Forest Troll (MM3) Poison

[Critic of the Dawn]

The party I play in on Sunday nights just suffered an unfortunate TPK at the oversized, poisonous hands of a Forest Troll last night. Some bad die rolls played a major factor in the TPK, as did the party's normal inability to work together and listen to each other. All par for the course, and I gather that there are no hard feelings anywhere.

I am somewhat curious, however, about the Forest Troll's poison ability. I looked it up after the session was over because I was interested to see what had killed us and how close we had come to bungling our way to a victory, when I read the description of its poison:

Poison (Ex): Injury, Fortitude DC 17, initial and secondary damage 1d6 CON. Forest Trolls create their own special poison made from their saliva to coat their javelins and claws. The save DC is Constitution-based.

It sounds to me like the Forest Troll is essentially using a refined poison on several of its methods of attack - with this in mind, should it be able to use it only once per claw and javelin, or does the fact that it's an Extrordinary ability make it an innate effect of any attacks of the sorts mentioned above (so long as they can reasonably be assumed to be prepared for such in advance.)?

If it IS a refined poison that the troll must apply prior to each usage, does the troll risk poisoning himself by applying a new dose? Creatures are generally immune to their own poisons, but it is perhaps noteworthy to point out that the creature's bite (which presumably contains a large amount of saliva) is not poisonous.

What say you, gentlebeings?

Eric "Critic of the Dawn"

 

[Mouseferatu]

To my knowledge, most abilities that are of limited use and require the creature to take time to reapply (see the kuo-toa's adhesive ability) are specifically called out as such. If the forest troll entry doesn't say so specifically, I'd assume that the poison need not be reapplied, and thus can be used on all attacks.

If you want an in-game reason why this is so, you can simply assume that a given application can poison multiple beings, and the trolls reapply between fights.

 

[frankthedm]

Some bad die rolls played a major factor in the TPK, as did the party's normal inability to work together and listen to each other.

That will do it every time.

Each javelin should have one dose on it.

Since it seems clear that the toxin is not normally on the claws, it honestly should be one dose on the first hit each claw lands. But the working seems in the trolls favor.

Immunity to one's own poison is part and parcel of having Poison (Ex), so the troll is still not at risk from its own poison.

 

[Critic of the Dawn]

To my knowledge, most abilities that are of limited use and require the creature to take time to reapply (see the kuo-toa's adhesive ability) are specifically called out as such. If the forest troll entry doesn't say so specifically, I'd assume that the poison need not be reapplied, and thus can be used on all attacks.

As written in the creature's statblock, this appears to be the correct interpretation - however the wording of the poison entry leaves me a bit unconvinced about whether this makes sense.

If you want an in-game reason why this is so, you can simply assume that a given application can poison multiple beings, and the trolls reapply between fights.

If this is the case, can one assume that if the party had worked together in a competent manner and had managed to slay the Troll, that the venom could have been harvested? If said venom was harvested and then applied to (for the sake of argument) the party druid's claws whilst in a wildshaped form, would it retain its ability to work against multiple creatures? And how would one determine when it ran out? Pure DM fiat?

Each javelin should have one dose on it.

Agreed.

Since it seems clear that the toxin is not normally on the claws, it honestly should be one dose on the first hit each claw lands. But the working seems in the trolls favor.

That's what my gut is telling me even though the statblock appears to say differently. Can one take this as an example of the text trumping the table, or is the wording inconclusive enough (in your opinion) to warrant a judgement of "DM Call".

Immunity to one's own poison is part and parcel of having Poison (Ex), so the troll is still not at risk from its own poison.

I was not aware that was the case. I suppose that effectively banishes any ambiguity about that factor of the question here.

Eric