ForbidenMaster
Explorer
Then why dont you just use a disease instead of a poison?Grazzt said:As suggested by someone above perhaps setting up poisons to follow the damage track like diseases do might make them a bit more lethal.
Then why dont you just use a disease instead of a poison?Grazzt said:As suggested by someone above perhaps setting up poisons to follow the damage track like diseases do might make them a bit more lethal.
Its not a strawman. Its in response to people who want to know why poison isn't more realistic. The reason poison isn't more realistic is because realistic poison automatically kills you, no save.direkobold said:It's precisely because of balance and fairplay that I bring the point up. I want the most powerful poison in the book which as other posters said you have to go to some secret place on another plan, to even find to strike fear in the hearts of the players. That seems balanced, that seems fair.
And seriously this is a ridiculously over the top straw man...
Cadfan said:Its not a strawman. Its in response to people who want to know why poison isn't more realistic. The reason poison isn't more realistic is because realistic poison automatically kills you, no save.
MrGrenadine said:The D&D economy has always been odd, but over 150,000 gold? I don't even want to think about characters having that much wealth at their fingertips.
Instead, maybe create a short adventure to find the poison 'in the wild', (or to steal it from somewhere)? Or, given they have access to a lab and/or raw materials, perhaps a skill check to create the poison?
MrG
Sylrae said:but yeah. 15 damage a round that can wear off, isn't worth the title of epic, or the price attached to it. Maybe 40 per round.