Poisoning oneself

[Treesmasha Toothpickmaker]

While a poison use class (rogue, ninja, or alchemist) cannot accidentally poison himself while applying the poison to a weapon, what about other times?

If he rolls a natural 1 to hit, does he suffer the same fate as non-poison class persons?

What about when he is collecting the poison/poison components from it's/their natural source(s); ie, snakes venom, purple worm poison etc?

The classes themselves speak of: "At 1st level, a poisoner is trained in the use of poison and cannot accidentally poison herself when applying poison to a blade. "

Which is not the same as what is stated in the poison section: "Whenever a character applies or readies a poison for use there is a 5% chance that he exposes himself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison. This consumes the poison on the weapon. Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves."

Additionally, there are several monster races which describe poison use as: "...are skilled in the use of poison and never risk accidentally poisoning themselves."

Also, does applying poison to a weapon provoke an attack of opportunity? Would/should it count as an "oil?"

Thanks for any help provided.
Treesmasha

[HaraldKlak]

Treesmasha Toothpickmaker wrote:

"Whenever a character applies or readies a poison for use there is a 5% chance that he exposes himself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison. This consumes the poison on the weapon. Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves."

Additionally, there are several monster races which describe poison use as: "...are skilled in the use of poison and never risk accidentally poisoning themselves."

Also, does applying poison to a weapon provoke an attack of opportunity? Would/should it count as an "oil?"

As the bolded part suggests, poison use disregards any risk of accidentially poisoning themselves. The text refers to the entire section, not just the initial application. Eventhough it isn't specified in the class features themselves, I think it is pretty clear.

On the issue of AoOs, then I think the should provoke. The rules doesn't say, and based on that, some might rule that it doesn't provoke.
I my opinion it is very similar to both "apply an oil" and "Use skill that takes 1 action", which either always or usually provoke AoOs.

[Argozz]

There are two statements that are important here.

Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison.

and

Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves.

The choice of which one takes precedence is probably a DM decision. Maybe some kind of house rule is in order to bridge between perfect safety and 5% self-contamination.

[Icyshadow]

I'd say the ruling for the poisoning by natural 1 comes from accidentally spilling the stuff on yourself in a fight. Just because you know how to HANDLE poison does not mean you are immune to it.

[NullVOID]

Just get rid of the 1 rule and replace it with a more realistic rule. if you roll a 1 then roll a 1or2 after then that is a crit fail.

i dont understand you people using this 1 rule. your giving every character regardless of being a god/epic a 5% chance of being retarded.. S%+# happens.. but really 5 percent? come on now..

lol

[Treesmasha Toothpickmaker]

Part of my concerns mimic NullVOID's.

First, while rolling a natural 1 is an automatic failure, there are no rules for critical failure penalties other than the miss. So, that means that only poison using folks suffer here. Further, the chance of rolling that natural 1 actually increases as you level up due to the ever increasing number of rolls, and thus the higher level pc is actually more at risk.

Secondly, let's assume that using the 5% chance is okay. But should it be the same 5% for a non-poison class pc using a poisoned weapon vs a poison class pc using the same weapon? In other words, in preparation for the big fight, my party has my rogue poison all the weapons. Now it's time for battle. Should the rogue rolling a natural 1 and a fighter rolling a natural 1 have the same chance of actually being poisoned?

[the David]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. If you are the GM make a houserule, otherwise, beg and plead to your GM for a houserule.

Alternatively, dwarves are excellent assassins. They have a high tolerance for poisons.

Wait, why aren't there more dwarven assassins? --Goes of to make new campaign setting with dwarven assassins.--

[threemilechild]

Sorry for the thread necro, but I thought I'd point out that the language on the PRD has changed to, "If you have the poison use class feature (such as from the assassin prestige class or the alchemist base class), you do not risk accidentally poisoning yourself when applying poison." I guess this means that Poison Use is explicitly not meant to negate the exposure on a 1 rule.

[LazarX]

Argozz wrote:

There are two statements that are important here.

Whenever a character attacks with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, he exposes himself to the poison.

and

Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves.

The choice of which one takes precedence is probably a DM decision. Maybe some kind of house rule is in order to bridge between perfect safety and 5% self-contamination.

The second line refers to the rule that those who don't have poison use risk poisoning themselves when they try to envenom their weapons, as well as when they attack with them.