Poison, Weapon At-Will attack powers and Creatures from the MM

[Thesolinicus]

Hey All,

I wanted to get some opinions on a ruling I am thinking about making for my game group. Here is the scenario:

I recently ran a session that had my PC facing some Drow... Interestingly enough in another campaign, where I am a player, we came across some Snaketounged NPCs, you know the kind, lackeys of Yuan-Ti. Anyway all of these guys have At-Wills that are Weapon + Poison. Some debate ensued about how the poison "works." I had some players in my game that thought the Drow poison was tantamount to a nearly instant death and that the only way it seems balanced is if it follows the rules of weapons coated with poison from the DMG (basically, one shot and then a standard to reapply). The GM from the other campaign, the one with the Yuan-Ti worshipers, believed that the At-Wills were figured into the level of difficulty for the creature and should then work "differently" then the rules for a PC. I believe there is a discussion thread on here that supports this view.

Well... I was still not convinced, so I did some digging and comparisons.

If you look at all of the creatures from the MM with a poison attack, be it with a weapon or without, there is always a reason or mechanism that makes the poison possible. What do I mean by that? Well, in a lot of the creatures it is a natural ability (i.e. Claws, Stinger, Bite, etc...). In the others however there is a notation or reason in the equipment. For most it is a “poisoned” weapon (an item from the AV). In the case of the Drow it actually has an asterisk that notates the weapons (which are normal) are coated in Drow poison. So then my issue or question becomes: Once (In the case of the Drow) the poison is used or if they happen to lose these weapons do they lose this ability (even considering the fact that they may have a secondary weapon or pick up another weapon)? I believe so. I think that the great minds at Wizards intend there to be some explanation or believable reason for powers beyond it is just “what they do.”

I think the best way to explain this is to look at several creatures with weapon + poison attacks and see what the differences are and then ask why. If you look at the Drow as I have previously mentioned, they are the only creature in the MM that has an “applied” poison. It then makes sense to me that the specific over rules the general and then, following the rules in the DMG, they would need to spend a standard to reapply the poison to their rapier. Why else would Wizards add that stipulation in the text of the equipment? In the case of the Snaketounged followers of the Yuan-Ti they all have poisoned weapons. The Halfling Prowler also has a poisoned weapon. The Tiefling Darkblade has a poisoned weapon. There are also several creatures with poisoned ammo for a range weapon (blowgun, cross bow, etc…). I believe if they lose these weapons or run out of poisoned ammo then they no longer have poison attacks. I believe this equipment is the reason for their ability or how it is that they do what they do. In contrast if you look at the Medusa Warrior (Male) he also has a weapon + Poison attack but the equipment has no such notations. He does however have a poison power that has nothing to do with a weapon but is a “natural” ability. The Medusa Shroud of Zehir (Female) is the same way (weapon + poison at-will AND other “natural” poison attacks YET normal weapons and equipment). Even the Yuan-ti Malison Sharp-eye has a weapon + poison attack yet normal equipment as does the Yuan-ti Malison Disciple of Zehir and the Yuan-ti Abomination. These creatures, however, are snake creatures and have resistances to poison and even, in one case, a “natural” poison attack. This to me shows a conscious choice by the folks at Wizards to keep the powers NPCs have in the realm of possibilities and give them some “reason” for being.

So what are your thoughts?

 

[ValhallaGH]

Short version: you're on the right track.

That said, I'd include some more doses of Drow poison on my Drow, and either have them spoiled when the warriors fall (land on the vials and they shatter, for example) or include a couple doses in the treasure from the encounter, assuming that they Drow don't get to use all their poison because they get to poison a large number of PCs.

 

[ChristopherA]

Interesting that it mentions the Drow equipment is coated with poison. But I don't think that means the Drow have to re-apply the poison. There is no indication anywhere I can see that says that would have to do so. Monster powers don't work the same as character powers. And even characters can have poison powers that don't require applying the poison. Consider the "Poisoned Weapon" magic item, which can potentially poison an opponent every round if you keep getting criticals. So something can be poisoned without being treated as a DMG "Poison". It says drow weapons are coated with drow poison, but not that Drow carry a dose of Drow Poison.

I think the reason it says the weapons are coated in drow poison is to tie in with the text on Drow Poison. The Drow Poison text says "a creature hit by a weapon coated in drow poison" has these effects; the equipment section then mentions the weapons which are coated in drow poison. I don't think any of this is related to the Drow Poison item in the DMG.

 

[Herschel]

What he said. I tend to think of it as 4E poison has greater viscosity and doesn't rub off every swing any more. Because of this, less poison comes off each swing, so it isn't as powerful as it used to be on a single hit.

 

[DragonXNIK]

Note that I have not fought Drow or DMed and used Drow, but here's my 2 cents:

First you should note that the Drow poison blade attacks have been undergone errata (what's the past tense of errata?). They require a secondary fortitude attack to actually poison a PC, as stated on the crossbow attack.
+13 vs. fortitude... Vs. level 11 Fighter with starting 18 str. fort Def: 23, hit on a 10.
+13 vs. fortitude... Vs. level 11 Wizard with starting 13 con. fort Def: 19, hit on a 6

So yeah, these secondary attacks are fairly likely to hit, especially if you skimp on Con for non-melee classes. But the primary attack has to hit for the secondary to have a chance, and you have to fail 2 end of turn saves in a row to fall unconcious. Also note that you don't count as failing a save for this purpose if you are granted one by a heal check or a save granting ability. And it's not like multiple instances of poison stack. You have to completely shake off the poison to be poisoned again. The drow with these attacks are lurkers, so their AC is pretty bad for the level, and lurkers should have debilitating effects like these. I think a pitfall people seem to be encountering with drow, is the temptation to use them as soon as possible, and just having a party fight 5 of these lurkers. If each one targed a different party member, that's just too much poison to deal with and have fun. That's not good encounter design, and it makes for a slog against drowsiness (pun intended).

So, bottom line, I feel like these Drow are fair if played in reasonably constructed encounter with the recommended DM guidelines of multiple monster roles and encounter level matching. No need to make them spend actions to recoat their blades. Or say they can do it as a free action because drow are sneaky assassins who mastered poisons, sorta like reloading a light crossbow. Monsters don't have to follow PC rules anyway. Nor do NPCs.

Monsters will start to seem a lot more harsh from level 11 up, especially in the MM 1. Lots more nasty status effects and synergy. But PCs get a huge jump in power from PPs and retraining at 11.

 

[ChristopherA]

As far as the balance, I agree with DragonXNIK. The Drow Warriors don't have very good defenses, and cause mediocre damage with combat advantage and very little without. The poison requires two hit rolls, and even then only has a 20% chance of taking you out, and even then it takes two turns, and that assumes you have no way of getting extra saves. So while the poison is scary and potentially quite annoying (if a player gets knocked out early and can never come back), I wouldn't say they were overpowered in the sense of, say, the old Needlefang Drake Swarm.

As far as the "game world" logic of how the poison works, I had a thought. Most players characters, even if they look human, have exotic, unwordly powers, especially as the newer power sources come out. Why should monsters be any different? The Drow Warriors might belong to a divine "monster class" that can imbue their weapons with the (un)holy power of Lolth, the spider queen. This manifests as a deadly poison which clings unfailingly to the weapons and never seems to come off (i.e. it is a special effect). If other people take the weapons, there is still a weird substance on them, but it doesn't have any effect for those without the supernatural Drow Poison power.

 

[DracoSuave]

Poisons don't even have to be in a liquid form to coat a weapon... in fact... it might be more practical in face to face combat to use a different technique...

Imagine a scented wax with some form of carrier oil in it. Garlic oil is one that comes to mind, but something with similiar properties to Vick's Vaporub is an idea. Then, have that carrier oil carry a poison that harms in small doses. Cyanide, for example.

Coat the blade in the hot wax, take it out, and presto. A poison that doesn't slide off the blade once the thin wax covering dries.

This isn't even that hard to envision.

 

[ChristopherA]

Poisons don't even have to be in a liquid form to coat a weapon... in fact... it might be more practical in face to face combat to use a different technique...

Imagine a scented wax with some form of carrier oil in it. Garlic oil is one that comes to mind, but something with similiar properties to Vick's Vaporub is an idea. Then, have that carrier oil carry a poison that harms in small doses. Cyanide, for example.

Coat the blade in the hot wax, take it out, and presto. A poison that doesn't slide off the blade once the thin wax covering dries.

This isn't even that hard to envision.

Right, but if you say that, you also have to explain why the players, or more powerful Drow, can't use the same weapons with the same super-poison.

If you wanted a martial explanation, you could say that only the Drow Warriors have the secret fighting technique that prevents the poison from being ablated by the rigors of combat, and only they know how to reapply it after combat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There is nothing in the rules to indicate that monsters need to ever recoat weapons with poison. If a monster does need to do this then it will be noted in their stat block. Monsters are designed to be fairly straightforward to run. Forcing the DM to keep track of which monsters have to recoat their weapons doesn't sound very fun to me.

I think the drow poison is designed to work in a way reasonably similar to what PCs might have access to in order to make it clear that the intent is they're using some form of poison coated weapon, not to force the DM to go through hoops to use it. If the PCs get hold of the weapon then you can describe it as coated with venom and if the PC uses it then have it rub off. This way they don't end up with all kinds of crazy powerful perma-poison. You can always have whatever treasure they carry contain a couple vials of the poison so they PCs can try it out.

As others have said, drow warriors are pretty well balanced. The poison is nasty but they are paragon monsters and its only moderately likely to affect one or two PCs in an encounter. If a couple drow warriors jump the party then chances are nobody will actually succumb to the poison by the odds. It does add some tension to the encounter and get across the idea that the drow are pretty bad customers though. It also gives the DM a plot device, drow can easily capture NPCs or knock out guards. They aren't someone you mess around with.

 

[Saeviomagy]

It seems to me that this is a simple matter of drow being too close aesthetically to being PCs for their difference in mechanics to not hurt verisimilitude.