Friday, April 23, 2021

Assassins' Use of Poison

Poison is about my least favourite part of the game: not because I see it as game-breaking for a player to use it as a short cut to kill an enemy, but because rules for it are hard to handle.

To begin with, poison is cheap and plentiful.  Five minutes in any wood will quickly put you in reach of a wide variety of poisonous berries and mushrooms, any of which can be crushed and brewed into a drink that will kill an enemy effectively.  We don't even need to know which mushrooms or berries —  pick anything you're unfamiliar with by sight and it's almost certain to be poisonous ... and what medieval character will not have gone on berry-picking expeditions as a youngster, as part of a general community escapade?  This means you don't need ANY skill, so that's not a restriction either.

This blows Gygax's perception in the original DMG (p.20) that poisons would cost 5, 30, 200 or 1500 g.p. apiece ... or that they should be rated according to their ability to kill you.  I know of some white berries growing in the alley behind my apartment that will kill you flat, that won't cost a dime.

Gygax ignores all this.  He states plainly, in a passage intended to speak directly to the assassin's use of poison,

"It is not the place of this work to actually serve as a monual for poisons and poisoning. Not only is such a subject distosteful, but it would not properly mesh with the standard poison system used herein."

Rarely should we expect to find such a miserable side-step.  Let me see if I can compress the "poison system" he denotes.

To use a poison, the assassin must wait until 9th level to "study poisons" for four courses of 5-8 weeks  each (this has to be pieced from the context, it isn't stated explicitly), which can't be interrupted.  This enables the assassin to study a group of "poison skills" that are uselessly generalized in description.  Each week costs the assassin 2000-8000 g.p.  Not kidding.  The 9th level must find an NPC "mentor" of at least 12th level to teach how to study this skill.  That is also a charge, though the number isn't specified.  Why not?  Who knows.  Because it took too much space to add another ludicrous number per week.  As Gygax states, "he or she can also set the fee as he or she sees fit."

The assassin has to gather a "wide variety" of animal, vegetable and mineral poisons for this training ... though this vague description is useless to the player and DM.  After all the study is done, the assassin will have "complete knowledge" — well, 90% — of all poisons known.  At this point, the assassin can start to use poisons to assassinate, selecting one of NINE poison effects included in the games rules.  Yes, that's right: you've just paid an average of 14,444 g.p. per poison choice, only three of which cause death when a save isn't made.

Oh, but wait!  Before you can use the poison, you've got to compound it.  What was I thinking!  It's suggested the compounding should take a week of game time, not to mention an additional 200-1200 g.p. (it's not stated whether this is per dose or not; one might assume it's per batch, but there's no number of doses per batch described anywhere in the passage) for "materials, bribes, etc."  It isn't clear how this number compares with a later number which states "cost/dose" ... the book's user is supposed to "figure it out" I guess, as best their RPG-unfamiliar 1979 fifteen-year old brain can.

Having shelled out this spectacular amount of money, the assassin now has a set of poisons, 6 in 9 of which have a 40% or better chance of being detected by smell.  For many tens of thousands of g.p. spent, the assassin has exactly one poison that can't be detected by smell, that takes 10-40 minutes to kill an enemy.  Compare this with a 9th level mage's ability to cast fireball automatically everyday without ever having to spend a dime, or the same character's ability to dispatch an enemy with assassination or backstabbing.  Hm.  Whaddaya say, Jack?  Wanna study some poisons?

The thrust of this causes a great many non-imaginative DMs and players to think, "Wow, making rules for things is stupid; why do we even have rules for things?"  Because, after all, if the Great Gygax failed, it must mean the task is impossible!

On some level, I understand the desire to throw one's hands in the air.  Dip a toe into the subject matter associated with poison and you'll find yourself in the deep end of the ocean in no time.  Gygax's earlier sidestep was meant to conceal that there are 30,000+ "common" forms of poison, related to plants, fungi, insects, reptiles, amphibians, fish and more.  Trying to make sense of it is difficult, since most of the content found wants to tell you a great deal more about what the poison comes from than what it does biologically, mostly because the world wants to keep that information out of your hands!  The best solution I've found is to presuppose an effect you want a poison to have, and then invent a source for that poison and say "screw the real world" when justifying that source.  After all, what difference does it make?  I'm under no obligation to make black mamba poison function in my game world exactly as it does in the real world, now am I?

I want to, though, and that is one source of my frustration.

Point in fact, everything we know about poison (or any other subject) wasn't obtained by a bunch of lazy non-imaginative scientists throwing their hands in the air and crying, "Wow, it's really hard to learn and know things!  Knowing things is stupid!  Why do we even need to know things?"

The purpose for making rules in a rational D&D game isn't based on what's easy, what's fun or what appears, on the surface, to be doable.  It's based on giving the players a grounding in what's possible, so they can make practical decisions regarding their characters.  We make rules for poison so players can know precisely what a black mamba's poison DOES, so that when the subject comes up, the DM isn't just pulling shit from the dark place to make the game work.  It is impossible for a group of players to make a judgement call on what to do when a character is poisoned based on whatever brown matter spatters across the table out of the DM's unconsidered and now desperate-to-invent something grabassery!  Forced to play in a context like this hamstrings the quality of the campaign ... but hell.

It's not like I haven't said THAT before.

This is a difficult sentiment, but let me make this pitch for why players ought not to use poison in the game, except when absolutely necessary.  It isn't because poison is costly.  Or hard to find.  Or easy to use.  Or kills 10th level characters too easily and makes the game unfun.  There is no reason not to use poison when only the construct of the game universe is considered.

In the real world, when anyone uses poison as a method, including Vlad, the impression this makes on the remainder of human beings is not a good one.  Kill a person with a sword and you might get some sympathy.  Waste someone with a fireball in the heat of battle and chances are you might reasonably expect a pass from higher ups who respect or revere magic.  But fall into the hands of an authority that learns that you used poison to overcome an enemy ...

And you will never, NEVER, catch a break.  Even if you are innocent, the forces that exist to judge you will see you BURN, on principle.

Count on it.

4 comments:

  1. Doesn't this sort of fold back into why the assassin fell out of favor? Why traps are unsatisfying? Either you detect and avoid it, and therefore it does nothing, or you don't and you probably die, which is exhausting.

    Can you imagine a player doing anything but standing up and walking away if you told them one day "Hey, your character doesn't wake up."
    or "An hour after the banquet, your 10th level Wizard has a fatal bout of diarrhea. He can't get off the privy long enough to cast a life-saving spell or cry for help. Here's 3d6, start rolling another."

    Poison just isn't any fun for anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Like any part of the game, HOW the DM plays it matters. With these rules as written, you're perfectly right Pandred. With a DM following these rules unreservedly, holding the book up as a holy bible as I've encouraged DMs to do (however, not THIS book, but a better one we've written ourselves), a player should justifiably walk away, as you say.

    Those are not, however, problems with the assassin, though it is easy enough to throw that baby out with the bathwater. But let's get down to meat and potatoes: Would I kill a character with poison?

    Yes, yes I would.

    But not with the total lack of context you've given in your examples, Pandred. If the players willingly began to poke the wrong bear, such as a local assassins' guild, or someone described as an insane fanatic who is known to have murdered his family in order to take the throne; then went about that "taking on" casually, incompetently, or supposing that nothing could happen to them because they're players, and stopped preparing their own food, then yes, I would say,

    {not "hey"}

    "Um, your character rolls a d20. Oops. Your character doesn't wake up. You know that banquet you went to last night with the people you didn't know that well? Where you didn't prepare your own food? Where most of the people there know the local tyrant? Yeah, uh, someone there slipped some stuff in your food and you're dead now. You really shouldn't have blabbed your intentions to all those shopkeepers you tried to interview yesterday."

    And you know the response I would get from the player? Would it be standing up and walking away? Or would it be, "Fuck. Can I still get raised?"

    You tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. (cont)

    Because you see, I believe that people jumped to conclusions like "the assassin sucks" because while the books ARE a disaster, the material exists to enable changes and fixes that make sense. Changes and fixes that WE understood when we were all of 17. Yet today I find 40-something DMs so stuck in their ways they can't find a hole in an empty bucket. They INSIST that practical rules are "impossible" or "useless" because they couldn't find a practical rule with their whole family, a map and Jesus Christ holding it up on a placard.

    When anyone tells me "this is the reason such-and-such fell out of favour," I'm apt to think it fell out of favour due to retardism, not because the material didn't perfectly fit some mould. In both the Players Handbook and the DMG, there ARE logical, practical observations regarding the class ... but unfortunately they're not written in neon. Anyone with a dictionary and the bare bones of a television education could figure out how to make the assassin reasonable and practical.

    Fact is, they didn't want to, for "reasons" having to do with murder being squicky or the fear of having to protect themselves from something dangerous. And let's not forget the willingness of players to assassinate players, and DMs to sanction that shit.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The upshot of this is to consult your DM with respect to the permissible usage of poisons. Keep in mind the principal reason for restriction of the use of poison - the game must offer challenge. If poison is limited or specially treated, you will understand and co-operate." PH p.107.

    I have used this quote in the players packet I hand out. I am not satisfied with it. My players are good enough to recognize the difficulty of poison, and are not disposed to PvP. But I haven't done the work to iron this particular issue out. The squeaky wheel get the oil.

    ReplyDelete

If you wish to leave a comment on this blog, contact alexiss1@telus.net with a direct message. Comments, agreed upon by reader and author, are published every Saturday.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.