Wards and Poison

[RSP]

So, this came up recently and just curious what the consensus is here on this interaction.

First we have poisons, specifically injury poisons. Here’s the RAW:

Injury: 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.

Then we have Bastion of Law, Abjurer’s Arcane Ward, and any other magical damage absorption.

These protective magical energies take the damage instead of the character.

So, RAW, it appears that if a ward were to take a poisoned dagger’s piercing damage, then there is no poison damage.

Not RAW spelled out: stuff like a Giant Spider’s bite, which does piercing damage, then has a save and additional poison damage, seems to follow the same rules as injury poison, but isn’t explicitly stated.

Thoughts?

[Segev]

I think this is just something you need to rely on DM rulings for. What actually constitutes you taking damage, how the poison is actually administered by a given hit, or if it is at all, is mostly consistent, and when it's not, that's what rulings, not rules is for.

[RSP]

I think this is just something you need to rely on DM rulings for. What actually constitutes you taking damage, how the poison is actually administered by a given hit, or if it is at all, is mostly consistent, and when it's not, that's what rulings, not rules is for.

That’s why I was wondering how people play it.

To me, the poison rules are clearly something that wasn’t considered when making the MM: the writers of the monsters either made grand assumptions that DMs would identify poisons on their own, or, more likely, just didn’t consider the poison rules when they wrote monsters.

For instance, the Drow Elite does a lot of poison damage, in addition to their sword damage, yet nothing separates the damage the would indicate it follows the injury poison rules:

“Injury: 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.” (Note: pulling this from the web as I don’t have my DMG handy but looks right)

So if one were to use the poison rules with the Drow Elite, then no injury from the sword=no wound for the poison to be delivered.

Clearly the damage of the Drow Elite is a result of needing damage output to match its CR, but the fact they just ignore a ruleset to do this is troublesome (though not the only case of the rules being written this way). We have poisons that don’t follow the system’s poison rules.

So it’s left to the DM to even realize this is what the rules are, not just how they interact.

Other monsters at least separate the damage: Giant Spiders have their bite attack, followed by a save and then poison damage.

So I’m just wondering if DMs even care about the poison rules, and if so, how they work them in at the table.

[Segev]

The ward is technically not immune to any sort of damage, so one could argue that the poison damage does apply. It's a little weird to use the caster's constitution save for saving for half damage against the poison the ward is taking, though.

Personally, I would probably just run it straight, anyway, using the abjurer's constitution save as needed. The ward takes any damage it takes, including poison damage. Ancillary injury effects don't carry over, though. The ward, not the abjurer, was injured, after all.

[Anymage]

If you treat the ward as its own object with its own set of elemental resistances/immunities, you start getting close to the "HP=meat" discussion and all the awkwardness that entails. For incoming damage, I'd just say it's treated like any other HP pool and be done with it.

I might be inclined to say that an attack that's reduced to 0 damage from a relevant protection doesn't have any additional effects, but even that is something I'd be cautious about since it could accidentally neutralize too many beasties.

[Chronos]

The ward taking the poison damage because it took the piercing damage wouldn't be RAW, because whatever it is, it's not a creature, and the poison only applies to creatures that take the piercing damage.

And NPCs (especially drow NPCs) ignore the regular poison rules in more ways than that, too: When a PC poisons a weapon, only the next hit deals the extra damage, and that only if it was a relatively short time after the PC used an action to apply the poison. But most poison-using NPCs get it on every hit, even if they were caught by surprise.

[RSP]

The Ward is pretty clear that you no longer take the damage:

“Whenever you take damage, the ward takes the damage instead.”

So if injury poison requires an injury (which it does), and the Ward absorbs all the weapon damage; there is no injury on the character to inflict the poison.

Again, this just appears to be inconsistent rules (poison vs monster) with the system.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The specific monster Statblock supersedes the poison rules in the DMG.

A simple in game explanation could be an Elite Drow has access to poisons that defy the classifications of the DMG.

An Elite Drow might use Contact Poison instead of injury poison instead, for example.

The statblock is designed for ease of use…the DMG section on poison, is more an optional ruleset, than a central foundation of the system.

Now that said, I concur regarding your conclusion regarding injury poison and Arcane Ward. If the Arcane Ward absorbs the entirety of the damage from a weapon enveloped by an Injury Poison, then the Poison rider shouldn’t come into play, as a consequence.

[RSP]

The specific monster Statblock supersedes the poison rules in the DMG.


Not really: a DM might choose that, but the rules are the rules.

Though the stat block doesn’t state what type of poison is used, that non-stating doesn’t mean the rules on poison don’t exist.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Not really: a DM might choose that, but the rules are the rules.

Though the stat block doesn’t state what type of poison is used, that non-stating doesn’t mean the rules on poison don’t exist.

Specific beats general. Rock beats paper.
The specific statblock trumps the general poison rules found in the DMG.

[Chronos]

It does run into problems, though, when the players (inevitably) loot the drow's weapons after they beat them. How did they work, and therefore do they still work for the PCs?

[RSP]

Specific beats general. Rock beats paper.
The specific statblock trumps the general poison rules found in the DMG.

It’s not specific beats general. Nothing in the statblocks say they don’t follow the poison rules: they just don’t mention them.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It does run into problems, though, when the players (inevitably) loot the drow's weapons after they beat them. How did they work, and therefore do they still work for the PCs?

That is arguably the best part.

The PCs are less likely to have the same level of expertise in poisons as a Drow Elite. Thus, one can envenom the Drow Elite’s weapons in a way that breaks conventions. One example, could be the aforementioned idea that the looted Drow Elite’s weapons have a single coating of contact poison.

This allows for the potential of World Building….The Drow might be literal magicians when it comes to poisons, and able to do things outside what is specified in the rules.

Most players have not read the DMG nor the various Creature Statblocks. Variance from the norm in this case has a likelihood of not being noticed. If it is noticed, a quick statement from the DM that: “this poison is different, seems to be working different”, etc, etc is enough.

If the players really want to acquire “more of that really cool Drow poison”, that is one less Adventure hook for a DM to create.

[RSP]

That is arguably the best part.

The PCs are less likely to have the same level of expertise in poisons as a Drow Elite. Thus, one can envenom the Drow Elite’s weapons in a way that breaks conventions. One example, could be the aforementioned idea that the looted Drow Elite’s weapons have a single coating of contact poison.

Very much disagree. If a Drow Elite fights a BM PC, and the BM disarms the DE, and picks up the sword, does the sword stop having the poison damage, or do you tell your player, “well you don’t really know poisons.”

If the PC had to drop their sword, and the DE picks that up, do they now get the poison damage on the new weapon, because “they really know poisons”?

What if the PC picking up the weapon is a Drow? What if they have expertise in Poisoner’s Kit?

I wouldn’t like that as an explanation if I’m the player.

[Segev]

Very much disagree. If a Drow Elite fights a BM PC, and the BM disarms the DE, and picks up the sword, does the sword stop having the poison damage, or do you tell your player, “well you don’t really know poisons.”

If the PC had to drop their sword, and the DE picks that up, do they now get the poison damage on the new weapon, because “they really know poisons”?

What if the PC picking up the weapon is a Drow? What if they have expertise in Poisoner’s Kit?

I wouldn’t like that as an explanation if I’m the player.

Obviously, the drow doesn't drop his weapon; he just turns into a pile of gil, instead.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Very much disagree. If a Drow Elite fights a BM PC, and the BM disarms the DE, and picks up the sword, does the sword stop having the poison damage, or do you tell your player, “well you don’t really know poisons.”

If the PC had to drop their sword, and the DE picks that up, do they now get the poison damage on the new weapon, because “they really know poisons”?

What if the PC picking up the weapon is a Drow? What if they have expertise in Poisoner’s Kit?

I wouldn’t like that as an explanation if I’m the player.

Each one of those circumstances requires a DM’s Judgement.
If the DM assumes the envenomed weapon is regular old injury poison, then a PC that acquires the weapon may find the poison that was previously applied was already used.

If the DM Rules that a Drow Elite magically makes all weapons do poison damage, (as some have argued in Magic Jar discussions..typically involving Shadar Kai), then that is another creative choice.

A DM could also state that the Drow Elite poisons the weapon each round as a free action. If the PC in question has the Poisoner Feat, another creative choice could be decided upon.

Each option, is a valid option.

MPMotM, makes clear that the D&D Design team is not concerned with making a cohesive, logically flowing system. Creature statblocks are intended to be an easy to use template….with inputs, justifications, and explanations coming from the DM.

I find it amusing that you are disagreeing with me, yet I agreed with you…
….not exactly sure where the miscommunication lies.

[RSP]

Each one of those circumstances requires a DM’s Judgement.
If the DM assumes the envenomed weapon is regular old injury poison, then a PC that acquires the weapon may find the poison that was previously applied was already used.

If the DM Rules that a Drow Elite magically makes all weapons do poison damage, (as some have argued in Magic Jar discussions..typically involving Shadar Kai), then that is another creative choice.

A DM could also state that the Drow Elite poisons the weapon each round as a free action. If the PC in question has the Poisoner Feat, another creative choice could be decided upon.

Each option, is a valid option.

MPMotM, makes clear that the D&D Design team is not concerned with making a cohesive, logically flowing system. Creature statblocks are intended to be an easy to use template….with inputs, justifications, and explanations coming from the DM.

I find it amusing that you are disagreeing with me, yet I agreed with you…
….not exactly sure where the miscommunication lies.

I disagree that this being an issue in how the rules were written is “the best part”.

[Thunderous Mojo]

I disagree that this being an issue in how the rules were written is “the best part”.

Absolutely, fair.

“Best” was shorthand, that a DM can make a creative decision, and can essentially justify any decision made with some descriptive elements, and not be gainsaid.

[Psyren]

My ruling:

An attack going to temp HP still counts as you being injured and can deliver poison. This includes things like False Life, Shifter, new Barkskin, Spores Druid etc.

Effects that reduce damage or take damage for you, like Abjurer's Arcane Ward, Clockwork's Bastion of Law, or Goliath's Stone's Endurance, don't count as you being injured unless the effect overcomes them completely. If the damage fails to beat them, you aren't poisoned.

[Chronos]

Quoth Thunderous Mojo:

MPMotM, makes clear that the D&D Design team is not concerned with making a cohesive, logically flowing system.
So what the heck are they concerned with, then?

[Witty Username]

That is arguably the best part.

The PCs are less likely to have the same level of expertise in poisons as a Drow Elite. Thus, one can envenom the Drow Elite’s weapons in a way that breaks conventions. One example, could be the aforementioned idea that the looted Drow Elite’s weapons have a single coating of contact poison.

This allows for the potential of World Building….The Drow might be literal magicians when it comes to poisons, and able to do things outside what is specified in the rules.

Most players have not read the DMG nor the various Creature Statblocks. Variance from the norm in this case has a likelihood of not being noticed. If it is noticed, a quick statement from the DM that: “this poison is different, seems to be working different”, etc, etc is enough.

If the players really want to acquire “more of that really cool Drow poison”, that is one less Adventure hook for a DM to create.

But DM? I am a Drow...

[Psyren]

But DM? I am a Drow...

But are you a Lolthite Cultist Drow? And if you are, congrats, chances are you're an NPC.

[Thunderous Mojo]

But are you a Lolthite Cultist Drow? And if you are, congrats, chances are you're an NPC.

Great Response!

Exactly, not all Dark Elves are necessarily Drow.
If the term Drow, only refers to the cultists of Loth, then theoretically one could have a non Dark Elf, Drow, such as Lareth, the human cleric of Loth in the Moathouse section of the Temple of Elemental Evil.

[Segev]

Great Response!

Exactly, not all Dark Elves are necessarily Drow.
If the term Drow, only refers to the cultists of Loth, then theoretically one could have a non Dark Elf, Drow, such as Lareth, the human cleric of Loth in the Moathouse section of the Temple of Elemental Evil.

The PHB subrace is not "dark elf." It is "drow."

[Thunderous Mojo]

The PHB subrace is not "dark elf." It is "drow."

Technically, it is listed as Dark Elf (Drow).
A Dragonlance entry could read: High Elf (Silvanesti).

Most importantly though, “So freaking what”?

One of the first parts of making a Setting/Campaign is envisioning cultures. Dark Elves, in fantasy gaming, have often moved beyond the Drow Stereotypes.

The Forgotten Realms has has ‘Good Dark Elves’ since 2e.
Krynn, has no Drow…Dark Elves are evil elves.
In most of the MtG Settings, Dark Elves are just another species of Elves.

Having ‘Drow’, be the term for Chaos Cults of Loth, opens up play opportunities.
Chaos Cults are fun…see Warhammer.

[Psyren]

I agree that Drow are Drow regardless of affiliation. But membership in Lolth's cult has perks, and one of those perks is abilities that non-cult Drow (read: the vast majority of playable/heroic ones) can't access.

[Segev]

I agree that Drow are Drow regardless of affiliation. But membership in Lolth's cult has perks, and one of those perks is abilities that non-cult Drow (read: the vast majority of playable/heroic ones) can't access.

"I'm an ex-cultist. Killed a lot of people in her name. Then I abandoned the cult when a priestess decided she wouldn't take 'no' for an answer and tried to have me killed. Killed a lot of my ex-fellow cultists that week. I've since come to realize how full of crap a lot of it is, but I retain the skills even as I try to put my past behind me."

"You're level 1!"

"PCs are exceptional."

[Psyren]

"I'm an ex-cultist. Killed a lot of people in her name. Then I abandoned the cult when a priestess decided she wouldn't take 'no' for an answer and tried to have me killed. Killed a lot of my ex-fellow cultists that week. I've since come to realize how full of crap a lot of it is, but I retain the skills even as I try to put my past behind me."

"You're level 1!"

"PCs are exceptional."

It's not a "skill" you can "retain," it's literally a gift from Lolth. A gift you gave up when you left her service to become a PC.

[RSP]

It's not a "skill" you can "retain," it's literally a gift from Lolth. A gift you gave up when you left her service to become a PC.

See, if that were stated someone, then the Drow Elite would fall under Specific beats General in that this particular instance of poison damage is a deity-granted bonus that happens to take the form of poison damage.

However, that isn’t stated, so it’s assumed to fall under the system’s poison rules.

Also note: not all Drow in FR are Llothites. Drow in other settings aren’t even Llothites…yet regardless of setting, the Drow Elite does the poison damage.

So it seems a very limited explanation at best, if being used as one.

[Psyren]

However, that isn’t stated, so it’s assumed to fall under the system’s poison rules.

Where does it state their poison is an item you can loot?

[Chronos]

It's D&D. One of the core assumptions is that anything that's not nailed to the floor is something you can loot. Or those, too, if you have a crowbar.

[Segev]

It's not a "skill" you can "retain," it's literally a gift from Lolth. A gift you gave up when you left her service to become a PC.

Fair enough. Not really "drow using poison," then, so much as "Lolth's dark blessing on every weapon they wield," which changes the flavor around a lot.

[Psyren]

Fair enough. Not really "drow using poison," then, so much as "Lolth's dark blessing on every weapon they wield," which changes the flavor around a lot.

Precisely.


It's D&D. One of the core assumptions is that anything that's not nailed to the floor is something you can loot. Or those, too, if you have a crowbar.

If you want to rule that a Favored Consort or House Captain's poison is lootable you certainly can, I'm not saying you can't. Speaking personally though, I view it as something they gain the power to apply to specific attacks much like an Arachnomancer can deliver it via touch.

[TaiLiu]

So what the heck are they concerned with, then?
Average player and DM preference, I think. Like, I think they're making stuff and get feedback about it, and then modify their stuff based on the feedback.