Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thantrax 01-15-06, 05:14 PM	In a recent game I was playing in (not DMing, thank the Seven Heavens), our rogue decided to allow herself to be captured by our enemies so as to infiltrate their camp and position herself strategically to bust out hostages when our group launched an all out attack. As part of her plan, she disguised herself as a local village girl with a basket of apples. Apples she had POISONED!!! (cue shocking-news music) One of said enemies ate one of the apples and, being a trained healer, was able to recognize the effects of the poisons. He then proceeded to warn his compatriots not to eat said apples. Our player attempted to convince the DM that the poisons should not be considered all that out of place because apples are mildly poisonous. Specifically, apple seeds are poisonous and someone who eats a cup of them would probably die of poison. Obviously, being a trained healer, this person was able to tell the difference between apples and professional poisons, I think this one was Black Lotus Extract. The important thing becomes then, where does one draw the line? Detect poison reads like this. You determine whether a creature, object, or area has been poisoned or is poisonous. You can determine the exact type of poison with a DC 20 Wisdom check. A character with the Craft (alchemy) skill may try a DC 20 Craft (alchemy) check if the Wisdom check fails, or may try the Craft (alchemy) check prior to the Wisdom check. Technically, apple seeds are poisonous, but I don't think many people would consider an apple to be carrying poison because of it. As well, alcohol has been a debated item. Is it poison? Do dwarves get their +2 poison save against ale? Where is the line drawn?
Kessalin Talira 01-15-06, 05:23 PM	The only reason apple seeds are poisonous is because of the trace amounts of cyanide in them. It would take eating a LOT of apple seeds to kill someone with them. Apples are mildly poisonous because of the seeds, yes, but not enough to be considered "poisonous" in terms of the spell or poison use. For the Detect Poison spell you quoted, the key is the first part: You determine whether a creature, object, or area has been poisoned or is poisonous.The bold part is what would give away the poison in the apples. Sure, they might barely show up as poisonous to detect poison, normally, but they've also been poisoned, and would therefore show up differently. As for alcohol, yes it's a poison. Yes, dwarves would get their save bonus to avoid its effects (dwarves are known for holding their liquor, aren't they?). In my opinion, a neutralize poison would make a drunk man sober, and might even cure a hangover even though it's not the alcohol that causes it.
Lord Ian Stark 01-15-06, 05:26 PM	Where is the line drawn? Right about the point where common sense starts, and your DMing word ends.
Bane 01-15-06, 05:27 PM	You determine whether a creature, object, or area has been poisoned or is poisonous. You can determine the exact type of poison with a DC 20 Wisdom check. A character with the Craft (alchemy) skill may try a DC 20 Craft (alchemy) check if the Wisdom check fails, or may try the Craft (alchemy) check prior to the Wisdom check. The applicable part has been emphasized. Also, you could consider the apple seeds to be separate from the apple. In this case, apple seeds wouldn't cause an apple to glow, as the apple is different. This is the same as putting a Bead of Force in a beltpouch and expecting the pouch to read as magical.
revnk 01-16-06, 01:20 PM	I agree with everything the other respondents wrote. Having said that, it seems to me that the whole thing about the intended victim eating the apple, recognizing the effects, and communicating them to his compatriots seems far-fetched. If the NPC made his save and the poison effects were something a healer might recognize, I suppose it's alright. ("Hmm, my lips are tingling and I feel a slight numbness in my extremities--you, madam, have tried to poison me with Bloated Green Adderwort!") On the other hand, I can see someone making their FORT save and still not being able to identify why they had to make the save, or coming to an incorrect conclusion. ("Oi! That apple disagrees awfully with the beans I had for breakfast! My brothers will evict me from the tent tonight for certain!") I guess what I'm saying is--and maybe I'm really, really, really wrong--but it sounds like your DM maybe went out of his way to have a clever player's plan fail. I don't know if this plan should have succeeded on its merits: perhaps the idea was half-baked or perhaps the DM rolled really well for the save and Profession (Apothecary) checks. Or perhaps there's two long pieces of metal stretching horizon-to-horizon under the grass, connected by perpindicular wooden slats.... :( Anyway, there's 2 cp worth.
Thantrax 01-18-06, 06:40 PM	Having said that, it seems to me that the whole thing about the intended victim eating the apple, recognizing the effects, and communicating them to his compatriots seems far-fetched. If the NPC made his save and the poison effects were something a healer might recognize, I suppose it's alright. ("Hmm, my lips are tingling and I feel a slight numbness in my extremities--you, madam, have tried to poison me with Bloated Green Adderwort!") On the other hand, I can see someone making their FORT save and still not being able to identify why they had to make the save, or coming to an incorrect conclusion. Well, look at it this way. Had the NPC not made his Fortitude save, he would have taken 3D6 points of Constitution damage. Heck, he did fail his secondary save and did take the second batch of 3D6 Constitution damage. Personally, I think it's only fair that a victim of poison would know that something is making him feel off, successful save or no. If the NPC is aware something is feeling him feel bad and he is a trained healer, it seems only right that he should get a heal check to identify the ailment. Do you disagree? Do you think someone who, for example, drank water that was poisoned and made their Fortitude save would think that everything is honkey dorey? I guess what I'm saying is--and maybe I'm really, really, really wrong--but it sounds like your DM maybe went out of his way to have a clever player's plan fail. Anyway, there's 2 cp worth. Oh, I really don't think the DM was out to ruin the plan. After all, he did rule that the NPC identified the poison, warned his friends off the apples, and then didn't do a single thing or get a lick of suspicion about 'Red Riding Hood'. Why was this girl skipping through the plains with a basket of poisoned apples? The whole point was for her to look all innocent.
Vacerious 01-18-06, 06:45 PM	As for alcohol, yes it's a poison. Yes, dwarves would get their save bonus to avoid its effects (dwarves are known for holding their liquor, aren't they?). In my opinion, a neutralize poison would make a drunk man sober, and might even cure a hangover even though it's not the alcohol that causes it. Funny, your opinion is very similar to the rules for alchohol poisoning found in the Arms and Equipment Guide. To the OP: Just as everyone else has been saying, a poisoned apple will ALWAYS get picked up by a Detect Poison spell, but a regular apple will probably not (unless you have a very literal-minded DM).
revnk 01-18-06, 07:56 PM	Well, look at it this way. Had the NPC not made his Fortitude save, he would have taken 3D6 points of Constitution damage. Heck, he did fail his secondary save and did take the second batch of 3D6 Constitution damage. Personally, I think it's only fair that a victim of poison would know that something is making him feel off, successful save or no. If the NPC is aware something is feeling him feel bad and he is a trained healer, it seems only right that he should get a heal check to identify the ailment. Do you disagree? Do you think someone who, for example, drank water that was poisoned and made their Fortitude save would think that everything is honkey dorey? Actually, I kind of do. It depends entirely on circumstances, and there's not a hard-and-fast answer. Yes, in some instances someone drinking poisoned water and making his save might realize something's amiss--but in other cases, he might not. And, as I suggested, even if he knows something amiss, he might not know what it is. If you look at "black widow" serial killers in the real world--women who murdered a succession of husbands, typically by poisoning prepared food--you can see instances where a series of victims suspected nothing even after initially unsuccessful homicide attempts (the men reported feeling ill to family members, but had no clue why and the actual cause of their illness only became evident after their bodies were exhumed years later after someone looked into the murderer's history). Again, however, I'm not saying that there would be a hard-and-fast rule drawn from this; as a DM, I'd have to rule on a case-by-case basis. From what you've described, I probably would have ruled on the situation a little differently in at least one of two respects. First, I might have simply ruled that the NPC would have no idea what was up regardless of his save. Or I might have ruled that a Profession (Apothecary) check with a fairly high DC was in order--Heal just doesn't stike me as the right skill, since I'm not sure general first aid/emergency medical knowledge gives one detailed, diagnostic information about poisons (it might give one the insight to induce vomiting or flush a poisoned wound, but little more, I think). But that's me: if you feel the DM handled things fairly, he probably did. I would have handled things differently, but that doesn't necessarily mean better.
Nom 01-18-06, 08:24 PM	The other issue is that D&D "poison" rules really only applies to fast acting poisons designed to cripple or kill the victim (eg animal venom). Delayed effects, incremental effects, temporary effects, or other status effects are not directly supported with the default poison rules. For example, most modern drugs (in the non-pharmacetical sense) could be considered "poisons", but few or none work with the ability damage rules. If you're not trying to radiply do ability damage, you need to work with the DM to come up with alternative rules.
revnk 01-18-06, 08:47 PM	The other issue is that D&D "poison" rules really only applies to fast acting poisons designed to cripple or kill the victim (eg animal venom). Delayed effects, incremental effects, temporary effects, or other status effects are not directly supported with the default poison rules. For example, most modern drugs (in the non-pharmacetical sense) could be considered "poisons", but few or none work with the ability damage rules. If you're not trying to radiply do ability damage, you need to work with the DM to come up with alternative rules. Good point. I've always been frustrated that the DMG doesn't include mundane poisons like arsenic, mercury, strychnine, etc.--it might be because I read too many Agatha Christies when I was younger.* But the RAW doesn't quite cover a lot of the classic "fairy tale" poisons, either, like whatever the witch used on Snow White. The nature of the poison would affect a DM's ruling on detectability, too, I think. Thanks for the insight! *In high dosages, some of these can be fatal immediately, but in lower dosages can take days or weeks to have an ultimate effect. As a DM, I have no problem using one of these poisons on an NPC in narrative fashion, but trying to come up with fair rules in case a PC is exposed is enough of a problem that it may save my PCs from even a botched assassination attempt as part of a story....
Thurbane 01-18-06, 09:35 PM	Did you know that in some mythological renderings, a griffons claws turns dark purple if touched to poison? Now, back to the topic at hand...
Hodo 01-18-06, 09:47 PM	I'm fairly sure that the ability for people with the heal skill to successfully identify poisons was put in there specifically so that a character could the natue of the poison after observing it's effects. More than likely for situations where a player gets bitten or stung by a mysterious creature, or hit by an arrow, and succumbs to ill effects immediately afterwards. It allows players to identify the nature of the poison, and better discern where it came from. Wouldn't it be somewhat odd to be stung by a small insect and fall horribly ill? Sure you know some insect bites, plants, and druits can be nauseating and whatnot, but a loss of 3d6 constitution just from eating an apple is VERY suspicious. Especially if you have plenty of ranks in healing and a high enough wisdom score. Any ranks in craft (poison) would be a plus. Sneaking in as a village girl with poison apples was a stroke of genius. However, if one of the enemies with a high enough heal check and high enough roll came under direct effects of the poison, I believe they are by all means entitled to a check. You'd give it to your players, or would they just mysteriously start losing constitution without their own knowledge? If such a check is game breaking, however, then it might be in the DM's best interests to let her slip by this one time. Or he could continue and see where it goes, hoping the character gets another break. Her plan worked, but now she has to "wing it" for a bit to cover herself.