| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
My search-fu is weak.
Does anyone have a link to a good (maybe with official input) thread on poisons? Especially interested in exactly when the target makes a save, effects of stacking, etc.
I've read the appropriate section in the Core Rules several times, but I'm still unclear as to a couple of questions.
Thanks in advance.
|
Not sure where the thread is, but it goes as follows AFAIK:
1) Dude gets hit with poison (6 rounds, 1 save cures, DC 12)
2) Dude gets a turn, makes a save against poison (fails)
3) Dude gets hit with poison again (same poison). This makes the duration go up by 50% of the original duration (so +3 rounds, now at 8 left) and the DC go up by 2 (DC is now 14)
5) Dude gets turn, makes his save against the poison (15 vs DC 14) and it goes away entirely.
6) Dude gets hit by the first poison again
7) Dude gets turn, makes save against poison (only needing a 12 as the DC has reset after being cured).
Basically: You make the save at the beginning of the poisoned entity's turn, increasing the duration by 50% of the original and DC by 2 for each dose they've been hit with since they've last removed it from their system (i.e. hit the cure condition).
EDIT: Ninja'd... *sigh*
Hmmm. Guess I've been doing it wrong.
Here's how I thought it worked:
Assassin fires two arrows at target and hits with both.
Target immediately makes two saves at base DC (not stacked). If target makes both, then wasn't poisoned. If target fails one or both, then at the beginning of his/her turn, he/she makes a save to avoid the effects (either at base DC or at +2 depending on initial saves to avoid affliction entirely).
Instead, all saves are made at the beginning of the target's turn?
|
|
The poison section of the PRD has an example:
Multiple doses do not alter the cure conditions of the poison, and meeting these conditions ends the affliction for all the doses. For example, a character is bit three times in the same round by a trio of Medium monstrous spiders, injecting him with three doses of Medium spider venom. The unfortunate character must make a DC 18 Fortitude save for the next 8 rounds. Fortunately, just one successful save cures the character of all three doses of the poison.
Since it makes no mention of an immediate fortitude save, and the attacks are unlikely to be simultaneous, I assume this means "no immediate save."
It doesn't in the Poison section, but above that under the Afflictions section it says:
All afflictions grant a
saving throw when they are contracted. If successful, the
creature does not suffer from the affliction and does not
need to make any further rolls. If the saving throw is a failure, the creature falls victim to the affliction and
must deal with its effects.
I interpreted that to mean that an initial save was allowed that negated the affliction entirely. If you missed that save, then the specifics of the affliction, in this case poison, kicked in.
Does anyone know of any official pronouncements/examples/clarifications have been made?
|
Hmmm. Guess I've been doing it wrong.
Here's how I thought it worked:
Assassin fires two arrows at target and hits with both.
Target immediately makes two saves at base DC (not stacked). If target makes both, then wasn't poisoned. If target fails one or both, then at the beginning of his/her turn, he/she makes a save to avoid the effects (either at base DC or at +2 depending on initial saves to avoid affliction entirely).
Instead, all saves are made at the beginning of the target's turn?
You have been doing it correctly.
Assuming there is no onset time:
When hit:
On the second and successive hits:
Before you argue please read the other thread because it's confusing discussing in two places.
Here are a few other, older threads about poison. I hope they are useful. I can't remember how much official word there is in them, but I know in one there is a really good explaination by Nethys and he seems quite good at interpreting the rules.
How do poisons work?
Poison DC?. This is the one Nethys is in.
Poison in Pathfinder - How does it work?
Not sure where the thread is, but it goes as follows AFAIK:
1) Dude gets hit with poison (6 rounds, 1 save cures, DC 12)
2) Dude gets a turn, makes a save against poison (fails)
3) Dude gets hit with poison again (same poison). This makes the duration go up by 50% of the original duration (so +3 rounds, now at 8 left) and the DC go up by 2 (DC is now 14)
5) Dude gets turn, makes his save against the poison (15 vs DC 14) and it goes away entirely.
6) Dude gets hit by the first poison again
7) Dude gets turn, makes save against poison (only needing a 12 as the DC has reset after being cured).Basically: You make the save at the beginning of the poisoned entity's turn, increasing the duration by 50% of the original and DC by 2 for each dose they've been hit with since they've last removed it from their system (i.e. hit the cure condition).
Though I think 0gre has it right by a strict reading of the rules, I disagree with it for its complexity due to its lack of intuitiveness and balance.
Having to make that many saves, and having to differentiate which ones will cure ALL poison, and which ones will only keep it from becoming more potent, gets really confusing really fast. What's more, when you are making that many saves to stop the effects, poisons become essentially worthless.
I think StabbityDoom's interpretation makes far more sense as a mechanic. Furthermore, I honestly believe that, that is what the game designers intended, despite what the current rules on afflictions actually say.
Note how the additional affliction saves were omitted from the poison example? I don't think that was a mistake. I think poisons are an exception to the rule.
Director of Game Design
|
| 21 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been brought to my attention..
So.. here is the deal.
Whenever you are exposed to an affliction, you get a save to negate the affliction. If you fail, you must deal with all of its effects.
When it comes to poison, the first save, when exposed, is always at the base DC. If you fail and contract, that is when the duration adds and the DC goes up. There is a bit of poor wording in the poison text for this with the example, because it should mention that he was bitten three times and failed his first saves.
So... it would look like this.
PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 17 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect twice, once each time he was hit).
I think that clears it up? If not, please provide further questions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
I can't say I'm a big fan of the "low immediate save" interpretation as that eliminates the possibility of people doing things like simultaneously injecting multiple doses (coordinated assault) to up the DC. By RAW only the alchemist now has the ability (via their distill poison ability) to raise the initial DC of a poison.
No offense, but I think I'll ignore that initial check rule ;)
This has been brought to my attention..
So.. here is the deal.
Whenever you are exposed to an affliction, you get a save to negate the affliction. If you fail, you must deal with all of its effects.
When it comes to poison, the first save, when exposed, is always at the base DC. If you fail and contract, that is when the duration adds and the DC goes up. There is a bit of poor wording in the poison text for this with the example, because it should mention that he was bitten three times and failed his first saves.
So... it would look like this.
PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 17 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect twice, once each time he was hit).I think that clears it up? If not, please provide further questions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't like this. Personally, I prefer:
Person gets hit once,
Person gets hit again
person's turn, he is forced to have 1 save at DC17 to take the effect the first time.
Reason: this way they get 1 save against the effect at a higher DC. Poisons were weakened from 3.5 to Pathfinder, and the stacking rules are one of the only things that even remotely brings them back in to their old power, and then only over multiple rounds (We discussed the math in one of the other poison threads). Poisons are expensive. By making your ruling, the DC12 poisons will never affect players after low levels. With my method, you can stack 2-3 doses in 1 round and make an effective poisoner using relatively inexpensive poisons. It is still very difficult to get non-injested/inhaled poisons up high enough to be impossible to overcome, since you only get so many attacks and they wont all hit.
|
|
So... it would look like this.PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 17 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect twice, once each time he was hit).
Oh, that's even nicer than I thought.
@James Maison - There are a lot of harmful spells and effects that happen on the players turn, this isn't unique by a long shot.
|
|
@James Maison - There are a lot of harmful spells and effects that happen on the players turn, this isn't unique by a long shot.Two things:
1. It's James Maissen, not Maison (sorry if it seems minor, but so many people butcher the pronunciation of my name that I'm touchy about it)
Apologies, knew I should have stuck with just James...
2. I'm not saying that its unique, just it seems bad form. While it may save some bookkeeping, it does seem wrong to me. I know that in 3e people had done stabilizations in this manor then altered it to be 1 round from onset rather than based upon the initiative of the victim.
-James
PS: Actually now that I'm thinking on it, I'm not sure what effects fall into your category, could you give a few examples?
I guess bleeding is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. I thought cloudkill and stinking cloud worked that way but they make the saves on the casters turn.
This has been brought to my attention..
So.. here is the deal.
Whenever you are exposed to an affliction, you get a save to negate the affliction. If you fail, you must deal with all of its effects.
When it comes to poison, the first save, when exposed, is always at the base DC. If you fail and contract, that is when the duration adds and the DC goes up. There is a bit of poor wording in the poison text for this with the example, because it should mention that he was bitten three times and failed his first saves.
So... it would look like this.
PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 17 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect twice, once each time he was hit).I think that clears it up? If not, please provide further questions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Okay, so let's shake it up a bit for clarity's sake:
PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, passes DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 15 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect once, once each time he was hit).
Is that right?
This has been brought to my attention..
So.. here is the deal.
Whenever you are exposed to an affliction, you get a save to negate the affliction. If you fail, you must deal with all of its effects.
When it comes to poison, the first save, when exposed, is always at the base DC. If you fail and contract, that is when the duration adds and the DC goes up. There is a bit of poor wording in the poison text for this with the example, because it should mention that he was bitten three times and failed his first saves.
So... it would look like this.
PC A gets hit by poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets hit by second poison arrow, fails DC 15 save.
PC A gets a turn, must now make a DC 17 save once and takes the effect only once (after having taken the effect twice, once each time he was hit).I think that clears it up? If not, please provide further questions.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Okay, just to be sure...
On init 20, assassin hits player with two arrows coated in Giant Wasp poison.
Player fails first save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
Player fails second save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
On init 10, the player must make another save at DC 20 to avoid another 1d2 Dex damage.
Is that correct?
Okay, just to be sure...
On init 20, assassin hits player with two arrows coated in Giant Wasp poison.
Player fails first save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
Player fails second save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
On init 10, the player must make another save at DC 20 to avoid another 1d2 Dex damage.
Is that correct?
I don't even see how a person COULD come to that conclusion (that is, the one presented by Jason) with the affliction/poison rules written the way they are.
|
Director of Game Design
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, just to be sure...
On init 20, assassin hits player with two arrows coated in Giant Wasp poison.
Player fails first save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
Player fails second save at base DC of 18, and therefore suffers 1d2 Dex damage immediately.
On init 10, the player must make another save at DC 20 to avoid another 1d2 Dex damage.
Is that correct?
As I am reading the rules, yes, although there is a bit of ambiguity here that is causing some issues. The affliction rules clearly state that when you are exposed, you make a save to see if you've contracted it. The effect section states that the effect occurs whenever you fail a save against the affliction (the exception here being for afflictions with an onset). The poison rules cover the stacking. The only thing that gets murky is when the next save occurs. Here the rules are unclear. Does it happen on the afflicted' turn or does it happen 1 round after the affliction was applied?
I am currently going with "on the afflicted' turn for a host of reasons. First, its a lot easier to track, based on the person. From a rules perspective, there is no other way to do poisons, since multiple doses might be afflicted on different initiative counts, even though they end up stacking into one. Third, when dealing with afflictions that have frequency of 1 day or longer, it all becomes relative to the afflicted.
So there we are... There is a bit of a double dip up front, but since the duration for these is often fixed, its just a matter of how quickly it works its way through you.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
As I am reading the rules, yes, although there is a bit of ambiguity here that is causing some issues. The affliction rules clearly state that when you are exposed, you make a save to see if you've contracted it. The effect section states that the effect occurs whenever you fail a save against the affliction (the exception here being for afflictions with an onset). The poison rules cover the stacking. The only thing that gets murky is when the next save occurs. Here the rules are unclear. Does it happen on the afflicted' turn or does it happen 1 round after the affliction was applied?
I am currently going with "on the afflicted' turn for a host of reasons. First, its a lot easier to track, based on the person. From a rules perspective, there is no other way to do poisons, since multiple doses might be afflicted on different initiative counts, even though they end up stacking into one. Third, when dealing with afflictions that have frequency of 1 day or longer, it all becomes relative to the afflicted.
So there we are... There is a bit of a double dip up front, but since the duration for these is often fixed, its just a matter of how quickly it works its way through you.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So if the target makes the initial save upon contact, the DC/duration does NOT increase for that particular dose?
Thanks, Jason. The only other question I have is when does the afflicted character make the save and take the damage. At the beginning of their turn for both? At the end? Up to the player?
|
Director of Game Design
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Let me give this a bit of thought folks, kick it around the office here, and see what we come up with. There is some ambiguity here and I want to make sure I get the right solution.
I think I am close, but there are a few things that need to be worked out.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
No sweat, Jason. Measure twice, cut once.
And let me add for the umpteenth time...
...You guys rock.
Sigh
Yet another thing I have to house rule.
I certainly don't like the idea that someone makes a save each time they're hit. It really reduces the effectiveness of poisons in general. It certainly opens up design space (a feat or class ability that makes the initial DC very high or unavoidable), but requires a bit of work to be effective.
I also have the same issue with disease. Becoming ill should be scary and dramatic.
|
Sigh
Yet another thing I have to house rule.
I certainly don't like the idea that someone makes a save each time they're hit. It really reduces the effectiveness of poisons in general. It certainly opens up design space (a feat or class ability that makes the initial DC very high or unavoidable), but requires a bit of work to be effective.
I also have the same issue with disease. Becoming ill should be scary and dramatic.
On the flip side though, we are talking about Heroes, not Joe Commoner. Sure the Red shirts get zapped by the disrupters, but Kirk & Spock turn the ambush around. The same should go for PC's. Let NPC's, cohorts & followers be ravaged by afflictions without pity or remorse.
That being said, SOME afflictions should really put a scare on the Heroes too.
--Vrock & Awe!
|
|
Sigh
Yet another thing I have to house rule.
I certainly don't like the idea that someone makes a save each time they're hit. It really reduces the effectiveness of poisons in general. It certainly opens up design space (a feat or class ability that makes the initial DC very high or unavoidable), but requires a bit of work to be effective.
I also have the same issue with disease. Becoming ill should be scary and dramatic.
I think you underestimate how powerful poisons are without that initial save. In particular for poisons that have no cure or cure only on 2 consecutive saves. Without a intro save things can get crazy fast. Look at dragon's bile and deathblade and how insane they could be with just a few hits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what its worth, here is how I've been handling it (in a game with both an alchemist and a ranger with a viper companion who brews her own poison).
My biggest deviation from what I've seen is that I add the +2 to the DC REGARDLESS after the initial shot, and before the first save is made if multiple doeses are delivered in the initial round. Likewise, the DC continues to go up even if the initial save is made each time. Duration only extends after an initial save is failed. Overall, this makes less having to remember saves, and poison more frightening if you let yourself get pumped full of it. Here is an example fight:
T-Rex lumbers out of jungle (Fort +15). Ranger uses Rapidshot with each arrow poisoned with Medium Viper Venom (1d2 con,6 rounds, DC 13), all 3 hit.
2 extra hits beyond first bumps the DC by +4, the T-Rex saves against DC 17 and succeeds. Next round, 3 more arrows land, DC raises by +6. T-Rex saves against DC 23. Third round, 3 more arrows, +6 to DC. T-Rex fails against DC 29, takes 1d2 con for the next 6 rounds. On round 4, one last arrow hits with poison (lets assume the ranger ran out, 10 shots is a lot). DC goes up by +2, total DC 31. Duration now increases by +50% per extra dose as written.
My justification for this interpretation is that poison WILL affect ANYTHING given sufficient dosage. An elephant might be able to walk away from a cobra bite, but injecting a gallon or two of cobra venom into it's system is going to have an effect. Same with alchohol, enough beers will get anyone drunk, assuming they have the stomach capacity for it. And the whole "5% chance he rolls a 1 and auto-fails" fails to replicate the inevitability of succumbing to toxins. Regarding duration, it helps to keep the "dosage level" in line on a semi-realistic front. A larger creature requires a more potent dose to have the same effect as a standard dose on a medium creature, but at that point the doses are equal, relative to size. Extra doses beyond that point increase the duration.
Hopefully that made sense to those who bothered to read it. The final effect I have found at the table is that poison becomes viable as both a monster and PC tactic (which the alchemist fully opened up but was still available to everyone but Palladins prior), and reduces the overall amount of table confusion without significantly increasing the bookwork (a scrap of paper with a series of tick marks to represent the stacking doses is often good enough to keep the DC calculations consistent). In short: this interpretation fits the realistic expectations, the game expectations, and does not detract from the game in any noticable way so far. Which is all I want from a rule.
This is good news. I'm hoping there's a uniform game mechanic to handle:Let me give this a bit of thought folks, kick it around the office here, and see what we come up with. There is some ambiguity here and I want to make sure I get the right solution.
I think I am close, but there are a few things that need to be worked out.
- inhaling 4 doses at once
- inhaling 2 doses at once for 2 rounds
- being stung 4 times in a round
- being stung 1 time for 4 rounds
Each results in having 4 doses of poison in your system (assuming various saves are failed).
I'll also lobby for injury poisons to take effect on the first initiative count of when they were delivered. If subsequent effects are triggered on the PCs initiative count, some strange things happen:
- first round period results in two checks for effects
- a creature may get an extra round to apply an additional dose before the poison runs its course:
- o if the PC has a higher initiative, the poison is gone in the last round before the creature can attack.
- o if the creature has a higher initiative, it may be able to extend the poison in the last round before the PC acts.
- o this results in either N or N+1 attacks to lengthen the duration of a poison that lasts N rounds.
Having poisons take effect on the initiative count of when they were first delivered solves both those problems.
|
|
My justification for this interpretation is that poison WILL affect ANYTHING given sufficient dosage.
Your idea makes the more potent poisons insanely powerful. Deathblade for example would require 2 consecutive DC 24 checks after the first round, DC 30 after second round. Considering it's a CON based poison the ability of the creature to make his save becomes extremely difficult for even a T-Rex after the second round. After that you can just walk away and let the poison take it's toll. 12 rounds of 1d3 con drain and it's going to be dead when you return
Things like Dragon's Bile are even worse with a starting DC of 26 at the end of the first round the T-Rex needs to roll a 15 to avoid taking damage. It's expensive but you can hit something three times then dimension door out for a risk free kill. An alchemist in the party with sticky poison brings the cost down by a factor of 4 also.
I don't think poisons without an onset period should get a save when they are introduced into the system. If you take damage from a poisoned weapon/natural attack, guess what? It's in your system and you're poisoned!
You then start making saves at the start of your each of your turns to avoid the damage effects.
If you get shot by 3 poisoned arrows in one round, on your next turn you start making saves at +4 DC and double the base duration.
Having a save just to see if it would effect you really weakens poisons I think. It's bad enough that some of them take years to create and cost over a thousand gold for a SINGLE dose.
It's the only way for poisons to remain intuitive and balanced.
This also happens to be the way the rules read out to me.
0gre, I don't understand why you seem to have a problem with powerful poisons being powerful.
My justification for this interpretation is that poison WILL affect ANYTHING given sufficient dosage.Your idea makes the more potent poisons insanely powerful. Deathblade for example would require 2 consecutive DC 24 checks after the first round, DC 30 after second round. Considering it's a CON based poison the ability of the creature to make his save becomes extremely difficult for even a T-Rex after the second round. After that you can just walk away and let the poison take it's toll. 12 rounds of 1d3 con drain and it's going to be dead when you return
Things like Dragon's Bile are even worse with a starting DC of 26 at the end of the first round the T-Rex needs to roll a 15 to avoid taking damage. It's expensive but you can hit something three times then dimension door out for a risk free kill. An alchemist in the party with sticky poison brings the cost down by a factor of 4 also.
6 doeses of Dragon Bile, 9K. 6 doses of Deathblade: 10.2K. I'm ok with players spending 2 rounds, hitting 6 times, and spending a huge chunk of money to kill 1 monster.
Though, personally, I am reducing all the poisons prices in my campaign by a factor of 10 so I don't feel like I'm spending all my money to outfit villians with them, or giving the PCs a boatload of cash when they win. Even with that, I still don't feel it overpowered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Respective mileages may vary, but my personal preference (and my groups) is that reality is similuated as accurately as possible through the abstraction of the game system, up to the point it just becomes overly complicated and un-fun. 3rd edition, and Pathfinder, does this more admirably than most other systems we have tested.
That being said, poison has almost always failed to deliver in this regard prior to Pathfinder and my interpretation/modifcation of the rules. In nature, the average venomous predator relies entirely upon its venom to kill or incapacitate it's prey. With the saving throw system and poison DCs and effects the way they are, this is almost impossible to replicate even at the closest comparison to reality.
Small viper versus rat is a good example, the rat has 4hp, +2 fort, and 11 con. The viper's DC 11, 1d2 con, 6 round poison is almost incapable of killing the rat. At best, the snake bites it for a single point of damage (1d3-2) and then hopes it takes the 8 points of con damage necessary to knock it unconcious from HP lowering, which could take anywhere from 4-6 rounds, or not even happen at all, if the rat succeeds a fortitude save, which is likely given the respective mod and DC.
My interpretation doesn't fix that example directly, but at least the snake can bite again and make the rat less able to resist the poison, regardless of the first save.
In the end, its all about interpretation. My interpretation is that a fortitude save does not cause you to spontaneously vent the poison back out of your system, it merely shows that the poison's current level in your system is not enough to have an appreciable effect. Adding more poison will eventually overload that resistance. Again, your mileage may vary.
|
|
6 doeses of Dragon Bile, 9K. 6 doses of Deathblade: 10.2K. I'm ok with players spending 2 rounds, hitting 6 times, and spending a huge chunk of money to kill 1 monster.My justification for this interpretation is that poison WILL affect ANYTHING given sufficient dosage.Your idea makes the more potent poisons insanely powerful. Deathblade for example would require 2 consecutive DC 24 checks after the first round, DC 30 after second round. Considering it's a CON based poison the ability of the creature to make his save becomes extremely difficult for even a T-Rex after the second round. After that you can just walk away and let the poison take it's toll. 12 rounds of 1d3 con drain and it's going to be dead when you return
Things like Dragon's Bile are even worse with a starting DC of 26 at the end of the first round the T-Rex needs to roll a 15 to avoid taking damage. It's expensive but you can hit something three times then dimension door out for a risk free kill. An alchemist in the party with sticky poison brings the cost down by a factor of 4 also.
If you are assuming purchasing at market prices. Most of the renewed interest in Poison is due to the alchemist class though which won't be purchasing it at market price but 1/3 of that for crafting cost.
But wait... there's more!
The sticky poison discovery means that you can make a single dose of poison stay on the blade for up to 4 hits which reduces the cost of poisoning by a factor of 4 or more.
So assuming you can reuse your weapons your 6 doses of dragons bile only cost 750 gold. For killing a CR 10 creature (or more) at very low risk? That's a bargain and you will almost certainly get more than that back in treasure.
If you are assuming purchasing at market prices. Most of the renewed interest in Poison is due to the alchemist class though which won't be purchasing it at market price but 1/3 of that for crafting cost.But wait... there's more!
The sticky poison discovery means that you can make a single dose of poison stay on the blade for up to 4 hits which reduces the cost of poisoning by a factor of 4 or more.
So assuming you can reuse your weapons your 6 doses of dragons bile only cost 750 gold. For killing a CR 10 creature (or more) at very low risk? That's a bargain and you will almost certainly get more than that back in treasure.
Yeah, I really don't have any problem with that. There are lots of ways to deal with a CR10 creature. This way requires you to hit it with 6 melee strikes 9if your using sticky weapon). If, after 6 strikes, the monster isn't mostly dead anyway without the poison, your doing something wrong. By the time your fighting CR10, you should be doing ~20 damage with the weapon anyway. Without a crit, that is 80% of its HP.
Your example alchemist is a specialist, considering he took class abilities specifically to augment the tactic. Its no different than an undead controlling cleric or a weapon specialized fighter. He should have an advantage in his field of specialization; thats the point, after all. Besides, anyone can craft poison. The alchemist is only slightly more likely because its assumed he will take ranks of craft:alchemy. Lets not forget that the Alchemists bonus on craft: alchemy only applies to Alchemical Items, and not to poisons.
Now, its true that my modifications may make this particular tactic more appealing due to the way that specialization like Sticky Poison interact with it. I fully admit that. To my group, that changes nothing. Poison (and by proxy most medicine, alcohol, or other chemicals) is, ultimately, irresistable. It is merely a factor of dosage, and resisting it is merely a delaying factor. To be unconcerned with poison comes only from being flat out immune by virtue of being made of rock, steel, or solidified chaos and evil.
I've seen far worse potential abuse come from crafting Greater Arrows of Slaying keyed to Undead and Constructs. Ultimately, I'm very lucky. I have a group that optimizes, and also roleplays. Their characters want to be good at what they do, but if they get so good it starts breaking the game, they back off. Short version: I have a good group, so I can afford to modify rules like this.
Do I expect Jason and Co. to look at my modifications and say "This is how it should be done?" No, not at all. Would that be gratifying if they did? Yes, of course, its always gratifying to have a person of authority whom you respect use your ideas. Will it bother me if they don't? No, because I don't feel that just because my house rules work well for my group, that they would do equally well for every other group out there.
If the poison lasts 6 round, is the damage applied each round?
If the poison lasts 6 round, is the damage applied each round?
Poisons last until cured or until the duration ends. You make a new save every incident of the frequency. Anytime you fail a save you take the damage.
So if a poison has a duration of six rounds and a frequency of one round you would roll a save every round. Failure means you take the damage per the poison. (If you make the save you take no damage. If you have made enough saves in a row the poison is cured and the duration ends.)
@The Black Bard
I'd love to debate this with you about what the rule should be but there is a lot of confusion about what the rule actually is and talking about might be rules is muddying a confusing topic.
Opps. I did not realize I was answering a question based upon a previous post. Having read the other topic I see why that could be an interesting thought. But I would suggest that be continued in the house rules or homebrew sections.
But far be it from me to be a forum cop. AS I am jsut some random forum lurker. :) LOL
Something I've been thinking of doing is having the saving throw for short duration poisons just prevent you from taking damage that round. The poison will run its course, but the afflicted is likely to save a number of times against the more basic poisons.
|
Let me give this a bit of thought folks, kick it around the office here, and see what we come up with. There is some ambiguity here and I want to make sure I get the right solution.
I think I am close, but there are a few things that need to be worked out.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Did we ever get a clear answer on how the save on the second save in the first round affected the 2nd overall save on the PC's actual turn thing?