Hello all; I recently ran into a rules debate regarding the poison effects of monsters.
I have always assumed (and found nothing in the rules to the contrary....but also nothing to the affirmative) that if a character is bitten/stung/etc. multiple times over the course of a combat, whether by the same creature or multiple creatures, that saving throws against poisons must be made for every successful hit that does damage against the character (depending on the type of poison, of course), and that the effects of multiple failed saves will continue to cause ability losses.
A couple of my players on the other hand disagreed, saying that poison effects from wounds from different creatures would certainly stack, but that once you've failed one saving throw against, say, a giant scorpion's stinger, you no longer need to make further saves against [i]that particular scorpion/i], having already been poisoned by it. Again, I can find nothing in the rules to either support or dismiss this opinion.
Needless to say, we Rule Zeroed it in favour of my original ruling, but I am still quite curious as to what other DMs do with poison effects.
Thanks in advance for any advice that board members can provide.
Cheers,
Colin
I agree with your ruling, multiple poisonings, even if from the same source, stack.
The boards ate my post so this may come up twice, but...
You ruled correctly. Poison is ability damage, not an ability penalty. While most penalties don't stack (like ray of enfeeblement), damage keeps piling on. It doesn't matter if it's from an axe, an undead touch, or, as in this case, poison.
Ghettowedge has correctly identified the issue: damage stacks. Your players are essentially trying to argue that once you've been hit by a longsword for 8 hit points of damage, you can no longer be harmed by that particular longsword.
Agree, however does the converse also apply: If they save v a monsters attack, they are safe from its poison from then on. Yes?
Agree, however does the converse also apply: If they save v a monsters attack, they are safe from its poison from then on. Yes?
Hmmm, I would absolutely say no, unless it's specifically mentioned in the monster description that once an effect is saved against by a character then they are immune to further attempts by that creature (and it's usually mental/Will-based attacks that seem to have a proviso of that nature within the Special Attack description....I seem to recall that the Allip has something like that in its monster entry). I think if a snake bites you and you shrug off its poison once, that's no guarantee you'll be able to do it the second time around.
But maybe I'm just a hard-case ;-)
Cheers,
Colin
I think if a snake bites you and you shrug off its poison once, that's no guarantee you'll be able to do it the second time around.
But maybe I'm just a hard-case ;-)
Yup. I agree. No guarentees for the second time around, even by the exact same creature.
Then again, I'm a hard-case too!
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Agree, however does the converse also apply: If they save v a monsters attack, they are safe from its poison from then on. Yes?Hmmm, I would absolutely say no, unless it's specifically mentioned in the monster description that once an effect is saved against by a character then they are immune to further attempts by that creature (and it's usually mental/Will-based attacks that seem to have a proviso of that nature within the Special Attack description....I seem to recall that the Allip has something like that in its monster entry). I think if a snake bites you and you shrug off its poison once, that's no guarantee you'll be able to do it the second time around.
Agreed on all points. Damage from poison stacks and a new save is required every time the poison comes in contact with the character.
I once had a paladin in one of my games fighting against a wyvern. As I'm sure some of you already know, wyvern poison is especially devastating since it deals Con damage... and 1d12 Con damage if I remember correctly (or is it 2d6?). Paladins have unusually high Fortitude saves thanks to Divine Grace and a high base Fort save as a class overall, so this character was able to successfully save against the poison on a roll of 3 or better. The wyvern had struck him 4 times over the course of the fight and he had passed the save each time. On the last hit though, the player rolled a 2 and I rolled max damage on the poison. The reduction of hit points from the abrupt loss of 12 Constitution dropped him well below -40. He died amazingly.
Here's something to think about: If a poison-delivering attack scores a critical hit, can the ability damage from the poison be multiplied as well? I don't know if it outlines this anywhere but my initial thought is that it basically functions like Sneak Attack damage and is NOT multiplied in crits. I'm curious if there's an official ruling though.
Agree, however does the converse also apply: If they save v a monsters attack, they are safe from its poison from then on. Yes?
No, they are not safe. If you make your save against a wizard's fireball, are you "safe" from the next one he casts?
Here's something to think about: If a poison-delivering attack scores a critical hit, can the ability damage from the poison be multiplied as well? I don't know if it outlines this anywhere but my initial thought is that it basically functions like Sneak Attack damage and is NOT multiplied in crits. I'm curious if there's an official ruling though.
You're right. Poison is like a side effect of the hit and doesn't get multiplied. What I wonder about is effects where poison is the only damage happening, like a poison spell. It seems that in that instance it should be doubled.
That's correct, Ghettowedge. The initial Con damage dealt by a poison spell would be doubled on a critical touch attack. (Note that per Complete Arcane, only damage dealt in the round the spell strikes is multiplied, so the secondary Con damage occurring a minute later would not be doubled.)
Damage stacks. Definitely.
As to the saves...hmmmm....if a character saves from poison, I would exempt them from requiring to save from that source/type of poison for the remainder of that enounter, but put them right back in the hot seat on the next encounter where that same source/type was involved. Even if a character is being shot at by two or more NPC's with the same "Type" of posion arrow, that doesn't mean every arrow has exactly the same poision on it, or that something hasn't happened to make them different now (like oxidation, dirt contamination, palm sweat, et etc.). If the character saves from one, but not the other, he's exempt only from the poison on the arrows of that one PC and continues to stack damage from the others. If he saves from all of them, he gets no poison damage during that encuonter, but an hour later, in a new encounter (even with the same NPCs!) he has to begin saving again.
Complicated, but fair.
Agree, however does the converse also apply: If they save v a monsters attack, they are safe from its poison from then on. Yes?Hmmm, I would absolutely say no, unless it's specifically mentioned in the monster description that once an effect is saved against by a character then they are immune to further attempts by that creature (and it's usually mental/Will-based attacks that seem to have a proviso of that nature within the Special Attack description....I seem to recall that the Allip has something like that in its monster entry). I think if a snake bites you and you shrug off its poison once, that's no guarantee you'll be able to do it the second time around.Agreed on all points. Damage from poison stacks and a new save is required every time the poison comes in contact with the character.
I once had a paladin in one of my games fighting against a wyvern. As I'm sure some of you already know, wyvern poison is especially devastating since it deals Con damage... and 1d12 Con damage if I remember correctly (or is it 2d6?). Paladins have unusually high Fortitude saves thanks to Divine Grace and a high base Fort save as a class overall, so this character was able to successfully save against the poison on a roll of 3 or better. The wyvern had struck him 4 times over the course of the fight and he had passed the save each time. On the last hit though, the player rolled a 2 and I rolled max damage on the poison. The reduction of hit points from the abrupt loss of 12 Constitution dropped him well below -40. He died amazingly.
Here's something to think about: If a poison-delivering attack scores a critical hit, can the ability damage from the poison be multiplied as well? I don't know if it outlines this anywhere but my initial thought is that it basically functions like Sneak Attack damage and is NOT multiplied in crits. I'm curious if there's an official ruling though.
Just to clarify, it says in the DMG that a PC cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp/hd by CON damage.
So an 11th level PC with 50/70 HP with a CON of 16 could be reduced to no less than 11 HP even if his CON score dropped all the way down to 1.
At least that's how I ruled it. It makes sense to me, a CON of 0 already kills you, no need to make it more deadly at lower HP. You could go percentage though if it doesn't make sense that a PC would go from 50/70 to 11/11. He could go to 6 or 7/11.
Just trying to educate, my rogue/fighter is a magnet for CON damage so I had to know for sure ;).
Just to clarify, it says in the DMG that a PC cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp/hd by CON damage.
So an 11th level PC with 50/70 HP with a CON of 16 could be reduced to no less than 11 HP even if his CON score dropped all the way down to 1.
He'd be reduced to -9/11 HP and die unless he stabilized before the end of his next turn. Your hit points change, but that doesn't mean you ignore the damage you've already taken.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Just to clarify, it says in the DMG that a PC cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp/hd by CON damage.
So an 11th level PC with 50/70 HP with a CON of 16 could be reduced to no less than 11 HP even if his CON score dropped all the way down to 1.
At least that's how I ruled it. It makes sense to me, a CON of 0 already kills you, no need to make it more deadly at lower HP. You could go percentage though if it doesn't make sense that a PC would go from 50/70 to 11/11. He could go to 6 or 7/11.
Just trying to educate, my rogue/fighter is a magnet for CON damage so I had to know for sure ;).
You're absolutely correct, a character cannot be reduced to less than his HD in max hit points by Con damage (unless it drops him to 0, which kills him anyway).
However, if you read my full statement, the paladin had already been hit NUMEROUS times by the wyvern. This means that he had already taken substantial amounts of damage. When the Con damage reduced his MAXIMUM hit points, the damage he had already taken was subtracted from the NEW total and the result was well below -40.
Using the paladin in question as an example, he had a CON of 16 and right around 80 hit points. He had already taken 70 damage from the wyvern's attacks. Thus, his hit points are now at 10/80. Now, suddenly, he suffers 12 Con damage, causing his maximum hit points to drop by 6 points per level. He was level 9, so this is a 54 hit point reduction. Now his MAXIMUM hit points are 26 but he's ALREADY SUSTAINED 70 damage, bringing his current total to -44 in addition to the physical damage dealt by the final attack (I think it was like 9 or something).
Just to clarify, it says in the DMG that a PC cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp/hd by CON damage.
So an 11th level PC with 50/70 HP with a CON of 16 could be reduced to no less than 11 HP even if his CON score dropped all the way down to 1.
At least that's how I ruled it. It makes sense to me, a CON of 0 already kills you, no need to make it more deadly at lower HP. You could go percentage though if it doesn't make sense that a PC would go from 50/70 to 11/11. He could go to 6 or 7/11.
Just trying to educate, my rogue/fighter is a magnet for CON damage so I had to know for sure ;).
You're absolutely correct, a character cannot be reduced to less than his HD in max hit points by Con damage (unless it drops him to 0, which kills him anyway).
However, if you read my full statement, the paladin had already been hit NUMEROUS times by the wyvern. This means that he had already taken substantial amounts of damage. When the Con damage reduced his MAXIMUM hit points, the damage he had already taken was subtracted from the NEW total and the result was well below -40.
Using the paladin in question as an example, he had a CON of 16 and right around 80 hit points. He had already taken 70 damage from the wyvern's attacks. Thus, his hit points are now at 10/80. Now, suddenly, he suffers 12 Con damage, causing his maximum hit points to drop by 6 points per level. He was level 9, so this is a 54 hit point reduction. Now his MAXIMUM hit points are 26 but he's ALREADY SUSTAINED 70 damage, bringing his current total to -44 in addition to the physical damage dealt by the final attack (I think it was like 9 or something).
Ouch, consider this house ruled!