Injury poisons, like the harvested flying snake, remain until they deal damage or are washed off.
Flying Snake poison appears to be Contact vector, like most natural poisons, because a target that resists all of the piercing damage (e.g. any raging barbarian) still takes the poison damage.
Just to be clear, a Ranger's bonus damage applies only to their companion's damage rolls. Someone else using the snake's poison would not get to add the Ranger's proficiency bonus. Whether said bonus will be forced to be piercing, poison, or Ranger's choice of damage type will be up to the GM, as that involves a rabbit hole so deep there's a thread about it right now over on the Rules & Game Mechanics forum that's reached page 8 with no sign of stopping, but in any case, it'll only apply when the snake rolls, not when anyone else rolls. Note that your interpretation of the word "roll" is widely accepted as incorrect - for example, a blowgun "rolls" 1d1 for rules purposes on every GM's table I've ever seen, rather than not getting a damage roll at all, which causes a variety of rules problems if you accept it.
I don't see any indication that Flying snake is a contact vector.
All bite attacks that are also listed harvested poisons are Given injury as a Tag. The other listed harvested poison is Carrion crawler. that one uses a tentacle that dose no physical (piercing, slashing or Bludgeoning) damage and has the contact tag. Since we have another snake as an example that should be the pattern.
But in the instance of a raging barbarian: Injury poisons require slashing or piercing damage so immune creatures wouldn't get poison damage until wounded. There is an argument that The barbarian took a wound of .5HP damage but had no affect on the HP because it was rounded down. So blood was drawn just not enough to do damage. The fictional concept of hp gets weird here. Then there is the issue of asymmetric rules for creatures vs Players just to confuse the matter more. I always took it as 1 HP of piercing or slashing was considered a wound for injury poisons.
But even if you assumed Flying snake was Contact poison the rules/mechanics would be the functionally be the same. Here are the general rules for the two groups.
Contact poison can be smeared on an object and remains potent until it is touched or washed off. A creature that touches contact poison with exposed skin suffers its effects.
Injury poison can be applied to weapons, ammunition, trap components, and other objects that deal piercing or slashing damage and remains potent until delivered through a wound or washed off. A creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.
I spent a short bit trying to find the referenced other thread but couldn't locate it. Do you have a link?
I don't think the current discussion there will do you any good, but if you look through older posts in it, you'll find discussions of Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, and other mechanics similar to Ranger Beastmaster, where damage of no listed type is added to damage of potentially multiple types and then trying to figure out what the type of the added damage is. The tl;dr is that the PHB doesn't cover it.
I agree. A poison was always an impediment attack, not a physical kill them attack. (except in a non-combat form of use, explained later)
It would impair your opponent and do some damage. Basically, put them at a disadvantage requiring them to change tactics or forced into actions they do not want to take.
The other form (non-combat) of use is based around storylines rather than combat. Poisoning an NPC as a distraction or removing them from doing something you didn't want them to do. (closely keeping watch or whatever)
Besides, the great thing about D&D is you can homebrew and customize things to your wanting. Though, I would error on the side of caution before you make some real powerful poison that detaches enhanced gameplay over what is considered my many as a "cheap no-threat kill". I mean there is a reason killing by poison is considered tool of cowards.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I think poison is a great opportunity for out of combat situations. adding a little extra damage is not nearly as interesting as an assasination attempt in the dark of night
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
N/A
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't see any indication that Flying snake is a contact vector.
All bite attacks that are also listed harvested poisons are Given injury as a Tag. The other listed harvested poison is Carrion crawler. that one uses a tentacle that dose no physical (piercing, slashing or Bludgeoning) damage and has the contact tag. Since we have another snake as an example that should be the pattern.
But in the instance of a raging barbarian: Injury poisons require slashing or piercing damage so immune creatures wouldn't get poison damage until wounded. There is an argument that The barbarian took a wound of .5HP damage but had no affect on the HP because it was rounded down. So blood was drawn just not enough to do damage. The fictional concept of hp gets weird here. Then there is the issue of asymmetric rules for creatures vs Players just to confuse the matter more. I always took it as 1 HP of piercing or slashing was considered a wound for injury poisons.
But even if you assumed Flying snake was Contact poison the rules/mechanics would be the functionally be the same. Here are the general rules for the two groups.
I spent a short bit trying to find the referenced other thread but couldn't locate it. Do you have a link?
I don't recommend delving into it, but sure, I can link you: https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/103470-net-weapon
I don't think the current discussion there will do you any good, but if you look through older posts in it, you'll find discussions of Sneak Attack, Hunter's Mark, and other mechanics similar to Ranger Beastmaster, where damage of no listed type is added to damage of potentially multiple types and then trying to figure out what the type of the added damage is. The tl;dr is that the PHB doesn't cover it.
I agree. A poison was always an impediment attack, not a physical kill them attack. (except in a non-combat form of use, explained later)
It would impair your opponent and do some damage. Basically, put them at a disadvantage requiring them to change tactics or forced into actions they do not want to take.
The other form (non-combat) of use is based around storylines rather than combat. Poisoning an NPC as a distraction or removing them from doing something you didn't want them to do. (closely keeping watch or whatever)
Besides, the great thing about D&D is you can homebrew and customize things to your wanting. Though, I would error on the side of caution before you make some real powerful poison that detaches enhanced gameplay over what is considered my many as a "cheap no-threat kill". I mean there is a reason killing by poison is considered tool of cowards.
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
I think poison is a great opportunity for out of combat situations. adding a little extra damage is not nearly as interesting as an assasination attempt in the dark of night
N/A