Poisoning: counter-intuitive

[fable]

Is anybody else annoyed at how poisoning a weapon doesn't actually poison it, but drops a counter on the character doing the poisoning so that it affects whatever melee weapon they next use? Which means that nobody else can use a weapon that's poisoned by your rogue. At least, that's been my experience. I tried putting venom and poison effects on a dagger: it worked. Tried giving that dagger to another character. The dagger was plain. Curiously, the green, billowing cloud that Bioware seems to think simulates well a slight green tinge to a poisoned weapon hung around my rogue. Transferred Alaistair's longsword to my rogue. It showed the poison and venom effects. Transferred back the dagger to the rogue: now it had the effects.

I mean, how difficult would it have been to set a use-scripted effect on a weapon which could then be handed off to somebody else? That's the way Might and Magic did it 12 years ago. They could have even added poisoning from any party member's menu, as long as you first passed a check on having a rogue with the skill present. Granted, you may want to limit poison effects to only weapons in use by rogues, but then you need to come up with some good in-game explanation for doing something like that. Bioware didn't bother.

[Gauda]

I think the thought behind only letting one with the poison skill use poisoned weapons is that only one with skills in it can stop themselves by inadvertently cutting and poisoning yourself or something like that.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gauda I think the thought behind only letting one with the poison skill use poisoned weapons is that only one with skills in it can stop themselves by inadvertently cutting and poisoning yourself or something like that.

I can tell you're no more convinced of this than I am.

[Gauda]

True