Do you know if you won a poison save that somebody tried to poison you?

[Crimeo]

Can't seem to find any text on this. It says in the spell section that you know if you win a save as a malevolent tingle, but not seeing anything relevant to poisons.

Assume for purposes of this question that there was no opportunity to notice the poison directly perceptually (assume any relevant checks to notice taste or sticky stuff on a sword, etc. failed). If I succeed my fort save, do I even have any idea anything special happened? other than just eating a normal bowl of soup or getting hit by a normal sword?

(Interested primarily in text citations, please).

[Lost In Limbo]

PRD: Afflictions wrote:

From curses to poisons to diseases, there are a number of afflictions that can affect a creature. While each of these afflictions has a different effect, they all function using the same basic system. 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.

Afflictions require a creature to make a saving throw after a period of time to avoid taking certain penalties. With most afflictions, if a number of saving throws are made consecutively, the affliction is removed and no further saves are necessary. Some afflictions, usually supernatural ones, cannot be cured through saving throws alone and require the aid of powerful magic to remove. Each affliction is presented as a short block of information to help you better adjudicate its results.

This is the entirety of the relevant text I can find on the subject and I don't see an answer to your question. As such, unless the answer is hidden somewhere else it is up to GM discretion.

Personally, I would follow the example of magical attacks and let the individual know that something bad had happened. Perhaps a feeling of illness or something like that.

[CampinCarl9127]

I'd probably call for a heal check. The higher the DC of the poison, the lower the DC of the heal.

But yeah, not finding a hard rules answer anywhere.

[Qaianna]

I can't think of a hard rule either. I'd let reality guide to some sense: something happened, but what, and why? Was it that roast you wolfed down, or that critter that bit you earlier, or maybe those brambles that tore at your skin as you got into town? And even if you know it was the food ... was it poisoned or merely rotten? You know something happened, but Heal checks and other things are going to be needed to sort out what.

[Dekalinder]

I would imagine that drinking black lotus tend to have some kind of unusual taste that could tick you off.

[Zelda Marie Lupescu]

Dekalinder wrote:

I would imagine that drinking black lotus tend to have some kind of unusual taste that could tick you off.

In a recent episode of a horror-comedy TV show some sorority girls tried to poison the dean with apple cider laced with snake venom. It failed, and while the dean didn't know they had tried to poison her, she thought it had a sort of spicy nutmeg taste. She loved it.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

Assume for purposes of this question that there was no opportunity to notice the poison directly perceptually

Mainly because there are oodles of ways to mask things like that that are easy to come by, so that doesn't much affect the viability of the builds.

[The Archive]

I believe that, yes, you do know that you saved against something.

The Psyche Serpent has a feature that calls out not noticing poison as an exception:

Quote:

Painless Bite (Ex) A psyche serpent’s venom has a powerful numbing effect, causing its bites to inflict no pain and allowing it to inject its poison without alerting its victims or awakening them from sleep. Even if the victim succeeded at its saving throw, it remains unaware it attempted a save against a psyche serpent’s venom.

[Crimeo]

That's a good catch, though it is part of a BITE, they may just want to give lots of extra reassuring and redundant text for something that seems argument prone.

[KestrelZ]

You usually know that something is causing a reaction (i.e. you have to make a save). Without a heal check, or some detection spell you will not necessarily know the cause. The higher the check, the more likely you can narrow it down to magic, poison, or disease.

This does not mean you can figure out the source. Other skills and some investigation would be needed. Sure you know if it is poison, yet what kind and how it entered your system would need other skills to figure out.

[Wheldrake]

Note that poisons have such varied effects that it is impossible to make a sweeping generalization. The Psyche Serpents counter-example above is about a good as it's going to get, in terms of RAW.

IRL and in fiction, there are many sources to go on.
- The bitter almond taste of arsenic is notorious, although noticing it *as poison* depends on having the knowledge of that association.
- The private detective who's been "slipped a mickey" generally doesn't know he's been drugged/poisoned until the room starts spinning. The whole premise of this type of poisoning relies on it passing undetected.
- The same can be said for GHB, Rohypnol or other so-called "date-rape drugs".
- Some poisons are so fast-acting that the victim doesn't have time to detect them. Like blowfish toxin, which can paralyze its victims in seconds, leading to death through asphyxiation and heart failure.
- Some poisons can actually be pleasant. One anecdote about the ingestion of poisonous mushrooms like Aminita Muscaria (from Writer's Digest books "A writer's guide to poisons") has the victim saying "death never tasted so good" right after getting his stomach pumped and surviving.

I think your DM is going to have to decide on a case-by-case basis. Most poisons will be something you automatically notice: a creeping paralysis, a burning sensation, violent nausea, etc. Others might be more subtle, requiring a perception check. Still others might be concealable on a successful bluff check from the poisoner. Some poisons, by their nature, are simply tasteless and odorless.

I bet there is a 3rd-party book out there somewhere that details poisons.

In the absence of RAW on this, I suggest treating nearly all contact and injury poisons as automatically obvious. Ingested poisons could allow a bluff or profession (chef) check to disguise their nature. Inhalation poisons could allow a perception check equal to the poison's DC to notice something was "fishy", then a knowledge (nature) check to identify the reason.

[The Raven Black]

I would say that succeeding at the save vs poison, by itself, tells you nothing.

Because the RAW does not say that you learn anything in such a case.

While it explicitly states that you learn something when succeeding at a save vs spells.

[Crimeo]

Quote:

You usually know that something is causing a reaction (i.e. you have to make a save).

As far as I can tell, though, there is no written rule that you DO know when you make a save in general. That only seems to be mentioned in terms of spell saves, not all saves.

Quote:

Most poisons will be something you automatically notice: a creeping paralysis, a burning sensation, violent nausea,

Failing your save and having a slow onset time poison I agree absolutely you should probably feel the room start to spin and creeping sensations and stuff. Mainly talking about people who SUCCEED their saves.

Succeeding doesn't really fit much with the literature tropes and such, that's one of the reasons it's tricky to adjudicate based on assumed intent, or storyline.

Like, what the hell does it even MEAN to pass your save and somehow be completely unaffected by, say, drow poison, which INSTANTLY knocks out the guy next to you. That's just weird. It's really hard to think about a story explanation for that. Thus was hoping for some rules to just point to, but oh well. I will make up something that seems reasonable.

At least poisons take so damn long to make and build options for that it's easy to prep stories for them.

[Claxon]

The Raven Black wrote:

I would say that succeeding at the save vs poison, by itself, tells you nothing.

Because the RAW does not say that you learn anything in such a case.

While it explicitly states that you learn something when succeeding at a save vs spells.

I would consider that to be more of an oversight on the rules, than intentional.

[Qaianna]

Claxon wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I would say that succeeding at the save vs poison, by itself, tells you nothing.

Because the RAW does not say that you learn anything in such a case.

While it explicitly states that you learn something when succeeding at a save vs spells.

I would consider that to be more of an oversight on the rules, than intentional.

Agreed. And remember, the knowledge you get from saving against a spell is that ... 'something' happened and it didn't effect you. You don't know if it's Charm Person or Sleep. Except that where with spells a Spellcraft (or, for generous GMs, Knowledge (Arcana)) roll will trigger something, with poisons ... hm. Craft (Alchemy), Profession (Cook), or Heal, perhaps?

[Pizza Lord]

No, you do not know someone attempted to poison you just because you made a saving throw; pass or fail. There may be noticeable effects from that which might tip you off; muscle weakness, falling unconscious, vomiting.

The 'hostile tingle' from a save against a magic effect (specifically one which does not otherwise have a visible effect.) is specific to saves against hostile spell effects.

If you fall asleep in a bed using a plague blanket, you don't suddenly bolt upright after an hour of exposure (or whenever a save vs. infection is called) and say, "Whoa! A virus is being combated by my white blood cells! Thank the Gods I made my save!"

There's lots of examples in the replies previously of why someone might notice they've been poisoned but not a single one of them is because of a saving throw being made or failed.
Noticing a sickly-sweet smell would be a Perception check. Noticing a faintly off taste would come after actually ingesting the poison. Recognizing that a certain poison leaves a blue residue would be a Knowledge check (or maybe Craft: Poison, or Profession: Apothecary, or some other reasonable skill). In any case, the Saving Throw is not the reason someone would know there was poison, that depends on the poison, whether it has a taste, a scent, a distinguishing feature and whether the player would notice/recognize such a thing, even if only after it's too late (ie, you can't tell what something tastes like without tasting it, or "Hey, does this smell like Chloroform to you?")

[Dekalinder]

Well, passing the save doesn't actually means nothing happens. It means you resist the negative penality. For example, againt a drow poison the room might start spinning but you manage to keep consciusness and pull yourself up. Passing the save does not necessary means "nom nom nom that thing was tasty".

[Pizza Lord]

Dekalinder wrote:

Well, passing the save doesn't actually means nothing happens. It means you resist the negative penality. For example, againt a drow poison the room might start spinning but you manage to keep consciusness and pull yourself up. Passing the save does not necessary means "nom nom nom that thing was tasty".

For purposes of this question, there are no visible, perceptive indications of poison, so other than any effects that occur from passing the save, ie 'even on a save the subject suffers stomach cramps (though with no damage or penalties)' then passing a save gives no indication of anything amiss. This would be the case with ingesting poison with an onset time of, say 1 hour. The player rolls his save when it's ingested. If he passes, he finishes his tasty soup and an hour passes. If he fails, absolutely no in-game difference; he finishes his tasty soup and an hour passes. At that point, depending on what the poison does, something may happen, but he doesn't suddenly succeed on his save and exclaim "This tasty soup tastes like undetectable poison that is not having any effect on me!" He certainly could choose to say that, but there better be a damn good in-character reason for it. The player saying, "I just rolled a saving throw, so my character knows something is up," ain't gonna cut it.

Since the rules for Poison themselves don't really go into tastes, smells, what color the victim's lips or pupils change to after poisoning, that's all neither here nor there. What they do say is that you're unaffected if you pass, you also don't have to make secondary checks, etc. Since 'unaffected' generally means nothing happens, you probably shouldn't have them be affected. If there is an effect that happens even if you save, then that's a specific and atypical example of poison or disease.

You are perfectly fine in your game to tell your player "Yeah, you just made your save, so you don't lose any Dex, but you fall over and the room is spinning and you throw up and can't move." but that's your call. At that point, the player can reasonably assume his character notices that he's throwing up, but he doesn't know if it's poisoning from the crossbow bolt that just hit him, or from the onset delay from the wine he drank earlier or food poisoning from the bad clams he ate with the wine. Otherwise, when you make your initial save against any poison or disease with an onset, the character would just 'mystically' know they caught a disease or were poisoned even with no actual way they could know that.

So, in answer to the question, if a character was eating tasty soup, and there was poison in the soup that had no taste or otherwise interfered with the soup's taste, it would just taste like tasty soup; to which they might, in fact, say 'nom nom nom, that thing was tasty.' In fact, to say otherwise would be meta-gaming, unless their character was just choosing to lie about how tasty the tasty soup was in-character.

I understand what you're saying, Dekalinder; if someone's eating a black lotus-infused soup and in your game you've determined that black lotus tastes like chicken, then yes, you could tell your player that the soup tastes like chicken. You could tell him it tastes like old feet, it makes no difference in the fact that making the saving throw has nothing to do with the perception of the poison.

It's great to have such details, but you're trying to build a cabin from a woodpile that's just meant to be firewood. Say the target of the poisoning has no sense of smell or taste, are you gonna just start adding on more and more descriptions and effects because they make a save and you need to come up with a reason for them to detect it?
DM You eat the soup. Make a Fort Save (which you really should be doing in secret.) You passed? Well, you see a blue-tint to the soup. It's Amydala Flower poison. You've just ingested it and it has an onset time of 1 hour, so nothing noticeable happens to you.
PC "Wow, I didn't even make a perception check. Plus I'm eating in the dark with darkvision, so I can't see color.
DM Oh... umm... you smelled the distinctive odor of rotten flesh and decay. A clear indicator of Amydala Flower poison.
PC I have no sense of smell, and as such no sense of taste. Even if I did, why would I have eaten soup that smelled like rotten flesh? Shouldn't I have gotten a perception check for that before I ate it?
DM Well uhh.... in addition to having a blue tint... and smelling like rotten flesh... Amydala Flower poison has a grainy residue! It's that which tips you off about the undetectable poison in your soup!
Player I reaaaally have question why that was the poison of choice to put in my soup then.
DM Look... you passed your Saving Throw, so nothing happens to you, just be thankful. Oh, I almost forgot though... the room starts spinning, you fall out of your chair and start vomiting uncontrollably... Make a Reflex save to determine why.

[The Raven Black]

Qaianna wrote:

Claxon wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

I would say that succeeding at the save vs poison, by itself, tells you nothing.

Because the RAW does not say that you learn anything in such a case.

While it explicitly states that you learn something when succeeding at a save vs spells.

I would consider that to be more of an oversight on the rules, than intentional.

Agreed. And remember, the knowledge you get from saving against a spell is that ... 'something' happened and it didn't effect you. You don't know if it's Charm Person or Sleep. Except that where with spells a Spellcraft (or, for generous GMs, Knowledge (Arcana)) roll will trigger something, with poisons ... hm. Craft (Alchemy), Profession (Cook), or Heal, perhaps?

This actually strengthens my point :

1) Succeeding at a Fort save that comes from a spell actually tells me that it is magic I saved again (rather than poison), even if I do not know the precise spell.

2) The RAW explicitly states which skill you can use to identify the specific spell in such a case. And it says nothing about a similar case for poison.

To me, both of these are strong clues that poison does not use the same system as magic.

Also, if it worked for poison, it should work for other afflictions such as disease, which are far closer to it in the game system than spells. But we do not see PCs succeeding at a save vs disease and asking if they know that they almost got sick ;-)

[Dekalinder]

@Pizza Lord
I think you are missing the point. What i'm saying is that there are no rules on this, so as per the golden rules of RPG it's a case by case basis determined by the GM. Both "you know nothing" and "you get a clue" are perfectly reasonable depending on the circumstances.

[Wheldrake]

The RAW doesn't state that you can detect or identify poisons when you make a saving throw, but neither does it say you can't.

The only mechanism provided to detect or identify poisons is the cantrip/orison "detect poison" and there exist several corrolary spells or feats like undetectable poison (3pp) or unseen poison, which appear to only interract with the detect poison spell.

It seems reasonable for the heal skill to allow diagnosis of poison and disease, but such language does not exist in the skill description, aside from a vague reference (in the pfsrd) from the technology guide about identifying and understanding pharmaceuticals using the heal skill.

Again, IRL and in literature, there are some poisons whose effects are obvious, and others which are undetectable or nearly so. Since PF doesn't go into that level of detail regarding poisons, the onus falls to the DM to use whatever resources at his disposal to flesh out the skeletal rules of PF. Which of course is synonymous with the words "house rules".

I think the detect poison cantrip/orison could serve as a guideline. The spell allows one to detect poisons *automatically* at a distance, with a DC 20 WIS or craft (alchemy) check to know the specific type and details. Without the spell, a DM might allow a heal check or craft(alchemy) check (DC=DC of the poison) to detect the poisoned state on oneself or on a patient through taste, touch and examination (house rule). The DM also might want to specify for each poison whether it is automatically detected as poison, occasionally detectable (requiring a check) or completely undetectable.

[Numarak]

The question here should be: are physical punishment, attacks to your vitality and health, or resistance to mental influence something noticable?

I think that they are. Whatever the form they take.

And that are the cases where a possible Saving Throw is required for a poison.

---

The idea that Saving Throws are unnoticable is not to be found anywhere in the book; the opposite idea might be found, although not in the specific case for poisons.

If we had to extrapolate, our only starting point is the case that some Saving Throws are always noticable. Extrapolating from nowhere makes not much sense.

---

I think the missconception here comes from the term 'passive'; Saving Throws being passive means, as stated in the rules, that no action is required to roll them, not that you do not know you are rolling for something.

---

Knowing which specific poison has affected you or its effects, I think, would require rolling different skills, but knowing that something just attacked your health? That should be obvious -if not stated the contrary specifically-.

[The Raven Black]

From afflictions in the PRD : Creatures that come in contact with an affliction with an onset time must make a saving throw immediately. Success means that the affliction is avoided and no further saving throws must be made. Failure means that the creature has contracted the affliction and must begin making additional saves after the onset period has elapsed. The affliction's effect does not occur until after the onset period has elapsed and then only if further saving throws are failed.

For a disease, for example, succeeding at that first saving throw means you avoided it completely. Why should anything alert you to the fact that you might have caught something but did not ?

Same for a poison IMO.

But if you fail that first save, you have contracted the affliction and that might give you clues of its existence, even if you succeed at the additional save(s) and thus suffer no ill effect.

[Wheldrake]

The Raven Black wrote:

For a disease, for example, succeeding at that first saving throw means you avoided it completely. Why should anything alert you to the fact that you might have caught something but did not ?

Same for a poison IMO.

Why?

Because many poisons have a distinctive characteristic: a distinctive taste or odor (like the bitter almonds of arsenic), a distinctive sensation (a burning sensation, drowsiness) or a distinctive result (weakness, dizzyness or disorientation).

One might argue, for injury or contact poisons, that a successful initial saving throw means that you somehow avoided having the poison enter your system in the first place, leading to an absence of any telltale sensation or effects at all. If you follow this logic, then you just wouldn't know a poisoning attempt had taken place.

However, the RAW never specifies. It never answers any of these questions. So arguing for RAW, here in the rules forum, is really pointless. There is no "RAW" answer to these questions.

In point of fact, the saving throw mechanism from PF (and from d20 systems in general) doesn't do a very good job of simulating real-life poisons. Instead, it strikes a delicate balancing act between fun and playability on one hand, and plausible life simulations on the other hand. I'm OK with that, and with the idea that only the DM can "fill in the blanks" on a bare-bones system like this one, when detailed questions come up.