The lethality of posion

[siegfriedliner]

I was just thinking back to ally the PC deaths in pathfinder 2e games I played and I noticed poison was over represented.

I have witnessed 2 tpk's were the gm told us the monsters killed us when we were down. 1 death eeffect death and six deaths by posion 2 of which were directly after combat had finished.

Is that because posion are particulary nasty or because unlike gms they don't pull their punches.

Also has anyone else noticed a surprising numberof posion deaths?

[HammerJack]

I have seen that persistent damage or poison can be very lethal to PCs, because if you're Dying while suffering from them, it pushes you though dying stages much faster, but I've also seen that if you still have a hero point to set you back up to stable when you would die that it's often possible for someone in your party to do something before that poison (or persistent fire/acid/whatever else) can bring you back down to dying 4. I dont see poison making as big of a difference in the chance of TPK as it makes to the odds of one character dying before anyone can help them, while the fight is still going, though.

[Castilliano]

Poison's nastier in PF2; PF1's poisons relied a lot on attrition (making a Wand of Lesser Restoration a must when affordable) while PF2's hit hard for a short burst. (Both better than ye olde low-level/low-XP save or die critters!)

But, I wouldn't put all the emphasis on poison; how nasty it is depends on party composition (i.e. who has Juggernaut vs. who's a caster) Poison targets Fort while being lit on fire or doused with acid (et al) can have similar effects, but are usually tied to Ref saves. And those too have gained some notoriety, as has bleeding.

I don't know if it's applicable in the instances you cite, but ongoing damage (whether through persistent damage, poison, or other effects that'll hit an unconscious creature) are the worst. When I start my post-Covid campaign, this will be one of the bits of advice to new players: consider ongoing damage to be the most lethal "normal" threat you'll face.
(Arguably those quick-recharging AoE attacks & Trample contend for first worst.)

I guess poison could be the worst of the recurring damage because it stacks better, is harder to help an ally with*, and it's more uncommon to get Resistance. I remember in the early days of PF2, people would often cite poison/Fort saves as a better reason to get Con than hit points. I see a 14 Con as a minimum except in unusual cases.

*Another reason to take Medicine. :)

[Megistone]

When I started playing, poison was like: "The snake bites you; save at 12+ or you are dead." I must say that it wasn't very funny, no.
On the contrary, in PF1 poison has never been more than a short annoyance for my groups: yes, a few points of CON penalty can be nasty, but usually you end up plugging the leak quite soon, and it's nothing that some potions (scrolls/wand) of Lesser Restoration can't deal with.
Now poison is a bit scarier, in my opinion, without being too deadly until you actually get the Dying condition. That one requires immediate care.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Depends on how frequently it is applied imo, players have so many tools to deal with poison I doubt it is a huge issue to diverse groups or players who decide to have consumables on hand just in case.

Plus, hero points are a solid spend if you can get a decent number of bonuses to a save.

People should generally prioritise clearing the poison before they go down imo. Treat poison is well worth attempting. Antidote elixirs are cheap and have a pretty big impact if there are multiple rolls needed.