Anyone else thing poisons are a bit lame?

[Sigreid]

I've been thinking a bit lately about poisons and I've come to the conclusion that they just aren't scary after a certain level. So I've been thinking of inserting some poisons that don't do hit point damage on a failed save but instead have a number of turns where a save must be made or the target gains a level of exhaustion. The desire is two fold. First, to make at least some poisons scary at all levels. Second, to have those same poisons have an effect that lasts for days.

Thoughts?

[Grey Watcher]

I've been thinking a bit lately about poisons and I've come to the conclusion that they just aren't scary after a certain level. So I've been thinking of inserting some poisons that don't do hit point damage on a failed save but instead have a number of turns where a save must be made or the target gains a level of exhaustion. The desire is two fold. First, to make at least some poisons scary at all levels. Second, to have those same poisons have an effect that lasts for days.

Thoughts?

I do like this idea, but an arguably bigger reason why poisons lose their narrative oomph is because there are just so many options for treating various effects. While having a poison inflict exhaustion keeps it dangerous for a few more levels, once you hit 9th level, someone can almost certainly cast Greater Restoration, so now it's just using up spell slots, just like having to use Cure Wounds to undo HP damage.

I do still like the idea. Reminds me of some house rules I once toyed with to change a Vampire's blood drain from HP loss to Exhaustion. I think it's a nice system for modeling problems that bypass the overall hardiness that HP represents.

[qube]

I've been thinking a bit lately about poisons and I've come to the conclusion that they just aren't scary after a certain level. So I've been thinking of inserting some poisons that don't do hit point damage on a failed save but instead have a number of turns where a save must be made or the target gains a level of exhaustion. The desire is two fold. First, to make at least some poisons scary at all levels. Second, to have those same poisons have an effect that lasts for days.

Thoughts?Depends.

If we're talking about poisons that can just be applied to a weapon ... I'd say no. (weapon based combat would get a serious power boost, able to solo stuff)

(on the other hand: variant rule: a rogues sneak attack could do does poison damage insted of normal damage)

If we're talking 'elaborate plan to poison someone', I'd go for it. (the poisoning isn't an "attack" - it's a story tool (a plot hook or conclusion to a encounter) )

[PhoenixPhyre]

As a note, exhaustion is only a threat to PCs unless you can stack it up quick.

Poisoned is actually a nasty condition, unless you're only doing one fight a day. And if you're doing that, exhaustion isn't any more of a threat.

[Elastoid]

Widespread immunity to poison damage and the poisoned condition is the biggest problem with poison. The second biggest is that it's a CON save and a lot of monsters that aren't immune to poison still have pretty beefy CON saves.

You can give high-level characters "save or die" poisons and they're still not going to be particularly effective.

[Dr. Cliché]

As I see it, there are a few problems with poisons:

1) A lot of poisons inflict hit point damage, and hit points are an awful mechanic when you're trying to make a narrative situation threatening.

"Stop or I'll shoot!" shouts the barman, aiming the crossbow at the fighter's head.
"So what?" asks the Fighter, "I've got 85 hit points."

And while there are a few strong poisons, the vast majority do pitiful damage, which can be halved if the target passes a pitifully low Con save.


2) Added to this, there are a plethora of spells and abilities that can cure poison, including ones as low as 2nd level. So most effects are unlikely to last long - especially on party members or against influential NPCs. Not to mention the fact that many monsters are outright immune to poison damage and to the poisoned condition.

It's a shame, because the idea of trying to subtly poison a noble, rather than fighting him openly, seems like a fun idea with a lot of potential. But in most cases, rather than the person dropping dead during their evening meal, they'll instead have a mild stomach upset and will be fine by morning.


3) Especially with the above in mind, poisons are ludicrously expensive, relative to their actual effectiveness. Assassin's Blood, for example, does 1d12 poison damage and poisons the target for 24 hours. The latter might be strong... except the saving throw DC is a mere 10. And a single dose of this poison costs 150gp. Oh, and did I mention that it's an ingested poison?

Maybe if Assassins and such could actually craft poisons, but RAW the only poison you can craft is absolute garbage.

[Sigreid]

Thanks for the feedback. I think I need to clarify a few things.

1. The way I see this working, poisons wouldn't be a one and done on saves. Maybe a week poison would be one successful save and done, but stronger poisons would have 2, 3, 4 or even more saves that had to be made each round or minute depending on the poison with one save holding off the effect and not neutralizing it completely. So if you had a 4 saves, once per round poison you could make it, make it, make it, fail and get one level of exhaustion. Save DC's wouldn't have to be high for it to be a serious threat. Neutralize poison and greater restoration would certainly have much greater value.

2. The objective I'm looking for is for the players to have more of a reason to worry about poison. I don't see my players really letting a fight their winning last long enough for exhaustion to be a better option than hp damage.

Anyway, I just find poisons kind of lame and uninteresting as they are so am thinking of ways to have some, but not all poisons be something you can't just level/hd out of worrying about.

[Quietus]

Are you looking to make them more interesting for players to use, or for players to be subject to? Those are very different situations. A recurring save against exhaustion is going to be brutal if applied against a PC, but it would make an interesting tool for them to use against monsters.

[Segev]

It’s noteworthy that creatures with poison attacks can be milked for their venom. Proficiency with poisoner’s tools lets you do so mostly without risk. Handle animal may also be needed. But keep some venomous pets. A familiar or animal companion or charmed animal might work.

The DC isn’t great, but with enough doses, even centipede or spider venom can become a little extra effect.

[Chronic]

I tend to be quite extreme with poisons. Any lethal poison trigger death saving throws, as if a player fell to 0 hit point, he can still act normally but is otherwise following the normal rules. Since the character isn't actually at 0 hit points, healing is useless, only anti poison spells and the like of restauration works. Anti venom vial provide advantage on the saving throws, antidote cure the poison but is fairly expensive.
humanoid using poison is rather common in my setting, since the art of poison is such an important aspect of politics.
and that's just for non magical poisons.

[elyktsorb]

Yes I think poisons are exceptionally lame. Mainly because all the good ones require your dm to hand them to you to use, and all the not so good ones are just that, not so good. Combined with them being clunky to use mid-combat for most characters, as well as there being a pool of creatures large enough (as well as these creatures being somewhat common trope creatures, IE, undead and devils) that are straight up immune to poison, it makes using them fairly pointless.

Adding exhaustion to this seems fairly pointless, since this will mostly just effect players, since odds are, if your using poison on a creature or enemy, your going to kill that enemy, making exhaustion moderately pointless unless you inflict it immediately. Furthermore, this doesn't really effect fights until the 3rd level of exhaustion and if you got to that point, well then whatever your fighting is pretty much going to lose, but if you got it into that position, it's sort of like a 'win more' option.

If you have the ability to fight a creature and apply enough poison to get it to a 3rd lvl of exhaustion using poison, either the fight just got ridiculously easy, or the fight was easy to begin with and getting the target to Exhaustion 3 is basically just 'well now they stand no chance'

[Xetheral]

The better poisons can be some of the strongest debuffs in the game. The inhaled poison Malice costs 250gp per dose, but it's a DC 15 Con save or be blinded for an entire hour, with no follow-up saves. Blinded completely shuts down most spellcasters. A Thief Rogue can force two such saves per turn since they can Use an Item as both an action and a bonus action. Yeah, 500 gp for two doses is steep, but for decent odds of taking out even a high-level spellcaster in a single round, it seems a small price to pay.

[Tanarii]

It's intentional. Poisons rapidly aren't supposed to be a significant threat in and of themselves any more than someone pointing a crossbow at you is. (To take the example from Dr. Cliché)

If you want to play that kind of game, then D&D isn't the right game for you even by the end of Tier 1.



1) A lot of poisons inflict hit point damage, and hit points are an awful mechanic when you're trying to make a narrative situation threatening.

"Stop or I'll shoot!" shouts the barman, aiming the crossbow at the fighter's head.
"So what?" asks the Fighter, "I've got 85 hit points."

[JackPhoenix]

It's intentional. Poisons rapidly aren't supposed to be a significant threat in and of themselves any more than someone pointing a crossbow at you is. (To take the example from Dr. Cliché)

If you want to play that kind of game, then D&D isn't the right game for you even by the end of Tier 1.

It absolutely is a threat for vast majority of population. But you're not playing a commoner with 4 hp or a noble with 9, you're playing a hero. How often do you see the main character of a story to actually die to a poison, instead of being knocked out (to be captured by the villain, of course), handicapped in a fight (which he'll propably still win, because he's just that good) or just inconvenienced for a while (to create some drama, though everyone knows the hero will survive)?

For that matter, how do you know that barman *can't* dish out 90 DPR? "An inkeeper" seems to be favorite retirement plan for a lot of adventurers.

[Snails]

I tend to be quite extreme with poisons. Any lethal poison trigger death saving throws, as if a player fell to 0 hit point, he can still act normally but is otherwise following the normal rules. Since the character isn't actually at 0 hit points, healing is useless, only anti poison spells and the like of restauration works. Anti venom vial provide advantage on the saving throws, antidote cure the poison but is fairly expensive.
humanoid using poison is rather common in my setting, since the art of poison is such an important aspect of politics.
and that's just for non magical poisons.

While that is an interesting idea for a house rule for particular campaign, that would make details of party composition a huge factor for poisons, i.e. multiple divine spellcasters in the party would nullify the effect, while a party with no healers would be doomed. 5e has been very successful in tamping down on the "must have X of Y in the party or the party sucks".


It's intentional. Poisons rapidly aren't supposed to be a significant threat in and of themselves any more than someone pointing a crossbow at you is. (To take the example from Dr. Cliché)

If you want to play that kind of game, then D&D isn't the right game for you even by the end of Tier 1.

Exactly. At Tier 1, an unlucky Critical and a poisoned attack could put a PC unconscious very suddenly. I would argue that it is the design intention that sudden death be less common as PCs scale up the levels. While I recognize this idea is less consistently true in earlier editions, the basic concept was there from the beginning.

That 5e is more consistent about such things is generally considered a good thing overall, albeit people are certainly not crazy for disliking such in some cases.

[MaxWilson]

As I see it, there are a few problems with poisons:

1) A lot of poisons inflict hit point damage, and hit points are an awful mechanic when you're trying to make a narrative situation threatening.

"Stop or I'll shoot!" shouts the barman, aiming the crossbow at the fighter's head.
"So what?" asks the Fighter, "I've got 85 hit points."

I mean, yes, but... narratively it's just as common to take a hostage.

"You do know that kidnapping is a hanging offense?"
(Guncock) "So's blowing the heads off little girls. [shrug] They can only hang me once, right?"

https://youtu.be/J_HeiErXUio

You could run that whole pseudo-Lancer plotline essentially unchanged in 5E, as long as the bad guys aren't expecting the good guys to just allow Marabella to be killed and Raised from the dead afterwards. (Which honestly would not be an ideal plan anyway.)

[Tanarii]

It absolutely is a threat for vast majority of population. But you're not playing a commoner with 4 hp or a noble with 9, you're playing a hero.Oops. That's exactly what I meant, but I kinda left that part out. Thanks for extrapolating & clarifying. :smallamused:



Exactly. At Tier 1, an unlucky Critical and a poisoned attack could put a PC unconscious very suddenly. I would argue that it is the design intention that sudden death be less common as PCs scale up the levels. While I recognize this idea is less consistently true in earlier editions, the basic concept was there from the beginning.
Absolutely.

What's different now is how fast a character reaches the point where single low level threats aren't a significant threat. I mean, that makes sense if every character is supposed to be part of some kind of "story", which (unfortunately IMO) the 5e devs believe D&D is. They need a form of mechanical "plot armor" after only a few sessions that makes it hard to them to die. And then advance to the cusp of Demi-gods by the end of season 1.

[Sigreid]

Thanks for the thoughts. Lots of stuff to consider. I'm still considering it. As I said, not for all poisons, but for some that are intended to pose a special threat.

[Chronic]

While that is an interesting idea for a house rule for particular campaign, that would make details of party composition a huge factor for poisons, i.e. multiple divine spellcasters in the party would nullify the effect, while a party with no healers would be doomed. 5e has been very successful in tamping down on the "must have X of Y in the party or the party sucks".



Exactly. At Tier 1, an unlucky Critical and a poisoned attack could put a PC unconscious very suddenly. I would argue that it is the design intention that sudden death be less common as PCs scale up the levels. While I recognize this idea is less consistently true in earlier editions, the basic concept was there from the beginning.

That 5e is more consistent about such things is generally considered a good thing overall, albeit people are certainly not crazy for disliking such in some cases.

Well as pretty much any rpg, as a gm you have to make choices to balance things. Multiple healers I don't mind, it's still pressure generated in a fight and a ressource drain. If they have no healer, healing dough or magic wands become readily available (and the player much more cautious).
honestly I don't mind the way 5e handle poisons, I prefer them deadly but it's just personal tastes. For many groups poison is about flavor and become an hinder if it's too potent or common.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've been thinking a bit lately about poisons and I've come to the conclusion that they just aren't scary after a certain level. WoTC did a nice job of preventing poison from being an "I Win" button and a "one trick pony" tool. The key to effective poison usage is to (a) get the right kind of poison and (b) know your target.

There are a couple of nice poisons that you can get from beasties like a purple worm or a wyvren that if you put them on a blade or an arrow, give a nice damage boost during a given combat. The really useful ones, in our limited experience, are the ones that inflict the poisoned condition. Our rogue / ranger successfully harvested some carrion crawler mucus. "The poisoned creature is paralyzed." He ended up with doses for 3 arrows. He hit twice. The two owl bears were a whole lot less of a problem when one of them was paralyzed for a round; which allowed the party to focus fire on the one that made its save.

Granted, at higher levels you may prefer something like Purple Worm poison for the higher Con save DC.

Not lame: it's for particular applications, not an "I Win" button.

Ah: Xethereal nicely covered Malice. The other "assassination outside of combat" poisons are great for a rogue or whisper's bard, or even a warlock, or an imp familiar, to slip into someone's drink, soup, ale, what have you: Assassin's Blod, Midnight Tears, Pale Tincture, Torpor.

Truth Serum is, like the spell it emulates, disppointing.

[DwarfFighter]

I've been thinking a bit lately about poisons and I've come to the conclusion that they just aren't scary after a certain level. So I've been thinking of inserting some poisons that don't do hit point damage on a failed save but instead have a number of turns where a save must be made or the target gains a level of exhaustion. The desire is two fold. First, to make at least some poisons scary at all levels. Second, to have those same poisons have an effect that lasts for days.

Thoughts?

The reason you are looking at Exhaustion is because it's a level-independent damage tracker. Your target is dead at Exhaustion level 6, regardless of level or hit points.

Is that scary? From my point of view, if my character takes one or two levels of exhaustion I will consider that a hindrance and will start going on the defensive and look for a way to recover. That's me being cautious, not scared. If my character more than that in one go I reckon the GM is out to get me and I would want to discuss if that's his intent out-of-character. That's me being upset, not scared. If my character has been building up levels of exhaustion over time, through effects he has failed to avoid or resist, then facing a poison with the possibility of dealing exhaustion would make me nervous about the consequences my next failed roll. That's me being scared.

What sort of "scary" are you looking for?

[5eNeedsDarksun]

It’s noteworthy that creatures with poison attacks can be milked for their venom. Proficiency with poisoner’s tools lets you do so mostly without risk. Handle animal may also be needed. But keep some venomous pets. A familiar or animal companion or charmed animal might work.

The DC isn’t great, but with enough doses, even centipede or spider venom can become a little extra effect.

I've got a totem barbarian/ rogue doing exactly that; riding a giant spider. He has a skill proficiency and a tool invested to get an occasional small damage bump in damage. It also provides an interesting interaction if we meet other venemous creatures or poison using humanoids. For me it is one of the things that makes the character unique and interesting. I'm not sure making poisons more lethal would be a good thing in the sense that it could get out of balance pretty quickly and basically become unusable by a PC.

[Segev]

I've got a totem barbarian/ rogue doing exactly that; riding a giant spider. He has a skill proficiency and a tool invested to get an occasional small damage bump in damage. It also provides an interesting interaction if we meet other venemous creatures or poison using humanoids. For me it is one of the things that makes the character unique and interesting. I'm not sure making poisons more lethal would be a good thing in the sense that it could get out of balance pretty quickly and basically become unusable by a PC.

I think the better approach, if the table feels having to build around harvesting the stuff is too much investment for the return, would be to lower the costs of a number of poisons. They do seem lackluster for their listed prices, in many cases.

But if you’re happy building around the harvesting, no need to change a thing. The point of my post was to suggest an optimization technique for acquiring poisons in an affordable way for a character who makes regular use of them. Not to say anything about the balance.

I do think Assassin-archetype rogues should have a subclass feature that makes their blood into Assassin’s Blood. For flavor reasons, and as a more-than-ribbon to get access to a poison they can use regularly, maybe at a cost of a few hp.

[Randomthom]

Basic HP-damage poisons are rarely threatening (Assassin Rogue with Purple Worm Poison & surprise can still be pretty scary. @lvl 19 & assuming a hand crossbow that's 48d6+dex damage!)

Outside of that niche example, I find that poisons are more commonly a narrative device.

You can avoid the whole poison=con save by being more creative. How about a poison/drug that affects people's memory making them more suggestible (basically a bottled modify memory spell) or one that, when ingested, reacts violently with stomach acid (fireball centered on the individual who auto-fails the save).

Poisons to blind, confuse, nauseate, render unable to speak & paralyze are all options too.

Basically, any condition you can think of and many spells can be delivered in a poison with a little bit of creativity. Also, just like potions, the effects are not concentration-based.

Players like taverns, have them go to an unfriendly tavern where a number of the patrons are waiting for the barman to serve them their drinks. Have each of their drinks have a poison tailored just to them (assuming the enemy faction knows enough about them to target their weaknesses). If their class is immune to poison then consider a cursed mug (or mimic mug?).

Yep, poisons as written in the DMG are a bit uninspiring and low DC so take them as a starting point only.

[J.C.]

Bilbron had some great ideas here. Poisons are a great plan B for Arcane casters when magic is supressed.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Poison scale great with number of attacks.
Poisoned condition is really good regardless of level.

A lot of enemies are immune but that is campaign specific.

In the game I am running now(started at level 1 now the players are level 20 and going to finish the game) most of the enemies where not immune to poison but all the players are(one have an item, one is a monk, one is a refluff Yuan-Ti with different spells and one is a moon druid)

[Contrast]

I will say as someone who has fought drow and wyverns, getting chunked for extra poison damage every hit is defintely not ignorable for very long even at high levels. Sure its just extra damage but enough damage kills which is kind of the point.

Also I will do my normal railing against using the exhaustion mechanic for literally anything as it stands. Its much more punative to some classes than others. In particular, martials suffer worse from the first few levels and are practically unplayable at 3 exhaustion meanwhile a wizard may be happily contributing even at 5 exhaustion if there's someone to carry them. If you want poisons crippling your strong hardly warriors and barely being a hindarance to fragile casters, use exhaustion.

[elyktsorb]

I think the better approach, if the table feels having to build around harvesting the stuff is too much investment for the return, would be to lower the costs of a number of poisons. They do seem lackluster for their listed prices, in many cases.


The poison you make with the Poisoner Feat deals 2d8 and makes the target suffer the poisoned condition until the end of your next turn on a 14 con save (succeed for no effect), and at 1st level, making said poison gets you 2 doses for 50g.

While Basic Poison, costs 100g, does 1d4 damage, and has a con save of 10 (succeed for no effect) and the only benefit basic poison has, is that it can be used to coat 3 pieces of ammunition per single vial as opposed to the Poisoner Feat, which only lets you dose 1 piece of ammunition per dose. Though Basic Poison can only be applied to Piercing and Slashing weapons. They both only work once on a weapon.

So the fact that any first level character who wants to use poison could just role vhuman and have a significantly better poison (as well as a better time using all poisons) than the only poison they can buy easily. Means that something probably needs to be addressed in regards to how poisons are handled.

[stoutstien]

I wish there was a system for players to potentially research or recall information about certain NPCs so they can seek out poisons and banes that could be used. Holy(er) water being made with the mummified finger of a high ranking religious figure who promptly uses regeneration to grow back the lost digits could be fun.

[Willie the Duck]

Outside of that niche example, I find that poisons are more commonly a narrative device.

WoTC did a nice job of preventing poison from being an "I Win" button and a "one trick pony" tool. The key to effective poison usage is to (a) get the right kind of poison and (b) know your target.

I do like this idea, but an arguably bigger reason why poisons lose their narrative oomph is because there are just so many options for treating various effects.

Overall, yeah. I don't really care about how good a poisoned blade is at enhancing ones' combat prowess (as there are other avenues towards doing that, and previous times when poison was more effective it turned into an expensive-but-easy 'we win' button for when you run into an opponent you simply must kill*). What is annoying is that it is hard to set up a 'the duke has been poisoned, and only the ______ found in the dangerous _____ will save him!' adventure when all poisons that haven't already killed you can be removed with a spell. D&D has never really figured out what to do with such things (poisons/diseases/curses being a major threat until they are a trivial one), so this is pretty much par for the course.
*Kind of like how Arrows of _____ slaying went from 'kill if you hit' to a minor damage on an easy save

[Osuniev]

While Basic Poison, costs 100g, does 1d4 damage, and has a con save of 10 (succeed for no effect) and the only benefit basic poison has, is that it can be used to coat 3 pieces of ammunition per single vial as opposed to the Poisoner Feat, which only lets you dose 1 piece of ammunition per dose. Though Basic Poison can only be applied to Piercing and Slashing weapons. They both only work once on a weapon.


Don't forget that they also dry after one minute, making it useless in any non-ambush combat scenario.

[Snails]

Well as pretty much any rpg, as a gm you have to make choices to balance things. Multiple healers I don't mind, it's still pressure generated in a fight and a ressource drain. If they have no healer, healing dough or magic wands become readily available (and the player much more cautious).
honestly I don't mind the way 5e handle poisons, I prefer them deadly but it's just personal tastes. For many groups poison is about flavor and become an hinder if it's too potent or common.

Oh, absolutely. I do trust GMs like yourself to make these decisions for their campaign. I see my wording might have sounded a little dismissive, and that was not my intention. What I was trying to emphasis is that the designers had very sound reasons for not including deadlier poisons in the Core rules. The result of stronger poisons are not automatically good or bad, but too unpredictable in how they affect on the campaign, because the designers cannot make assumptions about the number of healers in the party. Obviously, a specific DM might know a lot about the party composition, and can make corrections on the fly. But the Core rules cannot do that without being too heavy-handed.

[Ettina]

It absolutely is a threat for vast majority of population. But you're not playing a commoner with 4 hp or a noble with 9, you're playing a hero. How often do you see the main character of a story to actually die to a poison, instead of being knocked out (to be captured by the villain, of course), handicapped in a fight (which he'll propably still win, because he's just that good) or just inconvenienced for a while (to create some drama, though everyone knows the hero will survive)?

For that matter, how do you know that barman *can't* dish out 90 DPR? "An inkeeper" seems to be favorite retirement plan for a lot of adventurers.

If Durnan from the Yawning Portal Inn was aiming a crossbow at my head, that'd certainly be a concern for me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nice post I am stealing borrowing a lot of that for my DM notes. Thank you. :smallcool:

I will say as someone who has fought drow and wyverns, getting chunked for extra poison damage every hit is defintely not ignorable for very long even at high levels. Sure its just extra damage but enough damage kills which is kind of the point. Amen.


*Kind of like how Arrows of _____ slaying went from 'kill if you hit' to a minor damage on an easy save Don't get me started.

Then again, we could go back to "The giant spider bit you. Roll your saving throw versus poison. You rolled a 9. Hmm, you are dead. There are the dice, roll up your next PC while we finish this combat ... "

:smalleek: Been there, done that.
And then there was everyone's favorite, Yellow Mold, which we all presumed was a D&Dism of WW I Mustard Gas.

YELLOW MOLD: {snip} Rough contact with Yellow Mold will have a 50% chance of causing it to break and send forth clouds of asphyxiating spores in a 1" x 1" cloud. Any creatures within the spore cloud must make saving throws as if they had been exposed to poison, and failure to make saving throws results in death for the parties concerned.

[Asisreo1]

Also, the poisons in the DMG are example poisons based on previously existing poisons in adventures and on creatures (Wyvern poison is exactly the same on their statblock).

You could easily translate the poison of an Erinyes, Thri-kreen, Troglodyte, or Yuan-Ti.

There's no real reason why you can't do such things.

Also, in reality, its okay for players to pick up other enemy weapons and have them deal the regular damage if you remember that they have disadvantage with weapons larger than them, but this is a sorta tangent.

[Segev]

Poison scale great with number of attacks.Except doesn't it wear off after one successful hit? Or am I conflating older-edition rules? If I'm wrong, how many hits are they good for? (5e is notoriously bad for drawing multiple weapons in one round.) You could do it with arrows, I guess.


The poison you make with the Poisoner Feat deals 2d8 and makes the target suffer the poisoned condition until the end of your next turn on a 14 con save (succeed for no effect), and at 1st level, making said poison gets you 2 doses for 50g.

While Basic Poison, costs 100g, does 1d4 damage, and has a con save of 10 (succeed for no effect) and the only benefit basic poison has, is that it can be used to coat 3 pieces of ammunition per single vial as opposed to the Poisoner Feat, which only lets you dose 1 piece of ammunition per dose. Though Basic Poison can only be applied to Piercing and Slashing weapons. They both only work once on a weapon.

So the fact that any first level character who wants to use poison could just role vhuman and have a significantly better poison (as well as a better time using all poisons) than the only poison they can buy easily. Means that something probably needs to be addressed in regards to how poisons are handled.

To be fair, investing a feat (or other build resources) into it SHOULD provide you a better poison use than somebody who just buys it with gold. But I agree that it currently is probably set too high. At DC 10 for no effect and a mere 1d4 poison damage, I'd be tempted to make it 10 gp per 3-weapon dose for basic poison.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Except doesn't it wear off after one successful hit? Or am I conflating older-edition rules? If I'm wrong, how many hits are they good for? (5e is notoriously bad for drawing multiple weapons in one round.) You could do it with arrows, I guess.



To be fair, investing a feat (or other build resources) into it SHOULD provide you a better poison use than somebody who just buys it with gold. But I agree that it currently is probably set too high. At DC 10 for no effect and a mere 1d4 poison damage, I'd be tempted to make it 10 gp per 3-weapon dose for basic poison.

I am assuming using it on arrows or bolts, making arrows before the fight or using a magical quiver to make sure the poison will not were of the arrows with time.

It is expensive but at high levels where the post says poison become weaker it is more available.
Seeing a fighter with quiver full of arrows all poison is very dangerous.

[Segev]

I am assuming using it on arrows or bolts, making arrows before the fight or using a magical quiver to make sure the poison will not were of the arrows with time.

It is expensive but at high levels where the post says poison become weaker it is more available.
Seeing a fighter with quiver full of arrows all poison is very dangerous.

Certainly, special sheathes or quivers could have built-in poison reservoirs that auto-apply the poison without exposing it to the air to "dry out," thus solving part of the action problem of using poison.

[Sigreid]

Done some more thinking on this, and I think if I do it I'll come up with a reason that it will work for traps but not weapons or creature poisons.

Still more thought to do, but I'm still liking the idea of some poisons being riskier. I also think having poison grant exhaustion levels more accurately models what many poisons do to a person.