The cheapest poison in 5e is 150gp

File: 126573177837.jpg (222KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 800x800px

>>51258343
>Letting dragons, undead, demons, constructs, and the other various shit adventurers fight on a daily basis be affected by a petty 150gp poison.

Wow, it's almost like you don't realize the DM can say no to that shit, or make it more expensive, or make enemies immune, or various other ways to reign it in. Sorry this isn't Pokemon where you can Spam Toxic>Protect>Recovery Move to beat legendary creatures.

>>51258343
>Such mortal drugs I have, but Mantua's law. Is death to any he that utters them.

Go ahead and buy that poison anon and have fun dealing with the consiquenses

>>51258543
So you're saying that a GM would have a vested interest in not allowing cheap (in the literal and figurative sense) access to poison in fights against demons, dragons, and so on. That's actually pretty valid, and I have to agree with you in that most GMs would rather not have poison become a major factor in combat.

But I'm saying, what if some crazy GM does? How does the game change if any asshole can dose their weapons with contact poison at any time?

also,
>Toxic on a pokemon with a very low capture rate
The goal is to take the legendary *alive.*

Most poisons take at least a minute, to minutes to take effect. That means they are practically useless in combat, which is also why instant-effect poisons usually just deal damage or have another weak effect.

So the answer is "Poison is trivial to acquire in practically any setting, but unless you have the time and opportunity to poison someone, it won't do shit for you. It's not going to change much."

It doesn't necessarily affect it at all, just factor the increased damage into your encounter design.

It's like saying, "How does it affect the game if +1 weapons are trivial to acquire?", except in practice a +1 weapon is actually better since it can kill ghosts and shit as a magic weapon and a one-time investment.

>>51258770
>also,
>>Toxic on a pokemon with a very low capture rate
>The goal is to take the legendary *alive.*
He was talking about competitive play, not main game, where Toxic Stall is a very common tactic in a meta where legendaries are everywhere.

>>51258543
GM doesn't even need to do that much. Poison immunity is very common. Moreso than fire resistance and immunity combined, which is really saying something.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage

>>51258343

Just pick some wild berries and crush them, or use bad potatoes or something for low level posion.

>>51258543

D&D has always been that way n00b. Hell, if the PCs themselves aren't poison resistant by level 10, something has gone terribly wrong and/or the DM intends to poison them.

>>51258343
>How does it effect a game if poison becomes trivial to acquire?
PC's who have no moral issues with it use poison more often.

In real life, poison is relatively trivial to acquire, as any idiot with an internet connection and some free time can get some. You don't see people getting poisoned all the time, do you?

Furthermore, DnD poison is disappointingly weak, and you can't effectively kill anyone but peasants with poison. The in-combat applications of poison are also very limited, as time spent poisoning weapons is often less damage-efficient than time spent attacking. So, unless your PC's are planning genocide, not that much.

>>51258343
>implying you, of the weakest, would be sold the STRONGEST POTIONS

>>51258343
Poison is trivial to aquire IRL.

>>51258343
Poisoning by methanol mixed into ethanol (or was it the other way around?) is so easy people do it on accident.

>>51264311

This. It would be implausible for poison to cost very much, given how you can find tons of deadly poisons for free in real life. What are you going to do, not let the PCs collect mushrooms?