[4e] Poison?

[nyjastul69]

The listed cost is for a single dose and a single dose is applied to a single weapon, whether that weapon is a arrow or a greatsword. Is this correct? Thanks in advance for any and all help.

[Mystic Muse]

probably considering there are prices in the adventurer's vault for individual magic arrows.

[nyjastul69]

probably considering there are prices in the adventurer's vault for individual magic arrows.

That seems to make sense. I only own the original core rules and I can't find anything that explicitly states my interpretation is correct. One of my players is unhappy with my ruling on the matter.

[Mystic Muse]

eh nobody likes players anyway.

if you want you can say a poison has two doses but you use up all doses on bigger weapons since there's a much more significant area to cover than say on a dagger. that should satisfy your player I think. Although you may not want to listen to me since I mostly use homebrew rules anyway.

[Edge of Dreams]

Officially, yes, poison in 4e is priced per dose. One dose covers one weapon or arrow. The poison wears off after one hit with the weapon or 5 minutes, whichever comes first.

Yes this is weak. Yes players will complain.

Homebrewing different rules that make poison more viable is fine, just consider carefully the balance implications.

[Akal Saris]

Besides the DMG, are there any poisons listed in the other splatbooks or Dragon Magazine, or any more attention given to them? I've seen the Poisoner feat somewhere, for example. Most of the DMG poisons (except, as always, drow poison) also seem pretty poor for their level.

[nyjastul69]

The poisoner feat is exactly why this has come up in my game.

[Arbitrarity]

Assassins get Nightmare hand feats, which let you add a tier-scaling damage bonus to poison, and ignore poison resistance/immunity, very useful for anyone using poison (or, say, Spiderkissed weapon).

[nyjastul69]

Assassins get Nightmare hand feats, which let you add a tier-scaling damage bonus to poison, and ignore poison resistance/immunity, very useful for anyone using poison (or, say, Spiderkissed weapon).

What book contains the assassin class?

[NEO|Phyte]

What book contains the assassin class?

DDI-exclusive, which afaik means it's not gonna be in a book.

[dsmiles]

As far as poison doses go, as a DM I have homebrewed the dosing rules to state something to the effect of: one weapon is equivalent in size to a one-hended weapon. So, a two-handed weapon requires 2 doses, or one dose will cover 10 arrows or two smaller weapons (such as daggers).
Just a homebrew rule, take it or leave it.

[nyjastul69]

As far as poison doses go, as a DM I have homebrewed the dosing rules to state something to the effect of: one weapon is equivalent in size to a one-hended weapon. So, a two-handed weapon requires 2 doses, or one dose will cover 10 arrows or two smaller weapons (such as daggers).
Just a homebrew rule, take it or leave it.

I considered doing something very similar. My hesitation/concern centers around a ruling such as that seems to make poison a great choice for dual dagger rogues and bow wielding rangers (I've got one) and a pretty poor choice for a char with greatsword. This seems to go against the intent of 4e in general. How have you found that ruling to affect your game in general?

It seems poisons are bit under powered for their level, as Akal Karis posted. Let's assume AK is correct. What about changing the dose cost, say the listed cost is for 2 doses? I'm very new to 4e and don't trust my knowledge enough to forsee how 'doubling' the value poisons may affect my game. Thoughts?

[dsmiles]

Hasn't really affected my campaigns in the past. People still tend to shy away from poison if they're trying to be good, and they over-indulge if they're trying to be evil. Twin dagger types and archer types are more likely to use poison than greatsword types to begin with, as greatsword types are usually less sneaky about killing things.
Poison can overbalance the game in AD&D, and in AD&D 2e (especially with instant-kill poisons). 3E, 3.5 and 4E all took the effectiveness of poison and toned it down to a minimum level. It's just not cost effective in 4E. Poison damage is only likely to kill a low-level type now (especially since everyone has a saving throw of 10). And if you can afford poison, you're probably powerful enough that you don't need it.

[tbarrie]

I considered doing something very similar. My hesitation/concern centers around a ruling such as that seems to make poison a great choice for dual dagger rogues and bow wielding rangers (I've got one) and a pretty poor choice for a char with greatsword.

Thinking in terms of fantasy archetypes, that doesn't strike me as a problem at all. Poisoned daggers and arrows are pretty common in both fantasy literature and real history; poisoned greatswords, rather rare in both.

This seems to go against the intent of 4e in general.

Oh? How so?

[Mando Knight]

It's just not cost effective in 4E. Poison damage is only likely to kill a low-level type now (especially since everyone has a saving throw of 10). And if you can afford poison, you're probably powerful enough that you don't need it.

Not exactly true. IIRC, a melee weapon (like a dagger) with poison on it will continue to expose its targets to the poison over the period of the encounter, and could be enough to bump up a weaker character to striker-level damage, especially if he has poison-related feats.

Given that, I'd actually go back to the old 3.5 rules and say that a dose of poison that will coat a melee weapon can be applied to a number of pieces of ammunition, perhaps 20 or 30, since that's what they're sold in now. Shuriken, however, can be enchanted, and as a thrown weapon, return to you after the attack, so you only need one poisoned shuriken...

[unre9istered]

My thought on this would be that all weapons take one dose because a dose is a small amount. On a sword it's just the tip that gets poisoned. On an arrow most of the arrow head. Not completely realistic but that's how I'd handwave it.

[nyjastul69]

I apologize for not responding to specific posts with specific quotes. I don't own a computer and I'm not very proficient with them. I'm currently using a new device, a BlackBerry, with which I have even less proficiency. Thank you for trying to bear with me.

In regards to 'intent' of 4e, it seems that poison should be as effective, per unit cost, for every character regardless of class choice. A greatsword wielding paladin should gain the same benefits from poison as does a dual dagger rogue or a bow path ranger. Altering the dose/weapon factor seems to benefit some classes waaay more than others. I dislike trying to divine designer intent but it just doesn't seem to me that poison was intended to benefit some classes more than others.

Of course that's an opinion but it seems reasonable.


I understand why some consider poison use to shady or even outright evil but I can't find anything to justify that assumption except edition holdover.

3e didn't consider poison use to be evil or did it?

[Mando Knight]

3e didn't consider poison use to be evil or did it?

It considered it Chaotic, as its possession and use is always illegal. It's usually used for evil acts, though. 3.X also had some "good" Not-Poisons in the Tome of Exalted Deeds...