get more than one attack?
That part drops your entire argument on it's head.

[Sorris]

I kind of find this whole post kind of irreverent in the long term, in all honesty it's going to break down to how the DM wants it to be. Either he can go with the higher damage totals poison will allow on his characters and compensate for it (although I have to wonder how many DnD game actually make it to max level and then continue on from there for any length of time for this to be an issue) or he can go for the 1 hit or minute rule and have less impact on his game, and continue on. Games all about fun anyway (or it's supposed to be) and the rules not really THAT important since everyone's campaign will probably be different. Not to mention half these 5ed rules seem to get house ruled anyway, and most of the people I know seem to be switching back to pathfinder due to wizards recent handling of electronic game support.

[HMS Invincible]

I'd say they understand it better than you. What probably happened with poison is that they balanced it against rogues, who are supposed to be the best poisoners in fantasy archetypes, and gave it a minute duration, for potentially ten attacks with it, and maybe a lucky reaction attack or two. They completely forgot the effect on balance of a class that does 2.2+ times as many attacks in that time frame.

You should qualify that blind faith in your hokey religion known as wizards of the coast. Didn't you play in the open play test? Do you remember the joke mundane characters were in 3.5? Did you not notice the contradictory tweets from the two faces of 5e?
Its a good thing they are thinking over this question. But don't think they have some deep understanding that nobody but the designers can grok. I may be a cynic, but you're crossing into naiveté.

[pwykersotz]

You should qualify that blind faith in your hokey religion known as wizards of the coast. Didn't you play in the open play test? Do you remember the joke mundane characters were in 3.5? Did you not notice the contradictory tweets from the two faces of 5e?
Its a good thing they are thinking over this question. But don't think they have some deep understanding that nobody but the designers can grok. I may be a cynic, but you're crossing into naiveté.

Nah, it's just that your point is on the far side of extreme. It's hard to take seriously on its own. "Not understanding their own game" is a wide claim, and demonstrably false often enough that specifics are really needed to back it up.

[HoarsHalberd]

I would argue that I have "shown" you throughout the thread why this was indeed the intention.
Nothing has been "shown" to anyone. Different viewpoints have been explained as they are seen by different people. Nothing conclusive has been "shown" by either party.

Furthermore, gold piece cost is not a factor of balance. The cost is irrelevant.
If there were level requirements on items and poisons then depending on those requirements you might have an argument to be made about that point, but there aren't.



How could they have intended it to last for one full minute and yet also not remember that every single melee class except Rogues get more than one attack?
That part drops your entire argument on it's head.

Firstly, fine, I'll agree shown was too strong a term.

Secondly, gold is a factor of balance. That's why items, hirelings and tasks have gold costs. 200g will get you four healing potions, which are far far more valuable than 3d6 save for half in causing damage.

Thirdly, there are dozens of unintended consequences within the rules and the intended interpretations of those rules. By RAI and RAW moon druids at 20 are insanely unbalanced. How could they not have seen the balancing headache that would come from this. The same way they didn't see the balancing headache from this.

HMS, I never said they were perfect. I said they understood their game better than someone who thought 58+ max doses of poison per preparation was balanced. EDIT: No I didn't, I said better than you. I mistakenly assumed you were on the pro breaking the game side of the argument. My humblest apologies.

[xyianth]

... 58+ max doses of poison per preparation was balanced. ... the pro breaking the game side of the argument.

Do remember that 58+ doses assumes a 20th level fighter making bonus action and reaction attacks every round for 10 rounds and never missing. Hopefully, we can all agree that this is an uncommon scenario? I mean, a single scroll of elemental weapon would have similar effects to the poison once misses are accounted for, only it lasts an hour.

I am not saying it isn't powerful, I just don't think it 'breaks the game' any more than other equivalent options when measured in that scenario.

[calebrus]

I am not saying it isn't powerful, I just don't think it 'breaks the game' any more than other equivalent options when measured in that scenario.

But it is.
There are multiple ways to counter or otherwise remove from the equation a spell which requires concentration, while there is zero to be done about poison on a blade.
Also, since poison doesn't require concentration, you could stack them both, spell and poison. And once again, there is nothing that can be done about the poison on a blade.
Allowing it to last for a full minute at full effect does indeed break things.

[xyianth]

But it is.
There are multiple ways to counter or otherwise remove from the equation a spell which requires concentration, while there is zero to be done about poison on a blade.
Also, since poison doesn't require concentration, you could stack them both, spell and poison. And once again, there is nothing that can be done about the poison on a blade.
Allowing it to last for a full minute at full effect does indeed break things.

You can disarm a weapon that has been poisoned or enchanted or both. You can cast protection from poison to reduce effective damage from poison down to 25% normal. You can be immune to poison. (it's the most common immunity in the game) You can cast any one of dozens of spells that prevent you from attacking with your poisoned/enchanted blade. You can have high AC. There, I just listed several counters to poison. There isn't anything in this game that can't be countered at all.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, if you were a player, would you spend an action and 200gp to add 3d6 damage save vs half to 1 attack? I wouldn't, I'd rather spend that 200gp on literally anything else. Chances are, the action spent applying the poison would have done more damage without it anyway.

[calebrus]

Chances are, the action spent applying the poison would have done more damage without it anyway.

That's why it lasts for a minute. It's preparatory. You don't spend an action in combat applying it, you do it before combat begins.
And you didn't name anything to counter the poison itself. You listed ways to counter a weapon attack. The poison is still on the blade, and when you get hit, you get the poison.
"You can be immune to poison." Really? Show me the PHB PC race that is.
"You can cast protection from poison." Really? Because everyone always prepares that spell.

[xyianth]

That's why it lasts for a minute. It's preparatory. You don't spend an action in combat applying it, you do it before combat begins.
And you didn't name anything to counter the poison itself. You listed ways to counter a weapon attack. The poison is still on the blade, and when you get hit, you get the poison.
"You can be immune to poison." Really? Show me the PHB PC race that is.
"You can cast protection from poison." Really? Because everyone always prepares that spell.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you wanted only ways for players to counter when the DM uses poison. Your example was clearly a PC using poison, so I listed DM counters. 5e doesn't use the same rules for players and monsters. When creating monsters, poison is computed as part of its CR. If you make a creature that gets 4 attacks/action, a bonus action attack, and a reaction attack, all with poison applied, it is going to have a very high CR. And, yeah, the players should be expected to prepare protection from poison for that fight.

As far as counters go, the poison can't have any effect at all without a weapon attack, therefore it inherits all the counters of weapon attacks.

But I'm done arguing with you. When the rules update comes out, we will hopefully have less ambiguous rules to work with. Until then, you and I are never going to agree on this topic and everyone else has likely heard enough from both of us to come to their own conclusion.

[Knaight]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you wanted only ways for players to counter when the DM uses poison. Your example was clearly a PC using poison, so I listed DM counters. 5e doesn't use the same rules for players and monsters. When creating monsters, poison is computed as part of its CR. If you make a creature that gets 4 attacks/action, a bonus action attack, and a reaction attack, all with poison applied, it is going to have a very high CR. And, yeah, the players should be expected to prepare protection from poison for that fight.

DM counters as a whole aren't relevant. Sure, there are plenty of MM creatures which are immune to poison. That they are immune to poison means approximately jack all when the poison is being purchased for application on almost anything that isn't them.

[Xetheral]

That's why it lasts for a minute. It's preparatory. You don't spend an action in combat applying it, you do it before combat begins.

Which, unless you can apply it in the round immediately before combat starts (possible in an ambush, but otherwise tricky), will quickly eat in to the time available to use the poison even under the whole-minute interpretation.

This makes your ten-round damage calculations an even more-extreme case. I still think that if you want to use balance concerns to try to divine RAI, then using the worst-case scenario makes your argument weaker, rather than stronger.

[hawklost]

Which, unless you can apply it in the round immediately before combat starts (possible in an ambush, but otherwise tricky), will quickly eat in to the time available to use the poison even under the whole-minute interpretation.

This makes your ten-round damage calculations an even more-extreme case. I still think that if you want to use balance concerns to try to divine RAI, then using the worst-case scenario makes your argument weaker, rather than stronger.

Then lets go for a very easy to accomplish scenario with your logic of lasting 1 minute full effect
Lvl 5 Fighter (or anyone else with 2 attacks at this level) Poison 200g, 2 attacks a round
1 Attack is +3d6/2 (average 10.5/2 = 5.25)
1 attack does 2d6 + 4 damage (11 damage)

R1: Apply Poison
R2: 2 attack = 22 + 10
R3: 2 Attack = 22 + 11
R4: 2 attack = 22 + 10
R5: 2 Attack = 22 + 11
R6: 2 attack = 22 + 10
R7: 2 Attack = 22 + 11
R8: 2 attack = 22 + 10
R9: 2 Attack = 22 + 11
R10: 2 attack = 22 + 10
R11: 2 Attack = 22 + 11 (poison gone)

So out of 20 attacks, the damage is 220 + 105 (If they miss, then it goes down equally with both poison and with damage)

A Person who is level 5 assuming the enemy saves every hit does almost 50% more damage than without poison for 200g.
100 damage is enough to kill any 5th level character (some classes twice over).

Now lets compare it to a 5th level ranged persons increase on Poison
Arrow: 1d8+4 = 8.5
R1: Apply poison
R2: 2 shots = 17 + 10
R3: 2 shots = 17 + 5
R4: 2 shots = 17
R5: 2 shots = 17
R6: 2 shots = 17
R7: 2 shots = 17
R8: 2 shots = 17
R9: 2 shots = 17
R10: 2 shots = 17
R11: 2 shots = 17

total damage = 170 + 15 damage. An increase of 8% damage

So are you saying the RAI for poisons was that it was Melee only (effectively) and that it increases a persons damage by 50% for 200g? VS an 8% increase of Ranged for 200g? (Note that it only gets worse for Ranged if you increase the attacks not better).

EDIT
Note: As long as the rounds are under 12, the damage that the Melee does is not lessened by much. the damage for 11 rounds of combat for Melee without poison is 242 vs 325 or Poison does 34% increase in damage. If a Person does not think that the combat will last more than 3-4 rounds they of course would not put poison on, so claiming ridiculously less rounds fails the argument for these scenarios.

Also note that I am not claiming Poisons work great in either interpretation, only that yours increases power by a great deal while the other is underpowered by some extent.

[pwykersotz]

I'm considering ruling (until we have workable errata) that poison applied to a melee weapon has three hits worth on it, since that's the amount one dose works for ranged weapons. One of my players just picked up poison, and I think that seems like a fair compromise for now.

[calebrus]

I'm considering ruling (until we have workable errata) that poison applied to a melee weapon has three hits worth on it, since that's the amount one dose works for ranged weapons. One of my players just picked up poison, and I think that seems like a fair compromise for now.

While I understand the thought process there, and it's a workable houserule for the time being, I still disagree.
The fact that that's the amount a dose works on a ranged weapon doesn't take into account that a miss with a ranged weapon wastes a portion of the dose, while a coating on a melee weapon is guaranteed three strikes. The ranged poison could miss all three attacks.
I'm still of a mind that single dose = single strike.
That you can coat multiple pieces of ammunition is the result of much less surface area needing to be covered, and is balanced by teh fact that a miss is wasted.

[Myzz]

I'm considering ruling (until we have workable errata) that poison applied to a melee weapon has three hits worth on it, since that's the amount one dose works for ranged weapons. One of my players just picked up poison, and I think that seems like a fair compromise for now.

While I understand the thought process there, and it's a workable houserule for the time being, I still disagree.
The fact that that's the amount a dose works on a ranged weapon doesn't take into account that a miss with a ranged weapon wastes a portion of the dose, while a coating on a melee weapon is guaranteed three strikes. The ranged poison could miss all three attacks.
I'm still of a mind that single dose = single strike.
That you can coat multiple pieces of ammunition is the result of much less surface area needing to be covered, and is balanced by teh fact that a miss is wasted.

could make melee weapons coated in poison work for 3 attacks as well... regardless of whether they hit or not. Swinging a weapon thru the air would hasten any drying out process... and 'near misses' could brush some of the poison off onto cloth or armor...

[dancrilis]

I am personally dubious about using the item: Poison, Basic and applying its rules to item: Poison, (other type).

While I can see how the rules for one could be extrapolated to the other for ease of usage - in the same way I could see the rules for a long sword could be mapped to a bastard sword - it doesn't mean that the two have anything to do with one another in terms of how they function from a rules perspective other than both being swords (or poisons).

The rules for poison in the DMG I think could have been clearer on that.

Also the twitter answer 'I'm not ready to give the official answer, since this is part of my potential-errata analysis', indicates that an official answer exists - but that that official answer might very well be changing.

[calebrus]

Also the twitter answer 'I'm not ready to give the official answer, since this is part of my potential-errata analysis', indicates that an official answer exists - but that that official answer might very well be changing.

The official (RAW) answer would be that it lasts for the full minute because it doesn't state otherwise anywhere. The issue here is that the RAI doesn't coincide with that, which is why it might officially be changing in upcoming errata.

[dancrilis]

Actually my reading is the RAW for Poison, Basic lasts for one minute and is uncategorised - it affects a creature that is hit not necessarily injured (i.e creatures immune to the weapon's damage type still take the poison damage).
Poison, Injury on the other hand states that a creature must be injured by the weapon.

As such Poison, Basic is its own type of poison and operates separately and independently from the rules in the DMG, as it does not follow the rules of any of the types.

This leaves interpretation for how the DMG rules should operate (obviously the source of much of this topic) - and while one could infer that the Poison, Injury type is an update to the Poison, Basic - that is an interpretation of intent not actually how it is written, and I am dubious about the actual intent being to map the Poison, Basic rules to Injury poisons.

[Vogonjeltz]

I have found poison rules in 2 sections so far. In the equipment section of the phb, there is the basic poison that can be applied as a action and lasts for 1 minute before it dries and loses effect. But it seems to actually be a specific poison as opposed to a source of general poison rules.

Then in the dmg, there is a list of poisons and their effects that you can buy but they do not list the action it takes to apply them (likely a single action like the basic poison) or how long a weapon coated with an injury based poison stays effective. Is it still 1 minute? Are there any other sources for poison rules? If all poisons coating weapons only stay effective for 1 minute, then it will be difficult for bow/crossbow users to make effective use of poison in a combat since they will need to use multiple actions just before combat to effectively have poisoned attacks during the combat.

A melee fighter who coats a sword in poison at least gets 10 rounds afterward where he can use his poisoned weapon but for an archer, each action only gets them 3 shots(which might be gone in 2 rounds). So one character gets 10 rounds of poison for 1 action vs 2 rounds for 1 action. Are there any other applicable sources of information on poison?

Note the poison is sold and used as a single dose. That uses language to indicate a single poisoning. If they wanted to indicate multiple poisonings it would require the use of the plural, or doses.

That the poison has an efficacy duration is tangential to the number of uses, and not important to the discussion.