Gothmog
First Post
Recently I have been thinking about how poison and disease are handled in D&D, and they don't make any sense. Why is a Fort save used instead of a Con check? How does knowing how to fight with a sword or cast potent spells make you more resistant to the effects of poison or the debilitating effects of disease? I think we all know that if you give even the most experienced and combat trained navy seal or similar expert cyanide or botulism, they are going to be one dead turkey.
I was thinking of maybe handling poisons and diseases by having characters make Con checks against the DC-5 listed in the DMG. This would mean most of the poisons and diseases in the DMG would have DCs of 6-15, which still leaves a reasonable chance of success to tough characters. The way it stands now, poisons are pretty much useless at higher levels (9+), because there is very little chance of failing the save. Also, this makes creatures that use poison more dangerous, and adventurers would be more cautious. You could even apply the bonus from the Great Fortitude feat to poison and disease saves. What do you guys think?
I was thinking of maybe handling poisons and diseases by having characters make Con checks against the DC-5 listed in the DMG. This would mean most of the poisons and diseases in the DMG would have DCs of 6-15, which still leaves a reasonable chance of success to tough characters. The way it stands now, poisons are pretty much useless at higher levels (9+), because there is very little chance of failing the save. Also, this makes creatures that use poison more dangerous, and adventurers would be more cautious. You could even apply the bonus from the Great Fortitude feat to poison and disease saves. What do you guys think?