26 réponses à ce sujet

[Lance Botelle]

GCoyote wrote...

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. 

Hi GCoyote,

Thanks for posting.

The issues you raise remind me of some of the discussions our own group used to make with respect to playing out the rules ... however, the bottom line is, no amount of rules can compensate for the myriad of possible outcomes due to every potential "influence". i.e. Sometimes you just have to keep it "simple" and try to use the fairest rule possible to cover most situations. In the case of applying poison, having effectively 2-3 rules should really suffice ... and personally, I believe it does.

For instance, the first rule (to avoid any damage) is to have the Use Poison feat. If you don't have that, then there is the second rule: D20 DC check against DEX to see if the PC fails to apply the poison correctly. The third rule is that if they fail this throw (and roll a 1 on a D20 - a recognised critical fail rule), then they have to rely on any Fortitude (or immune if they have it) to avoid suffering from poison damage. That's a fair crack of the whip to allow an application of poison, with varying chances to allow for character development and level. Therefore, to apply this to your examples and to show how such situation can (role play) arise ...

Your 15th level fighter (as described above) ... the feats you describe (specialisation and focus) have no impact on poison application, and so don't count for anything here. Furthermore, assuming he did have the skills to craft the weapon, such crafting skills do not imply a knowledge of poison application, and so do not count either. In fact, in this case (and your second example of the elven thief with a high DEX, it is the DEX attribute that determines if they succeed or fail at applying poison if they do not have the Use Poison feat. Therefore, your high DEX thief is very likely going to succeed in most situations (due to the high DEX) and the fighter will also fail or succeed subject to the same DEX attribute (which is not given in your example).

With respect to the poisoning itself (nicking thumb against full impalement), you have to remember that we are not talking about "quantities" here, but simply the application. (There is an old story about a great warrior who was slain by the bite of a gnat after they were poisoned by it.) i.e. The impalement will cause enough damage of its own, but the poison is in addition. So, pricking your finger with poison will not do any HP damage, but you will still suffer from attribute damage due to the poison being introduced into the body.

Hopefully that helps to explain some of the aspects involved with respect to this kind of poison application.

EDIT: Actually, your last paragraph touches on the point when you talk about "crafting poisoned weapons". Actually, whenever you apply poison to a weapon, that is effectively "crafting a poison weapon" and so in this sense you do support the need for consequences when applying poison to a weapon. i.e. Consider "applying poison to a weapon" as a "specialist area of crafting the weapon" .... hence the need for the checks.

Lance.

Modifié par Lance Botelle, 22 février 2014 - 01:54 .

[Lance Botelle]

Hi All,

OK, I have looked at the possibilities again and have come up with the following idea and implementation:-

1) There will be two types of poisons: "Simple" and "Specialist".

2) The Use Poison feat will be available as a general feat (free for Assassins and Blackguards). Only those with this feat can apply the Specialist poisons without risk to themselves.

3) Applying Simple Poisons: Without the Use Poison feat, a DC check versus the Handle Poison DC is required to apply the Simple poison. On a DC fail the poison vial is simply lost. With the feat, the poison application is automatically successful.

4) Applying Specialist Poisons: A Handle DC check is always required. A normal failed DC check and the vial is simply lost. Without the Use Poison feat, on a critical fail (roll a 1 on a d20) the PC will suffer poison damage unless immune. With the Use Poison feat, the PC cannot harm themselves on a critical fail.

This allows a "safety net" for those that want to use poison without the risk of any injury to themselves (but the poison does less damage), or attempt to apply a "Specialist Poison", which a) Requires a Handle DC check to apply, and b ) Has a risk of self harm when applying if the PC does not have the Use Poison feat.


Lance.