Poison on weapons

[Elite Hatter]

Does anyone have a ruling on how long the various poisons last on weapons. Specifically 2 shortswords or some arrows.

I have an idea of a beast master/ assassin who has a giant poisonous snake as a companion. And harvests the poison to help kill his targets. I'm just seeing how it would work mechanically.

[Whyrocknodie]

Milking the venom probably wouldn't make his snake at all happy with him. They don't like it.

If I was DMing and the snake venom is collected and stored in a sealed container, it'd probably be good for a couple of hours before it starts to break down. Once applied to the arrow or sword-point, it'd be exposed to the air and start to suffer from autolytic degradation - I'd have the ranger apply his venom immediately before getting into a fight. Maybe 5 minutes duration or something.

[Goober4473]

Basic poison, found in the PHB, lasts for 1 minute. The DMG's poisons don't mention anything about duration that I can find, so I'd go with 1 minute for all injury poisons.

[Inevitability]

Basic poison remains useable for a minute, so I think you should look in that direction.

[Elite Hatter]

Basic poison remains useable for a minute, so I think you should look in that direction.

That's what I was thinking, but is it one minute until I hit something (for arrows this is obviously going to be the case). Or every attack I make gets the damage for 10 rounds?

[Goober4473]

That's what I was thinking, but is it one minute until I hit something (for arrows this is obviously going to be the case). Or every attack I make gets the damage for 10 rounds?

It's every hit with that weapon for one minute, starting from when you apply the poison.

[Elite Hatter]

It's every hit with that weapon for one minute, starting from when you apply the poison.

Thank you kind sir or madam

[ad_hoc]

It's every hit with that weapon for one minute, starting from when you apply the poison.

No, you don't get 50 doses of poison out of 1 vial just because you applied it to a melee weapon.

That is silly.

*edit* and the DMG lists it as per dose not per vial to make it clear.

[Elite Hatter]

No, you don't get 50 doses of poison out of 1 vial just because you applied it to a melee weapon.

That is silly.

*edit* and the DMG lists it as per dose not per vial to make it clear.

That would only be 20 uses on a main hand weapon

[ad_hoc]

That would only be 20 uses on a main hand weapon

Where do you get that number from?

It can easily be above 50 if you are getting opportunity attacks.

Either way doesn't matter, you get 1 hit out of it.

[mephnick]

It's every hit with that weapon for one minute, starting from when you apply the poison.

Yeah, no. It's one hit or else it would be the most powerful thing in the entire system.

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah, no. It's one hit or else it would be the most powerful thing in the entire system.

An extra D6 of damage is hardly the most powerful thing in the system. I say every hit for a minute. Particularly since successfully harvesting the poison is kinda ridiculously difficult (DC 20 Knowledge nature check) for a single dose.

Make it so that it takes an action to apply to a weapon, and you can only get 1 does per long rest, and I doubt it will cause any problems at all.

[Corran]

Are we talking about basic poison? Because if we do, the damage is 1d4 and the enemy must fail a DC 10 con saving throw for the d4 to be applied. So that would make perfect sense in term of balance to hold for a whole minute (10 rounds) exactly after the poison is applied to the weapon.

[Desamir]

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.

1d4 poison damage per hit on a failed DC 10 Con save, for 1 minute. Seems pretty clear.

[JoeJ]

Are we talking about basic poison? Because if we do, the damage is 1d4 and the enemy must fail a DC 10 con saving throw for the d4 to be applied. So that would make perfect sense in term of balance to hold for a whole minute (10 rounds) exactly after the poison is applied to the weapon.

Where it gets nuts is applying the same standard to poisons in the DMG. Purple Worm poison is the worst of them, doing 12d6 per hit with a DC 19 Con save for half. I wouldn't want to allow that to affect every hit for a full minute.

[mephnick]

An extra D6 of damage is hardly the most powerful thing in the system. I say every hit for a minute.

I'm assuming all poisons would follow the same rules, so it would be horribly broken to use stronger ones on every hit.

[JoeJ]

I'm assuming all poisons would follow the same rules, so it would be horribly broken to use stronger ones on every hit.

You could just as easily assume poison generally works for 1 hit, but the common cheap stuff in the PHB is an exception that lasts on a blade for a full minute.

[Forum Explorer]

Where it gets nuts is applying the same standard to poisons in the DMG. Purple Worm poison is the worst of them, doing 12d6 per hit with a DC 19 Con save for half. I wouldn't want to allow that to affect every hit for a full minute.

It's nasty, but also really hard to get. You either have to hunt down and kill a Purple Worm, or pay a large amount of money for it, and for the black market to actually have it in the first place (because to get it, you have to hunt down and kill a purple worm. Most people can't do that)


I'm assuming all poisons would follow the same rules, so it would be horribly broken to use stronger ones on every hit.

If there was an infinite amount available, sure. But the stronger poisons should be hard to get and only found in limited quantites, because those monsters are rare, and dangerous for people to try and harvest poison from. They are also next to impossible to keep captive, so it's not like they can just harvest some every day.

So as a resource that can be used once or twice and then is really difficult/costly to replenish? I don't see a problem with it.

[ad_hoc]

You could just as easily assume poison generally works for 1 hit, but the common cheap stuff in the PHB is an exception that lasts on a blade for a full minute.

Is it magical poison? Why is it the only kind of magical reapplying poison in the world? And why is it so common and easy to make?

What if you accidentally poured the whole vial into an open wound. How much damage do you take? There are well over 50 doses in that vial apparently - Only limited by your ability to administer it.

Since this is magical reapplying poison can we harvest it from the blade itself? Since we are really just having an exercise of abusing rules it makes more sense to coat a greatsword to get more poison out of it right? We have enough to coat 1 weapon no matter how big it is, so we get more poison if the weapon is larger.

Can we apply it to a greatsword then wipe it off and apply it to 4 daggers since we clearly have enough of it.

And so on. It's trivial to abuse rules to silly conclusions. I don't understand why you would want to.

[JoeJ]

Is it magical poison? Why is it the only kind of magical reapplying poison in the world? And why is it so common and easy to make?

What? Where do you get the idea that it's magical? This is the basic poison in the PHB. There's no mention of magic. And I don't even know what "reapplying" means in this context.


What if you accidentally poured the whole vial into an open wound. How much damage do you take? There are well over 50 doses in that vial apparently - Only limited by your ability to administer it.

Obviously, if you pour the entire vial in a wound, the victim would have to make a DC 10 Con save or take 1d4 damage. If you spent 5,000 gp and bought 50 vials, then I suppose they'd have to make 50 saves and take 1d4 for each one they failed. That seems like a rather suboptimal way to kill somebody, though.


Since this is magical reapplying poison can we harvest it from the blade itself? Since we are really just having an exercise of abusing rules it makes more sense to coat a greatsword to get more poison out of it right? We have enough to coat 1 weapon no matter how big it is, so we get more poison if the weapon is larger.

Can we apply it to a greatsword then wipe it off and apply it to 4 daggers since we clearly have enough of it.

And so on. It's trivial to abuse rules to silly conclusions. I don't understand why you would want to.

Apparently it's also trivial to make up a bunch of silly stuff. What the heck is a "magical reapplying poison" and how is it in any way related to what I posted?

[Kane0]

There was a 4+ page debate about this a while ago. It got pretty silly IIRC.

I'd vote for the 1 dose/application = 1 hit thing, so that way its actually a tradeoff whether you want potentially up to 3 hits using arrows or one almost guaranteed hit within 1 minute of swinging with a blade.

But then again, I DMed a pair of drow assassins, so I may be biased.

[ad_hoc]

What? Where do you get the idea that it's magical? This is the basic poison in the PHB. There's no mention of magic. And I don't even know what "reapplying" means in this context.



Obviously, if you pour the entire vial in a wound, the victim would have to make a DC 10 Con save or take 1d4 damage. If you spent 5,000 gp and bought 50 vials, then I suppose they'd have to make 50 saves and take 1d4 for each one they failed. That seems like a rather suboptimal way to kill somebody, though.



Apparently it's also trivial to make up a bunch of silly stuff. What the heck is a "magical reapplying poison" and how is it in any way related to what I posted?

It is being argued in this thread that 1 application of 1 vial is good for over 50 doses and does not need reapplication after each dose.

Thus some kind of crazy magical reapplying neverending poison for 1 minute that only works in the specific case of coating a weapon and repeatedly hitting someone rather than applying the full vial to them directly in which case it is only 1 dose.

It makes no sense.

[JoeJ]

It is being argued in this thread that 1 application of 1 vial is good for over 50 doses and does not need reapplication after each dose.

Thus some kind of crazy magical reapplying neverending poison for 1 minute that only works in the specific case of coating a weapon and repeatedly hitting someone rather than applying the full vial to them directly in which case it is only 1 dose.

It makes no sense.

The only one I've seen arguing that is you.

[ad_hoc]

It's every hit with that weapon for one minute, starting from when you apply the poison.

Here is one. There are more.

Limiting the doses by amount of hits rather than amount of poison doesn't make sense.

[JoeJ]

Here is one. There are more.

Limiting the doses by amount of hits rather than amount of poison doesn't make sense.

That doesn't say anything about 50 doses or "magically reapplying." You may be trying to overthink this. The most straightforward reading of the PHB is that it's just one dose. If you apply it to a weapon you can poison your enemies for one minute because it stays on the weapon and remains potent for that long.

[Tanarii]

because it stays on the weaponThats a pretty big assumption that it stays on the weapon in the case of a hit.

[ad_hoc]

That doesn't say anything about 50 doses or "magically reapplying." You may be trying to overthink this. The most straightforward reading of the PHB is that it's just one dose. If you apply it to a weapon you can poison your enemies for one minute because it stays on the weapon and remains potent for that long.

If it applies to every hit for a minute then that is a dose for every hit. That is what dose means.

You can get more than 50 hits in a minute.

Thus more than 50 doses.

The actual rule is that you have a minute to land a hit. It is a restriction for how long the dose of poison lasts. It doesn't mean you get unlimited doses for a minute.

[JoeJ]

If it applies to every hit for a minute then that is a dose for every hit. That is what dose means.

Okay, so you count as a "dose" whatever tiny amount happens to get into the wound, not the amount that got smeared onto the weapon. I fail to see the problem.


You can get more than 50 hits in a minute.

Thus more than 50 doses.

You mean at 20th level, if you're a single-class fighter, and the enemy cooperates by giving you an AoO every single round? I still fail to see the problem.


The actual rule is that you have a minute to land a hit. It is a restriction for how long the dose of poison lasts. It doesn't mean you get unlimited doses for a minute.

That's your rule. I haven't decided what my rule is yet. RAW can be read either way, but the most straightforward is that there are no unstated limitations - it affects every hit for one minute.

[ad_hoc]

Okay, so you count as a "dose" whatever tiny amount happens to get into the wound, not the amount that got smeared onto the weapon. I fail to see the problem.

Dose specifically means an amount that is enough to cause the desired effect. That is what the word means. If we say that only a tiny amount gets into the wound and it is not a dose then the poison doesn't do anything.




You mean at 20th level, if you're a single-class fighter, and the enemy cooperates by giving you an AoO every single round? I still fail to see the problem.

It is to illustrate how ridiculous it is to have the amount of doses applied to the weapon rely on the number of hits you get instead of how much actual poison you are able to put on the weapon.

You are left with a lot of problems not the least of which is what happens if someone gets the entire vial administered to them. How much damage do they take if the amount of doses in that vial is unlimited?

Why does being a higher level fighter mean that there is more poison in the vial?

It makes absolutely no sense.



That's your rule. I haven't decided what my rule is yet. RAW can be read either way, but the most straightforward is that there are no unstated limitations - it affects every hit for one minute.

No, it is the rule. You are free to play the game however you want. You can have it be unlimited doses of poison if you want to. That is ridiculous and I would never play such a silly game but you are free to do so.

Here is another example:

Candle - For 1 hour it sheds light.

According to RAW you still have the candle after. It doesn't say the candle is gone. Heck, by RAW it happens when the candle is created. There is no mechanism to make it shed light. It just happens for 1 hour.

It also doesn't burn by RAW. There is no fire involved.

But really, that is ridiculous because we know what candles are.

5e is written assuming we understand language.

[JoeJ]

Dose specifically means an amount that is enough to cause the desired effect. That is what the word means. If we say that only a tiny amount gets into the wound and it is not a dose then the poison doesn't do anything.

It is to illustrate how ridiculous it is to have the amount of doses applied to the weapon rely on the number of hits you get instead of how much actual poison you are able to put on the weapon.

There's the problem right there. The number of hits does not affect how much poison is applied to the weapon. It affects how much poison gets into the bodies of your enemies. The two are not the same.


You are left with a lot of problems not the least of which is what happens if someone gets the entire vial administered to them. How much damage do they take if the amount of doses in that vial is unlimited?

There's no problem. If you pour the vial into somebody's wound, they take 1d4 damage if they fail their Con save. That's what the poison does. Remember that both hit points and saving throws are abstractions, not direct measures of physical injury.


Why does being a higher level fighter mean that there is more poison in the vial?

That's like asking why being a higher level fighter means there's more steel in your sword to injure people with. There's no more poison in the vial. It just gets into more wounds.


No, it is the rule. You are free to play the game however you want. You can have it be unlimited doses of poison if you want to. That is ridiculous and I would never play such a silly game but you are free to do so.

It is not the rule. It is your interpretation of the rule, i.e. your rule. RAW is that it lasts for one minute, not until the first hit within one minute. I'm not aware of any clarification from the devs that indicates RAI is any different.

[JoeJ]

Candle - For 1 hour it sheds light.

Just like poison does 1d4 damage for 1 minute. I assume you're not arguing that a candle only works until the first time you use it to look at something?

[georgie_leech]

There's no problem. If you pour the vial into somebody's wound, they take 1d4 damage if they fail their Con save. That's what the poison does. Remember that both hit points and saving throws are abstractions, not direct measures of physical injury.


Unless D&D runs on the logic of homeopathy, this is a problem for a lot of players in terms of versimilitude. Unless applying the poison to the blade somehow results in it reproducing itself, slathering the poison onto a blade must result in less poison being introduced to the wound than just pouring it in (otherwise 100% would be introduced at once, leading to the single-use you're arguing against), yet this somehow results in the poison being more effective than direct application.

[Knaight]

Unless D&D runs on the logic of homeopathy, this is a problem for a lot of players in terms of versimilitude. Unless applying the poison to the blade somehow results in it reproducing itself, slathering the poison onto a blade must result in less poison being introduced to the wound than just pouring it in (otherwise 100% would be introduced at once, leading to the single-use you're arguing against), yet this somehow results in the poison being more effective than direct application.

With how D&D models poisons, this sort of thing is going to be a problem regardless. The entire concept of there being one dose that applies just as much to something pretty tiny as a titanic beast is pretty ridiculous*, as is the reusable poison blade interpretation. D&D is a heroic fantasy game, and poison doesn't get focused on that much as a result - this isn't REIGN and it's intrigue focus with the detailed poison rules to match.

*Sure, the HP map to a different proportion of total HP, and there's a bit of Con scaling. Still, the save DC staying as constant as it does is bizarre, and requires some extra effort to suspend disbelief.

[Regwon]

There's the problem right there. The number of hits does not affect how much poison is applied to the weapon. It affects how much poison gets into the bodies of your enemies. The two are not the same.


There's no problem. If you pour the vial into somebody's wound, they take 1d4 damage if they fail their Con save. That's what the poison does. Remember that both hit points and saving throws are abstractions, not direct measures of physical injury.


So if you physically pour an entire vial on poison into a person, it effects them less than if you apply some to a needle, then poke that person a couple of times. That makes no sense. How does administering some tiny fractions of a vial have a greater effect than administering the whole vial?

[ad_hoc]

There's the problem right there. The number of hits does not affect how much poison is applied to the weapon. It affects how much poison gets into the bodies of your enemies. The two are not the same.



There's no problem. If you pour the vial into somebody's wound, they take 1d4 damage if they fail their Con save. That's what the poison does. Remember that both hit points and saving throws are abstractions, not direct measures of physical injury.



That's like asking why being a higher level fighter means there's more steel in your sword to injure people with. There's no more poison in the vial. It just gets into more wounds.

I think I may have found the issue. There is a certain assumption by the authors that those reading the book have an understanding of how things work in the world in general. The candle is a good example of this. They don't have to say that you need to light it and that it burns because that is how candles work.

Poisons work by dose not application. Alcohol, even though you may not think of it this way, is a poison. If you sip a small amount of beer you won't get drunk. You will likely not have enough to pass any threshold where you will notice the effects. The bottle of beer is much more effective if you drink it all at once than it is if you drink it slowly over time, even though it will retain potency for quite a while.

Do you see the difference?




It is not the rule. It is your interpretation of the rule, i.e. your rule. RAW is that it lasts for one minute, not until the first hit within one minute. I'm not aware of any clarification from the devs that indicates RAI is any different.

RAW the 1 minute duration is a limitation not an extension of its effectiveness.

You can keep saying otherwise but it doesn't make it true.

[Goober4473]

All the book says is that basic poison retains its potency for 1 minute. It could be read that it means "or until used", but there's no actual evidence to suggest that. It never states that it wears off once you hit with it. I could see it as a DM ruling, except that a DC 10 Con save or take 1d4 poison damage, once (or three times with ranged), is hardly worth 100 gp. I wouldn't buy that as a player, and I wouldn't expect my players to buy it as a DM. Similarly, 12d6 damage, save for half, once, whole potent, is probably not worth 1,200 gp. That's within the price range of a rare magic item.

[Edit]: That or poison is just super overpriced to allow stricter DM control. It's pretty ambiguous.

[mephnick]

The prices listed in the DMG for magic items are completely insane anyway. Some are vastly too much and some are laughably cheap. This is a system where a potion of flying costs 10x more than two items that give you permanent flight abilities.

I wouldn't use the prices as evidence of anything, honestly.

[Tanarii]

is hardly worth 100 gp. I wouldn't buy that as a player, and I wouldn't expect my players to buy it as a DM. Similarly, 12d6 damage, save for half, once, whole potent, is probably not worth 1,200 gp. That's within the price range of a rare magic item.The price controls crafting speed with a poison kit. That's the primary importance. Secondary is controlling at what level it becomes available to characters.

Once characters have the best armor they can get and a mount, they don't have much use for gold. Living expenses are fairly easily covered by a tool proficiency or background. It isn't assumed that magical items can be bought. So once they're above level 4-8 or so, gold is pretty much for scribing spells into spellbooks, and buying adventuring gimmicks from the PHB. Or spending on stuff that's not for typical murderhobo adventuring. Not every game gets involved with castles, business investments, paying for mercenary armies and the like.

[Shaofoo]

The prices listed in the DMG for magic items are completely insane anyway. Some are vastly too much and some are laughably cheap. This is a system where a potion of flying costs 10x more than two items that give you permanent flight abilities.

I wouldn't use the prices as evidence of anything, honestly.

The DMG has no prices for magic items at all, mostly they have suggestions and guidelines as to what they believe a magic item should be worth but it is far from anything that could be considered a ruling.

Magic items are not meant to be part of the system, the DM will have to do some legwork to put them in his world and that will include set prices for each of them. The DM will have to make sure that the potion is less expensive than the permanent magic items... or not if he thinks that having a way to have flight without tying your concentration and attunement slots.

If you want the worst example then take the Universal Solvent and Sovereign Glue, you can have the most powerful weapons, armor and even the Deck of Many Things or you can weld two items together and remove them. The system was never meant to be taken at face value, it requires a lot of DM work since it wants the DM to think about how magic items should affect his world.

[ad_hoc]

All the book says is that basic poison retains its potency for 1 minute. It could be read that it means "or until used", but there's no actual evidence to suggest that. It never states that it wears off once you hit with it. I could see it as a DM ruling, except that a DC 10 Con save or take 1d4 poison damage, once (or three times with ranged), is hardly worth 100 gp. I wouldn't buy that as a player, and I wouldn't expect my players to buy it as a DM. Similarly, 12d6 damage, save for half, once, whole potent, is probably not worth 1,200 gp. That's within the price range of a rare magic item.

[Edit]: That or poison is just super overpriced to allow stricter DM control. It's pretty ambiguous.

5e is written like this. Just look at the other items. There is even someone in another thread arguing that you can see through the darkness spell because darkness in the spell is only defined as not allowing dark vision but not normal vision.

Once you administer the poison you don't have it anymore. You don't have unlimited doses. It is not some sort of unique replenishing poison. The 1 minute limitation is a limitation and reading it as granting unlimited doses instead is ridiculous. How can it possibly mean that?

A candle also burns when lit and is not a candle anymore after it has burned for an hour.

[georgie_leech]

With how D&D models poisons, this sort of thing is going to be a problem regardless. The entire concept of there being one dose that applies just as much to something pretty tiny as a titanic beast is pretty ridiculous*, as is the reusable poison blade interpretation. D&D is a heroic fantasy game, and poison doesn't get focused on that much as a result - this isn't REIGN and it's intrigue focus with the detailed poison rules to match.

*Sure, the HP map to a different proportion of total HP, and there's a bit of Con scaling. Still, the save DC staying as constant as it does is bizarre, and requires some extra effort to suspend disbelief.

Mm, I'm just not fond of the idea that you can use smaller amounts of the stuff to get the same effect, because then you run into a weird divide by zero error to figure out what the minimum dose is. Personally I'm not fond of 5e poisons period because both ways are just... off, to me. I just dislike the ongoing duration interpretation more.

[Forum Explorer]

The price controls crafting speed with a poison kit. That's the primary importance. Secondary is controlling at what level it becomes available to characters.

Once characters have the best armor they can get and a mount, they don't have much use for gold. Living expenses are fairly easily covered by a tool proficiency or background. It isn't assumed that magical items can be bought. So once they're above level 4-8 or so, gold is pretty much for scribing spells into spellbooks, and buying adventuring gimmicks from the PHB. Or spending on stuff that's not for typical murderhobo adventuring. Not every game gets involved with castles, business investments, paying for mercenary armies and the like.

Poisons are an exception to the crafting rule. The stronger poisons can only be harvested from creatures (dead or incapacitated), which takes 1d4 minutes.

As for gold, well that's why I feel a lot better making gold rarer. I feel it's really weird for PCs to have 10s or even 100s of thousands of gp, unless they've slain a dragon, because most monsters and people don't have treasure hordes just sitting around.


Anyways, going by the one hit (which may be more realistic) rule, just doesn't feel worth it for the majority of characters. Not for an action and hundreds, if not over a thousand GP. Particularly not for a resource that isn't easily replenished. (Particularly for the weaker poisons. Why would you ever want to use the poison in the PHB, or even the weaker poisons like snake venom in the DMG?)

[ad_hoc]

Anyways, going by the one hit (which may be more realistic) rule, just doesn't feel worth it for the majority of characters. Not for an action and hundreds, if not over a thousand GP. Particularly not for a resource that isn't easily replenished. (Particularly for the weaker poisons. Why would you ever want to use the poison in the PHB, or even the weaker poisons like snake venom in the DMG?)

It is true that the basic poison is bad.

I think they were cautious about it as poison use is not typical of a heroic party and they didn't want it to be seen as a must have.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to make it more effective. It is the simplist rule change to up the damage, con save or have it add the poisoned condition.

[Goober4473]

5e is written like this. Just look at the other items. There is even someone in another thread arguing that you can see through the darkness spell because darkness in the spell is only defined as not allowing dark vision but not normal vision.

Once you administer the poison you don't have it anymore. You don't have unlimited doses. It is not some sort of unique replenishing poison. The 1 minute limitation is a limitation and reading it as granting unlimited doses instead is ridiculous. How can it possibly mean that?

A candle also burns when lit and is not a candle anymore after it has burned for an hour.

I'm certainly willing to grant that it's open to interpretation, but "it dries after a minute" reads a little more naturally as "it lasts for a minute, doing its thing until then" versus "it lasts for a minute or until you use it." You're argument is essentially that any sane person would always read it as the latter, despite the wording, and reading it otherwise completely defies all in-world logic, in the same way as arguing that you can see through a darkness spell despite obvious intent.

All I'm saying is, reading it the way I have is not some kind of madness of rules abuse. It's not really that powerful. I've used it in games. It works fine. I'd accept a DM's ruling to the contrary, since it is kind of ambiguous and the DMG doesn't even mention anything about it for non-basic poisons, but it's not an obvious, mandatory ruling. Applying poison to a blade and causing it to gain a poisoning ability for a minute is not counter to any kind of innate logic of the world, nor is it, in my experience, in any way game-breaking in power. Basic poison kind of sucks, and better poisons are rare, expensive, and under complete DM control.

Plus, my reading certainly makes NPCs like the Assassin make a lot more sense, unless you're imagining they apply a new dose of poison to each of their swords every time they hit with an attack, including opportunity attacks. if the players kill an assassin early in a fight, are they finding 30 spare doses of wyvern poison on her? Why are assassins so rich? Hand-wavable certainly, but still, there's obvious consistency with my reading.

[Goober4473]

It is true that the basic poison is bad.

I think they were cautious about it as poison use is not typical of a heroic party and they didn't want it to be seen as a must have.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to make it more effective. It is the simplist rule change to up the damage, con save or have it add the poisoned condition.

Or, without making a rules change at all, but merely changing your interpretation of wording, make it last for 1 minute, applying on every hit. Weird how that works so well.

[deathbymanga]

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.

</br>

The way the rules are written, the poison seems to last for 1 minute, regardless of how many attacks you've made. I mean, for 1. You can apply the poison to 3 different arrows, which already implies that the poison isn't a 1-use-per-usage.

The poison lasts for 1 minute and any creature hit during that minute of time will take 1d4 damage pending a con save. which equals 10d4 damage if all the saves were failures. 10d4 or an average of 10 x 2.5 = 25 points of extra damage. That's not that much damage. and that assumes you hit the enemy every time and they failed their con save every time

[Forum Explorer]

It is true that the basic poison is bad.

I think they were cautious about it as poison use is not typical of a heroic party and they didn't want it to be seen as a must have.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to make it more effective. It is the simplist rule change to up the damage, con save or have it add the poisoned condition.

If it's an 'evil' option (which I maintain it isn't, it's merely pragmatic), then shouldn't it be stronger then the 'good' option? Why else would evil people use it?

If you think every hit is too strong, and agree that one hit is too weak, then how about do every hit, but have the Con save been all or nothing? That is, if you make the save you take no damage instead of half.

Personally, I think that simply enforcing the rarity of the stuff is more then sufficient in making sure it isn't abused.

[deathbymanga]

Poison is in no way evil, because if it were, Holy Water would be evil also because it is a poison for Fiends and Undead.

[ad_hoc]

Or, without making a rules change at all, but merely changing your interpretation of wording, make it last for 1 minute, applying on every hit. Weird how that works so well.

Instead of dihonestly interpreting a rule to make an effect stronger while sacrificing the integrity of your game world, you could just be honest about it and make stronger poisons.

This, btw, only affects the basic poison from the PHB. The poisons in the DMG were listed per dose instead of per vial.




If it's an 'evil' option (which I maintain it isn't, it's merely pragmatic), then shouldn't it be stronger then the 'good' option? Why else would evil people use it?

If you think every hit is too strong, and agree that one hit is too weak, then how about do every hit, but have the Con save been all or nothing? That is, if you make the save you take no damage instead of half.

Personally, I think that simply enforcing the rarity of the stuff is more then sufficient in making sure it isn't abused.

Well, this is just conjecture anyway. I don't think it is an evil or not evil thing but more of a trope thing. If poison were a lot better you would see a lot of parties using it which is not what happens in previous editions of D&D or in a lot of fantasy.

It is not a matter of what I think is too strong. It's more that it is counter to how the rules are written and more importantly makes no sense.

I get that there are abstractions in the game. A lot of them. I mean, poison itself would need to be tied to physiology and mass of creatures and such if we wanted realism. It's fine and good that it isn't. To tie how many doses you have to how many hits you get though is ridiculous and opens a Pandora's Box of problems.

So if the thought is that it is too weak, just be honest about it and make stronger poison available rather than wreaking havoc on the world.

[Goober4473]

Instead of dihonestly interpreting a rule to make an effect stronger while sacrificing the integrity of your game world, you could just be honest about it and make stronger poisons.


My main point is, it doesn't sacrifice the integrity of the game world. I am disputing that entire idea.

In Hamlet, the poisoned sword kills at least 2 people, possibly 3 (Claudius is also forced to drink some poison, and gets stabbed pretty bad), and no one is like, "but the blade already cut someone! The poison should have worn off!"

Alternatively, if I slathered a knife in poison, stabbed a porkchop with it, and handed it to you, would you feel safe licking the knife? How about if I stabbed the porkchop 9 times first?

Basically, it's not unrealistic to assume a blade still has poison on it after it's hit someone, especially given the abstract nature of "hit" in D&D. A tiny nick might be enough to deliver some poison, but I find it hard to believe that blade would suddenly be so cleaned of poison that it no longer has an effect. A really good stab might clean off a good amount of poison, but then we should be checking for intensity of stab wound to determine percentage of poison taken by the target and percentage remaining on the blade, and I think no one wants to do that. It's much easier to call the blade poisoned for a minute and be done with it.


This, btw, only affects the basic poison from the PHB. The poisons in the DMG were listed per dose instead of per vial.

It's not exactly a stretch to assume one vial is one dose of basic poison, while other poisons may come in other containers of differing size and material, still functioning as a single "dose" in the same way as basic poison. The rules here are kind of lacking, and thus have even more room for DM fiat, but without any specific rulings, it seems like the most reasonable course is to use basic poison as a basis, with other injury poisons just having a different effect on a hit, and potentially a different container than a vial.

[Knaight]

I'm certainly willing to grant that it's open to interpretation, but "it dries after a minute" reads a little more naturally as "it lasts for a minute, doing its thing until then" versus "it lasts for a minute or until you use it."
I'd say it reads just as easily the other way - if you don't use it within a minute it is useless, but once used, it's used up.


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.

</br>

The way the rules are written, the poison seems to last for 1 minute, regardless of how many attacks you've made. I mean, for 1. You can apply the poison to 3 different arrows, which already implies that the poison isn't a 1-use-per-usage.

It's vague. What the rules actually say is that after a minute, the poison dries. Whether it stays on a weapon after using it to stab someone with is vague. As for getting more shots with a projectile, it's worth noting that projectiles are very good at delivering doses (more arrows than bolts), as they stick in the target, don't have as much of a problem with bleeding immediately removing some of the dose as other weapons, etc. Yet even under those conditions, you can only get 3 hits. Meanwhile with a melee weapon significantly worse at delivering the dose, you can get vastly more hits. The three arrow point really doesn't work well to indicate that the one minute, repeated use situation is correct.

[Forum Explorer]

It is not a matter of what I think is too strong. It's more that it is counter to how the rules are written and more importantly makes no sense.

I get that there are abstractions in the game. A lot of them. I mean, poison itself would need to be tied to physiology and mass of creatures and such if we wanted realism. It's fine and good that it isn't. To tie how many doses you have to how many hits you get though is ridiculous and opens a Pandora's Box of problems.

So if the thought is that it is too weak, just be honest about it and make stronger poison available rather than wreaking havoc on the world.

It's not counter to the rules as written, those are unclear and can go either way. As for not making sense, eh, kinda. It's certainly less realistic then a Fighter making 4 attacks per round, or being able to carry as much gear as he does for an entire day without fatigue, but it's certainly more realistic then all battle damage fading with a good night's rest, or a Rogue being able to dodge an explosion that fills the entire room and still be in the same spot afterwards.

[ad_hoc]

It's not exactly a stretch to assume one vial is one dose of basic poison

I think this may be the fundamental problem here.

A lack of understanding of what a dose is and how poisons/drugs/toxins affect creatures.

The amount of poison in the vial correlates to the amount of doses of that poison are in the vial.

Tying the amount of doses of the poison to the number of times it is administered doesn't make sense.

If you don't see why that is I am not sure what else to say.

[JoeJ]

I think this may be the fundamental problem here.

A lack of understanding of what a dose is and how poisons/drugs/toxins affect creatures.

The amount of poison in the vial correlates to the amount of doses of that poison are in the vial.

Tying the amount of doses of the poison to the number of times it is administered doesn't make sense.

If you don't see why that is I am not sure what else to say.

So by your definition of "dose" there are three doses in a vial if you smear the poison on arrows, but only one if you put it on a blade. You're okay with 1 = 3, but you're not okay with the idea that hitting somebody with a sword might not transfer 100% of the poison on the blade into their body?

To borrow your own argument from earlier in the thread, what if I put the poison onto three arrows and then scrape it off. I now have 3 doses that I can put onto 3 swords, right? And then scrape it off the swords and have enough for 9 arrows? Wouldn't it make more sense to consider a "dose" to be an abstract concept that takes into account not just the amount of poison but the effectiveness of the delivery?

[Z3ro]

To borrow your own argument from earlier in the thread, what if I put the poison onto three arrows and then scrape it off. I now have 3 doses that I can put onto 3 swords, right? And then scrape it off the swords and have enough for 9 arrows?

It's 5E's ladder/10ft pole trick!

[Knaight]

So by your definition of "dose" there are three doses in a vial if you smear the poison on arrows, but only one if you put it on a blade. You're okay with 1 = 3, but you're not okay with the idea that hitting somebody with a sword might not transfer 100% of the poison on the blade into their body?

I'm pretty sure the point is that the sword doesn't transfer 100%, which is why it takes as much poison as is on three arrows to get one dose in. It's just that not transferring 100% doesn't sensibly translate to hitting for the full dose over and over because a partial dose is repeatedly administered.


To borrow your own argument from earlier in the thread, what if I put the poison onto three arrows and then scrape it off. I now have 3 doses that I can put onto 3 swords, right? And then scrape it off the swords and have enough for 9 arrows?
This only makes sense if you equivocate between two readings of dose, one of which is "enough poison to poison one melee weapon or three arrows" and the other of which is "however much poison is on one weapon". That's a disingenuous point.

[krugaan]

not to point out what seems to be obvious, but the 3 arrows = 1 sword dose thing is made for balance, not verisimilitude. you miss with a sword, you can still swing it and try again; doing that with an arrow is a little harder.

100g for part of a no concentration bless seems ... alright, I suppose. Money is alternately precious at low level and nigh useless at high level.

[ad_hoc]

I'm pretty sure the point is that the sword doesn't transfer 100%, which is why it takes as much poison as is on three arrows to get one dose in. It's just that not transferring 100% doesn't sensibly translate to hitting for the full dose over and over because a partial dose is repeatedly administered.


Yeah, this.

I am fine with approximations to represent things for simplicity. It's all over the game.

Limiting the amount of poison by the amount of hits you get rather than how much poison there is, is completely backwards though.

And then the argument that it is okay because the poison doesn't do a lot of damage also doesn't do it for me. If the problem is the damage, make stronger poison.

Then there is the actual reading of the rules of the game and trying to exploit their meaning by twisting them around. I think it sets a bad precedent. People don't twist the wording of the candle and fill in aspects of what a candle is because there is no way to abuse it. But once it comes to poison, the assassin, the darkness spell, etc. people are disingenous in order to make it stronger.

Just say you think it is too weak and rule it to be stronger.

Just be honest about it.

[Elite Hatter]

Yeah, this.

I am fine with approximations to represent things for simplicity. It's all over the game.

Limiting the amount of poison by the amount of hits you get rather than how much poison there is, is completely backwards though.

And then the argument that it is okay because the poison doesn't do a lot of damage also doesn't do it for me. If the problem is the damage, make stronger poison.

Then there is the actual reading of the rules of the game and trying to exploit their meaning by twisting them around. I think it sets a bad precedent. People don't twist the wording of the candle and fill in aspects of what a candle is because there is no way to abuse it. But once it comes to poison, the assassin, the darkness spell, etc. people are disingenous in order to make it stronger.

Just say you think it is too weak and rule it to be stronger.

Just be honest about it.

This.

I think, and am ruling in my game, that poison last for a minute unless otherwise noted. 3 pieces of ammunition? Range has so many other advantages (namely distance) that melee deserve the extra damage for a longer duration.

And imo, if someone pours poison into the quiver, all arrows drawn for a minute would have poison on them. There still 1 action and equally as good as melee. After a minute it fades as normal. Yes this is a house rule, but it's a simple fix.

[Goober4473]

A lack of understanding of what a dose is and how poisons/drugs/toxins affect creatures.

The amount of poison in the vial correlates to the amount of doses of that poison are in the vial.

Tying the amount of doses of the poison to the number of times it is administered doesn't make sense.

I don't entirely understand what you're even saying here, so let me address this as broadly as I can, describing my logic in order.

My first claim is such: A vial of basic poison is one dose of basic poison, and a dose of other injury poison should work the same as a vial/dose of basic poison.

Why would WotC have basic poisons come in "vials", with an ambiguous number of doses, and other poisons come in specific doses? That would be weird and inconsistent, and without specific new rules in the DMG, it would be very strange to assume a vial of basic poison isn't one dose, or that one dose of another poison behaves differently than one vial of basic poison.

However you rule it, it makes no sense to differentiate between what is probably just inconsistency in wording between books. If basic poison can be applied to three arrows, so should wyvern poison. If basic poison applies to every hit for 1 minute, so should purple worm poison. If basic poison is used up as soon as a hit lands, so should all injury poison be.

If your argument is that the wording of "dose" and "vial" suggests that the two should work differently, then I ask this: why are there no new rules in the DMG that differentiate those injury poisons from the way basic poison works? And if we imagine this is a huge oversight, or WotC saying, "do it however you want", why does it make the game better to confuse things and make these poisons work so differently?

My second claim is such: By RAW, it is more likely, given the wording, that poison applies to every hit for 1 minute, but RAI is still vague enough on the subject that I would delegate it to DM ruling.

The rules make no mention of the poison wearing off before the duration is up, stating only that the poison dries up after a minute. Without a specific call-out of another ending condition, it makes a lot of sense to read it as lasting the full minute, and applying to all hits. The rule don't, however, specifically call out that the poison applies to all hits, leaving room for interpretation.

Even if you disagree with my claim that it's a more likely reading of the RAW, at the very least you have to give that it is a valid way of reading it, while sticking purely to RAW.

But speaking of RAW vs. RAI...

My third claim is such: It makes at least as much sense, within the world, system, and narrative of D&D that poison would apply to multiple hits.

If you are hung up on the wording of "dose", let me just say: It makes just as much sense for a "dose" to be the amount of poison you apply to your weapon as it does to be the amount of poison that needs to go in a person to affect them. The wording of doses and vials is irrelevant given my first assertion, and since no further definitions have been given to us, arguing semantics here is pointless

If your argument is that it makes no sense within the narrative, I've already given a number of examples, in literature, in example of a real life situation, in simple ways the way hit points and hitting with attacks translate to the narrative, and in consistency with the assassin NPC in the Monster Manual. I hold that it is no more unrealistic than any other abstraction in D&D.

If your argument is that it is too powerful, I'll remind you again that all poison, even basic poison, is well within the control of the DM, in much the same way magic items are. I have personally played in games with poison and had no problems, but if you or your DM feel that they are too powerful, they aren't mandatory to include in your game. You can make up new, less powerful poisons. You can charge more gold for poisons. You can limit the number of poisons available to find or purchase. The power is in your hands.

In conclusion:
If your argument is that it makes no sense, or couldn't possibly have been the intention of the authors that poison apply to every hit with a melee weapon for the full minute, I think you have no real ground to stand on. Without definitive rulings in the books, it's all a matter of interpretation, and I have provided ample evidence that it could at least be plausible, even if you would still never run it that way.

If your argument is that it is more likely that the authors intended poison to apply to only one hit with a melee weapon, then I disagree based on the wording, but it's only a matter of opinion anyways, and reading it the other way is not invalid, so who cares?

If your argument is that it also makes sense to read it the way you have, then I agree. A DM is well within their rights to rule it that way.

[MadBear]

Then there is the actual reading of the rules of the game and trying to exploit their meaning by twisting them around. I think it sets a bad precedent. People don't twist the wording of the candle and fill in aspects of what a candle is because there is no way to abuse it. But once it comes to poison, the assassin, the darkness spell, etc. people are disingenous in order to make it stronger.


Just be honest about it.

You do realize that people can disagree with your reading of the rule, and that doesn't make them dishonest right? Throughout this thread, you've essentially called people who don't see the rule the way you do dishonest. While I actually agree with the interpretation of the rule as you've described, I think that saying people who disagree are "twisting" the reading of the rule to be an incredibly weak and poor argument on your part.

[Goober4473]

You do realize that people can disagree with your reading of the rule, and that doesn't make them dishonest right? Throughout this thread, you've essentially called people who don't see the rule the way you do dishonest. While I actually agree with the interpretation of the rule as you've described, I think that saying people who disagree are "twisting" the reading of the rule to be an incredibly weak and poor argument on your part.

Exactly this.

I've always been willing to grant you can read it your way. At least since I learned about your way in this very thread, since no one I have played with has ever read it any other way than I did. No one tried to twist it to power game their character. No one argued wording to get their way. We all just read the rule, figured it meant something it could very reasonably mean (as I spelled out very carefully and clearly above), and went with it. There's never been any dishonesty or rules lawyering.