Magic item rarity question

[Spacehamster]

Hello playground!

What rarity would you guys give a weapon with the following traits. Dagger of the assassin:

1d4 +2 hit/dmg

Once per long rest use: as a bonus action you speak a command word coating the blade in wyvern poison that lasts for 1 minute.

[EvanescentHero]

So a +2 dagger that can summon poison? Seems fairly strong to me, even if it is a dagger.

[Gritmonger]

Very Rare, probably, due to the dual enchantment - to me, a step below Legendary intelligent weapons.

Eta: especially if the poison isn't of the "until next use" variety.

[Taejang]

I'd say 'Very Rare'.

Start with the rarity of a +2 dagger ('Rare' if I remember right, but it might be 'Very Rare') and consider if the poison summoned is powerful enough to bump it up to the next category ('Very Rare' or 'Legendary'). It seems a might weak for Legendary, so I'd say Very Rare.

[Sidmen]

So a +2 dagger that can summon poison? Seems fairly strong to me, even if it is a dagger.

Presumably, it doesn't grant a bonus to Attack rolls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it does not have an enhancement bonus, I'd peg it at Rare, if it does I'd peg it at Very Rare.

[EvanescentHero]

Presumably, it doesn't grant a bonus to Attack rolls. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If it does not have an enhancement bonus, I'd peg it at Rare, if it does I'd peg it at Very Rare.

He said to hit and damage.

Keep in mind also that the most likely character to wield this is a rogue, whose sneak attack dice will stack with the poison.

[Sidmen]

He said to hit and damage.

Keep in mind also that the most likely character to wield this is a rogue, whose sneak attack dice will stack with the poison.

Right you are.

Very Rare is my recommendation then.

[Fwiffo86]

See DMG entry: Dagger of Venom

[calebrus]

See DMG entry: Dagger of Venom

Exactly.
Definitely Very Rare, bordering on Legendary.
Dagger of Venom is Rare, only +1, and that poison does a lot less damage, and only lasts for one hit (like all poisons are intended to).

[Spacehamster]

Exactly.
Definitely Very Rare, bordering on Legendary.
Dagger of Venom is Rare, only +1, and that poison does a lot less damage, and only lasts for one hit (like all poisons are intended to).

what do you mean only lasts for one hit? it says on basic poison that it lasts for one minute, if it lasts for just 1 hit
then its even more useless then it seems(price for what you get).

[calebrus]

what do you mean only lasts for one hit? it says on basic poison that it lasts for one minute, if it lasts for just 1 hit
then its even more useless then it seems(price for what you get).

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?399794-Poison-rules

We're discussing this at the moment. My thoughts on the subject are explained thoroughly in that thread.
The meat of my standpoint can be found in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18852976&postcount=44), which I will paste below.



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.

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.

[Spacehamster]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?399794-Poison-rules

We're discussing this at the moment. My thoughts on the subject are explained thoroughly in that thread.
The meat of my standpoint can be found in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18852976&postcount=44), which I will paste below.



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.

The "balanced" one is not balanced either tho it's underpowered instead if you look at the cost of a dose of poison. For example basic poison is if I remember right 1d4 damage and costs 100 gold, who in their right mind would pay that for 1 use that on top of everything else has a laughably low saving throw? xD

[calebrus]

Gold Piece cost is not a factor of balance.

[zingbobco000]

The "balanced" one is not balanced either tho it's underpowered instead if you look at the cost of a dose of poison. For example basic poison is if I remember right 1d4 damage and costs 100 gold, who in their right mind would pay that for 1 use that on top of everything else has a laughably low saving throw? xD

If you feel like the dose of poison is bad, change it, you are the DM it doesn't matter about what the rules say. You, as a DM are allowed to change them. As Jeremy Crawford said: "RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, 'rules as fun.'" If you believe that this is underpowered then change it, maybe add an effect like poisoned for one minute, or lower the cost down to 25 gp, or maybe both. D&D is not supposed to be a giant argument about RAW, it is supposed to be fun, and that is exactly what Jeremy Crawford, the newest sage for D&D.


Gold Piece cost is not a factor of balance.

This, is, great. Thank you good sir, I tip my hat off to you! Have a cookie *hands calebrus a virtual cookie*.

Anyway, back on to the topic of your new thought up item, a +2 weapon is Rare. The venom part is different though. The ability to coat the dagger in such a poison for 1 min. (wyvern) as a bonus action 1/long rest (I actually recommend you change this to dawn as to suit how the rest of the magic items are written) in which if you hit it deals normal damage + they have to make a CON save vs. DC 15. If they fail, 7d6 damage for you, though if they succeed still a decent half damage. Let us now look at its already presented counter-part, the dagger of venom. This dagger is a +1 weapon which is uncommon, but is shown as rare, so that means that the poison part of it gives it a +1 magic rarity. Onto the actual poison part. Once per dawn, as an action you can coat the dagger in poison if you hit a creature while the poison is on it w/in a min. of being applied they must make a CON save vs. DC 15. If they fail, 2d10 damage, though if they succeed... nothing. Now the differences, assuming that the because a +1 weapon is uncommon and the Dagger of Venom is rare then the poison effect must give it a +1 rarity. Now knowing that a +2 dagger is Rare we must decide whether or not the effect of the assassin's dagger is superior enough against the dagger of venom to give it a +2 rating instead of a +1.

The Assassin's Dagger:
- Bonus action to coat poison for 1 min.
- 1/long rest
- CON save DC 15
- 7d6 (24) poison damage
- Half damage on success

Dagger of Venom
-Action to coat poison for 1 min.
- 1/dawn (equivalent to long rest)
- CON save DC 15
- 2d10 (11) poison damage
- Nothing on a success
- Poisoned for a minute

Now if we delete everything that cancels out we are left with:

Assassin's Dagger:
- Bonus action to coat poison.
- 7d6 (24) - 2d10 (11) = 13 poison damage
- Half damage on success

Dagger of Venom:
-Action to coat poison.
- 2d10 (11) - 7d6 (24) = 0 (techincally -13 but I'm not including that) poison damage
- Nothing on a success
- Poisoned for a minute

So those are the differences, I would say that you being able to attack in the round which you coat it, dealing an extra 13 damage (which is 26 on a crit), half damage on a success outweighs the only thing which the Dagger of Venom has going for it which is Poisoned for a minute, but the thing is, this only outweighs it by a bit as the poisoning is a very powerful debuff, disadvantage to all attack rolls and ability checks? That's a great debuff especially against the BBEG. So overall I would put it at Very Rare just breaching the surface of Very Rare by a hair.

And yes, I did just use all that space to agree with almost everyone else who has replied.