turing85's page

If you are wearing some form of armor, the higher armor bonus counts (either armor + kilt or mage armor) since they are both armor bonusses and do not stack. You cannot apply a Kilt to Mage Armor since Mage Armor is neither light nor medium armor.

Just for the sake of completeness:

These combat maneuvers can be performed in place of a melee attack (and therefore as an AoO):

• Disarm
  
• Sunder
  
• Trip
  

2. If successful, does the trip happen before or after the baddie moves? If before, does the baddie lose any movement spaces he had left in that move action? If not, could he choose to use the remaining movement spaces to crawl?

I would say that it interrupts the action. The baddie would be knocked prone on the field where the AoO happened (or maybe 1 field further, depending on his move speed and a coin toss, let him fly in a high arc). An indication to this is actually the ruling regarding casting spells and executing combat maneuvers: in both cases, one has to take the damage from the attack of opportunity (if any) as penalty to the concentration- or CMB-check.

3. Can the baddie use his standard action and attempt the same movement?

4. If he chooses to do the above, does this count as the same action or a different action for provoking AoO?

Yes, he can. He will still provoke AoO's. You only say "I want to use my standard action to execute a (second) move action". This does not alter any properties of the move action. Withdraw lets you move out an threatened area without (certain) provoking AoO's, and it is a full-round action.

Gisher wrote:

An Alchemist or Investigator can make Extracts of True Strike if they have True Strike on their Formula List.

'fraid Not. It's on their list, but...

SRD wrote:

Extracts cannot be made from spells that have focus requirements

This is funny. The FAQ I linked in my first post is from 2013. As far as I know, there is only one Edition of the Advanced Player's Guide, printed in 2010. Either this FAQ directly violates the RAW or there is something we are missing.

turing85 wrote:

Gisher wrote:

An Alchemist or Investigator can make Extracts of True Strike if they have True Strike on their Formula List. If you want a Wondrous Item that lets you cast True Strike, there is the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination). It costs 2500 gp.

Not only can an Alchemist create an Extract of it, (s)he can even share it via infusion.

The problem of doing that is that it is unclear if the extract become inert after a day or not.

If it become inert it open up the option of having an alchemist selling very cheap "24 hours potions" (the cost would be the same as paying someone to cast a spell or very similar).
It the extract persist after 24 hours there is a problem as the alchemist has a used up infusion slot until the extract is used

PRD wrote:

The extract created now persists even after the alchemist sets it down. As long as the extract exists, it continues to occupy one of the alchemist's daily extract slots.

I understand your point. My point of view:

As you can see, the authors used inert in the Alchemy class feature and perists in the Infusion text. The RAI is that an Alchemist does not start preparing "countless" extracts, setting them down directly after creation and then "cherry picks" the ones he needs. The wording is still unclear, though, and can be misinterpreted. I would argue that, though the liquid itself forming the extract, sill exists after 24 hours, the extract looses its effects as normal and thus the extract ceases to exist.

On the other hand, letting the extracts persist over the 24h time barrier would stop the players from selling extracts to make gold. If an Alchemist wishes to prepare a new Extract, (s)he can simply pour old Extracts in her/his posession before starting to create new ones.

An Alchemist or Investigator can make Extracts of True Strike if they have True Strike on their Formula List. If you want a Wondrous Item that lets you cast True Strike, there is the Cloak of the Hedge Wizard (divination). It costs 2500 gp.

Not only can an Alchemist create an Extract of it, (s)he can even share it via infusion.

I agree that the intent is to actually move, but I think it needs to be written better. I am hoping they errata it, which is why I made this FAQ.

You should then hit the FAQ Button on your original post.

Is it PART of a move- or withdraw-action. You use it while moving.

Example: Let's say a character with a base speed of 30 feet wants to move away from an oponent. He/She use this supernatural ability and "slides" 10 feet with Dimensional Slide, consuming 5 foot of his/hers movement. This would allow the character to move 25 feet "on foot" after the dimensional slide.

If the same character wishes do withdraw, but there are oponents threatening squares on the withdraw path, that are not the starting square, the character can first move until reaching a threatened square, then slide, and then move further (if he/she has movement left).

EDIT: Minor text fix (removed "can" in the second sentence).

The medium Shortsword deals 1d6, so the large version deals 1d8.

Tarantula wrote:

Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.

Quite correct of course. It's just a pity they:

A) Can't actually make wands, not being casters.
B) Have spells on their list that can't be made into wands, extracts, infusions or potions and thus are useless.

What about Wand of Cure [Light/Moderate/Serious] Wounds, Wand of [Enlarge/Reduce] Person, Wand of Haste... ? I would argue that a lot of common spells are there. But the argument "it is there so you can cast it with a spelltrigger-item" is in my opinion invalid. An indicator for this is the spell "Air Walk, communal". It is a Level 5 spell and thus cannot be stored in a wand and wands are the most common spelltrigger items.

What me boggles much more is that

Extracts are the most varied of the three. In many ways, they behave like spells in potion form, and as such their effects can be dispelled by effects like dispel magic using the alchemist's level as the caster level. Unlike potions, though, extracts can have powerful effects and duplicate spells that a potion normally could not.[...]

An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.

The highlighted portion of the first paragraph suggest that a) a spell made into an extract can be more potent than the corresponding potion and b) you can create extracts of 4th, 5th and 6th level spells, as well as personal spells. But at least the assumption about the "more potent effect" is in fact not true, because the highlighted portion of the second paragraph lets only the alchemist have the effect of this extract. This means Haste (a Level 3 spell) is now a single-target buff, which is on par with the potion. A wand would grant the full "buff", as it would allow multiple allies to be affected.

Then there are the obvious spells on the formulae list (everything "Communal"). Either this is a mayor oversight or the passage regarding extracts needs serious rewording wrt. the target of an extract.

That is correct. If the swarm comes into contact with the elemental, is has to roll it's Reflex Save. If it fails, it takes damage. After that, the swarm rolls the second Reflex Save. If it fails, it will be picked up and take the damage each turn until the effect ends, the swarm dies or the elemental dies.

The downside is that it's incredibly expensive and it's ONLY 9 rounds/day of Greater Invisibility, relegating it to emergencies or going nova.

9 rounds is actually a lot. Imagine a TWF Rogue on level 9 (Sneak Attack +5d6, BAB +6/+1) with Shortswords. This character could damage an oponent for 3x 6d6 DMG per round. Let's assume that this rogue spends two rounds to get to the target. This would leave seven rounds of full damage. If you take the average, this would be 21 DMG per Attack, 63 DMG per Round and 441 DMG total. If the Rogue has improved Two Weapon fighting, that is an additional attack per round. If the rogue gets Haste, that is another attack, all stacking, resulting in a total of 5 attacks per round. You get the idea...

For you, 9 Rounds / day would mean that you can get four sneak attacks in reliably (1 round activating the amulet, 1 round shooting, 1 round deactivating the amulet, consuming 2 rounds for one shot).

There is still the possibility of Invisibility potions. With 300 GP a pop, you would have to consume 34 of them before the amulet breaks even.

With unchained rules and 15 points in Stealth, you can deny an enemy, that is unaware of your location, its Dexterity-Bonus to AC, but this only qualifies for one attack (after the first attack you either have to re-hide by using Sniping, as marked in the Stealth skill descripton or be discovered).

Bringing some sources to this discussion.

[...]

The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.[...]

Flanking

When making a melee attack, you get a +2 flanking bonus if your opponent is threatened by another enemy character or creature on its opposite border or opposite corner.[...]

If you attack with the ranged weapon, then no, you do not flank your target.

[...]

Benefit: While wielding a ranged weapon with which you have Weapon Focus, you threaten squares within 5 feet of you. You can make attacks of opportunity with that ranged weapon. You do not provoke attacks of opportunity when making a ranged attack as an attack of opportunity.

Normal: While wielding a ranged weapon, you threaten no squares and can make no attacks of opportunity with that weapon.

Well, this is tricky. In my opinion this feat still does not grant you the flanking bonus. I have two arguments for this: a) your attack is still a ranged attack (the feat description does not mention that this is treated as melee-attack) and b) the part under Normal emphasizes the RAI: you can make (an) attack(s) of opportunity (you can also grant flanking to others, but this is more a side effect). As far as I am aware there is no possibility to grant flanking to a ranged attack with pure Paizo material.

If you are willing and your GM permits it, there is a 3rd Party Feat

Even at a distance, you can take advantage of a distracted opponent.

Prerequisite: Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +10.

Benefit: When attacking with ranged or thrown weapons from a distance of up to 30 feet, if the nearest adjacent space to your target is unoccupied and the opposite space is occupied by a threatening ally, you are considered flanking. Both you and your ally gain all the benefits of flanking, including +2 flanking bonus on attacks, rogues can sneak attack, etc.

Normal: Only characters in melee are considered flanking.

EDIT: Minor text fixes.

EDIT 2: In foresight, just a RAW

[...]

Attack Bonus
Your attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
[...]
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. [...]

This is why it is important that it is not mentioned that the attacks granted by Snapshot are no melee attacks. If they were, RAW says you have to apply your Srength-Modifier instead of the Dexterity-Modifier. Since this would certainly not go unnoticed, there would be some wording like "treat this attack as if it were a melee-attack, but still apply your ranged attack bonus".

hello, sorry for the necropost, but i didn't find any satisfying answer (on google as on this topic) to the question of this post : "Can you make any attacks while you are pinned?"

as the paizo staff answered this somewhere already? can somebody provide a link?

thanks

Yes they replied. Scroll up to the initial question. There is a little box on the upper right reading:

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required

Should I put "FAQ request" or “Designer response needed” in my post or thread?

No.
Doing so suggests that your post or thread is more “worthy” of staff attention than someone else’s thread which doesn’t include this text.
Also, because having more FAQ clicks doesn’t make a thread more likely to be answered, doing this to encourage more FAQ clicks doesn’t help you.
Finally, most people insisting they need a designer or developer to weigh in with an official answer are in a situation where they’re disagreeing with the GM or another player and one side refuses to budge unless they get an official response from Paizo, and Paizo doesn’t want to encourage that sort of heavy-handedness.

Please refrain from putting "FAQ request" in your title.

Sorry, forgot about that (it's "just" +2 to Attack and the special rule for rogue's sneak that is messing with me). will switch it with invisibility.

Bandw2 wrote:

gravalpea wrote:

GM 7thGate wrote:

Note that uncanny dodge wouldn't work if invisibility didn't deny the dex bonus on the target.

Uncanny dodge: ...She cannot be caught flat-footed, nor does she lose her Dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible...

That clause does nothing unless you assume that "ignores its opponents' Dexterity bonuses to AC (if any)" is the same thing as "loses her dex bonus to AC if the attacker is invisible". Its definitely intended to be the same.

Ohhhh, ok I see what you are getting at. It would have been nice if Paizo put that somewhere that made sense. ><

i'm starting to say this more and more, but strict readings of the rules get you no where.

don't sweat the exact wording not being the same if it's mechanically the same thing.

This.

Wording is not standardized. All your going to get from slicing syntax that finely is a headache.

I think there is a minor difference between "someone ignoring your Dex-Bonus" and "you loosing your Dex-Bonus". If you loose your Dex-Bonus, everyone attacking you ignores your Dex-Bonus (e.g. because you are paralyzed). If an opponent is invisible, only this opponent ignores your Dex-Bonus.

turing85 wrote:

This is true and in canon with what I wrote. I never denied that a spell can crit, but normally only with a nat. 20. Using the weapon's crit modifier is a HUGE bonus for a spellcaster, especially if the weapon is keen and has a total crit range of 15-20.

Yes it is. And the magus can add the keen property to any weapon.

Why did you think so many magi are using scimitars?

I know and I do not deny the crit range for a magus-spell. In fact, in my current campagin, I have a magus who uses this ability. We interpret the spellstrike as it was described by Mathmuse since I think that this is how it was intended. The RAW wording, however, is confusing and would be clearer if it would specify that either only the free attack granded by spellstrike uses this critical range or the attack that delivers the spell uses the critical range wrt. spell critical thread (which by the way would include spells that grant multiple touch attacks, since each successive hit delivers (a part of) the spell's effect).

This is true and in canon with what I wrote. I never denied that a spell can crit, but normally only with a nat. 20. Using the weapon's crit modifier is a HUGE bonus for a spellcaster, especially if the weapon is keen and has a total crit range of 15-20.

Yes, except

[...] You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. [...]

So you would need at least two Returning Greatswords (or attack once, then throw it) and you would not get the Power Attack bonus on the thrown attacks. Plus, if the target is in meele, you take -4 to attack and a Range increment of 10 ft. isn't great either (given the Belt of Mighty Hurling can add Range to a weapon, that does not have a Range, which breaks down to "Can you throw a Weapon that does not have a Range?"). And if you are within melee range of your opponents when you try to throw your Greatsword, you will be the subject of Attacks of Opportunity.

There are two flow charts over at d20pfsrd.com:
Chart 1
Chart 2

Keep in mind that if you get hit by an AoO while initiating the Grapple, you take the damage as penalty to your CMB-Roll. Also, both parties gain the "Grappled" Condition and thus all associated penalties.

The Grappler also gets a +5 Bonus on all Grapple-Checks he makes.

turing85 wrote:

Claxon wrote:

In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.

If you take a look at the achemist's spell list, you will see that it is the shortest of all "spellcasters". Cutting it down would harm the class I think.

I don't think you're correct. I imagine that the paladin, antipaladin, bloodrager, ranger are all shorter than the alchemist.

Aside from that, I'm still strongly set that they need to remove the offending spells from the list and clarify that otherwise multi-target spells (like haste) only work on the imbiber (or better clarify since the restriction is there but people fail to understand it often).

Now, despite that I'm totally okay with adding other spells to the list for alchemists to make up what they're losing.

All that aside, the alchemist is a strong class and as long as a few staple spells that it uses stick around it really shouldn't have many problems.

Please do not forget that all listed classes can only cast spells up to 4th level. If you take a look for casters casting up to 6th level (Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Summoner; I hope I got all) you get:

Occultist (1st-6th): 442
Bard (1st-6th): 388
Mesmerist (1st-6th): 354
Inquisitor (1st-6th): 327
Spiritualist (1st-6th): 267
Magus (1st-6th): 251
Alchemist: 245
Summoner (1st-6th): 225

Granted, Summoner (even with his Cantrips) has less spells than an Alchemist.

turing85 wrote:

Thus, an Alchemist cannot use the corresponding wand and such a formula would indeed be useless for an Alchemist. He could brew the spell into a potion, but this potion would be useless as well.

Alchemy wrote:

Although the alchemist doesn't actually cast spells, he does have a formulae list that determines what extracts he can create. An alchemist can utilize spell-trigger items if the spell appears on his formulae list, but not spell-completion items (unless he uses Use Magic Device to do so). An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist. An alchemist can draw and drink an extract as a standard action. The alchemist uses his level as the caster level to determine any effect based on caster level.

Wands wrote:

Activation: Wands use the spell trigger activation method, so casting a spell from a wand is usually a standard action that doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity. (If the spell being cast has a longer casting time than 1 action, however, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand.) To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. A wand may be used while grappling or while swallowed whole.

Alchemists can use wands for spells on their list.

Huh nice one. Thanks for pointing that out.

The first sentence allows you to use any attack action, not just your free attack action, to discharge your spell using spellstrike.

The question is: if you miss with your free Attack, but crit with the next attack (not with a nat. 20), does the spell still crit? The wording suggests that you have to crit with the free attack granted by spellstrike.

Example: You attack with a Rapier (Crit 18-20, x2) and Spellstrike. Your first attack is the attack granted by Spellstrike and you miss. Your second attack rolls a 19 and you can confirm the critical hit. By RAW, since you did not crit with the free attack of Spellstrike (reffered in RAW as this attack), your weapon cirts, but your spell does not.

In truth, they need to just go through and remove all those offending spells and put a big note in offices for the future that reminds them alchemist extracts can't target non-creature things or create effects that don't affect the drinker.

If you take a look at the achemist's spell list, you will see that it is the shortest of all "spellcasters". Cutting it down would harm the class I think.

Its useful to have on their spell list because they can use a wand of that spell. If it wasn't on their list, then they would have to make a UMD check, but because it is on the list, they can automatically do it.

Alchemist: Is an alchemist a spellcaster for the purpose of crafting magic items other than potions?

As written, no, alchemists are not spellcasters, and therefore can't select feats such as Craft Wondrous Item.
The design team is aware that this creates some thematic problems with the idea of an alchemist creating golems and so on, and plan to examine this in the future.

Spell Trigger: [...] Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell.[...]

Thus, an Alchemist cannot use the corresponding wand and such a formula would indeed be useless for an Alchemist. He could brew the spell into a potion, but this potion would be useless as well.

This is slightly off-topic but underlines that extracts are in fact mechanically decoupled from potions.

Alchemist: Does the Accelerated Drinker feat from Cheliax, Empire of Devils allow a character to drink an alchemist extract as a move action?

No.

the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist

You aren't an object, so invalid target, spell has no effect.

This is true and by pure RAW, the spell would only be able to transform the Alchemist (or, if he has the Infusion discovery, the drinking person) into liquid. This would be kind of funny in some ways, save that the object is not allowed to be over 20 pounds.

I think the developers would not (intentionally) give a spell to a class, which then cannot be used by this class.

[...] You can observe a creature at any distance. [...]

This implies that you only get visual information with Scrying (but a caster using this spell could still be sightless. The image is mentally projected in the caster's conciousness).

Furthermore, the spell description says that you can only observe creatures, not places (thus you cannot use Scrying on a place). As to how many environmental information you get would be the decision of your GM.

I would allow any view angle that holds the target of the spell in focus. Thus you could "fly around" the target, getting environmental clues, but not roam around freely (this rule of thumb should also deny situations in which the caster wishes to "zoom out" too far, since he effectively looses sight of the spell's target).

On this page it is not marked with an asterisk (*), therefore it is not a combat feat.

While each ray spell must make a ranged touch attack, the opposite is not true. There is no rule stating that each spell must fall in one of the given categories.

I would not categorize spells transformed by "Spell Reach" Metamagic as "Ray" and therefore not grant the bonus from Weapon Focus(ray).

Regarding the spellslinger, however, there is no downside.

A spellslinger can cast any ranged touch attack, cone, line, or ray spells through his arcane gun.

Since it is a ranged touch spell, this bonus does apply.

[...] An extract is “cast” by drinking it, as if imbibing a potion—the effects of an extract exactly duplicate the spell upon which its formula is based, save that the spell always affects only the drinking alchemist.[...]

School transmutation; Level alchemist 3, bard 3, druid 4, sorcerer/wizard 4

[...]
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target 1 object weighing up to 1 pound/level
[...]

This spell is available as alchemical formula and thus can be used by an Alchemist.

As I understand it: you drink the extract, which "charges the spell". With this "charged spell" you then have the ability to turn one object within the given size- and range-limitations to liquid.

I think the point is that

Generally speaking, ammunition that hits its target is destroyed or rendered useless, while ammunition that misses has a 50% chance of being destroyed or lost.

which would apply to shurikens. Furhermore:

The duplicate gains a range increment of 10 feet for this purpose, but uses the same proficiency and otherwise functions the same as the original weapon.

This includes magic weapon bonusses.

Getting 50 "infinite use" +5 shuriken for the price of 98,000 GP instead of 50 "normal" +5 shuriken for the price of 50,000 GP makes a difference. In other words: "throw" (or, more likely, shard) 100 of these, and you are in the positive.

CRB:

Although shuriken are thrown weapons, they are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them and crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them, and of what happens to them after they are thrown.

Sharding:

Restriction This ability can be placed only on melee or thrown weapons.

(sorry, I only found the OGC online reference for this enchantment).

No, you cannot add "Sharding" to your shuriken.

"Somewhat consense" does not cut it.

That is why I want to have it FAQ'ed :)

This argument is outside of the rules. If this is a factor your group decides to base your rulings on, it is a house rule (and not something that can be answered as a rules question).

As of right now, every argument is outside of the rules since definition is unclear. A baseline to go by would be to say "it does not say splash weapon, it is not a splash-weapon; it has no range increment, it cannot be thrown". This is the only logic that could apply (and is most likely how it was intended, but I would like to read this from the developer themself).

This is what I'm referring to when I'm saying that it appears that you're making demands.

Not I am making this demands. These RAW in and of themself make those demands. If it is a Splash Weapon and has no range increment, it has the default increment of 10 ft. If it is a ranged weapon, it needs to have a range increment or it is unplayable, thus cagetorizing it as a ranged weapon is useless without an range increment. If there is a possiblity to throw poisons, the weapon category itself will most probably answers the attack bonus question.

You will also find that poisons are very ineffective, in general. This may seem powerful, but remember that the save DC is still 13 (50/50 to affect many 1st level characters).

I highly disagree. Wizards/Sorcerer/Oracles/Witches all most probably have less than +3 on their fortitude saves at level 1.

And remember that wind will relocate the poison cloud.

Behaviour of the cloud is not part of my question. This would be more suiteable in my other question (provided, the clouds do linger at all).

Spells such as Color Spray are far more reliable, lethal and cheap.

It does not make sense to compare Color Spray with Drow Poison. They are absolutely different and typically used by different classes. A "counter argument" would be: "Drow Poison can affect sightless creatures, Color Spray cannot".

Not everything in RPG is about efficiency. Some things you want to do because they are stylish or because they fit your character.

Since flasks of acid and alchemist's fire break when thrown, I suppose a vial containing poison should break as well.

Yes, you can throw a vial at "some target" (target area or creature) and the inhale poison should spread into a 10 by 10 area. You do not treat the action of throwing the vial of poison the same as throwing a splash weapon (from what I remember, all splash weapons have a splash radius, inhaled poisons does not). It needs to be listed as either a splash weapon or to function as a splash weapon when thrown for anyone to be able to mechanically treat it as a splash weapon. It may seem "obvious" to you, but it's not a splash weapon.
It's an improvised thrown weapon, treat it as such (An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet).

There are no rules saying how long a poison cloud lingers. I would assume that it stays until removed (by wind or any other mean) or until the dose is expended.

I hope you are satisfied with my answers. Your wording seems to suggest that you think that you can demand a specific type of answer to your questions on these messageboards.

I do not "demand" anything, I hope it gets FAQ'ed since the rules regarding inhaled poisons are unclear to me ;)

RAW :

A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don't take the –4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target. If the target is Large or larger, you choose one of its squares and the splash damage affects creatures within 5 feet of that square. Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as sneak attack).

Specifically the first sentence defines a splash weapon, which pretty much sounds like the picture I have of a poison vial (including the 5 feet spread, which is somewhat in consense with the 10 cubic feet given in the description of inhaled poisons). Could you give me a RAW on the "damage"-part you are refering to? The Ghast Retch Flask, as well as Itching- & Sneezing Powder are examples of splash weapons that do not deal direct damage.

This all (as well as your comparison with flask of acid) does only hold under the assumption that the poison is liquid. But the aggregate state of a poison is never mentioned. It could be a powder or, in case of inhaled poison, even a solid block, which would be burnt to take effect (or grinded to powder, in case you want to use a poison sand tube, see below).

Our group had an argument over that. There are several points for and against throwing inhaled poisons. One point for throwing poisons is the logical approach: you have a flask that cracks open and the chemical react with the air, creating the cloud. One argument against it is the theory that you need a two-component system to deliver the poison since the only two options I know of to deliver inhaled poisons are either traps or the poisoned sand tube.

We agreed to not throw inhaled poisons as as long as the rules are unclear and not FAQ'ed since neither of us could foresee the balance changes. Thus, I turned to this forum.

Regarding lingering time and poison stacking: I though the guys at paizo would figure out that some additional rules have to be made if throwing inhaled poisons is an option. To keep the question simple, I only wrote the necessary bits, which would imply the rest.

As I said before, I asked the question regarding lingering time in a different thread (click me, I am a link).

The question is: "can I throw the vial at some target (creature or intersectin) so that it cracks open and forms a 10 cubic feet poison cloud with the given effect?". The next question would be "which bonusses do I receive?" (this is obvious for me, since it is a thrown weapon that cracks open and has an area of effect, it is a splash weapon that does not deal any damage) followed by "which range increments does such a flask have?", concluded by the last question "how long does such a poison cloud linger?". The first three questions are interlocked, they cannot be answered independetely and must be answered as a whole (eiter they are ranged weapons, need a clear definition of attack bonus and a range increment or they are not). The fourth question I asked in a separate thread since this is important for poison traps as well and can be answered indepentently.

These questions are somewhat of importance regarding balance when you take a look at the Alchemist class (who gets Throw Anything from the get-go), as well as the Poison Conversion discovery. This makes some cheap poisons really powerful, e.g. Drow Poison. Especially if you consider that a lingering poison can stack with itself if the target stays within the cloud for multiple rounds or multiple flasks are thrown at once.

UE wrote:

Poisoned Sand Tube

Price 1 gp
Type martial
Resembling a slim scroll case made of bamboo or metal, this tube is filled with fine sand that is soaked or coated with inhaled or contact poison. When loaded with 3 doses of these types of poison, you can blow into the tube to disperse the poisoned sand into your enemies' faces in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in the cone is affected as if afflicted with 1 dose of the poison. Even when loaded with unpoisoned sand, the tube lets loose a powerful irritant, and an opponent struck must succeed at a DC 12 Fortitude saving throw or be dazzled for 1 round. Once expended, the tube must be repacked before it can be used again. Repacking a tube requires a full-round action, or a standard action if you have the Rapid Reload feat.

Sneezing Powder
Price 60 gp; Weight 2 lbs.
This coarse yellowish-red powder is a splash weapon that causes uncontrollable sneezing for 1d4+1 rounds. Anyone standing in the square of impact must succeed at a DC 12 Fortitude save to resist the powder, while those in adjacent squares must make DC 8 Fortitude saves. Creatures affected by sneezing powder must make a DC 10 Fortitude save every round for the duration or be staggered until their next turn. This is a poison effect. Crafting this item is a DC 25 Craft (alchemy) check.

This does not answer the question. Poison Sand Tube changes the area of effect (from splash to 15-ft cone). The sneezing powder has nothing to do with this.

turing85 wrote:

There are no rules regarding the period of time a poison cloud created by an inhaled poision lingers.

The current rules suggest that the effect lingers for more than a round (i.e. the refernce of holding your breath multiple rounds). Could you clarify this?

Well, in 3.5: Holding ones breath didn't matter. ( they affect the nasal membranes, tear ducts, and other parts of the body)

Usually in 3.5 again, it lasted but a few rounds (Water Deep's Xanathar's men used Sleep Smoke lasts 2).

Back to Pathfinder:
Breath holding gives you a 50% chance to ignore a inhaled poison.
I think in general inhaled poison is harmless after initial round eggshell (container) broke and was released.
You would hold your breath incase they are throwing more.

Alternatively, if a trap was continuing to release it.

turing85 wrote:

There is no clear definition about how inhaled poisons are delivered.

Could you clarify if an unmodified flask of inhaled poison can be used as a splash weapon?

It isn't a splash, but an area effect but similar.

Any RAW sources on your claims? As far as I know, there is little to no ruling about inhaled poision deliveries. There are only construction rules for traps, no timings for the cloud, it is not even defined if the poison in its created form is liquid or solid (which might suggest it must be burned in order to take effect).

I extended my question about poisons being splash-weapon by asking if they can be thrown by any means in case they are no splash weapons. This is the actual core of these two questions.

There are no rules regarding the period of time a poison cloud created by an inhaled poision lingers.

The current rules suggest that the effect lingers for more than a round (i.e. the refernce of holding your breath multiple rounds). Could you clarify this?

There is no clear definition about how inhaled poisons are delivered.

Could you clarify if an unmodified flask of inhaled poison can be used as a splash weapon? If not: can they be thrown by any other means?