26 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

I am currently looking at the way poison is implemented in the official campaign (to edit for use in my own campaign) and have already made a few changes. However, in my investigation and alteration of the official code, I became aware that the handling penalty for a "poison application fail" has not been implemented ... and I found confirmation on the NWN wiki.

Now, my query to would be players, is how would you prefer this to be handled? To which, I make the following additional comments:-

a) I can add a dexterity penalty check for all poison application usage (if the PC does not have the Use Poison feat). Some currently only "fail" on a 1 in 20 chance check if they are based on the older poison system, but I can change this to a dexterity check.

I can add the potential damage for failed usage if players thought it would be interesting/worthwhile.

With both comments in mind, I want to ensure I don't lose the "fun" aspect for the player having the chance to add poison in the first place. So, would it actually be more useful/fun for the player if "poison application" to a weapon is (perhaps) easier - like only failing on a 1 in 20 chance rather than a dexterity check .... and having no bad consequence for a failure?

All feedback on this aspect of the game is welcome.

Many Thanks,
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 15 février 2014 - 01:52 .

[bealzebub]

I like the 1 in 20 chance to fail, and here is what the D&D wiki has to say.

Perils of Using Poison-
A character has a 5% chance of exposing himself to a poison whenever he applies it to a weapon or otherwise readies it for use. Additionally, a character who rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with a poisoned weapon must make a DC 15 Reflex save or accidentally poison himself with the weapon.

[Arkalezth]

Well, for starters, unless you don't want to mess with whatever files control this, I'd make Use Poison a general feat (BG and assassins would still get it for free).

I have no opinion regarding the check at the moment, but if there's a chance of you being affected by the poison, that's exactly what it should happen (i.e. the exact effects of that particular poison should be applied on yourself, though allowing for the proper saving throw of course).

Modifié par Arkalezth, 15 février 2014 - 03:51 .

[Lance Botelle]

bealzebub wrote...

I like the 1 in 20 chance to fail, and here is what the D&D wiki has to say.

Perils of Using Poison-
A character has a 5% chance of exposing himself to a poison whenever he applies it to a weapon or otherwise readies it for use. Additionally, a character who rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with a poisoned weapon must make a DC 15 Reflex save or accidentally poison himself with the weapon.

Arkalezth wrote...

Well, for starters, unless you don't want to mess with whatever files control this, I'd make Use Poison a general feat (BG and assassins would still get it for free).

I have no opinion regarding the check at the moment, but if there's a chance of you being affected by the poison, that's exactly what it should happen (i.e. the exact effects of that particular poison should be applied on yourself, though allowing for the proper saving throw of course).

Hi All,

Thanks for the comments! Very useful!

I can't believe I never checked that D& D Wiki before! I will add that link to my blog now. Thanks for that ref.

I don't mind altering 2da files, so adding as a feat that all players can take (but free for BG/assassins) is a good idea.

I think I will do the following for now then ....

A) Offer Use Poison as a general feat. (Free for BG or A).
If no feat, then have a 1 in 20 FAIL chance for "application" only (not in combat), BUT PC must also make save to avoid poison damage on the failed application.

This means a PC can:

1) Avoid fails/poison damage if they have the feat.
2) Keeps an element of danger at time of application (can take damage here), but OK once applied (not in combat).

If anybody wants to add any further comments, please do.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 15 février 2014 - 03:08 .

[Arkalezth]

Lance Botelle wrote...
If no feat, then have a 1 in 20 FAIL chance for "application" only (not in combat), BUT PC must also make save to avoid poison damage on the failed application.

Personally, I don't find this too dangerous. I mean, I wouldn't "waste" a feat on Use Poison for the rare occasion where I roll a 1 (that alone only happens 5% of the time) and then, on top of that, fail the save. In other words, if Use Poison is added as a general feat, I'd give players a better reason to take it (i.e. make things more dangerous otherwise).

I was thinking of suggesting a skill check (with the difficulty depending on the poison's potence), but I can't think of any skill for it. Craft alchemy makes sense if you're trying to create poison, but not necessarily to apply it - though it could be looked at simply as "poison knowledge".

[Lance Botelle]

Arkalezth wrote...

Lance Botelle wrote...
If no feat, then have a 1 in 20 FAIL chance for "application" only (not in combat), BUT PC must also make save to avoid poison damage on the failed application.

Personally, I don't find this too dangerous. I mean, I wouldn't "waste" a feat on Use Poison for the rare occasion where I roll a 1 (that alone only happens 5% of the time) and then, on top of that, fail the save. In other words, if Use Poison is added as a general feat, I'd give players a better reason to take it (i.e. make things more dangerous otherwise).

I was thinking of suggesting a skill check (with the difficulty depending on the poison's potence), but I can't think of any skill for it. Craft alchemy makes sense if you're trying to create poison, but not necessarily to apply it - though it could be looked at simply as "poison knowledge".

Hi Arkalezth,

Ah, good point ... I would have spotted that when I started to code for it. Therefore, I best use the "Apply Check" or "Handle DC" from the 2da files for *all* poison applications.
 
This then checks against a PCs DEX score to see if they succeed vs the DC of the poison application (unless they have the Use Poison feat.). Then, they can "fail" normally (and lose a vial) or "fail critically" (on a 1) and take damage as well (if they fail a Fort save).

That sound better?

Cheers,
Lance.

EDIT: OR ... a "normal fail" the PC gets a FORT save to protect from damage and a critical fail (on a 1) means they automatically take poison damage ... better option?

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 15 février 2014 - 04:26 .

[Arkalezth]

Both options seem reasonable to me, as long as there's some kind of check - besides rolling a 1 - on any character without Use Poison. Be it DEX or whatever.

[Lance Botelle]

Arkalezth wrote...

Both options seem reasonable to me, as long as there's some kind of check - besides rolling a 1 - on any character without Use Poison. Be it DEX or whatever.

Hi A,

I am going for the second option I think.  i.e. A critical means no save!

Thanks for the input again!

Lance.

[manageri]

Failing a roll and poisoning yourself is stupid design; All it makes people do is reload. It would be best if people couldn't use poison at all without a feat, as that's one of the few things that would make that feat remotely worth considering. Another option would be the feat significantly boosting the poison's effects and/or DC, or maybe allowing poison use in combat (preferably as an instant action since a roundful of attacks will typically outshine a poison roll on one enemy).

[Lance Botelle]

manageri wrote...

Failing a roll and poisoning yourself is stupid design; All it makes people do is reload. It would be best if people couldn't use poison at all without a feat, as that's one of the few things that would make that feat remotely worth considering. Another option would be the feat significantly boosting the poison's effects and/or DC, or maybe allowing poison use in combat (preferably as an instant action since a roundful of attacks will typically outshine a poison roll on one enemy).

Hi manageri,

Reload ... yes, I hear you. And this is one of the reasons I raised the post. It seems the "reload" to avoid any kind of "harm" will be inevitable it seems, and perhaps one that (in this case), I can leave to the conscience/choice of the player. However, by having this kind of "ruling" in place, it stays more true to the original D&D ... which I like to think is always preferable. Reloading makes the action reversible, but .... maybe not worth worrying about?

Actually, there is already a global option in the code that a builder can set to make it so only those with the feat can use poison. However, I like the idea that players could still *try* to use poison they might find to improve the damage of their weapon. Then, if they find they like the idea of doing so, they might then reduce the risks of self harm by taking the feat.

The problem I think exists, however, is that I am not sure players will even *try* to use poison if they have ever played it in the OC campaign before, because it seems so cumbersome to use the way it was implemented there. With some of my own changes, I am hoping a player might be tempted to try to use it due to the benefits it can give.
But, make it too difficult to use in the first place, and it may drive people away from the start.

I like some of your ideas. And actually, if you see how I have implemented it, you will see that it will have a useful benefit in any combat due to the way I have changed the way the duration works. (Check out my link above to my blog post for more info if you like. First link in my first post above.)

Thanks for sharing the comment.
Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 15 février 2014 - 07:58 .

[Dann-J]

To make matters more confusing, there are two poison weapon systems in the game.

MotB introduced one that has a flat 1-in-20 chance of failing (if you don't have 'Use Poison') with no consequences other than wasting one of the five charges on the item. Those poisons aren't craftable (unless you customise alchemy crafting). The MotB poison weapon script allows you to introduce new poisons to the game very easily, since the number suffix on the item tag corresponds with the line number in poisons.2da. I was easily able to introduce blue whinnis and bloodroot weapon poisons.

The OC poisons (various insect/arachnid venoms) are craftable, but each uses a separate item property to determine the DC of the poison, and each bottle has only one charge. I believe the OC script originally poisoned the player on a failed use, but some of those lines may have been commented out with the expansions. I've expanded that original poison weapon script to allow the creation of poison baits by applying the poison to stacks of raw meat. I reinstated the chance of poisoning the player as well.

[rjshae]

You could hide the outcome of the alchemy check to produce the poison and use a failure to increment a susceptibility counter. Once that counter crosses a threshold, the character suffers an automatic effect each time he tries to make more poison. Some (expensive) means to remove the susceptibility would be needed, of course.

[Lance Botelle]

DannJ wrote...

To make matters more confusing, there are two poison weapon systems in the game.

MotB introduced one that has a flat 1-in-20 chance of failing (if you don't have 'Use Poison') with no consequences other than wasting one of the five charges on the item. Those poisons aren't craftable (unless you customise alchemy crafting). The MotB poison weapon script allows you to introduce new poisons to the game very easily, since the number suffix on the item tag corresponds with the line number in poisons.2da. I was easily able to introduce blue whinnis and bloodroot weapon poisons.

The OC poisons (various insect/arachnid venoms) are craftable, but each uses a separate item property to determine the DC of the poison, and each bottle has only one charge. I believe the OC script originally poisoned the player on a failed use, but some of those lines may have been commented out with the expansions. I've expanded that original poison weapon script to allow the creation of poison baits by applying the poison to stacks of raw meat. I reinstated the chance of poisoning the player as well.

Hi DannJ,

Check out my latest blog page on this about poisons and you can see I have made quite a few adjustments ... that works with both systems.   http://worldofalthea.blogspot.co.uk/ I cover things like cannot accidentally use in the wrong way, improved usage regarding "durations" and reinstated Handle DC with respect to both systems while allowing a PC to have the poison feat in general now.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 19 février 2014 - 08:52 .

[Lance Botelle]

rjshae wrote...

You could hide the outcome of the alchemy check to produce the poison and use a failure to increment a susceptibility counter. Once that counter crosses a threshold, the character suffers an automatic effect each time he tries to make more poison. Some (expensive) means to remove the susceptibility would be needed, of course.

Hi rjshae,

Sounds interesting .... maybe something I could look at in a future update ....

Lance.

[Dann-J]

Lance Botelle wrote...

Check out my latest blog page on this about poisons and you can see I have made quite a few adjustments ... that works with both systems.   http://worldofalthea.blogspot.co.uk/ I cover things like cannot accidentally use in the wrong way, improved usage regarding "durations" and reinstated Handle DC with respect to both systems while allowing a PC to have the poison feat in general now.

I like some of those enhancements. It certainly makes sense for poison to remain on the weapon until a successful hit, rather than simply dripping off the weapon in three rounds regardless of whether you've hit or not (or were just standing around doing nothing). I would assume weapon poisons would be designed to be tacky enough to adhere to a blade, so the only way to remove them would be to make physical contact with something (hit a shield, parry a weapon, enter an enemy, deliberately wipe it off, etc).

Making ammunition permanently poisoned makes sense - although you'd want to change the tag, name or description of the poisoned stack. Stackable items will stack together provided their tag, name and description match. If you simply added a poison property to a stack without changing at least one of those things, players could exploit it by continuously adding non-poisoned ammo of the same type to the stack. The newly added ammo would adopt the properties of the entire stack.

[Tchos]

DannJ wrote...
I like some of those enhancements. It certainly makes sense for poison to remain on the weapon until a successful hit, rather than simply dripping off the weapon in three rounds regardless of whether you've hit or not (or were just standing around doing nothing). I would assume weapon poisons would be designed to be tacky enough to adhere to a blade, so the only way to remove them would be to make physical contact with something (hit a shield, parry a weapon, enter an enemy, deliberately wipe it off, etc).

That's the way it's done in Oblivion...the weapon or ammo stays poisoned until you successfully hit something with it, at which point the poison is gone.  Or, in the case of ammo, it's gone once you shoot it, whether you hit something or not.

I think it may have technically been applying the poison buff to the bow, rather than the ammo, which would avoid the stacking problem.

Modifié par Tchos, 20 février 2014 - 03:39 .

[PJ156]

All of this discussion seems to be about how to apply poision and not what it does and I think that needs to be considerred if the system is to be improved. I don't use poison because I see it as relativly ineffective in a party based game where the character is laying down damage at a high rate in other ways. To make it useful it's effects need to be debilitating and to make the risk worth the effort of making room for it in feats etc (as Ark says) it needs also to be debilitating to the player.

Because of the above it's use is going to be a role playing choice to use it because a gaming player is probably going to leave it behind in favour of perhaps a strength potion at low level. Fire or cold damage at med level and nowt at high level. Unless of course it is highly effective on both the monster .. and the player if he screws up.

Therefore I would also suggest looking at what the poison does, as well as how it is used, to make the system better. Otherwise I believe you are remaining in the realms of the roleplaying player, who sets thier own rules for reloading and the boundaries within which thier character will act, and for whome the function of the game engine is less relevant?

[Lance Botelle]

DannJ wrote...

I like some of those enhancements. It certainly makes sense for poison to remain on the weapon until a successful hit, rather than simply dripping off the weapon in three rounds regardless of whether you've hit or not (or were just standing around doing nothing). I would assume weapon poisons would be designed to be tacky enough to adhere to a blade, so the only way to remove them would be to make physical contact with something (hit a shield, parry a weapon, enter an enemy, deliberately wipe it off, etc).

Making ammunition permanently poisoned makes sense - although you'd want to change the tag, name or description of the poisoned stack. Stackable items will stack together provided their tag, name and description match. If you simply added a poison property to a stack without changing at least one of those things, players could exploit it by continuously adding non-poisoned ammo of the same type to the stack. The newly added ammo would adopt the properties of the entire stack.

Hi DannJ,

That's what I thought ... and so why I redesigned poison to work that way in my own campaign.

The poison stack arrows/bolts do not stack with other arrows of the same "type" due to the "poison" property being added to them. The property makes a difference so that the engine does not stack them together if you find "similar" arrows/bolts without poison. E.g. I had 20 arrows, split them into two stacks of 10, and then added poison to one stack. I could not then join the stacks back together. If there is any other "test" you want me to consider, let me know,

Lance.

[Lance Botelle]

Tchos wrote...

That's the way it's done in Oblivion...the weapon or ammo stays poisoned until you successfully hit something with it, at which point the poison is gone.  Or, in the case of ammo, it's gone once you shoot it, whether you hit something or not.

I think it may have technically been applying the poison buff to the bow, rather than the ammo, which would avoid the stacking problem.

Hi Tchos,

Check out my post to DannJ above. You'll also notice I don't have the stacking problem ... at least not in my testing.

Furthermore, I have rewritten the stack split GUI to remove a "bug" where an item loses any variables added to it, so that both stacks (new and old) retain any variables they had attached to the original stacked item. This is essential, if, like me, you have stacked potions that can have different variables attached to them. It may be that this "fix" I have done is why I do not experience the stack problem mentioned above ... but I think the fact that one stack has the "poison" property and the other does not is what actually makes the difference in this case.

Lance.

[Lance Botelle]

PJ156 wrote...

All of this discussion seems to be about how to apply poision and not what it does and I think that needs to be considerred if the system is to be improved. I don't use poison because I see it as relativly ineffective in a party based game where the character is laying down damage at a high rate in other ways. To make it useful it's effects need to be debilitating and to make the risk worth the effort of making room for it in feats etc (as Ark says) it needs also to be debilitating to the player.

Because of the above it's use is going to be a role playing choice to use it because a gaming player is probably going to leave it behind in favour of perhaps a strength potion at low level. Fire or cold damage at med level and nowt at high level. Unless of course it is highly effective on both the monster .. and the player if he screws up.

Therefore I would also suggest looking at what the poison does, as well as how it is used, to make the system better. Otherwise I believe you are remaining in the realms of the roleplaying player, who sets thier own rules for reloading and the boundaries within which thier character will act, and for whome the function of the game engine is less relevant?

Hi PJ156,

When I took a closer look at what poison does, I noticed that it mainly adjusts attribute ... i.e. It does attribute damage. This, to me, appears to be quite an effective form of damage over and above some other types of damage, like cold, fire, or other forms of HP damage. The reason I say this is because, for example, poison that lowers INT may stop a spell caster from casting spells, poison that damages CON, will reduce HPs in a large chunk, STR will reduce the amount of damage the poisoned creature can do ... and all this "damage" on top of any other normal HP damage you may be doing, including other damage types, like cold or fire. That is, I have made the assumption that "magic" weapons (referred to as magik with a 'k' in my campaign) that do other types of damage, like cold or fire, can still have additional "poison" added to them as well!

As for potential damage to the player, I have added the Handle DC to every poison that a PC must make to add poison, unless they have the Use Poison feat (now made a general feat), and can suffer damage if they fail critically when applying it. Those with the Use Poison feat also know how to apply the poison more effectively so that it lasts for twice as many hits as a PC without the feat.

Lance.

EDIT:

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

I agree with PJ156, poison's really pretty useless but instant kill/ stun/ sleeping poison would definitely make it more worth using. If you could put a whole gang of enemies to sleep with your arrows then coup de grace them that would be nice.

Who cares if the baddie loses a couple of ability points when he's just about to get chopped to bits in the next couple of rounds and alchemist's fire can be added to weapons without a skill needed and does extra damage which is a bit more important.

Hi FMP,

Does this not already happen if a creature loses sufficient CON? ie. If a creature with 12 CON takes enough CON poison damage, don't they fall unconscious?

I ask because I do not know.

EDIT: Also, isn't that damage taken with each hit? E.g. If someone hits a creature 3 times with poison that does an initial 1-6 CON damage, would that not equate to 3-18 CON damage after 3 hits (if they fail their save)?

I am aware that some "new" poisons only do, 1-2 points of damage as opposed to 1-6 ... but then maybe that is where the figures can be "improved" to more like the old poison.2da figures so that they do damage more like the old ones that did 1-6 ?  Yes/no?

EDIT 2: Having examined the poison 2da more closely, I notice that if you want to use poison with "increased" damage (or poison where you have more control over what it does), then you need to use the "older" system to apply poison to weapons (i.e. Use the "Apply Poison" attribute rather than the "Poison Weapon" attribute) that uses the Poison.2da that can be more readily edited for the type of damage each poison does.

Therefore, poisons with "increased" damage can easily enough be added alongside the less potent poisons for those players who want to pay the gold for a more effective/deadly poison. However, the effectiveness of any poison is always subject to the saving throw of course.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 20 février 2014 - 01:35 .

[Tchos]

In the older games, if a character's CON was reduced to 0, they died. That's why I like keeping these weapons with permanent poison attribute damage around, even though I don't know if this game is actually playing it that way.

Similarly, STR damage should quickly cause an enemy to be unable to run due to encumbrance, though in practice this will almost never happen in game, since enemy NPCs are rarely carrying anything other than their equipped gear and maybe some minor loot for the player, as opposed to the players who are often carrying multiple weapons and gear sets and various other heavy items. But if it were done properly, then poison would be a nice option for getting some distance between you and the enemy.

Lance, your mention of the spell loss for INT (or WIS) damage is also a point well taken, as well as the HP loss from CON damage that hadn't occurred to me.

[Dann-J]

Lance Botelle wrote...

The poison stack arrows/bolts do not stack with other arrows of the same "type" due to the "poison" property being added to them. The property makes a difference so that the engine does not stack them together if you find "similar" arrows/bolts without poison. E.g. I had 20 arrows, split them into two stacks of 10, and then added poison to one stack. I could not then join the stacks back together. If there is any other "test" you want me to consider, let me know,

In my experience, item properties don't seem to make a difference where stacking is concerned. I've created items that allow players to craft custom ammunition, but instead of creating blueprints for every possible combination of material and additional property, I only made blueprints for the different material types. Additional properties were then added to those items via script.

I found that if I had the enchanted version of the ammo equipped in an ammo slot, I was able to add the non-enchanted versions on to the top of them. The non-enchanted versions then adopted the properties of those that were equipped. Perhaps it only works when ammo is equipped in a slot, but not in the inventory?

[Lance Botelle]

Tchos wrote...

In the older games, if a character's CON was reduced to 0, they died. That's why I like keeping these weapons with permanent poison attribute damage around, even though I don't know if this game is actually playing it that way.

Similarly, STR damage should quickly cause an enemy to be unable to run due to encumbrance, though in practice this will almost never happen in game, since enemy NPCs are rarely carrying anything other than their equipped gear and maybe some minor loot for the player, as opposed to the players who are often carrying multiple weapons and gear sets and various other heavy items. But if it were done properly, then poison would be a nice option for getting some distance between you and the enemy.

Lance, your mention of the spell loss for INT (or WIS) damage is also a point well taken, as well as the HP loss from CON damage that hadn't occurred to me.

Hi Tchos,

I may try to experiment with some attribute losses to see how they do actually affect creatures ... especially things like low CON, which may cause them to die.

DannJ wrote...

In my experience, item properties don't seem to make a difference where stacking is concerned. I've created items that allow players to craft custom ammunition, but instead of creating blueprints for every possible combination of material and additional property, I only made blueprints for the different material types. Additional properties were then added to those items via script.

I found that if I had the enchanted version of the ammo equipped in an ammo slot, I was able to add the non-enchanted versions on to the top of them. The non-enchanted versions then adopted the properties of those that were equipped. Perhaps it only works when ammo is equipped in a slot, but not in the inventory?

I tested this as well (adding to poisoned slotted items) and the arrows simply swapped around. i.e. They still did not stack. As far as I can see, the arrows do act as separate types if the properties differ. i.e. The poisoned stack have an additional property that the non poisoned stack don't have, which prevents them from being able to stack together ... a good thing.

EDIT: Possibly because the property is being added PERMANENT rather then TEMPORARY? Although, I would not thought that would make much difference.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 21 février 2014 - 01:59 .

[GCoyote]

Iveforgotmypassword wrote...

I agree with PJ156, poison's really pretty useless but instant kill/ stun/ sleeping poison would definitely make it more worth using. If you could put a whole gang of enemies to sleep with your arrows then coup de grace them that would be nice.

Who cares if the baddie loses a couple of ability points when he's just about to get chopped to bits in the next couple of rounds and alchemist's fire can be added to weapons without a skill needed and does extra damage which is a bit more important.

Seconded.  Normally, the good-aligned PCs I try to role play won't use poison.  However non-lethal drugs added to a weapon create new role playing possibilities.   Need to bring in a fugitive alive?  A sleep/paralyzing agent grants a non-spell caster a plausible way to do just that.  Same applies to recovering an artifact without commiting murder.

Player issue.  The die role for applying poison might be acceptable for a first level character without the requisite skills. However if my 15th level fighter in full plate with weapon focus and weapon specialization manages to cut himself on custom longsword he crafted, my reaction is going to be WTF?!?  Imagine my DEX 20 Elven thief doing the same with his short sword and the whole thing looks a bit "off".

And how does nicking my thumb with a poisoned blade deliver the same dose as ramming it into my enemy to the hilt?

Crafting.  However I can certainly see making a check for the crafting of poisoned weapons or possibly traps.  The alchemists exposed themselves to all manner of toxic substances before they figured out the chemistry.  No reason to suppose our adventurers, who after all are only part-time weapons crafters, would not at the very least waste some expensive and hard to find toxins in a failed attempt to make deadlier blade.

My two cents anyway.