DMG poison erratum

[MaxWilson]

The DMG errata make it clear that poison applied to weapons is intended to last only for a single hit. However, one dose of poison is enough to apply to three pieces of ammunition. Does anyone else find it interesting that archers now make the best, most efficient poisoners? Previous to the errata it was the opposite, and poison was one of the few reasons to consider a melee-primary build.

[Foxhound438]

3x poison effect is good, but if you miss and can't find your arrow you're out a use. You also would have to wait until post-combat to regain it. Missing 2 times out of 3 is rare, but it can happen, and i think that might be in part why they made it this way.

[E’Tallitnics]

Well, on the plus side they now last longer than 1 minute!

[Safety Sword]

Makes me wonder why there's not a "poisoner's quiver".

Pour the poison into to the bottom, put your arrows in and now every piece of ammo comes out with poison on it.

Anyway, perhaps that breaks the game...

[JackPhoenix]

Makes me wonder why there's not a "poisoner's quiver".

Pour the poison into to the bottom, put your arrows in and now every piece of ammo comes out with poison on it.

Anyway, perhaps that breaks the game...

Well, if one dose is enough only for 3 arrows, dividing it between 20 (and the quiver) would presumably make it too weak to be effective.

[Safety Sword]

Well, if one dose is enough only for 3 arrows, dividing it between 20 (and the quiver) would presumably make it too weak to be effective.

Pour 7 doses in and make sure the quiver is lined so that it doesn't absorb the liquid?

[pwykersotz]

Makes me wonder why there's not a "poisoner's quiver".

Pour the poison into to the bottom, put your arrows in and now every piece of ammo comes out with poison on it.

Anyway, perhaps that breaks the game...

In a previous game I let a player design and use a sheath that did this. It held three sealed doses of poison and applied a dose as the blade was drawn. It reset the next dose when the blade was sheathed. It required a short rest to reload.

[Addaran]

Makes me wonder why there's not a "poisoner's quiver".

Pour the poison into to the bottom, put your arrows in and now every piece of ammo comes out with poison on it.

Anyway, perhaps that breaks the game...

Might be too impratical or unlogical with the rules (having to pour 6 vials of poison for your 20 arrows....)

But i don't think it would be too game-breaking, if you make it a magic item (depending on the poison).
Yuan-ti already have all of their arrows poisonned i think and some magical weapon do give +1dX elemental damage.

[Vogonjeltz]

The DMG errata make it clear that poison applied to weapons is intended to last only for a single hit. However, one dose of poison is enough to apply to three pieces of ammunition. Does anyone else find it interesting that archers now make the best, most efficient poisoners? Previous to the errata it was the opposite, and poison was one of the few reasons to consider a melee-primary build.

I wouldn't necessarily say they are better.

Arrows: 3 chances, each with its own possibility of poisoning.
Melee: Up to 10 chances to poison once.

I would imagine you'll probably hit at least once with the melee, but it's not implausible that one could miss 3 rolls in a row.

[JackPhoenix]

I wouldn't necessarily say they are better.

Arrows: 3 chances, each with its own possibility of poisoning.
Melee: Up to 10 chances to poison once.

I would imagine you'll probably hit at least once with the melee, but it's not implausible that one could miss 3 rolls in a row.

Before the errata, SA ruling was that the poison causes damage with each attack for the minute it was still potent, while you could have only 3 (generally non-reusable) arrows. Now, you still get 3 arrows, however while you still have more chances to hit in melee, you will cause damage only once.

[DivisibleByZero]

The DMG errata make it clear that poison applied to weapons is intended to last only for a single hit. However, one dose of poison is enough to apply to three pieces of ammunition. Does anyone else find it interesting that archers now make the best, most efficient poisoners? Previous to the errata it was the opposite, and poison was one of the few reasons to consider a melee-primary build.

You mean exactly like many of us were saying was intended to begin with?
This doesn't come as news to some of us, and for us it changes absolutely nothing.

[MaxWilson]

You mean exactly like many of us were saying was intended to begin with?
This doesn't come as news to some of us, and for us it changes absolutely nothing.

That's fine. For others, including Rodney Thompson (one of the game designers) and JeremyCrawford, it was less obvious. Ref: http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/02/24/poison-bug/


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


@calebrus44 @JeremyECrawford @mikemearls Lasts for the full minute.


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

Crawford wasn't even sure which way he wanted to come down on this. Congratulations for being ahead of the class, but the observation still stands: isn't it interesting that DMs who use this rule (which you've been using all along) are encouraging missile weapons for Purple Worm Venom assassins?

Yes, you can miss with the arrows, but circumstances can be arranged such that you will on average land at least two poisoned arrows. For example, one ally tosses a Net on enemies to restrain them while another ally Blesses you. If the Net hits, you Action Surge and shoot all three of your arrows immediately. Vs. AC 18, a Dex 20 Fighter 8 would hit (avg.3.d20a+d4+10?18)=2.84 times, plus 0.95 times with an unpoisoned arrow. You'll get way more mileage out of that expensive Purple Worm Venom if you put it on an arrow.

You don't find that interesting?

[JoeJ]

Yes, you can miss with the arrows, but circumstances can be arranged such that you will on average land at least two poisoned arrows. For example, one ally tosses a Net on enemies to restrain them while another ally Blesses you. If the Net hits, you Action Surge and shoot all three of your arrows immediately. Vs. AC 18, a Dex 20 Fighter 8 would hit (avg.3.d20a+d4+10?18)=2.84 times, plus 0.95 times with an unpoisoned arrow. You'll get way more mileage out of that expensive Purple Worm Venom if you put it on an arrow.

You don't find that interesting?

I think it's interesting that missile weapons offer the opportunity to get multiple hits, but melee weapons are less likely to miss completely, all else being equal. 3 attacks with a maximum of 3 poisonings vs. 10-40* attacks (depending on class and level) with a maximum of 1 poisoning. Different tactics for different situations.

Edit *Actually 48 maximum, if a 20th level fighter uses Action Surge twice during those ten rounds.

[MaxWilson]

I think it's interesting that missile weapons offer the opportunity to get multiple hits, but melee weapons are less likely to miss completely, all else being equal. 3 attacks with a maximum of 3 poisonings vs. 10-40* attacks (depending on class and level) with a maximum of 1 poisoning. Different tactics for different situations.

Edit *Actually 48 maximum, if a 20th level fighter uses Action Surge twice during those ten rounds.

Oh, sure. Poison on a melee weapon isn't terrible, especially if you're a nonproficient fishwife attacking an AC 22 Ancient Dragon with a knife while it laughs indulgently at you--you're almost certain to eventually inflict more damage with that poison than you would if you smeared it on three arrows and then shot at the dragon, missing each time. In a more normal scenario though you have to go pretty far out of your way before poisoned ammunition isn't as good or better than a poisoned melee weapon, at least against MM monsters.

And missile weapons are so dominant already in 5E that it's interesting to see the DMG change in ways that make them even more dominant. I mean, all of my players were already putting their poison on darts and arrows. Before this change, that was safer but less deadly. Now it is safer and more deadly under most circumstances. What's not to like?

[MeeposFire]

Well those who have proficiency with improvised weapons could poison 3 arrows and then use them in melee for maximum damage. Doubt it is really worth it outside of crazy niche situations but hey it exists.

[CNagy]

I don't really find it interesting; the previous way some people thought of it was entirely unrealistic and that's what made the melee fighter more efficient. This ruling is more simulationist; it physically takes less poison to cover an arrowhead than it does the length of a bladed weapon.

[MaxWilson]

I don't really find it interesting; the previous way some people thought of it was entirely unrealistic and that's what made the melee fighter more efficient. This ruling is more simulationist; it physically takes less poison to cover an arrowhead than it does the length of a bladed weapon.

A truly simulationist perspective would couple both poison dose required and damage delivered to weapon size, not weapon type. Logically a dirk's tip should be as easy to poison as an arrowhead--the fact that you're not launching it with a bow doesn't matter to the poison.

[Corran]

On a related note, this change affects a lot many assassin builds. Ranged assassins had already too many things working better for them than with melee assassins, now they can add poison to this big list too.

[BW022]

The DMG errata make it clear that poison applied to weapons is intended to last only for a single hit. However, one dose of poison is enough to apply to three pieces of ammunition. Does anyone else find it interesting that archers now make the best, most efficient poisoners? Previous to the errata it was the opposite, and poison was one of the few reasons to consider a melee-primary build.

That assumes that you hit.

One minute is ten rounds. A melee person with a poisoned blade gets ten chances to hit with it. If they hit, then can then reapply the poison -- or not. An archer only get three chances to hit before having to reapply the poison. Yes, you could hit three times... but in D&D... that is unlikely at levels where the poison is that effective.

I ran the numbers through at various hit chances and while the archer is favoured in overall damage. Against really hard to hit targets, the melee blade is better in terms of overall poison damage. The archer spends way too many rounds reapplying. Against moderate and easy to hit targets the archer is statistically better. However... you need number runs in the hundreds to see this and it doesn't factor in that many D&D combats cause problems for archers -- forcing them to move/disengage, forcing them into melee, having to spend other rounds performing non-attack actions, etc. It also assumed the creature failed its save... and given the low damage of poison and high con saves of many creatures... most real game effects would be pretty minor.

[MaxWilson]

It might be a good modification to just restrict one dose of poison to one melee weapon or ONE piece of ammunition. That's also more in keeping with classical mythology. "Paris' arrow landed true/Down upon your heel." You usually don't shoot multiple poisoned arrows unless you are Heracles.

[CNagy]

A truly simulationist perspective would couple both poison dose required and damage delivered to weapon size, not weapon type. Logically a dirk's tip should be as easy to poison as an arrowhead--the fact that you're not launching it with a bow doesn't matter to the poison.

Which is why I said "more simulationist" and not "truly simulationist." It's more of a spectrum than a binary choice. While the same amount of poison to coat a blade is strange when comparing a dagger to a longsword, it's not strange when comparing ammunition to weapons. The DMG clearly uses the word "coat," so just poisoning the tip of a weapon doesn't work for whatever reason can be fluffed up.

[MaxWilson]

Which is why I said "more simulationist" and not "truly simulationist." It's more of a spectrum than a binary choice. While the same amount of poison to coat a blade is strange when comparing a dagger to a longsword, it's not strange when comparing ammunition to weapons. The DMG clearly uses the word "coat," so just poisoning the tip of a weapon doesn't work for whatever reason can be fluffed up.

Touche. Good point.