My, how the adventures have changed...

[Mighty Veil]

4th Edition?

That's funny.

I sure feel like running a 1e game all of a sudden.

 

[Freak of Nurture]

IN early editions of the game, poisons were "if you fail, you die". Later on, there were a variety of different poison types, but most still fall into the "Death" category.

Just trying to point out that, in earlier editions of the game, poison was much more likely to kill you.

1e had 3 types that kill, and 6 that didn't
2e had 4 types that kill, and 12 that didn't
Most didn't fall into the "Death category". Try knowing what you are talking about.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

1e had 3 types that kill, and 6 that didn't
2e had 4 types that kill, and 12 that didn't
Most didn't fall into the "Death category". Try knowing what you are talking about.

But the only ones you saw, with rare exception - even in 'official' adventures, were the ones that if you failed your save you died. Take a look through old adventures and old Dungeon magazines, you will be astounded at how seldom you see anything but 'save or die' poisons.

This was pretty much true up until 3e.

If you are going to be rude then try knowing what your talking about - it will work better in the long run.

The Auld Grump, an option that is never used does not count.

 

[Slife]

But the only ones you saw, with rare exception - even in 'official' adventures, were the ones that if you failed your save you died. Take a look through old adventures and old Dungeon magazines, you will be astounded at how seldom you see anything but 'save or die' poisons.

This was pretty much true up until 3e.

If you are going to be rude then try knowing what your talking about - it will work better in the long run.

The Auld Grump, an option that is never used does not count.

In that case, 1e and 2e had almost no save-or die poisons. Virtually none whatsoever.


Slife, arguing about personal experiences gets us nowhere since we all have different ones.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

In that case, 1e and 2e had almost no save-or die poisons. Virtually none whatsoever.


Slife, arguing about personal experiences gets us nowhere since we all have different ones.

Excuse me? Did you bother reading any of the 1e and 2e adventures? I am not speaking of personal experience, but rather what TSR published. They very seldom had anything but 'save or die' poisons. I can back up my claim by copying and pasting out of published adventures - can you? If you chose not to use them as written (which, by the way, is a good thing - I will not claim otherwise) then all well and good - but as published it was pretty much always lethal poisons, even at very low levels. And thieves, the folks most likely to encounter poison, had rather poor saves vs. the stuff....

The Auld Grump, it would have been nice if you had bothered reading what you quoted....

 

[Fifth Element]

Wow, that village must see a lot of travelers to have an inn.

This is D&D. There is always an inn. It could be a hamlet of 20 people. There is an inn.

 

[PhantomNarrator]

. . .They find a secret door, slide it open, and find the chest. The Rogue takes 20 on his search check, and finds the trap.

Funny enough, but the rogue cannot take 20 on a roll that involves danger of any kind.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

This is D&D. There is always an inn. It could be a hamlet of 20 people. There is an inn.

And there is always a stranger, dressed in black*, with tips on where to find the dungeon....

The Auld Grump
*Alternately dressed as a pirate if the village is on the coast.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Funny enough, but the rogue cannot take 20 on a roll that involves danger of any kind.

Which means, in this case, that he can 'Take 20' on his Search - but he cannot do so on his Disable Device check. Searching (unless otherwise noted) is safe, disabling is not. Once the trap is disabled the rogue can then Take 20 on picking the lock....

I am not complaining about this, I actually rather like it this way. The team has a choice between fast and risky or taking their time (and maybe allowing the bad guys enough time to finish summoning Cthulhu or whatever).

The Auld Grump
*EDIT* From Sean K. Reynolds site [on Taking 20] - Search:
Yes, because there is no penalty for failure (if you don't find what you're looking for, you're no worse off than if you had never looked in the first place, so there isn't a penalty). This means that you can take 20 when searching for something dangerous, like a trap, since searching doesn't make you any more likely to set off the trap than you would just by walking around (again, using the skill and failing does not put you in a worse position than not using the skill).

 

[Delta]

If the poison does 3d6 Con damage instead of 2d6, the Rogue is dead, just as in 1e.

Like another poster, I also disagree with this, but for a more specific reason. In 1E, poison just killed you with a failed save, period. In 3E, poison has specific effect types that have defined CR's (from Song & Silence, but can be extraopolated from the core prices). Only the most virulent and highly expensive poison in the game does 3d6 Con damage; there are certainly none that do 4d6 or 5d6.

Since this party is 1st level, they're most likely to encounter a low-level poison trap. My DMG has the CR 2 poison needle with Greenblood Oil, which does 1/1d2 Con. That's the most likely "suggested" poison trap at this level, and that's definitely not going to kill anybody.