Holy crap people: I'm not even a botany expert: but walk out my door and I can list you 3 or 4 different plants within 5 minutes walk of my home that are poisonous...
Sure, if you eat them. Most of them will make you sick, but how many might actually kill you? And do you know how to render any of them down into a form that's concentrated enough to actually be potentially able to kill someone, shelf-stable enough that it will still be potent, and can be applied to a blade?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A lot of poisons are either ingested or inhaled. Taking a look at the Wikipedia entry for Arrow Poison, the first thing I notice is that none of the listed examples mention Europe. This would seem to suggest that while injury-poisons may have been available, they weren't commonly used, and would likely have been imported as contraband, which means inflated black market prices.
However, note that the "Poison, Basic (vial)" is technically 3 doses of poison, if used on a ranged weapon. So, 33gp per use. Compare this to "Acid(vial)", which does 2d6 acid damage for 25gp.
Poison, Basic (vial) {33gp ×3} used with a longbow will deal 1d6+mod+d4 damage (avg 9 damage), with Con save, and a maximum range of 600ft.
Acid(vial) {25gp} will deal 2d6 (avg 7 damage), without proficiency, at a max range of 20ft.
That certainly justifies the cost of the poison in that context. Poison enhances the player's already lethal capabilities. Stacking small damage from multiple sources is more valuable than one slightly larger source of damage. A poisoned blade can also be used with cantrips like Booming Blade to do even more damage for free.
As for "war animals", an elephant is a glorified pack mule. It certainly packs a hell of a punch, but due to its size, it can't be stealthy, and simply won't fit in most forests, dungeons, caves, urban environments, ships, etc... Most D&D games aren't taking place in "War" terrain. There are certain things, like elephants, that players would never even bother looking at if they were priced more "realistically".
The D&D marketplace is the same as any other. The Players are the consumers who set the demand, and the supply is imaginary. The "right" price is whatever price the players can reasonably be convinced to pay. That means 5000gp for a diamond (resurrection), 200gp for an elephant (luxury item), and 100gp-2000gp for poisons (variable combat enhancer).
A lot of poisons are either ingested or inhaled. Taking a look at the Wikipedia entry for Arrow Poison, the first thing I notice is that none of the listed examples mention Europe. This would seem to suggest that while injury-poisons may have been available, they weren't commonly used, and would likely have been imported as contraband, which means inflated black market prices.
I checked out the wikipedia article, third paragraph down mentions poison arrows used by the Gauls and Romans, so...Europe, which really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Again, I provided other historical examples of their use even in combat. In term of for hunting, ancient weapons from all around the world have been discovered with grooves implemented to store or hold poison.
However, note that the "Poison, Basic (vial)" is technically 3 doses of poison, if used on a ranged weapon. So, 33gp per use. Compare this to "Acid(vial)", which does 2d6 acid damage for 25gp.
Poison, Basic (vial) {33gp ×3} used with a longbow will deal 1d6+mod+d4 damage (avg 9 damage), with Con save, and a maximum range of 600ft.
Acid(vial) {25gp} will deal 2d6 (avg 7 damage), without proficiency, at a max range of 20ft.
That certainly justifies the cost of the poison in that context. Poison enhances the player's already lethal capabilities. Stacking small damage from multiple sources is more valuable than one slightly larger source of damage. A poisoned blade can also be used with cantrips like Booming Blade to do even more damage for free.
I will admit I apparently missed the point about a vial of poison being able to coat three pieces of ammunition...make that apply to weapon in general and it would be something, it probably still wouldn't justify the cost for something that has such a weak chance of performing, but it would definitely be a LOT better.
Booming Blade is irrelevant really, there are already tons of other way you could claim to stack even more damage for free on top of poison, but its a straw man argument to the discussion at large.
As for "war animals", an elephant is a glorified pack mule. It certainly packs a hell of a punch, but due to its size, it can't be stealthy, and simply won't fit in most forests, dungeons, caves, urban environments, ships, etc... Most D&D games aren't taking place in "War" terrain. There are certain things, like elephants, that players would never even bother looking at if they were priced more "realistically".
The D&D marketplace is the same as any other. The Players are the consumers who set the demand, and the supply is imaginary. The "right" price is whatever price the players can reasonably be convinced to pay. That means 5000gp for a diamond (resurrection), 200gp for an elephant (luxury item), and 100gp-2000gp for poisons (variable combat enhancer).
Poisons are popular, elephants are not.
You don't price something in accordance with games in which it won't be used. Your argument for the elephant pricing is that in games where it has no real purpose people wouldn't buy it? 'Kay...then they shouldn't buy it. In games where it would have purpose and be used for what it actually should be used for it should be priced in a manner that balances it for that purpose. Whether the elephant is popular "to the player" makes no difference for how it should be priced mechanically for balance in game.
A lot of poisons are either ingested or inhaled. Taking a look at the Wikipedia entry for Arrow Poison, the first thing I notice is that none of the listed examples mention Europe. This would seem to suggest that while injury-poisons may have been available, they weren't commonly used, and would likely have been imported as contraband, which means inflated black market prices.
I checked out the wikipedia article, third paragraph down mentions poison arrows used by the Gauls and Romans, so...Europe, which really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Again, I provided other historical examples of their use even in combat. In term of for hunting, ancient weapons from all around the world have been discovered with grooves implemented to store or hold poison.
True enough. I was specifically referring to the section on varietals, which I could have been more clear about.
This is why I mentioned availability versus common use. There was plenty of trade to allow for use in Europe, but the lack of notable native sources sets a tone. Since D&D heavily emphasizes medieval Europe, it likely includes many such biases.
Re: Hunting Poisons
Sure. There are plenty of poisons and toxins that would have been useful for hunting. However, the bar for that is much lower than for human combat. Basic anti-coagulants could cause a deer to bleed out to the point of exhaustion, whereas an intelligent target would know when and how to bind wounds.
If someone wanted to make some homebrew entry-level mundane hunting poisons, there might be a market for it, but it would probably be largely flavor. Maybe the anti-coagulant could be flavored as a "Bleeding Arrow", which would give a player advantage on survival checks to track the target.
As for "war animals", an elephant is a glorified pack mule. It certainly packs a hell of a punch, but due to its size, it can't be stealthy, and simply won't fit in most forests, dungeons, caves, urban environments, ships, etc... Most D&D games aren't taking place in "War" terrain. There are certain things, like elephants, that players would never even bother looking at if they were priced more "realistically".
The D&D marketplace is the same as any other. The Players are the consumers who set the demand, and the supply is imaginary. The "right" price is whatever price the players can reasonably be convinced to pay. That means 5000gp for a diamond (resurrection), 200gp for an elephant (luxury item), and 100gp-2000gp for poisons (variable combat enhancer).
Poisons are popular, elephants are not.
You don't price something in accordance with games in which it won't be used. Your argument for the elephant pricing is that in games where it has no real purpose people wouldn't buy it? 'Kay...then they shouldn't buy it. In games where it would have purpose and be used for what it actually should be used for it should be priced in a manner that balances it for that purpose. Whether the elephant is popular "to the player" makes no difference for how it should be priced mechanically for balance in game.
This is the difference between Game Design and World Building.
For the game designers, if the price of something makes it obsolete for the players, then it's a missed opportunity. They set the "default" to maximize playability.
DMs are 100% in control of the minutia of their home game. If they want elephants and poisons to play a more prominent role, then they can make the necessary changes. Elephants can be as expensive as a warship. Poisons can be as cheap as a bottle of wine. The demographics and economics of any specific world are not beholden to the published rules, only to the whim of the DM.
Creating an explicitly-optional ruleset to appeal to the 0.1% of players who desire strict realism, over the preferences of their core player base, would simply be unsustainable.
Remember that this is the 5th edition of D&D. These are not new issues.
No system is perfect, but D&D has been constantly changing and growing over the course of the last 46 years and some decisions that may seem illogical are the result of countless hours of playtesting by millions of players, DMs, and homebrewers.
This is why I mentioned availability versus common use. There was plenty of trade to allow for use in Europe, but the lack of notable native sources sets a tone. Since D&D heavily emphasizes medieval Europe, it likely includes many such biases.
They had plenty of native sources. I’ve provided a small selection of those previously. I will repeat one. Monkshood. Otherwise known as Wolf’s Bane. They may have done, but they absolutely did not need to import exotic poisons. Aside from that, even if in the entirety of Europe there was no native source of effective poisons, why should that cause us to assume there wouldn't be in any dnd game unless the GM decides poisons are scarce?
Sure. There are plenty of poisons and toxins that would have been useful for hunting. However, the bar for that is much lower than for human combat. Basic anti-coagulants could cause a deer to bleed out to the point of exhaustion, whereas an intelligent target would know when and how to bind wounds.
The bar really isn’t lower. Many hunting poisons were VERY lethal, they did not want to have to chase prey down. Besides, as I mentioned in my last response above to 6thLyranGuard: we’re talking about a basic poison here…1d4 damage 50% of the time to a commoner. We’re not talking about instantly lethal. We’re talking about you might get cramps or diarrhea. Hit points are an abstraction of your entire physical and mental well-being. They are not strictly a representation of how many times you've been stabbed in the gut till you simply decide you can’t take another one.
Again, aside from that, if your archers firing poisoned arrows struck the enemies soldiers and weakened them, they are then easier to kill. If they survive and afterward the wound gets infected, the Scythians for example used snake venom mixed with blood and dung to cause exactly such effects (oops, provided another one), that would still result in one less soldier for the enemy, and could be disastrous to armies.
If someone wanted to make some homebrew entry-level mundane hunting poisons, there might be a market for it, but it would probably be largely flavor. Maybe the anti-coagulant could be flavored as a "Bleeding Arrow", which would give a player advantage on survival checks to track the target.
That mundane hunting potion IS a basic potion vial. There is no problem with this. The only problem exists in its pricing. That said, I would absolutely be on board for more interesting potions developed. Been working on something currently in my group as it is for more interesting methods of foraging and crafting remedies and poisons.
This is the difference between Game Design and World Building.
For the game designers, if the price of something makes it obsolete for the players, then it's a missed opportunity. They set the "default" to maximize playability.
DMs are 100% in control of the minutia of their home game. If they want elephants and poisons to play a more prominent role, then they can make the necessary changes. Elephants can be as expensive as a warship. Poisons can be as cheap as a bottle of wine. The demographics and economics of any specific world are not beholden to the published rules, only to the whim of the DM.
Creating an explicitly-optional ruleset to appeal to the 0.1% of players who desire strict realism, over the preferences of their core player base, would simply be unsustainable.
But see, it is strictly in the interest of game design that the elephant be priced accordingly to its use in a game that it is MEANT to be used in. The 5e rules, as someone else mentioned, are meant to cover a broad spectrum of gaming tables, and again, you do not price the elephant according to the worth of those playing at a table where the elephant has NO practicality or purpose…they simply shouldn’t get an elephant; there are many other things that would make sense to get in their game that wouldn’t in one where the elephant would be practical. Likewise, there are plenty of tables and manners of playing dnd where the elephants make logical sense, and they should be priced with balancing for their use in those tables that they’re meant for in mind. If you price the elephant to be worthwhile in a game where people would have no actual purpose for an elephant and would only buy it because it's cheap and I dunno..."yolo" then the pricing makes absolutely no sense when encountered in a game that it was ACTUALLY meant to be used in. As I said in my first comment in this thread, internal design consistency in the economy system would create the feeling of realistic consistency within the confines of the fantasy.
DMs are 100% in control of the minutia of their home game. If they want elephants and poisons to play a more prominent role, then they can make the necessary changes. Elephants can be as expensive as a warship. Poisons can be as cheap as a bottle of wine. The demographics and economics of any specific world are not beholden to the published rules, only to the whim of the DM.
This is fine, but it's irrelevant to whether the system as a base was well formulated or not. There will always be people that want something different. What it should provide is a simple, consistent base.
No system is perfect, but D&D has been constantly changing and growing over the course of the last 46 years and some decisions that may seem illogical are the result of countless hours of playtesting by millions of players, DMs, and homebrewers.
"No system is perfect" So why is it contested so much that this is inherently flawed? Is it a big deal? *shrugs* no not really, and it shouldn't be too hard to adjust to each GM's individual world with a bit of gradual work; which really is what should be done anyway. But it is certainly, obviously so. Nor is it the only element of 5e that should be the result of countless hours of playtesting but feels like it was the result of none.
I'm not interested in diving into the weeds on a topic with which you've already committed to a position. However, if you have an article that specifically talks about European poisons as applied to weapons for use against humans, I would be interested. The articles I can find about Wolfsbane are almost exclusively about it's use as an ingested poison. This blog mentions it as being used to hunt wolves, and talks about the effects of mishandling the plant itself, but doesn't talk about relative potency.
This article talks about lethal dosages of aconitine(2mg), aconite tinctures (5ml), and raw aconitine plant (1g). The lethal dose of aconitine kills within 4 hours, which is pretty useless in D&D combat.
This might actually be the primary issue. We're not just talking about a lethal poison. We're talking about a poison capable of killing (or knocking unconscious) a person within 6 seconds. Any poison that takes longer than 18 second to incapacitate a target is not viable in most TTRPG combats. It may very well kill the target later, but a TPK is still a TPK.
"No system is perfect" So why is it contested so much that this is inherently flawed? Is it a big deal? *shrugs* no not really, and it shouldn't be too hard to adjust to each GM's individual world with a bit of gradual work; which really is what should be done anyway. But it is certainly, obviously so. Nor is it the only element of 5e that should be the result of countless hours of playtesting but feels like it was the result of none.
"Flawed" implies that a thing can be improved. Sometimes it is necessary to recognize that a thing isn't inherently flawed simply because it doesn't satisfy every requirement one might have.
An "elephant" isn't a "flawed bird", it's simply not a bird. A "wrench" isn't a "flawed hack saw", it's a different tool. The "flaw" here is in the observer's expectations.
In this case, "realism" is like PC game resolution. More is "better", but most people don't have the hardware to run high-fidelity 8K games at 120fps. Any game is better than a game you can't actually play. (i.e. D&D isn't a "flawed simulator", it's a fun "collaborative storytelling tool".)
D&D 5e is designed for accessibility around the principle of physical books and printed character sheets, it needs a lower resolution to serve its purpose. As our technology improves, and services like DNDBeyond take over more of the paperwork and calculus, the barriers to entry fade away and create room for different games in the spirit of D&D. While they may bear a striking resemblance, they are, in fact, different beasts.
Creating a "more realistic currency system" is akin to adding mods to Minecraft. The mods don't "fix" Minecraft, they "enhance" it for a particular style of play.
There are some modern synthetic poisons that can incapacitate very quickly when administered directly in the appropriate doses (unconscious in seconds, dead in minutes), but compared to traditional poisons, the Poison, Basic (vial) is almost magically fast acting for its delivery method.
There is a lot going on and I only skimmed it, but has this thread somehow turned into yet another poison thread?
The specific poison in the PHB is overcosted and you're explicitly told this is because they wrote the rules for it assuming it was illegal, so you're paying extra for illegal goods. If you want cheaper poison that does more damage, you can use a poisoner's kit and the nature skill to milk a poisonous snake familiar. The DC is 20 and on a 15 or less you poison yourself, but other than that it just takes time and the occasional healing nap.
I'm not interested in diving into the weeds on a topic with which you've already committed to a position. However, if you have an article that specifically talks about European poisons as applied to weapons for use against humans, I would be interested. The articles I can find about Wolfsbane are almost exclusively about it's use as an ingested poison. This blog mentions it as being used to hunt wolves, and talks about the effects of mishandling the plant itself, but doesn't talk about relative potency.
Committed to a position of poisons being commonly used in ancient cultures all around the world? Yes, I am because it's not really an opinion, it's commonly accepted. Regarding Wolf's Bane, it was specifically nicknamed such because of its use on arrows to hunt wolves. Maybe tomorrow I’ll feel like digging up sources for use in warfare, I'm not disagreeing that it's less common; you seem to be under the impression that that negates its presence, I don't understand that. I’ve already provided examples, again, look up the Greeks and Scythians and poisoned arrows. Regardless, if you insist on believing that lethal poisons used to hunt large game were simply going to be ineffective against humans, well, that’s your own prerogative I suppose. I will repeat again what I've just stated here and prior, there are instances of poisons being used in warfare (for a more recent one, in WWII the Japanese dealt with Malay tribesmen using blowgun darts coated with guess what? Monkshood) but I will definitely reiterate that its primary use on weapons was for hunting. This wasn’t because of any evidence that it was less effective at killing people…again, several armies encountered with poison arrows caused disastrous effects…but ultimately because most often it just wasn’t necessary or as practical for mass deployment.
This article talks about lethal dosages of aconitine(2mg), aconite tinctures (5ml), and raw aconitine plant (1g). The lethal dose of aconitine kills within 4 hours, which is pretty useless in D&D combat.
So the target is inflicted with aconitine and they go about their business with no ill effects until abruptly 4 hours later they just drop dead? You know that’s not the case so why argue as if the point of death is the only thing that matters when the poison involves dealing damage. Small. Incremental. Damage. And in D&D that damage is an abstraction of the effects and tolls that poison is taking on you.
Also note that the estimate of 4 hours is provided for an estimate minimal lethal dose. You want to guess what happens if you up that dosage?
I find it humorous that you two that seem to believe poisoning humans is such a difficult affair are both simultaneously arguing that the monetary system is not supposed to get caught up in all these tiny details and minutiae of realism (which I will state again I have not strictly been stating it needs) but then are also asking for ridiculous levels of realism and detail to your poisons. Which way do you want it? Cause it’s really just seeming like you’re both refusing to admit that you underestimated how common the usage of poisons actually was.
This might actually be the primary issue. We're not just talking about a lethal poison. We're talking about a poison capable of killing (or knocking unconscious) a person within 6 seconds.
No, we’re talking about an abstraction of the physical and mental effects a poison has on an individual. In D&D that might result in the creature falling unconscious, this does not mean that the poison on its own instantly killed a completely healthy individual. This abstraction is represented in a CHANCE of 1d4 or 2 damage. Why you two seem to think a poisoned weapon used against another person is near impossible and both jump straight to requiring instant death as a result of said poison is beyond me, but it was never a criterion that was set.
"Flawed" implies that a thing can be improved. Sometimes it is necessary to recognize that a thing isn't inherently flawed simply because it doesn't satisfy every requirement one might have.
An "elephant" isn't a "flawed bird", it's simply not a bird. A "wrench" isn't a "flawed hack saw", it's a different tool. The "flaw" here is in the observer's expectations.
In this case, "realism" is like PC game resolution. More is "better", but most people don't have the hardware to run high-fidelity 8K games at 120fps. Any game is better than a game you can't actually play. (i.e. D&D isn't a "flawed simulator", it's a fun "collaborative storytelling tool".)
D&D 5e is designed for accessibility around the principle of physical books and printed character sheets, it needs a lower resolution to serve its purpose. As our technology improves, and services like DNDBeyond take over more of the paperwork and calculus, the barriers to entry fade away and create room for different games in the spirit of D&D. While they may bear a striking resemblance, they are, in fact, different beasts.
Creating a "more realistic currency system" is akin to adding mods to Minecraft. The mods don't "fix" Minecraft, they "enhance" it for a particular style of play.
And it can be improved. Are you simultaneously arguing in your last comment that no system is perfect and in this one that 5e is incapable of flaw?
You also still fail to grasp that I’m not arguing for the monetary system to be realistic or be grounded in realism. I’m arguing for it to “feel” realistic or balanced within the environment of the rules provided.
And yes, it needs low resolution, and I never stated otherwise...I've actually stated essentially the same multiple times...but...then you’re also arguing that a poison in D&D needs to be evaluated on a basis of regional availability, efficacy, stability, and difficulty to develop into a manner of different forms...so, I’m not sure I’m really the one asking for anything to be high resolution here.
There is a lot going on and I only skimmed it, but has this thread somehow turned into yet another poison thread?
The specific poison in the PHB is overcosted and you're explicitly told this is because they wrote the rules for it assuming it was illegal, so you're paying extra for illegal goods. If you want cheaper poison that does more damage, you can use a poisoner's kit and the nature skill to milk a poisonous snake familiar. The DC is 20 and on a 15 or less you poison yourself, but other than that it just takes time and the occasional healing nap.
I must not know where it's stated that its assumed to be illegal, but I guess I just find that a meh reason. In my opinion that kind of stipulation should be left to the GM and its price provided in the list should be based off of it's relative mechanical value.
I suppose it's at least an official reason though that gives some logic. I just assumed as others said that its pricing was for balance, and (in my opinion) that it was just a lazy attempt at such.
I'm going to assume you're not deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I've been posting, and instead conclude that there are too many moving pieces to discuss this constructively.
Okay, I'll concede that poisons have indeed been used in warfare. I did some digging of my own, read through some articles. But I also found that Poison was much more commonly used for assassinations and removal of enemies without direct confrontation - poisoning their food and drink whilst having them over for dinner, for example.
The Wikipedia article also states that the availability increased in medieval times due to the increase in apothecaries, because the poisons were used as medicine, but could also be used to kill. This is important - the Apothecaries didn't sell poison, they sold poisonous medicine. They doubtless had bottles of the bad stuff which they used & diluted to make medicine, but they would only sell that on the sly. There was also a "poison epidemic", but it was kept in check by an increase in the cures for poisons - because most poisons were slow acting.
The majority of poisons are used for ingestion, purely due to the convenience of poisoning someone's food or drink. It's difficult to stab someone and then claim you don't know how they died. Poison, in the ages before crime scene investigation, was easy to get away with - you simply deny it. If you're of high enough social status, or have a good enough alibi planned, you can get away with it.
Back on topic with the value of these things, I still think it makes sense for poisons to be rarer and more expensive than swords.
"If we're relating all of this to the real world as we have been, historically that just absolutely isn't the case."
I'm sorry, but I'm certain that more people have died by the sword than have died because of intentional poisoning.
You also have to consider the legal implications. You say "poison wouldn't have been illegal". But what if a stall sets up shop selling poisons for cheap, and then the guards start to find people falling dead all over the place due to poisoning? What will the guards do? They'll kick the trader out, or arrest them for irresponsible supply of poisons. So the poison trader will stay secret, and sell less product, so will have to increase their prices.
Pricing looks fine in general to me, and the DMG states that GMs are free to adjust prices however they want, as the recommendations are only a guideline. I agree there are some wonky bits, but I do not think it is anything too difficult to deal with or homebrew away.
For example, a regular plate armor costs 1,500 GP, while an uncommon magic item in general costs up to 500 GP. For adamantine plate armor, an uncommon magic item, I think most reasonable GMs are going add the pricing together and set them at 2,000 GP rather than strictly following that all uncommon magic are between 101 and 500 GP.
For me, the price of poison is fine in my opinion, since it being a hassle to use helps keep it from being used too much. I do have an issue with the Poisoner feat still requiring a gold cost, but as a GM I can just handwave the cost away, and I can tell my players that they can make a version of the potent poison that is only effective for 24 hours once created, so even low level adventurers can still use poison while preventing it from being hoarded and sold. I would still charge them the full price of 50 GP if they want to make the regular potent poison, since those do not seem to expire.
As for the warhorse being twice as expensive as a riding (again, not war) elephant, well it's again about game balance, elephants are not very useful to adventurers except in specific circumstances, whereas warhorses provide really important technical game benefits which are much more usable, that's all.
Elephants are pretty darn useful though. I do not think there are any war elephants, at least not any that I can find, but the riding ones are still a CR 4 monster that is great as an ally in battle for low level adventurers, and out of battle, they are the most efficient in moving cargo from one place to another for each unit of feed the elephant consumes (I am assuming all mounts consume the same amount of feed per day). Warhorses are better if you need speed for an emergency or something, but if you are not in a hurry, elephants can transport more stuff over the same period of time.
Alright so we have a history buffs complaining about the inaccuracy of armors in D&D, we have economy buffs who complain about monetary system, now we only need some geography buffs who will say that the coastal line of Faerun doesn't make sense.
And while we're at it, how about some zoologists who will point out how some species have no right of existing because they couldn't possibly sustain themselves in their native environment?
As for the warhorse being twice as expensive as a riding (again, not war) elephant, well it's again about game balance, elephants are not very useful to adventurers except in specific circumstances, whereas warhorses provide really important technical game benefits which are much more usable, that's all.
Elephants are pretty darn useful though.
They are, just not specifically to adventurers.
I do not think there are any war elephants, at least not any that I can find, but the riding ones are still a CR 4 monster that is great as an ally in battle for low level adventurers
If you have the means to control it otherwise, it will probably just panic, or trample the adventurers as much as the adversaries.
, and out of battle, they are the most efficient in moving cargo from one place to another for each unit of feed the elephant consumes (I am assuming all mounts consume the same amount of feed per day).
Warhorses are better if you need speed for an emergency or something, but if you are not in a hurry, elephants can transport more stuff over the same period of time.
I don't think that warhorses are better in terms of speed, they are just better in battle, having been trained for it.
As fort elephants carrying things, I don't think that has been done a lot. They've been used as laborers, or as showy mounts with howdahs, but I don't think they are too efficient, pound for pound and feed for feed with horses, especially those pulling carts. Might be a question of morphology or other factor. The main point, however, is that they are very cumbersome, and for me less well suited to adventurers, who want speed but also some agility and capacity to go over fairly rough or dense terrain.
Also, I think I would impose at least disadvantage to someone wanting to cover their tracks, but it's mostly anecdotal. :D
The elephant mount uses the elephant monster statistic, and I have not heard of GMs making riding horses and mastiffs panic, so I do not see why the elephant has to panic or go berserk in battle unless the GM singles out elephants and homebrew them that way.
In real life, I agree elephants are not very efficient at transporting things. In D&D however, elephants are very good at that though. They eat the same amount of feed as a warhorse does (I assume all mounts eat the same amount of feed since I do not see anything stating otherwise), but got over well over twice the carrying capacity and can still achieve 66% of the speed of warhorses. If you take out factoring feed (the traveling route got plenty of grass for grazing or something), donkeys would be the best since the initial investment is so cheap and you do not have to worry about the expense of feeding them.
Warhorses are better in terms of speed. For combat, warhorses are better as a mount, but I would not use them as independent combatants. For elephants, I think they are better as an independent combatant rather than being mounted, since they can take quite a few a hit so they can be on the front lines and help flank, although you can still mount them and let them be independent.
If I were designing 5e, I would probably price them the same as a warhorse, but 200 is fine and a starting party can generally get one if they pool their resources together. It gives them an extra front liner if they need one, and the elephant can help haul back loot.
Prices in real world Earth are largely arbitrary and often nonsensical so I’m not sure why D&D would be any different. As an example: the price of oil is artificially high relative to its supply. The price of food is artificially low relative to its utility. Diamonds cost more than gas or food and are insanely expensive relative to their supply and especially their utility. Is a diamond really more valuable than a loaf of bread or litre of gas? Absolutely not, to the overwhelming majority of people, but that is not reflected by the price of these things. And regarding the price of gas, if I drive 10 minutes down the highway, I can pay anywhere from 3-7 cents less per litre of fuel than I do at the gas station around the corner from my home. I’d save money by travelling 10 minutes but, most times, I just pay for the convenience and fuel up close to home despite the fact that the gas itself is exactly the same.
I’m not saying D&D poison or elephants are analogous to diamonds, gas or food; I’m saying the product itself doesn’t determine its value. A single global price does not exist for any good or service in real world Earth. Pricing in capitalism is based on getting people to pay you as much as possible in return for the smallest investment on your part and this equation is immensely variable. Your very notion that there is a single price for anything is a flawed premise in capitalism. It may be annoying to be told that prices in the books are guidelines rather than decrees but this is actually the very closest, most accurate depiction of capitalism—where prices change from moment to moment based on a range of factors that could be something as capricious as whether you remind the vendor of their favourite aunt or that jerk that bullied them in middle school—you could possibly roleplay.
Hi I'm not trying to get into the argument about economy as the dnd economic system doesn't bother me as dnd has never been designed for realism in any aspect but an offshoot of a strategy game with the other stuff tacked on
Hi I'm not trying to get into the argument about economy as the dnd economic system doesn't bother me as dnd has never been designed for realism in any aspect but an offshoot of a strategy game with the other stuff tacked on
I think fiat currency is rigged at the moment. Maybe we should return to good old copper / silver / gold system. In history that has happened many times.
I read that a mug of ale was 2 copper and I'm fairly sure a mug of bud or miller or what it may be is two bucks so I've always thought a copper was the dollar equivalent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sure, if you eat them. Most of them will make you sick, but how many might actually kill you? And do you know how to render any of them down into a form that's concentrated enough to actually be potentially able to kill someone, shelf-stable enough that it will still be potent, and can be applied to a blade?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A lot of poisons are either ingested or inhaled. Taking a look at the Wikipedia entry for Arrow Poison, the first thing I notice is that none of the listed examples mention Europe. This would seem to suggest that while injury-poisons may have been available, they weren't commonly used, and would likely have been imported as contraband, which means inflated black market prices.
However, note that the "Poison, Basic (vial)" is technically 3 doses of poison, if used on a ranged weapon. So, 33gp per use. Compare this to "Acid(vial)", which does 2d6 acid damage for 25gp.
That certainly justifies the cost of the poison in that context. Poison enhances the player's already lethal capabilities. Stacking small damage from multiple sources is more valuable than one slightly larger source of damage. A poisoned blade can also be used with cantrips like Booming Blade to do even more damage for free.
As for "war animals", an elephant is a glorified pack mule. It certainly packs a hell of a punch, but due to its size, it can't be stealthy, and simply won't fit in most forests, dungeons, caves, urban environments, ships, etc... Most D&D games aren't taking place in "War" terrain. There are certain things, like elephants, that players would never even bother looking at if they were priced more "realistically".
The D&D marketplace is the same as any other. The Players are the consumers who set the demand, and the supply is imaginary. The "right" price is whatever price the players can reasonably be convinced to pay. That means 5000gp for a diamond (resurrection), 200gp for an elephant (luxury item), and 100gp-2000gp for poisons (variable combat enhancer).
Poisons are popular, elephants are not.
I checked out the wikipedia article, third paragraph down mentions poison arrows used by the Gauls and Romans, so...Europe, which really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Again, I provided other historical examples of their use even in combat. In term of for hunting, ancient weapons from all around the world have been discovered with grooves implemented to store or hold poison.
I will admit I apparently missed the point about a vial of poison being able to coat three pieces of ammunition...make that apply to weapon in general and it would be something, it probably still wouldn't justify the cost for something that has such a weak chance of performing, but it would definitely be a LOT better.
Booming Blade is irrelevant really, there are already tons of other way you could claim to stack even more damage for free on top of poison, but its a straw man argument to the discussion at large.
You don't price something in accordance with games in which it won't be used. Your argument for the elephant pricing is that in games where it has no real purpose people wouldn't buy it? 'Kay...then they shouldn't buy it. In games where it would have purpose and be used for what it actually should be used for it should be priced in a manner that balances it for that purpose. Whether the elephant is popular "to the player" makes no difference for how it should be priced mechanically for balance in game.
True enough. I was specifically referring to the section on varietals, which I could have been more clear about.
This is why I mentioned availability versus common use. There was plenty of trade to allow for use in Europe, but the lack of notable native sources sets a tone. Since D&D heavily emphasizes medieval Europe, it likely includes many such biases.
Re: Hunting Poisons
Sure. There are plenty of poisons and toxins that would have been useful for hunting. However, the bar for that is much lower than for human combat. Basic anti-coagulants could cause a deer to bleed out to the point of exhaustion, whereas an intelligent target would know when and how to bind wounds.
If someone wanted to make some homebrew entry-level mundane hunting poisons, there might be a market for it, but it would probably be largely flavor. Maybe the anti-coagulant could be flavored as a "Bleeding Arrow", which would give a player advantage on survival checks to track the target.
This is the difference between Game Design and World Building.
For the game designers, if the price of something makes it obsolete for the players, then it's a missed opportunity. They set the "default" to maximize playability.
DMs are 100% in control of the minutia of their home game. If they want elephants and poisons to play a more prominent role, then they can make the necessary changes. Elephants can be as expensive as a warship. Poisons can be as cheap as a bottle of wine. The demographics and economics of any specific world are not beholden to the published rules, only to the whim of the DM.
Creating an explicitly-optional ruleset to appeal to the 0.1% of players who desire strict realism, over the preferences of their core player base, would simply be unsustainable.
Remember that this is the 5th edition of D&D. These are not new issues.
No system is perfect, but D&D has been constantly changing and growing over the course of the last 46 years and some decisions that may seem illogical are the result of countless hours of playtesting by millions of players, DMs, and homebrewers.
They had plenty of native sources. I’ve provided a small selection of those previously. I will repeat one. Monkshood. Otherwise known as Wolf’s Bane. They may have done, but they absolutely did not need to import exotic poisons. Aside from that, even if in the entirety of Europe there was no native source of effective poisons, why should that cause us to assume there wouldn't be in any dnd game unless the GM decides poisons are scarce?
The bar really isn’t lower. Many hunting poisons were VERY lethal, they did not want to have to chase prey down.
Besides, as I mentioned in my last response above to 6thLyranGuard: we’re talking about a basic poison here…1d4 damage 50% of the time to a commoner. We’re not talking about instantly lethal. We’re talking about you might get cramps or diarrhea. Hit points are an abstraction of your entire physical and mental well-being. They are not strictly a representation of how many times you've been stabbed in the gut till you simply decide you can’t take another one.
Again, aside from that, if your archers firing poisoned arrows struck the enemies soldiers and weakened them, they are then easier to kill. If they survive and afterward the wound gets infected, the Scythians for example used snake venom mixed with blood and dung to cause exactly such effects (oops, provided another one), that would still result in one less soldier for the enemy, and could be disastrous to armies.
That mundane hunting potion IS a basic potion vial. There is no problem with this. The only problem exists in its pricing. That said, I would absolutely be on board for more interesting potions developed. Been working on something currently in my group as it is for more interesting methods of foraging and crafting remedies and poisons.
But see, it is strictly in the interest of game design that the elephant be priced accordingly to its use in a game that it is MEANT to be used in. The 5e rules, as someone else mentioned, are meant to cover a broad spectrum of gaming tables, and again, you do not price the elephant according to the worth of those playing at a table where the elephant has NO practicality or purpose…they simply shouldn’t get an elephant; there are many other things that would make sense to get in their game that wouldn’t in one where the elephant would be practical. Likewise, there are plenty of tables and manners of playing dnd where the elephants make logical sense, and they should be priced with balancing for their use in those tables that they’re meant for in mind. If you price the elephant to be worthwhile in a game where people would have no actual purpose for an elephant and would only buy it because it's cheap and I dunno..."yolo" then the pricing makes absolutely no sense when encountered in a game that it was ACTUALLY meant to be used in. As I said in my first comment in this thread, internal design consistency in the economy system would create the feeling of realistic consistency within the confines of the fantasy.
This is fine, but it's irrelevant to whether the system as a base was well formulated or not. There will always be people that want something different. What it should provide is a simple, consistent base.
"No system is perfect" So why is it contested so much that this is inherently flawed? Is it a big deal? *shrugs* no not really, and it shouldn't be too hard to adjust to each GM's individual world with a bit of gradual work; which really is what should be done anyway. But it is certainly, obviously so. Nor is it the only element of 5e that should be the result of countless hours of playtesting but feels like it was the result of none.
This article talks about lethal dosages of aconitine(2mg), aconite tinctures (5ml), and raw aconitine plant (1g). The lethal dose of aconitine kills within 4 hours, which is pretty useless in D&D combat.
This might actually be the primary issue. We're not just talking about a lethal poison. We're talking about a poison capable of killing (or knocking unconscious) a person within 6 seconds. Any poison that takes longer than 18 second to incapacitate a target is not viable in most TTRPG combats. It may very well kill the target later, but a TPK is still a TPK.
"Flawed" implies that a thing can be improved. Sometimes it is necessary to recognize that a thing isn't inherently flawed simply because it doesn't satisfy every requirement one might have.
An "elephant" isn't a "flawed bird", it's simply not a bird. A "wrench" isn't a "flawed hack saw", it's a different tool. The "flaw" here is in the observer's expectations.
In this case, "realism" is like PC game resolution. More is "better", but most people don't have the hardware to run high-fidelity 8K games at 120fps. Any game is better than a game you can't actually play. (i.e. D&D isn't a "flawed simulator", it's a fun "collaborative storytelling tool".)
D&D 5e is designed for accessibility around the principle of physical books and printed character sheets, it needs a lower resolution to serve its purpose. As our technology improves, and services like DNDBeyond take over more of the paperwork and calculus, the barriers to entry fade away and create room for different games in the spirit of D&D. While they may bear a striking resemblance, they are, in fact, different beasts.
Creating a "more realistic currency system" is akin to adding mods to Minecraft. The mods don't "fix" Minecraft, they "enhance" it for a particular style of play.
There are some modern synthetic poisons that can incapacitate very quickly when administered directly in the appropriate doses (unconscious in seconds, dead in minutes), but compared to traditional poisons, the Poison, Basic (vial) is almost magically fast acting for its delivery method.
There is a lot going on and I only skimmed it, but has this thread somehow turned into yet another poison thread?
The specific poison in the PHB is overcosted and you're explicitly told this is because they wrote the rules for it assuming it was illegal, so you're paying extra for illegal goods. If you want cheaper poison that does more damage, you can use a poisoner's kit and the nature skill to milk a poisonous snake familiar. The DC is 20 and on a 15 or less you poison yourself, but other than that it just takes time and the occasional healing nap.
Committed to a position of poisons being commonly used in ancient cultures all around the world? Yes, I am because it's not really an opinion, it's commonly accepted. Regarding Wolf's Bane, it was specifically nicknamed such because of its use on arrows to hunt wolves. Maybe tomorrow I’ll feel like digging up sources for use in warfare, I'm not disagreeing that it's less common; you seem to be under the impression that that negates its presence, I don't understand that. I’ve already provided examples, again, look up the Greeks and Scythians and poisoned arrows. Regardless, if you insist on believing that lethal poisons used to hunt large game were simply going to be ineffective against humans, well, that’s your own prerogative I suppose. I will repeat again what I've just stated here and prior, there are instances of poisons being used in warfare (for a more recent one, in WWII the Japanese dealt with Malay tribesmen using blowgun darts coated with guess what? Monkshood) but I will definitely reiterate that its primary use on weapons was for hunting. This wasn’t because of any evidence that it was less effective at killing people…again, several armies encountered with poison arrows caused disastrous effects…but ultimately because most often it just wasn’t necessary or as practical for mass deployment.
So the target is inflicted with aconitine and they go about their business with no ill effects until abruptly 4 hours later they just drop dead? You know that’s not the case so why argue as if the point of death is the only thing that matters when the poison involves dealing damage. Small. Incremental. Damage. And in D&D that damage is an abstraction of the effects and tolls that poison is taking on you.
Also note that the estimate of 4 hours is provided for an estimate minimal lethal dose. You want to guess what happens if you up that dosage?
I find it humorous that you two that seem to believe poisoning humans is such a difficult affair are both simultaneously arguing that the monetary system is not supposed to get caught up in all these tiny details and minutiae of realism (which I will state again I have not strictly been stating it needs) but then are also asking for ridiculous levels of realism and detail to your poisons. Which way do you want it? Cause it’s really just seeming like you’re both refusing to admit that you underestimated how common the usage of poisons actually was.
No, we’re talking about an abstraction of the physical and mental effects a poison has on an individual. In D&D that might result in the creature falling unconscious, this does not mean that the poison on its own instantly killed a completely healthy individual. This abstraction is represented in a CHANCE of 1d4 or 2 damage. Why you two seem to think a poisoned weapon used against another person is near impossible and both jump straight to requiring instant death as a result of said poison is beyond me, but it was never a criterion that was set.
And it can be improved. Are you simultaneously arguing in your last comment that no system is perfect and in this one that 5e is incapable of flaw?
You also still fail to grasp that I’m not arguing for the monetary system to be realistic or be grounded in realism. I’m arguing for it to “feel” realistic or balanced within the environment of the rules provided.
And yes, it needs low resolution, and I never stated otherwise...I've actually stated essentially the same multiple times...but...then you’re also arguing that a poison in D&D needs to be evaluated on a basis of regional availability, efficacy, stability, and difficulty to develop into a manner of different forms...so, I’m not sure I’m really the one asking for anything to be high resolution here.
I must not know where it's stated that its assumed to be illegal, but I guess I just find that a meh reason. In my opinion that kind of stipulation should be left to the GM and its price provided in the list should be based off of it's relative mechanical value.
I suppose it's at least an official reason though that gives some logic. I just assumed as others said that its pricing was for balance, and (in my opinion) that it was just a lazy attempt at such.
I'm going to assume you're not deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I've been posting, and instead conclude that there are too many moving pieces to discuss this constructively.
Best of luck with your future adventures!
Okay, I'll concede that poisons have indeed been used in warfare. I did some digging of my own, read through some articles. But I also found that Poison was much more commonly used for assassinations and removal of enemies without direct confrontation - poisoning their food and drink whilst having them over for dinner, for example.
The Wikipedia article also states that the availability increased in medieval times due to the increase in apothecaries, because the poisons were used as medicine, but could also be used to kill. This is important - the Apothecaries didn't sell poison, they sold poisonous medicine. They doubtless had bottles of the bad stuff which they used & diluted to make medicine, but they would only sell that on the sly. There was also a "poison epidemic", but it was kept in check by an increase in the cures for poisons - because most poisons were slow acting.
The majority of poisons are used for ingestion, purely due to the convenience of poisoning someone's food or drink. It's difficult to stab someone and then claim you don't know how they died. Poison, in the ages before crime scene investigation, was easy to get away with - you simply deny it. If you're of high enough social status, or have a good enough alibi planned, you can get away with it.
"If we're relating all of this to the real world as we have been, historically that just absolutely isn't the case."
I'm sorry, but I'm certain that more people have died by the sword than have died because of intentional poisoning.
You also have to consider the legal implications. You say "poison wouldn't have been illegal". But what if a stall sets up shop selling poisons for cheap, and then the guards start to find people falling dead all over the place due to poisoning? What will the guards do? They'll kick the trader out, or arrest them for irresponsible supply of poisons. So the poison trader will stay secret, and sell less product, so will have to increase their prices.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Pricing looks fine in general to me, and the DMG states that GMs are free to adjust prices however they want, as the recommendations are only a guideline. I agree there are some wonky bits, but I do not think it is anything too difficult to deal with or homebrew away.
For example, a regular plate armor costs 1,500 GP, while an uncommon magic item in general costs up to 500 GP. For adamantine plate armor, an uncommon magic item, I think most reasonable GMs are going add the pricing together and set them at 2,000 GP rather than strictly following that all uncommon magic are between 101 and 500 GP.
For me, the price of poison is fine in my opinion, since it being a hassle to use helps keep it from being used too much. I do have an issue with the Poisoner feat still requiring a gold cost, but as a GM I can just handwave the cost away, and I can tell my players that they can make a version of the potent poison that is only effective for 24 hours once created, so even low level adventurers can still use poison while preventing it from being hoarded and sold. I would still charge them the full price of 50 GP if they want to make the regular potent poison, since those do not seem to expire.
Elephants are pretty darn useful though. I do not think there are any war elephants, at least not any that I can find, but the riding ones are still a CR 4 monster that is great as an ally in battle for low level adventurers, and out of battle, they are the most efficient in moving cargo from one place to another for each unit of feed the elephant consumes (I am assuming all mounts consume the same amount of feed per day). Warhorses are better if you need speed for an emergency or something, but if you are not in a hurry, elephants can transport more stuff over the same period of time.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Alright so we have a history buffs complaining about the inaccuracy of armors in D&D, we have economy buffs who complain about monetary system, now we only need some geography buffs who will say that the coastal line of Faerun doesn't make sense.
And while we're at it, how about some zoologists who will point out how some species have no right of existing because they couldn't possibly sustain themselves in their native environment?
The elephant mount uses the elephant monster statistic, and I have not heard of GMs making riding horses and mastiffs panic, so I do not see why the elephant has to panic or go berserk in battle unless the GM singles out elephants and homebrew them that way.
In real life, I agree elephants are not very efficient at transporting things. In D&D however, elephants are very good at that though. They eat the same amount of feed as a warhorse does (I assume all mounts eat the same amount of feed since I do not see anything stating otherwise), but got over well over twice the carrying capacity and can still achieve 66% of the speed of warhorses. If you take out factoring feed (the traveling route got plenty of grass for grazing or something), donkeys would be the best since the initial investment is so cheap and you do not have to worry about the expense of feeding them.
Warhorses are better in terms of speed. For combat, warhorses are better as a mount, but I would not use them as independent combatants. For elephants, I think they are better as an independent combatant rather than being mounted, since they can take quite a few a hit so they can be on the front lines and help flank, although you can still mount them and let them be independent.
If I were designing 5e, I would probably price them the same as a warhorse, but 200 is fine and a starting party can generally get one if they pool their resources together. It gives them an extra front liner if they need one, and the elephant can help haul back loot.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Prices in real world Earth are largely arbitrary and often nonsensical so I’m not sure why D&D would be any different. As an example: the price of oil is artificially high relative to its supply. The price of food is artificially low relative to its utility. Diamonds cost more than gas or food and are insanely expensive relative to their supply and especially their utility. Is a diamond really more valuable than a loaf of bread or litre of gas? Absolutely not, to the overwhelming majority of people, but that is not reflected by the price of these things. And regarding the price of gas, if I drive 10 minutes down the highway, I can pay anywhere from 3-7 cents less per litre of fuel than I do at the gas station around the corner from my home. I’d save money by travelling 10 minutes but, most times, I just pay for the convenience and fuel up close to home despite the fact that the gas itself is exactly the same.
I’m not saying D&D poison or elephants are analogous to diamonds, gas or food; I’m saying the product itself doesn’t determine its value. A single global price does not exist for any good or service in real world Earth. Pricing in capitalism is based on getting people to pay you as much as possible in return for the smallest investment on your part and this equation is immensely variable. Your very notion that there is a single price for anything is a flawed premise in capitalism. It may be annoying to be told that prices in the books are guidelines rather than decrees but this is actually the very closest, most accurate depiction of capitalism—where prices change from moment to moment based on a range of factors that could be something as capricious as whether you remind the vendor of their favourite aunt or that jerk that bullied them in middle school—you could possibly roleplay.
Hi I'm not trying to get into the argument about economy as the dnd economic system doesn't bother me as dnd has never been designed for realism in any aspect but an offshoot of a strategy game with the other stuff tacked on
However sometimes if i want to bend more realistic in a game I use this book as a source. https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/13113/Grain-Into-Gold
Cool I use this to give a estimate of how common stuff is https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/3o2ydl/5e_commoner_life_and_economy/
Mostly nocturnal
help build a world here
I thought you were talking about central banks.
I think fiat currency is rigged at the moment. Maybe we should return to good old copper / silver / gold system. In history that has happened many times.
I read that a mug of ale was 2 copper and I'm fairly sure a mug of bud or miller or what it may be is two bucks so I've always thought a copper was the dollar equivalent.
Mystic v3 should be official, nuff said.