Abstraction
First Post
Might save have something to do with action points, then? You have to spend an action point, if you have one, to end the poison? Or perhaps a save against poison is against some static number? Or a Con check?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Likely poison mechanics
- Thread starter Abstraction
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
I hate it.
I hated how poison was done in 3ed... REAL poisons are substances that affect you gradually and often slowly. Poisons in tales and stories are scary when you don't see them coming (e.g. hidden in food, delivered with a barely noticeable scratch), when their effects become relevant later so that it takes a while to understand you're poisoned, and when they drag you down slowly before killing you if you don't find a way to stop it. These are the reasons for the "poison is evil" idea: cowards use poison because they can get away with it, and because they can avoid fighting. It is also evil because it kills slowly and painfully.
In 3ed poisons are too quick, they're over in 1 minute. The effect can last long (good), but it's scary only for 1 minute when you don't know what the secondary effect is... after that, you're already recovering (no need to find a specific antidote) and you know exactly how long it will take to recover. It would be ok to have this if we had first a period when you actually got worse, but instead in 3ed we only got the recovery part of being poisoned. So effectively, 3ed poison is a away to actually kill someone more quickly, and because the effect is immediate they are mostly used in combat, not out of combat. No wonder that people have issues with the idea that "poison is evil", the mechanic doesn't justify this at all, they actually make it even mercyful.
I was hoping some 4e developer might want to solve these issues, but apparently poison is so much used as a combat device nowadays that they wouldn't even think about it. What gets better with 4e is that at least it's a bit more gradual, but then it gets more boring because it's turned just into another form of HP damage.
The ironic thing is that 3ed already has a decent mechanic for poisons: the one which is used for diseases. It works quite well, if you generalize the time steps so that they don't always equal to a day, but could be shorter if you want (so that you could also have poisons that kill in you in a matter of hours or even minutes if you like).
I hated how poison was done in 3ed... REAL poisons are substances that affect you gradually and often slowly. Poisons in tales and stories are scary when you don't see them coming (e.g. hidden in food, delivered with a barely noticeable scratch), when their effects become relevant later so that it takes a while to understand you're poisoned, and when they drag you down slowly before killing you if you don't find a way to stop it. These are the reasons for the "poison is evil" idea: cowards use poison because they can get away with it, and because they can avoid fighting. It is also evil because it kills slowly and painfully.
In 3ed poisons are too quick, they're over in 1 minute. The effect can last long (good), but it's scary only for 1 minute when you don't know what the secondary effect is... after that, you're already recovering (no need to find a specific antidote) and you know exactly how long it will take to recover. It would be ok to have this if we had first a period when you actually got worse, but instead in 3ed we only got the recovery part of being poisoned. So effectively, 3ed poison is a away to actually kill someone more quickly, and because the effect is immediate they are mostly used in combat, not out of combat. No wonder that people have issues with the idea that "poison is evil", the mechanic doesn't justify this at all, they actually make it even mercyful.
I was hoping some 4e developer might want to solve these issues, but apparently poison is so much used as a combat device nowadays that they wouldn't even think about it. What gets better with 4e is that at least it's a bit more gradual, but then it gets more boring because it's turned just into another form of HP damage.
The ironic thing is that 3ed already has a decent mechanic for poisons: the one which is used for diseases. It works quite well, if you generalize the time steps so that they don't always equal to a day, but could be shorter if you want (so that you could also have poisons that kill in you in a matter of hours or even minutes if you like).
Kintara
First Post
Just think of the mechanic as a combat mechanic. It's for poisons or toxins that hurt you quickly enough to be relevant in combat. Many real world poisons are powerful enough that their inclusion is best left to the DM to include as a plot device instead of a common tactical weapon.Li Shenron said:
Edit: I think many of the changes, like the whole save-or-lose thing, are like this. No one is saying stuff can't be done differently. It's just that the mechanics are there with a certain balance in mind, while something negotiated as a house rule or created as a DM plot device is handled by individual DMs as they see fit.
It seems to me it would be pretty easy to drop something like a death effect in. Let's say it works similarly to SWSE. Instead of getting bumped down the condition track, you die.
It would be kind of cool for poisons to be all done up as specific conditions, but I don't need that much "granularity." I'm satisfied that I'll be able to come up with any strange poison effects I need for a story on my own.
Last edited:
While I agree that D&D should take into account long term and subtle poisons, I strongly disagree here that no real world poisons work as in D&D. You are referring only to certain types of poisons (not to mention having to get into the detailed discussions of toxicity vs. lethal dosage). Some examples off the top of my head of "close to D&D Combat" style real world poisons (e.g those that take very short amounts of time to "kick in") - in lethal dosages...Li Shenron said:
Poison Hemlock [ingested]
Aconite a.k.a. wolfsbane or monkshood [ingested, injected]
Alkaloid Atropine (Angel's Trumpet, Belladonna, Nightshade) [ingested, injected]
Curare [injected]
Snake Venoms [injected]: Hemotoxic, Neurotoxic, Cytotoxic
Snake Venoms [contact]: Cytotoxic
Fungal Toxins [ingested]
Jellyfish Toxin [contact, injected]
etc.
Even arsenic, which is often considered a slow effect poison can be used to kill in very short order via arsenic trioxide - a white, tasteless, odorless powder. In most "murders" via this toxin, the poison is administered slowly over a period of time to mimic the effects of cholera, thus disguising the fact that the person is being poisoned. However, a lethal dose of arsenic for the average sized person is only 2 ounces (53 grams). This could be easily administered as an ingested or even injected poison.
if you want a great source for "criminal uses" of real world poisons - check out Deadly Doses: A Writer's Guide to Poisons. Its one of the best sources I have found for easy and practical understanding of real world poisons.
The Merciful
First Post
One more vote for variety of poisons. 
I also hope poison use will be soon available as a major class feture (a prestige class or a core class talent tree/option - I used to have poison arrow shooting druid/ranger in 2nd ED).
I also hope poison use will be soon available as a major class feture (a prestige class or a core class talent tree/option - I used to have poison arrow shooting druid/ranger in 2nd ED).
Li Shenron
Legend
Khaalis said:
The problem is not realism (which is something anyway that each of us is ready to worship one day as much as throwing it out of the window the next day, depending on what's convenient) but the lack of options and variation.
4e version works mechanically better IMO, but it reduces the options even further.
I like poison as a damage type.
I like the way that the cloud of poisonous spores hurts you only if you have open wounds. That's a neat touch.
I like the keyword "ongoing" as a modifier to damage. I presume it means that the damage happens every round until a condition is met, in this case, what I interpret to mean a failed fortitude attack.
I don't think having the DM remember that a player has been poisoned is a problem. I already consider it my obligation to remember that sort of thing. I would only think this was a problem in a fight where multiple conditions were stacking on multiple players, all in different fashions. But that's the old modifier-stacking problem of 3e, not a specific problem with poison.
Flipping saves, while it has its merits, is certainly going to require us to use different terminology. I find myself wanting to say "successful save" over and over.
Ongoing damage until a failed fort attack isn't so bad for wizards, really. The chances of the defender succeeding go up pretty fast as the number of rounds increase. Using 3e terminology, if a wizard has a +3 fort save and is facing even a really difficult DC 16 saving throw, he has a 40% chance he'll shake the effect on round 1, a 64% chance he will shake the effect on round 1 or 2, a 78.4% chance he'll shake the effect on round 1, 2, or 3, etc.
I like the way that the cloud of poisonous spores hurts you only if you have open wounds. That's a neat touch.
I like the keyword "ongoing" as a modifier to damage. I presume it means that the damage happens every round until a condition is met, in this case, what I interpret to mean a failed fortitude attack.
I don't think having the DM remember that a player has been poisoned is a problem. I already consider it my obligation to remember that sort of thing. I would only think this was a problem in a fight where multiple conditions were stacking on multiple players, all in different fashions. But that's the old modifier-stacking problem of 3e, not a specific problem with poison.
Flipping saves, while it has its merits, is certainly going to require us to use different terminology. I find myself wanting to say "successful save" over and over.
Ongoing damage until a failed fort attack isn't so bad for wizards, really. The chances of the defender succeeding go up pretty fast as the number of rounds increase. Using 3e terminology, if a wizard has a +3 fort save and is facing even a really difficult DC 16 saving throw, he has a 40% chance he'll shake the effect on round 1, a 64% chance he will shake the effect on round 1 or 2, a 78.4% chance he'll shake the effect on round 1, 2, or 3, etc.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
