Drow poison make no centz

[Dalebert]

I'm having trouble suspending my disbelief on this one. Every single crossbow bolt they shoot has this amazing poison. They apparently don't have to spend an action applying it. There's another poison on their swords that's also amazing, again no action needed to apply it. It simply seems to always be on their weapons and never dries up, but you can't get it from them. The weapons don't work the same for PCs, of course.

Any idea what sort of fluff is supposed to make this make sense despite poison not appearing to work that way anywhere else in the game?

[Goober4473]

Per the DMG, injury poison doesn't dry up. They could apply it to their whole quiver (case?) well beforehand. Only elites seem to apply poison on their melee attacks, and they're elites, so they could have a "free poison application" power. But why waste the page space?


but you can't get it from them

According to who? My players have ended up with a few whole flasks of drow poison after dealing with a number of them.

[Gastronomie]

I thought this thread was going to be about how drow poison doesn't allow you to re-make the save at the end of each of your turns, which honestly makes no centz.

[Feuerphoenix]

Per the DMG, injury poison doesn't dry up. They could apply it to their whole quiver (case?) well beforehand. Only elites seem to apply poison on their melee attacks, and they're elites, so they could have a "free poison application" power. But why waste the page space?



According to who? My players have ended up with a few whole flasks of drow poison after dealing with a number of them.

eh, maybe I Overlooked something, but where does it stand that the poison does not dry up? and how do you measure its number of uses?

[DivisibleByZero]

Any idea what sort of fluff is supposed to make this make sense despite poison not appearing to work that way anywhere else in the game?

Why does it matter? Monsters and NPCs aren't built the and way that PCs are built. That's all the explanation that should be needed.

[Dalebert]

Why does it matter? Monsters and NPCs aren't built the and way that PCs are built. That's all the explanation that should be needed.

That addresses the mechanics of it. It's easy to fluff that a purple worm's body just plain produces a really strong poison. It's harder to make sense out of a poison that is presumably an item used by the creature and that item is AMAZING by comparison to other items. It's like the equivalent of a legendary magic item but a mundane version, and yet it's really common amongst drow who clearly have it in great abundance. It would break the game if the PCs got their hands on it, and which they should absolutely be able to do by defeating a bunch of drow. It's worked up as if it's just a creature ability but it's really not. Maybe you can convince me that they're SUPER secretive about how to make the stuff. Okay. You could still, in theory, farm it by killing a bunch of drow, but obviously you can't allow that to happen because it's broken. So it becomes this poorly thought out thing to just up drow CRs.

It make no centz!

[JellyPooga]

Sooo...I'm not seeing much of a problem here. Drow Poison is something made solely by the Drow (surprise surprise) and there's no reason not to let players "harvest" it from Drow they defeat. You seem to be under the impression that Drow Poison is really really good (I believe the term Legendary was used) when...let's face it, it's not that great.

DC:13 Con to resist being poisoned for an hour, fail by 5 or more and you fall asleep (any damage or a gentle nudge wakes you up). Poisoned is a nasty condition, sure, but it's hardly instant death and you need to roll 8 or less (including modifiers) to fall asleep.

The other poison they appear to use is just straight poison damage, 1d6, 3d6 or 5d6. Extra damage from various sources is a relatively easy thing to come by (ignoring any moral issues related to using poisons, of course...).

None of these are things you can't just buy or craft yourself. Check out pg.257-258 of the DMG. It only doesn't make sense if you treat monsters and NPC's the same way you treat Player Characters, which isn't something 5ed assumes you'll be doing. An Archmage, for example, isn't restricted to only the spells listed in his stat block; they're just suggestions for the ones he might have prepared that day. Similarly, you might come across some Drow who use different poison or no poison at all.

The NPC stat blocks make no suggestions as to what other gear or treasure they might be carrying; only that which is related to their combat stats (as a rule). A GM is well within his rights to give players a bunch of Drow poison as treasure for defeating some Drow, or to remove the poison effects from Drow attacks if they've been caught on the hop, without time to poison their weapons.

At the end of the day, it's up to the GM to make the game make sense, not a stat-block. The stat-blocks are just suggestions.

[Feuerphoenix]

Sooo...I'm not seeing much of a problem here. Drow Poison is something made solely by the Drow (surprise surprise) and there's no reason not to let players "harvest" it from Drow they defeat. You seem to be under the impression that Drow Poison is really really good (I believe the term Legendary was used) when...let's face it, it's not that great.

DC:13 Con to resist being poisoned for an hour, fail by 5 or more and you fall asleep (any damage or a gentle nudge wakes you up). Poisoned is a nasty condition, sure, but it's hardly instant death and you need to roll 8 or less (including modifiers) to fall asleep.

The other poison they appear to use is just straight poison damage, 1d6, 3d6 or 5d6. Extra damage from various sources is a relatively easy thing to come by (ignoring any moral issues related to using poisons, of course...).

None of these are things you can't just buy or craft yourself. Check out pg.257-258 of the DMG. It only doesn't make sense if you treat monsters and NPC's the same way you treat Player Characters, which isn't something 5ed assumes you'll be doing. An Archmage, for example, isn't restricted to only the spells listed in his stat block; they're just suggestions for the ones he might have prepared that day. Similarly, you might come across some Drow who use different poison or no poison at all.

The NPC stat blocks make no suggestions as to what other gear or treasure they might be carrying; only that which is related to their combat stats (as a rule). A GM is well within his rights to give players a bunch of Drow poison as treasure for defeating some Drow, or to remove the poison effects from Drow attacks if they've been caught on the hop, without time to poison their weapons.

At the end of the day, it's up to the GM to make the game make sense, not a stat-block. The stat-blocks are just suggestions.

and if you are a drow, can you assume to know how do create this poison, or how to get access to it?

[NRSASD]

Fun fact: it is a creature ability. The miracle toxin is actually drow spit.

[beargryllz]

Drow traditionally employ poison. That would be why the drow NPCs include poison mechanics in their stat block. I, as the DM, generally include vials of sleep and/or damage poison in the loot tables after players dispatch drow. I think most DMs do the same.

If a player becomes proficient in poisoning, I'd allow them to treat their weapons and ammunition with poison like drow do. Even if they aren't proficient, they can probably improvise and still work poison into some kind of mechanical advantage in game. The problem here is that poisons are quite expensive, and most players would rather use their money for things other than poison.

Drow like poison and slaves. PCs like full plate mail and owning their own fortress. To each their own.

[odigity]

An Archmage, for example, isn't restricted to only the spells listed in his stat block

He is, however, restricted to spells that the players could theoretically also obtain and use.

[beargryllz]

He is, however, restricted to spells that the players could theoretically also obtain and use.

Says who? Did the players spend 30 years researching a new, unique spell? Because if the archmage did and the players didn't, why would the players have that spell?

[Dalebert]

JellyPooga, your response is probably the best answer I've gotten. To clarify, I think what makes it "legendary" is not how strong it is, though it is quite strong poison. It's that it apparently requires no action to put it on. They appear to put it on their weapons and it's just there for the rest of the day. A 13 DC to inflict the poisoned condition may not seem like much, but they get it with every bolt they shoot. Eventually, the odds get pretty bad for the PCs. And the damage of the veterans' poisoned swords is significant considering there's no save to take half.

I think I could press the "I believe" button easier if it said something like the drow can poison their sword with a bonus action and it lasts a minute, or they can poison three bolts with a bonus action, and maybe a blurb about how many doses they typically carry.


Says who? Did the players spend 30 years researching a new, unique spell? Because if the archmage did and the players didn't, why would the players have that spell?

I think he means that if you give them that spell, it's reasonable the characters might find his spellbook and then be able to cast it, so be careful what you give them.

[Mith]

I have always understood that drow crossbow darts are syringe like in that they inject a dose of poison into the target.

As for melee weapons, perhaps the scabbard has a means of coating the sword blade in poison every time it is drawn, with the poison stores being replenished every so often?

[JellyPooga]

I think I could press the "I believe" button easier if it said something like the drow can poison their sword with a bonus action and it lasts a minute, or they can poison three bolts with a bonus action, and maybe a blurb about how many doses they typically carry.

It would have made more sense if they did it that way, I agree, but at the end of the day all that really counts is that (in this case) "Drow usually have poisoned weapons", so that's all they included in the stat-block. Unless the PC's are going to see what's going on "behind the scenes", then you don't really need to know more than that. There's no reason, however, why you couldn't enforce a "stricter" approach and have them poison their weapons in the usual way by taking an action, using a dose from a limited supply, etc.


I think he means that if you give them that spell, it's reasonable the characters might find his spellbook and then be able to cast it, so be careful what you give them.

I think that's generally a solid piece of GMing advice. If you don't want the players to have it, don't put it in your campaign. It's the danger of having things like Adamantine doors that, inevitably, players will attempt to remove from its hinges, sell it and retire on the proceeds.

Having said that, there are ways around such things; in the case of the Archmage with a unique or off-list spell, you can have his spellbook hidden on a demiplane now inaccessible because the Archmage is dead or have the spell only work under certain conditions, like "whilst in the circle of power in Doom Mountain" or with restrictive material components like "the blood of an innocent, freshly drawn". Players play by the rules, GMs use rules as a guideline.

[Dalebert]

I have always understood that drow crossbow darts are syringe like in that they inject a dose of poison into the target.

As for melee weapons, perhaps the scabbard has a means of coating the sword blade in poison every time it is drawn, with the poison stores being replenished every so often?

Ok, sure, but just be aware then that the players now have that item that gets around normal action economy restrictions.

[Mith]

My understanding of the crossbolts is that it is basic "put in the prep time and resources and benefit". The darts will be more expensive and time consuming to make.

As for the sword scabbard, modify it as "after a hit, sword has to be sheathed and then drawn to regain a layer of viable poison." Does it speed up things? Yes. But I could expect that the investment of time and money could be a decent balance. Especially since they will have to constantly produce a poison supply.

Keep in mind, this was me spinning the rough idea off the top of my head. I won't be surprise if there is issues with the idea.

[Erys]

There's another poison on their swords that's also amazing, again no action needed to apply it

The crossbow bolts all being poisoned is not a biggie for me. I would allow PC's to have special tips or a special quiver to allow such a thing. The swords however, you are technically right. Same, I believe, goes for Assassins- they are supposed to get that poison on every attack.

I house ruled both that they have to follow PC rules and reapply after a successful hit (and usually they don't).

[Dalebert]

I house ruled both that they have to follow PC rules and reapply after a successful hit (and usually they don't).

Okay, but then doesn't that lower their CR? They seem built with the intention of that poison damage happening with every hit.

[odigity]

Okay, but then doesn't that lower their CR? They seem built with the intention of that poison damage happening with every hit.

Slap a "Manager's Special" sticker on it and mark it down a 1/2 CR like old steak.

[Erys]

Okay, but then doesn't that lower their CR? They seem built with the intention of that poison damage happening with every hit.

They didn't get a CR reduction when their short sword reach was cut back to 5'. :smallbiggrin:

I kid, but really- it is not worth the stress to reformat their CR. A squad of elites just getting that poison attack, each, in the first round is HUGE. Mix the fact that they are intelligent and would likely have their crossbows in use as well throughout the encounter; I would say they might even be a little under-conned.

Same with the assassin, he is going to open doing around a hundred damage on that first round. If it is so important that he keep poisoning after I would just give him a second blade and be done with it.

[JackPhoenix]

Perhaps the swords are blessed by Lolth to poison the target, and due to the nature of the blessing, it works only for the drow in question. Or it's enchanted with the same effect. Or it's not the sword but the drow himself who's blessed to better destroy Lolth's enemies.

[Knaight]

Perhaps the swords are blessed by Lolth to poison the target, and due to the nature of the blessing, it works only for the drow in question. Or it's enchanted with the same effect. Or it's not the sword but the drow himself who's blessed to better destroy Lolth's enemies.

This would work fairly well - the blessing is arguably more ubiquitous than it really should be, but Lolth could just be unusually interventionist.

[Zalabim]

The DMG errata has changes to poisons. The injury and contact poisons now last until cleaned or used, so it's easy to just poison all their crossbow bolts ahead of time. For the sword, I just assume that every poison-damaging drow melee weapon is made out of (or covered with) specially trained spiders that link together like modular construction machines. The spiders provide the poison on a continual basis. It is unwise to attempt to wield a slain drow's weapon.

[Feuerphoenix]

The DMG errata has changes to poisons. The injury and contact poisons now last until cleaned or used, so it's easy to just poison all their crossbow bolts ahead of time. For the sword, I just assume that every poison-damaging drow melee weapon is made out of (or covered with) specially trained spiders that link together like modular construction machines. The spiders provide the poison on a continual basis. It is unwise to attempt to wield a slain drow's weapon.

I am confused. On the one Hand you arme Right with your errata, but if I apply a drow poison in my weapon and fight with it, does it only last for the first successful hit? This would make poisons pretty pointless in a fight on which you have to waste another Action to apply a nee Dose of poison on your blade...

[fbelanger]

The drow poison is a magical substance, to use it you need a kind of atunement that can only made by a elite drow that worship Lolth.

The poison is made by a spell granted by Loth to high priestess and use the blood of an wood or high elf sacrificed to Lolth.

Simple

[mephnick]

I am confused. On the one Hand you arme Right with your errata, but if I apply a drow poison in my weapon and fight with it, does it only last for the first successful hit? This would make poisons pretty pointless in a fight on which you have to waste another Action to apply a nee Dose of poison on your blade...

Poisons are way too powerful to last for more than a hit. Also the thief can re-apply using a bonus action (Fast Hands) which probably should have just been a rogue class ability instead of a subclass ability.

[Dalebert]

I kid, but really- it is not worth the stress to reformat their CR. A squad of elites just getting that poison attack, each, in the first round is HUGE.

A difference of 10 hp per hit when you have two attacks is a difference almost 20 per round. The CR difference for that much dmg must also be HUGE.

[Erys]

A difference of 10 hp per hit when you have two attacks is a difference almost 20 per round. The CR difference for that much dmg must also be HUGE.

Meh, not in my experience.

Raise or lower the CR by one if it is such a big deal to you.

[RickAllison]

This reminds me of a blueprint I've been working on for our rogue! It is a shortsword and scabbard that is designed to keep the poison loaded in specific nodules and there is a notch near the base of the blade that tears the poison nodule as it is drawn, then reloads a new one when it is sheathed. Only one application per fight, but they can always start a fight with a poisoned blade, and they can re-poison it every other turn! (object interaction to put it away after a attack on one turn, draw it on the next using another object interaction)

[Socratov]

Regarding the crossbowbolts (and by extention also for arrows), have you considered that the drow mix their poison with clay to use as a base in ther cases and quivers? This would make it indeed no action to apply it, just a daily action to apply the poison the the bottom of the case/quover (read: dump the contents of a flask inot your quiver) and all your bolts/arrows are poisoned. As an added bonus the tips are wedged in the wet clay so the bolts/arrows don't fall out when they use spider climb in the tunnels.

This could also be explained by a spongue-like material at the bottom the the cases.

Then the swords, the same clay could be used at the top of the sheath: the application of the poison daily would be a bit trickier, but it has the same advnatage of poisoning the sword when drawn (and when stowed for that matter), and as an added bonus it can't fall out of its sheath when spiderwalking across the ceiling of the tunnels.

if you don't like clay, then consider a poison stone. In the novels of Raymond E. Feist there is talk of an assassin's stone or poison stone: it holds a few coses of poison in a slit so when the weapon's edge is drawn through the slit it will apply a coating of poison ot the edge. If hte stone is slightly porous capillary action will keep the poison in the stone and prevent it from running out. Buit into the scabbard or sheath will make sure the blade gets coated automatically. The fact that PC's only pick up the bolts/arrows/weapons and not the quivers/scabbards/sheaths/cases/etc. is not the DM's fault and coudl very well be the reason why drow blades are always poisonous, except when not used by drow. All because drow are clever and nobody has seen how.

[Dalebert]

The fact that PC's only pick up the bolts/arrows/weapons and not the quivers/scabbards/sheaths/cases/etc. is not the DM's fault and coudl very well be the reason why drow blades are always poisonous, except when not used by drow.

It would be quite a silly interpretation if the PCs said they loot the weapons and you assume they didn't also take the scabbards and sheaths. Of course they would take all of that unless they specifically said otherwise. Weapons are hugely impractical to carry around otherwise. You'd be handling them delicately so you don't cut yourself and blunting them all over the place by piling a bunch of unsheathed swords into a cart and what-not.

[Leith]

One could make a toxin, coat a knife with it and stab or cut someone with it repeatedly, each fresh injury introducing more of the toxin. It's just science. Eventually the toxin will run out or lose its potency but it could be a while depending on what you used and how often you inflict it.
The fact that drow can do this but not PCs is probably just down to laziness, and when the rules are lazy it's just WotC's way of saying 'leave it to the DM.'

[Grod_The_Giant]

The whole Monster Manual is lazy crap. Hundreds of monsters and maybe a dozen have thought beyond "hit points-attacks-NEXT!" If they didn't care enough to think about fights as more than a static exchange of attack rolls, are you really surprised that they didn't care enough to think about what happens next?

(Though for the record, I don't think the pre-poisoned weapons is that big a deal; it doesn't make much sense to use poison that rapidly loses its potency, and presumably the drow who just ambushed you prepared their weapons first. Given that they probably won't get off more than two or three shots, it's not really worth tracking exactly how many bolts they poisoned.)

[Socratov]

Might I turn Hanlon's Razor into the GitP razor?


Don't assume designer stupidity if it can be explained by lazy writing instead.

[RickAllison]

Might I turn Hanlon's Razor into the GitP razor?

Yeah... Laziness is a plague that mars the work of many an intelligent person.

You got a new avatar!

[Rowan Wolf]

Fun fact: it is a creature ability. The miracle toxin is actually drow spit.

I had a DM make that call in 3.5 as the poison was listed as an (EX) ability so it made thing interesting to say the least.

[Socratov]

Yeah... Laziness is a plague that mars the work of many an intelligent person.

You got a new avatar!

Yet lazyness is the virtue that has spurred us to become as succesful as we did (as a species).

As a matter of fact, I did. I found that my character from a game that has become truly dead and buried (even after 3 tries to resurrect/reanimate it again) was not cutting it anymore (even if it was a very awesome avatar) I have now commissioned an avatar of a character I currently play: a lightfoot halfling WM Sorcerer, travelling between games and currently in the process of ruining Count Strahd's day.

[djreynolds]

You assume that drow poison lasts only so long out of the underdark, like certain material from the underdark is destroyed in time by sun light.

Perhaps drow raiding parties use this sleep poison but it has a shelf life of a few days above ground. And since most drow I would suppose only go to the surface at night because of sun blindness, you could throw this in there as well.

When using drow poison in direct daylight, the ""attacked"" might have advantage on the roll because the poison is starting to degrade.

[Shaofoo]

The whole Monster Manual is lazy crap. Hundreds of monsters and maybe a dozen have thought beyond "hit points-attacks-NEXT!" If they didn't care enough to think about fights as more than a static exchange of attack rolls, are you really surprised that they didn't care enough to think about what happens next?

(Though for the record, I don't think the pre-poisoned weapons is that big a deal; it doesn't make much sense to use poison that rapidly loses its potency, and presumably the drow who just ambushed you prepared their weapons first. Given that they probably won't get off more than two or three shots, it's not really worth tracking exactly how many bolts they poisoned.)

Do people in general care what happens next? Considering here we get our knickers in a twist when there were the new feats with +1 to attack rolls seems to me that Hit Points-Attack-NEXT is how people roll. And considering that we sure love our whiteroom analysis around these parts a static exchange of attack rolls is apparently how people see the game (to the extent that they can't dissasociate individual turns as it all happening at once and instead people really do take turns in the actual play in combat) I doubt stating out the social intricacies of goblins would matter if people only see them as something to poke with a stick/sword/arrow/fireball.

If you care then I am sure you probably have done something about it, if you didn't then you never cared.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Do people in general care what happens next? Considering here we get our knickers in a twist when there were the new feats with +1 to attack rolls seems to me that Hit Points-Attack-NEXT is how people roll. And considering that we sure love our whiteroom analysis around these parts a static exchange of attack rolls is apparently how people see the game (to the extent that they can't dissasociate individual turns as it all happening at once and instead people really do take turns in the actual play in combat) I doubt stating out the social intricacies of goblins would matter if people only see them as something to poke with a stick/sword/arrow/fireball.

If you care then I am sure you probably have done something about it, if you didn't then you never cared.
For once I find myself in agreement with you-- it IS irritating when people get hung up on irrelevant numerical differences and white-room DPR analysis. But I, for one, want the game to be more than an exchange of attack rolls, and I expect WotC to support that. If I paid $60 for a book of monsters, I want it to give me stuff I couldn't do myself with that little chart in the DMG. I want monsters that lend themselves to interesting fights, monsters that follow the general rules for the game, monsters that can be run right out of the book without spending twenty minutes trying to make up new thematic abilities. I want a little more written material and a little less "make it up yourself!" I want the book I paid for, and the fact that I CAN make it up myself has no bearing on that-- most people haven't invested the kind of time I have into system mechanics.

Tl;dr: WotC, please remember that it's easier to simplify than expand on things.