|
I've seen a couple threads about this Feat but I haven't seen any definitive interpretations.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.
You spend the action to apply the poison. You attack and miss. Is your weapon still poisoned?
There's some conflicting wording in the feat that makes the answer unclear.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.
This suggests that the poison only applies on your next attack.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.
This suggests that the poison lasts until you hit, the end of your next turn, or you critically miss whichever comes first.
I've seen a couple threads about this Feat but I haven't seen any definitive interpretations.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.You spend the action to apply the poison. You attack and miss. Is your weapon still poisoned?
There's some conflicting wording in the feat that makes the answer unclear.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.This suggests that the poison only applies on your next attack.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.This suggests that the poison lasts until you hit, the end of your next turn, or you critically miss whichever comes first.
I believe the wording of the Feat is contradictory and this cannot be resolved without errata. I would say that the important emphasis is slightly different than what you highlighted though.
You apply a poison to the required weapon; if you're not holding a poison and have a free hand, you can Interact to draw a poison as part of this action. If your next attack with that weapon before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, it applies the effects of the poison, provided that poison can be delivered by contact or injury. If you critically fail the attack roll, the poison is wasted as normal.
The first bolded section tells us that:
If your next attack with that weapon hits and deals damage, and if that attack was made before the end of your next turn, you apply the effects of that poison. Which means, that if you don't fulfill those conditions, you do not get to apply the effects of the poison.
However, that renders the final sentence redundant, as if your next attack misses, or is not with that weapon, or is not before the end of your next turn, or deals no damage, the poison is wasted, so of course it's wasted on a crit fail.
It seems like they were working 2 different versions of the Feat and never picked a final version, instead keeping a few lines from each.
|
|
What's interesting is that the lizardfolk ancestry feat for poisoning their own fangs has similar broken wording.
You envenom your fangs. If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage. On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.
If it was just a typo how did it get repeated across two different feats?
What's interesting is that the lizardfolk ancestry feat for poisoning their own fangs has similar broken wording.
You envenom your fangs. If the next fangs Strike you make before the end of your next turn hits and deals damage, the Strike deals an additional 1d6 poison damage. On a critical failure, the poison is wasted as normal.If it was just a typo how did it get repeated across two different feats?
Yes, I asked about Envenom Fangs in the sticky thread and it has not been addressed.
If it is intended to last until you do damage, it should say "The next time you deal damage with that weapon before the end of your next turn, apply the effects of the poison."
Then the crit failure rider would make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have any of these threads been tagged for FAQ?
There is no FAQ tag. :-( Sometimes if a thread gets enough posts, Mr. Seifter notices it and pops in.
Or it could be futureproofing for effects/feats that increase the number of attempts you can take w/ each dose of poison.
(Of course that's an unsupported hypothesis, yet would explain the repetition in the rules. I doubt Paizo would simply copy-paste.)
I don't think it's reasonable to interpret that feat as overriding the normal rules for injury poisons with regards to their remaining effective after a missed strike.
Here are the rules for injury poisons:
Injury: An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned weapon. If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.
One thing I noticed in reading the feat and then reading the rules for poisons is that the feat also seems to let you use contact poison on weapons, which is not normally allowed. Now, since most contact poisons have an onset time of 1 minute, they are probably not what you want, unless you are in a Hamlet vs. Laertes type of duel.
I don't think it's reasonable to interpret that feat as overriding the normal rules for injury poisons with regards to their remaining effective after a missed strike.
Here are the rules for injury poisons:
Injury: An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned weapon. If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.
I mean, except for the words in the Feat that do exactly that.
Talking about poisons, not trying to takeover the thread,just a little ot, do you think their are worth it?
I like poisons, but I am not quite sure they could be that useful.
I do like poisons in this edition. The damage is not going to amount to much, but inflicting Enfeebled or Clumsy on a tough enemy is just a tasty -1 that almost always stacks with stuff and pushes the odds in your favor.
Flank + Inspire Courage + Clumsy on enemy = Crits incoming!
Talking about poisons, not trying to takeover the thread,just a little ot, do you think their are worth it?
I like poisons, but I am not quite sure they could be that useful.
I do like poisons in this edition. The damage is not going to amount to much, but inflicting Enfeebled or Clumsy on a tough enemy is just a tasty -1 that almost always stacks with stuff and pushes the odds in your favor.
Flank + Inspire Courage + Clumsy on enemy = Crits incoming!
Yeah, clumsy is probably the real deal.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=563
Is it normal that poison weapon doesn't have "poison" trait?
Yes, as the Poison itself has the Poison Trait.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mulling over these feats, I've been trying to get into the heads of the designers that worked on them.
You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage. You can instead deal an additional 1d6 damage of an alignment type that matches one of your deity’s alignment components. As usual for aligned damage, this can damage only creatures of the opposite alignment.
You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.
You focus your ki into magical attacks. Make an unarmed Strike or Flurry of Blows (this doesn't change the limit on using only one flourish per turn). You gain a +1 status bonus to your attack rolls with the Strikes, and the Strikes deal 1d6 extra damage. This damage can be any of the following types of your choice, chosen each time you Strike: force, lawful (only if you're lawful), negative, or positive.
Looking at the current text and comparing Poison Weapon to its peers across other classes, it's my belief is that the intent is for the poison to last until the rogue hits, critically misses, or until the end of their next turn.
That said, the text does not fully support that interpretation.
Mulling over these feats, I've been trying to get into the heads of the designers that worked on them.
It makes sense that reducing the action cost to apply a poison would reduce the life span of the poison. Maybe instead of carefully applying to the poison to the blade of your weapon you're haphazardly pouring it on?
How much of a reduction in the 'window' is appropriate? Is one attempt too harsh or is one full turn too generous?
If you compare Poison Weapon to similar 'spend an action and some resource to gain a temporary damage buff' feats available to other classes, how does Poison Weapon compare? You siphon residual spell energy into a weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an additional 1d4 force damage. You can instead deal an additional 1d6 damage of an alignment type that matches one of your deity’s alignment components. As usual for aligned damage, this can damage only creatures of the opposite alignment.You siphon the residual energy from the last spell you cast into one weapon you’re wielding. Until the end of your turn, the weapon deals an extra 1d6 damage of a type depending on the school of the spell you just cast.You focus your ki into magical attacks. Make an unarmed Strike or Flurry of Blows (this doesn't change the limit on using only one flourish per turn). You gain a +1 status bonus to your attack rolls with the Strikes, and the Strikes deal 1d6 extra damage. This damage can be any of the following types of your choice, chosen each time you Strike: force, lawful (only if you're lawful), negative, or positive.Looking at the current text and comparing Poison Weapon to its peers across other classes, it's my belief is that the intent is for the poison to last until the rogue hits, critically misses, or until the end of their next turn.
That said, the text does not fully support that interpretation.
Divine Weapon and Bespell Weapon both require that you have already cast a Non-Cantrip Spell this turn, which means the vast majority of the time, you are only going to have a single Action left, meaning that for all intents and purposes, they only apply to a single Strike. Yes you could cast a 1 Action Magic Missile, but sacrificing those Missiles to make 2 Strikes is just a bad idea.
Ki Strike is a Focus Spell, so you get substantially less uses of it in a battle than you do Poison Weapon.
My guess is that the text for the poison weapon feat is based on a older version of the rules for poisons, and was not updated. It also lets you apply contact poison to a weapon. I bet that's a mistake too, and that the theoretical 'ur poison rules' allowed you to apply contact poison to weapons.
It also lets you apply contact poison to a weapon. I bet that's a mistake too, and that the theoretical 'ur poison rules' allowed you to apply contact poison to weapons.
I don't see why.
The general rules for contact poisons don't let you apply them to weapons, which the rogue's poison weapon feat specifically allows you to bypass. That seems perfectly functional.
It also lets you apply contact poison to a weapon. I bet that's a mistake too, and that the theoretical 'ur poison rules' allowed you to apply contact poison to weapons.I don't see why.
The general rules for contact poisons don't let you apply them to weapons, which the rogue's poison weapon feat specifically allows you to bypass. That seems perfectly functional.
I agree that it's a fine ability for the rogue's poison weapon feat, but I don't think it was an intended additional benefit. I think that in the original 2nd edition poison rules, you could apply contact poison to weapons (you can in PF 1st edition), the feat was written with those in mind, and then the poison rules changed. I'm just guessing, of course.
Maybe, but I'm not sure.
Ultimately the problem with the first half of the poison weapon feat though isn't that it's inconsistent with the rest of the rules, it's that it's inconsistent with itself.
Alternatively, point me in the right direction to formally get this topic in front of a designer for consideration.
All of the designers are very likely keeping an eye on this thread, and even if they aren't at least one of them will read it thoroughly to make sure they have at least considered each of the issues
|
Hopefully it's not too late to ask a related question here: what is up with the "simple injury poisons" that the feat allows you to create? I'm completely new to Pathfinder 2e so maybe there's a simple answer to this question, but "These poisons deal 1d4 poison damage" seems laughably vague. Is this not an affliction? Does the victim not receive a saving throw at all? Is it just an extra 1d4 one-and-done damage on the next attack, and the only reason it's "poison damage" is for the purposes of immunity/resistance?
It just does the listed additional poison damage if you hit: it doesn't persist or require saving throws.
Thanks, I appreciate it. I wonder if that's worth clarifying in the errata, since no other poison I've seen works that way. Unless creatures in the Bestiary use this sort of simple poison?
I've purposefully stayed away from the Bestiary since I'm playing in an Age of Ashes campaign and I want to be surprised by monster abilities, but I know some creatures deal extra poison damage without a save, such as some bullywug hunters.
Basically, the ability to create poisons was added so that it wouldn't force your character to purchase a heap-load of poison doses every time you go adventuring (or even worse, force you to multiclass into alchemist to brew them yourself).