D&D 5e Powergamer's Tactics Room Showdown Series: Poisons

[Bilbron]

Ever casually take down a Beholder in one round? With poison, you can!

8:46

https://youtu.be/ClhjpaMfaxc

[Corran]

Poisons! That's an interesting topic that isn't talked about that much. Great idea for a video.

Hmm, I rule differently on contact poisons. I think injury poisons dont mean to be a subset of contact poisons in term of how we can use them (that is, I dont allow contact poisons to be used on weapons/ammunition). That's why contact poisons usually have a more serious effect than similar injury poisons (eg compare drow poison to oil of taggit), ie because it's not as easy to apply them during combat as injury poisons are. I dunno, maybe the difference in prices or something else I haven't thought of is enough to justify the difference in effect, or maybe the difference in effect is not meant to be justified. But still, there is something about ruling that contact poisons can act as injury poisons that does not sit well with me, so I am mostly mentioning this to see what you and others think on this one, and to see if there is anything that can change my mind on it.

Edit:
Cannot say I am surprised that essence of ether won it, though I expected purple worm poison to pose more competition (in a way that something like a hold monster can be competitive to something like banishment, ie kill something fast when simply bypassing or divide and conquer do not work; though the difference in price and presumably in rarity kind of make your case, and besides, essence f ether is not exactly bad when trying to kill something quickly).

Pale tincture is an easy way to spice things up when the pc's are doing something like travelling with the ship for some time. You know, for when someone poisoning the rum sounds more plausible than a random disease. But since the video was about poison during combat, let me not derail.

ps: Poison as a topic, becomes far more interesting IMO when we are looking at it from a DM's perspective. Cause most of the effects debuff for a long time and in ways that are more debilitating to pc's, who are always in the spotlight and who are usually the ones expected to make progress. I think it'd be interesting to revisit this topic through this angle (nasty DM? instead of powergamer's tactics; I dunno, dont have a good name for that) at some point in the future.

[Bilbron]

Poisons! That's an interesting topic that isn't talked about that much. Great idea for a video.

Hmm, I think I rule differently on contact poisons. I think injury poisons dont mean to be a subset of contact poisons in term of how we can use them (that is, I dont allow contact poisons to be used on weapons/ammunition). That's why contact poisons usually have a more serious effect than similar injury poisons (eg compare drow poison to oil of Taggit), ie because it's not as easy to apply them during combat as injury poisons are. I dunno, maybe the difference in prices or something else I haven't thought of is enough to justify the difference in effect, or maybe the difference in effect is not meant to be justified. But still, there is something about ruling that contact poisons can act as injury poisons that does not sit well with me, so I am mostly mentioning this to see what you and others think on this one, and to see if there is anything that can change my mind on it.

Carrying on with watching the rest of the video.

It says straight up that it applies when touched, but I suppose a DM could rule very strictly in regards to the "exposed skin" requirement. But a weapon that penetrates and does damage would certainly contact the skin, I'd imagine.

[Corran]

It says straight up that it applies when touched, but I suppose a DM could rule very strictly in regards to the "exposed skin" requirement. But a weapon that penetrates and does damage would certainly contact the skin, I'd imagine.
Yeah, I suppose you are right. Rereading this part again, the most strict RAW reading I can manage, is saying that the contact poison is used up if the weapon comes into (sufficient) contact with something other than skin (eg a blow that hits the shield, or that hits the armor but fails to penetrate it). Which would be a mess of trying to keep track of. I would be interested to see what's the RAI are on the subject, but this is more of a tangent that does not merit much discussion.

============
Ha, I was about to nitpick that malice could in fact work better than the likes of essence of ether and oil of taggit against a beholder, but I forgot that the beholder has fly with hover attached to it. So it doesn't actually fall, so there'll be no falling damage to shake off unconsciousness (or need for feather fall to prevent it).

[x3n0n]

Not much to say here: this is clearly the right answer under almost any circumstances.

("Almost": things that aren't immune to poison and don't need to breathe; contact can beat inhaled there. I agree that it's not worth a digression in the text.)

Again, kudos for a tight presentation and good argumentation.

[MaxWilson]

It says straight up that it applies when touched, but I suppose a DM could rule very strictly in regards to the "exposed skin" requirement. But a weapon that penetrates and does damage would certainly contact the skin, I'd imagine.

I'd be on the fence about it except that AD&D has already established a precedent: in D&D, contact poisons can be applied to weapons as if they were injective poisons.

Nice video, very thought-provoking. The antimagic zone example is compelling. You've definitely got me thinking about milking carrion crawlers as a player and/or using more carrion crawlers in my game, and/or using Torpor to incapacitate Purple Worms and harvest their poison.

I thought the pacing was nice: establish an early leader (Oil of Taggit) and then hold the dark horse for the very end (Essence of Ether).

Good video!

[Ir0ns0ul]

Just passing by to shout out for this great video! Awesome advices. Adelina is getting cooler and funnier at each video!

I never really paid attention to poisons, but they can be huge at the hands of my Diviner with a good low roll from Portent.

[MaxWilson]

One aspect worth considering is that Contact and Injury poisons, unlike Inhaled poisons, can benefit from Extra Attack and are easier to use at range (smear them on your arrowheads). For example, a mid-level Fighter can fairly easily force an enemy to make 2-3 Con saves vs. paralyzation using Carrion Crawler venom on his arrows.

[Klorox]

Cool video, thank you for sharing.

I can never remember ever using poison as a player; not even once.

I think it's probably from the 1e stating that poison use is inherently evil, and that just stuck with me.

[Tanarii]

It says straight up that it applies when touched, but I suppose a DM could rule very strictly in regards to the "exposed skin" requirement. But a weapon that penetrates and does damage would certainly contact the skin, I'd imagine.Why? Hit point damage, or being "hit", does not mean the attack made any contact with the target. They may have entirely dodged, deflected, or lucked out and avoided the attack. Hit point are not meat in D&D.

If an attack says it does point damage on a hit this is not an issue (e.g monster attacks). But for contact poisons it definitely is a DM ruling.

[OvisCaedo]

Why? Hit point damage, or being "hit", does not mean the attack made any contact with the target. They may have entirely dodged, deflected, or lucked out and avoided the attack. Hit point are not meat in D&D.

If an attack says it does point damage on a hit this is not an issue (e.g monster attacks). But for contact poisons it definitely is a DM ruling.

So if someone is using an "injury" poison, every one of their attacks that hits automatically makes actual contact to the target, but an otherwise identical successful attack with "contact" poison may or may not have really hit them based on the DM's mood? Hit points and "rider" effects always make for such a silly scenario... but I guess superhuman durability also tends to come across as silly.

though it's certainly possible that contact poisons weren't meant to also be usable as injury poisons for balance reasons. Though I don't think a whole lot of balance fine-tuning likely went into them or how they're worded, since they're just sort of tucked away into a DMG page and don't seem like they're really expected to come up often.

[Zhorn]

Why? Hit point damage, or being "hit", does not mean the attack made any contact with the target. They may have entirely dodged, deflected, or lucked out and avoided the attack. Hit point are not meat in D&D.

If an attack says it does point damage on a hit this is not an issue (e.g monster attacks). But for contact poisons it definitely is a DM ruling.
Well... more accurately Hit Points in 5e are not just meat.

Hit Points
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with m ore hit points are m ore difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are m ore fragile.
A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.
Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points.

Describing the Effects of Damage
Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.

The argument's been done to death with whole threads dedicated to the topic, but generally Hit Points can be narratively described in any number of ways that may or may not involve meat, but there are mechanics who's narrative is that a significant change in current Hit Point involves meat in some capacity.
It also just sounds odd to explain a hit is not a hit, but still reduces Hit Points, which can be restored by an ability called Cure Wounds, but there was no wound since there was no hit that wasn't not a hit? :smallconfused:

As far as treating contact poisons as injury poisons, that's a little too rules lawyer for my tastes to argue getting injured by a weapon coated in a contact poison will never inflict poison effects onto the target.
A hit with piercing/slashing damage contacting and penetrating the skin? Sure I can see a case for that.
A hit with bludgeoning damage over an armored/clothed section of the body preventing contact, sure I can see that case also, just as a bludgeon across exposed skin makes sense as contact to me also.
Agreed this is definitely an area for DM ruling. Not because of any RAW against it, just that there's more nuance than the rules cover explicitly here.

[Corran]

Why? Hit point damage, or being "hit", does not mean the attack made any contact with the target. They may have entirely dodged, deflected, or lucked out and avoided the attack. Hit point are not meat in D&D.

If an attack says it does point damage on a hit this is not an issue (e.g monster attacks). But for contact poisons it definitely is a DM ruling.
That's not being debated. Certainly if a DM rules that there is no wound/contact until the target is reduced to X hit points or less, that would hurt both injury and contact poisons. The context was if contact poisons can be applied to weapons/ammunition, or if that is something that you can do only with injury poisons (to which the op is saying yes; I find it a little strange from a balance perspective, but I guess availability is a big enough thing to justify why suboptimal poisons are still being used instead of having simply been replaced entirely by the stronger versions, ie contact poisons).

Now that I am thinking of it, hp abstraction could in fact be potentially another factor that is in favor of contact poisons when comparing them to injury poison (cause contact can be easier to justify than injury, when taking into account hp abstraction). And it certainly hurts poisoned ammunition more than using poison with a melee weapon.

[Unoriginal]

Contact poison needs to be absorbed by the skin, and injury poison needs to be absorbed by the bloodstream, correct?

I don't think putting contact poison on a blade and then cutting someone with it would work for the "absorbed by the skin" part. It'd either not be in contact enough or get diluted into uselessness by the blood from the injury.

The poison rules says:


Contact poison can be smeared on an object and remains potent until it is touched or washed off. A creature that touches contact poison with exposed skin suffers its effects.



Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects

So I don't think the expectation is that you can apply contact poison to a weapon and deliver it through injury. Definitively DM's call, though.

[MaxWilson]

Why? Hit point damage, or being "hit", does not mean the attack made any contact with the target. They may have entirely dodged, deflected, or lucked out and avoided the attack. Hit point are not meat in D&D.

The fact that poison works on a hit has always been one of the many evidences that HP are an actual, physical reality in D&D--an argument dating back to TSR days. But I digress...

[JellyPooga]

Nice video.

I'd have liked to have seen a little more discussion, or at least a mention, of the glaring downsides. Namely the "shake awake" and "damage awakes" conditions. Both are serious downsides in any fight involving more than one opponent.

I'd also have liked to have seen at least a mention of how good some of the Ingested poisons really are. While not viable once combat is drawn, their application can easily level the playing field in larger encounters or even avoid a combat altogether. Torpor inflicts Incapacitated for a minimum of 4 hours...that's tantamount to the same "win" button if you can get it to stick, without the risk of the "shake/slap awake".

Ingested Poisons can also be cost and action efficient. A diluted dose is up to the GM to adjudicate, but the rules suggest advantage on saving throws and reduced damage. In the case of a "duration" poison like Torpor, this could either manifest as the mentioned advantage or as reduced duration (something to discuss with your GM of course), meaning that a single dose into a collective meal or drink (e.g. a stew pot or water source) could put some or even all of a large number of enemies out of action.

Fun stuff about Torpor; it inflicts Poisoned and Incapacitated, but notably not Unconscious. Meaning that while they cannot take actions/reactions, a victim is still aware of what's occurring and can still move, talk, etc. albeit with Disadvantage from Poisoned. In a dinner scenario, this might manifest as appearing or even feeling extremely inebriated rather than "keel over poisoned", lowering the chance of alerting other diners to the danger on their plate/in their mug. I suspect it also might make it potentially recreational.

[elyktsorb]

I mean, if you get access to the poison in the first place.

[JellyPooga]

I mean, if you get access to the poison in the first place.

Accessing poisons is going to be very GM dependent, of course, but the real question is whether your character is the kind of person that is willing, let alone able, to obtain and use poison. There's a very strong moral concern inherent to the use of poison, but it's one that's tied up with cultural bias, tradition and perceptions. A pragmatic assassin, for example, is probably not going to have too many objections to poison use, but a chivalrous knight may well find himself honour-bound to object to his associates even thinking about using such underhand methods. Then again, perhaps your character or even an entire adventure is from/set in a culture that abhors the use of physical violence or bloodshed and considers the use of poison to settle extreme differences to be a cleaner, more humane and more civilised mode of aggression; different poisons for different "crimes", tailored to have the precise effect desired. Maybe you perceive the creatures you fight as little more than vermin to be eradicated by any means necessary, whilst having strong moral objection to using poison on so-called "civilised" races; a stance that might raise an eyebrow at that "Good" alignment you have written on your character sheet.

[elyktsorb]

Accessing poisons is going to be very GM dependent, of course, but the real question is whether your character is the kind of person that is willing, let alone able, to obtain and use poison. There's a very strong moral concern inherent to the use of poison, but it's one that's tied up with cultural bias, tradition and perceptions. A pragmatic assassin, for example, is probably not going to have too many objections to poison use, but a chivalrous knight may well find himself honour-bound to object to his associates even thinking about using such underhand methods. Then again, perhaps your character or even an entire adventure is from/set in a culture that abhors the use of physical violence or bloodshed and considers the use of poison to settle extreme differences to be a cleaner, more humane and more civilised mode of aggression; different poisons for different "crimes", tailored to have the precise effect desired. Maybe you perceive the creatures you fight as little more than vermin to be eradicated by any means necessary, whilst having strong moral objection to using poison on so-called "civilised" races; a stance that might raise an eyebrow at that "Good" alignment you have written on your character sheet.

Eh.. In the world of dnd where numerous sorts of things exist that are worse than poison (heat metal for example, love being cooked alive in your own armor) the moral quandary of using poison seems like less of a concern.

[Tanarii]

Eh.. In the world of dnd where numerous sorts of things exist that are worse than poison (heat metal for example, love being cooked alive in your own armor) the moral quandary of using poison seems like less of a concern.
Oh I'm sure that there would certainly be some in universe that would consider use of magic cheating, at the least. If not outright evil. Just as IRL there were some that would consider uneven odds or missile fire cheating. If not outright evil.

OTOH poison use was pretty universally reviled and viewed as evil. It doesn't seem to be so much any more. But that's probably because we don't have to worry about if we have to defend ourself again an enemy with a sword or pistol, let alone poisoning us. The "underhanded" aspect of bypassing standard defenses isn't particularly important, because we're not generally in danger for our life. But pretty sure we all recognize that they're associated with assassins and ninja, the epitome of underhanded evil killing. (Glorification of Ninja in the 80s Hollywood cheap action movies aside.)

[Unoriginal]

Oh I'm sure that there would certainly be some in universe that would consider use of magic cheating, at the least. If not outright evil. Just as IRL there were some that would consider uneven odds or missile fire cheating. If not outright evil.

OTOH poison use was pretty universally reviled and viewed as evil. It doesn't seem to be so much any more. But that's probably because we don't have to worry about if we have to defend ourself again an enemy with a sword or pistol, let alone poisoning us. The "underhanded" aspect of bypassing standard defenses isn't particularly important, because we're not generally in danger for our life. But pretty sure we all recognize that they're associated with assassins and ninja, the epitome of underhanded evil killing. (Glorification of Ninja in the 80s Hollywood cheap action movies aside.)

Same way as using a bow or a sniper rifle (or most weapons that have a longer range than the one of your opponents, really) in warfare was/is reviled and seen as underhanded/cowardly/dishonorable by a lot of cultures.

Or how getting five allies to back you up to fight one enemy was/is reviled and seen as underhanded/cowardly/dishonorable by a lot of cultures.

Or how ambushing your opponents was/is reviled and seen as underhanded/cowardly/dishonorable by a lot of cultures.

Or how any method to beat/kill while giving little to not chance for the target to retaliate was/is...

But at the same time, all of the above, including the use of poison, are also praised as being smart/pragmatic/a way to succeed despite the odds/the mark of a competent tactician, oftentime by the same cultures.


Like many thing, it depends on context. An honorable knight would probably object to getting magic, poison or any outside help for a proper duel, but if they're fine with a fight to the death including 6 PCs against 1 boss, when the boss is blinded by magic and keeps getting stabbed in the kidneys by the Rogue, then they have little reason to object to the use of poison.

In particular, poison was reviled because a society where you can just poison someone and get away with it is self-destructive. But did that stop soldiers for putting their weapons in the pile of manure to make so their enemies died from infection, when the chips were down and an edge was needed? More often than not, it didn't.

[Bilbron]

I'd also have liked to have seen at least a mention of how good some of the Ingested poisons really are.
You know, this is a good idea for a followup vid, thanks! A look at these would be very interesting, I think. A powergamer should certainly have the ability to poison a banquet, if need be (totally not kidding).


Accessing poisons is going to be very GM dependent, of course, but the real question is whether your character is the kind of person that is willing, let alone able, to obtain and use poison.
Agreed, and I do mention it in the vid. My DM is allowing only my character to access and use poisons (Trickster Cleric levels with Criminal-Spy background), and the others can't (and don't want to). Plus I've never actually used them, as I only use nonrenewable resources in a Critical Threat encounter, and I've only had a couple of those and they were against targets immune to poison. Well, except for Drow Poison, I have so many of those and they do come in handy, lol.

[Osuniev]

Ever casually take down a Beholder in one round? With poison, you can!

8:46

https://youtu.be/ClhjpaMfaxc


You need AT LEAST 4 doses and 4 players using it, and you'll still have a 95 % chance to fail. A Beholder has got 3 Legendary Resistances so will succeed on at least 3 Saving Throws... EDIT : ACTUALLY, I was wrong about that. My bad.

And of course, with +4 constitution Save, he's got 11/20 chances of MAKING each save. So to get it on turn 1, you need him to fail ALL four (so (9/20)^4), so 4.1 % of that happening. Then comes its turn, and you can be damn sure that with an Intelligence of 17, he's levitating away from your ether. Also, you have 95.9 % chance of having spend 4 actions just removing its legendary resistances (and maybe not all !!)

Of course, EVEN if it failed all 4 saves, if it has a smart enough minion fighting with it, the minion will shake it (if using Essence of Ether) or attack it (if using Taggit Oil) to wake him up.

(Note that Purple Worm poison will still do half damage on a save !)

[MaxWilson]

You know, this is a good idea for a followup vid, thanks! A look at these would be very interesting, I think. A powergamer should certainly have the ability to poison a banquet, if need be (totally not kidding).


In addition to banquets, other delivery methods are possible, e.g. Suggestion, Command: "drink!", poisoning the carcass of a dead cow placed on the monster's hunting route, kidnapping Buttercup and holding her at knife point for a battle of wits...


You need AT LEAST 4 doses and 4 players using it, and you'll still have a 95 % chance to fail. A Beholder has got 3 Legendary Resistances so will succeed on at least 3 Saving Throws... And of course, with +4 constitution Save, he's got 11/20 chances of MAKING each save. So to get it on turn 1, you need him to fail ALL four (so (9/20)^4), so 4.1 % of that happening. Then comes its turn, and you can be... sure that with an Intelligence of 17, he's levitating away from your ether. Also, you have 95.1 % chance of having spend 4 actions just removing its legendary resistances (and maybe not all !!)

Of course, EVEN if it failed all 4 saves, if it has a smart enough minion fighting with it, the minion will attack it to wake him up.

Beholders have legendary actions but no legendary resistance, so none of that math applies.

I agree that minions are key though, otherwise a simple Darkness spell neuters a beholder down to its pathetic bite attack. It's why I like the paralyzation option (Carrion Crawler) as much or more than the unconsciousness option.

[Unoriginal]

You know, this is a good idea for a followup vid, thanks! A look at these would be very interesting, I think. A powergamer should certainly have the ability to poison a banquet, if need be (totally not kidding)

You play in an Underdark campaign, IIRC, right?

Poisoning the food/beverage supplies of enemies who have to travel in the Underdark certainly is a way to deal with them, or at least considerably slow them down. Doubly so if they're not used to the particular area they have to travel through.

[Bilbron]

In addition to banquets, other delivery methods are possible, e.g. Suggestion, Command: "drink!", poisoning the carcass of a dead cow placed on the monster's hunting route, kidnapping Buttercup and holding her at knife point for a battle of wits...

Beholders have legendary actions but no legendary resistance, so none of that math applies.

I agree that minions are key though, otherwise a simple Darkness spell neuters a beholder down to its pathetic bite attack. It's why I like the paralyzation option (Carrion Crawler) as much or more than the unconsciousness option.
Excellent points, the Command option is intriguing.

The nature of the Showdown Series is that only one walks away, but of course a powergamer should have a wide variety of poisons to use on a case-by-case basis. I use Drow Poison bolts pretty heavily... talk to your DM, he might let you animate hand crossbows as Tiny Servants ;-)

[MaxWilson]

Excellent points, the Command option is intriguing.

The nature of the Showdown Series is that only one walks away, but of course a powergamer should have a wide variety of poisons to use on a case-by-case basis. I use Drow Poison bolts pretty heavily... talk to your DM, he might let you animate hand crossbows as Tiny Servants ;-)

There are also monsters which swallow you as part of their attack routine, e.g. the Tarrasque, Purple Worms. Being able to simply dump a bunch of poison doses (Torpor?) on the inside of their stomach before Dimension Dooring away could come in handy, no?

[Unoriginal]

I agree that minions are key though, otherwise a simple Darkness spell neuters a beholder down to its pathetic bite attack.

Untrue. A Beholder can use their telekinesis ray to lift and throw heavy objects (or objects dangerous for other reasons, like acid jugs or bear traps) on creatures who are into the Antimagic Cone.

IMO no Beholder Lair is complete without a huge amount of statues, weapons and other throwable dangers the Beholder wouldn't have forgotten to prepare in advance for such eventuality. Although it may be the Lords of Madness fan in me speaking.


There are also monsters which swallow you as part of their attack routine, e.g. the Tarrasque, Purple Worms. Being able to simply dump a bunch of poison doses (Torpor?) on the inside of their stomach before Dimension Dooring away could come in handy, no?

Contact poison is a great way to handle swarms, as I found out when I allowed one of my players to try out the Grung.

[MaxWilson]

Untrue. A Beholder can use their telekinesis ray to lift and throw heavy objects (or objects dangerous for other reasons, like acid jugs or bear traps) on creatures who are into the Antimagic Cone.

Beholder Telekinesis is only 1 roll in 10, still requires sight, and doesn't allow throwing, but under the right circumstances the Beholder might get to throw an acid jug or topple a heavy pillar every couple of rounds. Are you really saying that this means they don't need minions?

[Osuniev]

Beholders have legendary actions but no legendary resistance, so none of that math applies.

Uh.

And here I was feeling so smug about it. I was wrong, and you're right. Thanks for correcting me.

(still 55% chance he'll make the FIRST save though, 30 % he'll make the first two...)

[MaxWilson]

Uh.

And here I was feeling so smug about it. I was wrong, and you're right. Thanks for correcting me.

(still 55% chance he'll make the FIRST save though, 30 % he'll make the first two...)

My humble apologies, but with +4 vs. DC 15 for Essence of Ether, a Beholder needs an 11-20 to save successfully, so it's actually 50%, exactly as Bilbron said in his video.

[Unoriginal]

Beholder Telekinesis is only 1 roll in 10, still requires sight, and doesn't allow throwing, but under the right circumstances the Beholder might get to throw an acid jug or topple a heavy pillar every couple of rounds. Are you really saying that this means they don't need minions?

Of course not. I'm addressing the fact that they're not reduced to their bite.

Even if you rule out that throwing does not count under "fine control" (that the telekinesis ray does allow), then the Beholder can lift the 300lbs item in the air and drop it on one of the enemies who are in their antimagic cone. I know DMs aren't going to rule the same about that at every table, but having half of a petrified adventurer fall on them oftentime causes the PCs to rethink their strategies.

[MaxWilson]

Of course not. I'm addressing the fact that they're not reduced to their bite.

Okay, then I agree. They can also Dodge, Dash, use magic items, potentially apply poisons, and once every couple of rounds use a Telekinesis Ray on whatever is neither in Darkness nor antimagic. This is much, much less capability than they normally have, ergo you need minions who can operate in antimagic zones, so that enemies are caught between a rock (eye rays) and a hard place (minions who can't be Fireballed/etc. because they're in an antimagic zone).

Did I really have to spell that out?

[Unoriginal]

Did I really have to spell that out?

Not really, no, you could have just said "alright, it's true the Beholder's damage dealing options aren't entirely limited to biting if the PCs are in a Darkness AoE, doesn't change my point on minions". To which I would agree, and I never denied that fact.

Against any reasonable threat, a Beholder without minions is called "fleeing". Preferably through an escape route their highly tactical and paranoid mind prepared well in advance. Unless the Beholder is too enraged to think or if they literally can't escape, in which case they're called "suicide by adventurers".

[Bilbron]

My humble apologies, but with +4 vs. DC 15 for Essence of Ether, a Beholder needs an 11-20 to save successfully, so it's actually 50%, exactly as Bilbron said in his video.

Also, I decided not to go into this in the video, but I would also use my interact with object to drop a few more doses of Essence of Ether on the ground and instruct my colleagues to use it on their turn. So if my EoE didn't stick, he'd have a few more to face before his next turn. 2x colleagues means 87.5% chance of 1st round KO.

Sleet Storm on top of him and clean up the minions, barring a clever lieutenant.

[Unoriginal]

Sleet Storm on top of him and clean up the minions, barring a clever lieutenant.

What would the purpose of Sleet Storm be in this situation?

[Bilbron]

What would the purpose of Sleet Storm be in this situation?Hopefully to disable the minions from reviving him from unconsciousness, specifically, and disable his eyebeams if they manage to succeed at it, but also as a general great way to wipe out minions.

[Valmark]

Hopefully to disable the minions from reviving him from unconsciousness, specifically, and disable his eyebeams if they manage to succeed at it, but also as a general great way to wipe out minions.

Note that Sleet Storm doesn't deal damage nor incapacitate enemies so you probably aren't wiping anybody out with it (though it can help indirectly).

[Bilbron]

Note that Sleet Storm doesn't deal damage nor incapacitate enemies so you probably aren't wiping anybody out with it (though it can help indirectly).In fairness, originally I said "and" clean up minions, not "to" clean up minions. My intent was that you'd still have some work ahead.

[MaxWilson]

Not really, no, you could have just said "alright, it's true the Beholder's damage dealing options aren't entirely limited to biting if the PCs are in a Darkness AoE, doesn't change my point on minions". To which I would agree, and I never denied that fact.

I suppose the confusion is the fact that you said "Untrue" but didn't specify what you were calling out as untrue. Your post made it look like you expected the beholder to still be highly effective on his own without minions, due to statues/weapons/whatnot.

[Unoriginal]

I suppose the confusion is the fact that you said "Untrue" but didn't specify what you were calling out as untrue. Your post made it look like you expected the beholder to still be highly effective on his own without minions, due to statues/weapons/whatnot.

I apologize for the miscommunication.