Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rel" data-source="post: 699869" data-attributes="member: 99">Speaking strictly for the argument I was making, it has nothing to do with realism.  It is about consistency.If I ran an encounter with a Medusa who used her snakes to apply venom to her arrows (which I think is a wicked cool idea) and then the Wizard player asks if he can do the same with his viper familiar, the answers I'd give would be either:"Sure you can." (along with the caveat that he must abide by the same rules as the Medusa in terms of how long it takes and how many times per day it is useful for each snake)or"Absolutely, so long as you take the Apply Poison From Your Snake (<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />) feat that I've developed."I would not respond with, "No you can't because I said so."To me, part of the fun of DMing is coming up with unusual challenges for the party to face.  But I try to do so with an eye toward letting the party use similar tactics if they have similar resources.That said, we are talking about a monster ability and the PC's don't (and shouldn't) have access to ever ability that the monsters have.  My particular beef with this situation is that we aren't talking about giving the Medusa a Supernatural Ability.  We are talking about letting her use an innate advantage in an unusual way.  I see no difference mechanically between her using one of her snakes to poison an arrow and the Wizard using his viper to poison his arrow.</blockquote>

Verification