|
If my PC has immunity to poison, am I considered having the poison use class feature for prerequisites?
As I read it, Poison use grants immunity to poisons that you are applying (only while you apply them), so a total poison immunity would be an improved version of this. Druids, in example, have poison immunity at 9th, but never obtain the poison use class feature. Likewise, the Duergar race has immunity to poison as part of their Duergar Immunities race trait.
So, example, if my Duergar character wanted to be a Guild Poisoner, would they need to obtain the poison use class feature, despite that ability doing nothing that they don't already have? Obviously, I'd still need to meet the other requirements.
|
|
Applying poison to a weapon or single piece of ammunition is a standard action. Whenever you apply or ready a poison for use, there is a 5% chance that you expose yourself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever you attack with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, you expose yourself to the poison. This poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder. 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'm not seeing the note where immunity to poison would different than the poison use class feature. As I read it, Poison use prevents poisoning yourself when applying, but not if you natural 1 when attacking and expose yourself. Poison immunity should do both.
Pretty sure BAB and the +1 to all attacks are different. BAB also affects CMD and CMB.An analogy:
The Quick draw feat requires a +1 Base Attack Bonus.
The Gnome receives a +1 to all attacks as a function of being a small creature.
A level 1 gnome wizard does not qualify for the Quick draw feat.
You've almost got it...just reach out and grab that point...
Differences between Poison Use and Immunity to Poison:
1) Applying Poison:
Poison Use does not have a 5% chance of becoming poisoned.
Immunity to Poison still rolls the 5% and then doesn't care if the 5% happens.
End result: They are the same since rolling the 5% while applying does not consume the dose of poison.
2) Rolling a natural 1 when attacking:
Poison Use prevents the character from accidentally poisoning themselves when rolling a natural 1.
Immunity to Poison still 'poisons' themselves when rolling a natural 1. This consumes the dose of poison.
End result: Immunity to Poison has a risk of consuming the poison on a natural 1.
3) Crafting Poison:
Poison Use does not have a the 5% chance of becoming poisoned due to rolling a natural 1 on the skill check.
Immunity to Poison still has a 5% chance of becoming poisoned due to rolling a natural 1 on the skill check. However, you still don't care since you are immune.
End result: They are the same since rolling a natural 1 in either case does not result in being actually poisoned.
They are not the same but they certainly overlap by providing protections in different ways.
|
|
Wait... as my PC is immune to poison, can he acidentally poison himself while applying the poison?Yes, absolutely. All the language says you "expose yourself to the poison and must save as normal". You don't have to save because you're immune, but you still exposed yourself to the poison. And yes, doesn't use the dose.
If you can show me anywhere in the language that says poison immunity prevents you from needing to see if you screw up applying poison, then I might call them equal. That's not what any of them say, so you do not have the Poison Use class feature or anything similar. You may be immune to poison, that doesn't mean you're any better at applying it.
By screw up, you mean that 5% change to accidentally expose myself while applying the poison? Your correct, I'd expose my self to the poison which I'm immune to. Functionally, I have a zero % chance to not apply the poison, as that 5% does not prevent the poison from being applied. There is no language in the poison feature to suggest that the 5% chance means that I don't apply the poison. As I read it, it just means I accidentally smear a bit on me too...
There is a bit regarding natural 1s while attacking with the poisoned weapon. As I read it, a natural 1 would cause me to poison myself, even if immune, which does use up the poison. That said, this is not different from the poison use class feature, which also carries this risk.
So, barring the use of poison immunity as a prerequisite, we agree that, in terms of rules, a character with immunity to poison would be able to use poison at least as efficiently as a character with poison use (ex)?
This is really a simple thing. Treat someone with Poison Immunity as if they are not trained at applying Poison (ie, use the rules). If they happen to "poison" themselves you then ignore the effects of being poisoned because they are immune.
You do not have the Poison Use feature if you have Poison Immunity. They are two separate things.
No, you don't have the class feature.So I need to obtain the piece of paper that says I'm officially unable to accidentally poison myself in order to become a Guild Poisoner, even though both the guild and I know I'm totally immune to poison?You don't have the necessary prerequisite, if the guild chooses to waive a certain requirement because you are a sloppy savant of natural talent instead of a trained professional of organized skill that's up to the guild (and by extension the GM).
You basically lack the training to use poison properly, you're still sloppy.
This.
If the guild only takes individuals trained in poison use they might notice that you are not. You could just be someone immune to poison, someone who likes the risk or someone who obtained a slow poison and/or neutralize poison to be accepted. Is that what they want? By RAW no. Would they accept you despite this? Maybe. GM call
Think of poison use as the ability to carefully handle poisons. From an alchemical perspective, perhaps a deft combination of 2 substances before they become exposed to air and becomes inert etc, and quickly and evenly apply it to your weapon.
|
|
This is really a simple thing. Treat someone with Poison Immunity as if they are not trained at applying Poison (ie, use the rules). If they happen to "poison" themselves you then ignore the effects of being poisoned because they are immune.
You do not have the Poison Use feature if you have Poison Immunity. They are two separate things.
Fair enough.
Does seem a bit wierd given that the rules don't really reflect this. In rules, poison use is a square and poison immunity is a rectangle. Everything poison use accomplishes is covered under poison immunity, but poison immunity also covers other things.
Anyway, thanks for a more direct answer.
But the rules do reflect this. If you do not have Poison Use you use the rules for a person without Poison Use.
It is only the consequences as a result of improper poison use (ie. being poisoned) that are different and that has NOTHING to do with the application and use of poison.
Think of it this way:
Part 1: Do I have Poison Use?
Yes: use the rules for those people that have Poison Use.
No: use the rules for those people that do not have Poison Use.
Part 2: I have poisoned myself because I do not have Poison Use and then while using/crafting poison I rolled 5% (application/crafting) or a natural 1 (attack roll).
Am I immune to Poison?
Yes: the poison has no effect.
No: suffer the poison, make a saving throw.
Honestly, this is all covered in the rules. I think you are just overthinking it. :)
|
|
The difference is between someone who knows what they're doing (say, a trained chemist) and someone who can't hurt themselves (say, Superman). You can leave both in a room full of chemicals without worrying, but if there's ever another person involved I know which one I'd prefer. If I'm hiring between Poison Use and Poison Immunity for a professional enterprise, it'll be the one who won't accidentally smear contact poison somewhere, forget about it, and leave a rude surprise for whoever discovers where they left the poison.
Not quite the case.
Poison use is specifically with regards to accidentally poisoning the character applying the poison on a weapon.
Safe handling of the poison the rest of the time, is found with the alchemy craft skill. I am not suggesting that the 9th level Druid or Duergar PC is without the alchemy skill at high ranks.
Poison use is a skill developed for PCs without poison immunity. It does nothing and serves no purpose for a PC with poison immunity.
In your example above, it's like asking superman to wear rubber gloves while adding poison to his fists. Whaaa...?
As for hiring, the Guild Poisoner was an example. There are a few feats and classes with this prerequisite, and in all cases, they are really just asking if you can safely handle poison...
You still risk rolling a natural 1 on an attack and losing the dose of poison for no effect on yourself. This shows that immunity and use are not equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.
|
|
You still risk rolling a natural 1 on an attack and losing the dose of poison for no effect on yourself. This shows that immunity and use are not equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.
Don't suppose you noticed that poison use doesn't prevent this either. Poison use is specific to applying the poison to the weapon, the natural 1s on attack rolls is not prevented via the poison use ability.
All poison use does is affect the 5% chance to poison yourself when applying the poison to the weapon. That's it. An assassin or guild poisoner can still poison themselves on an attack roll of natural 1 (unless they also have poison immunity).
Poison use is a skill developed for PCs without poison immunity. It does nothing and serves no purpose for a PC with poison immunity.I think your disconnect is that the game hasn't provided a situation for you outside of a pre-requisite where someone with Poison Use can do something someone with Poison...
Well, this is my point. I'm a little lost what value being trained to apply poisons without poisoning yourself would have if the character is already immune to poison.
I understand that you'd prefer a "certificate of poison use" on a guild poisoner, but it really makes very little sense to require it of a character already immune to poison.
I suppose, if you house rule poison use to have additional effects (like buying poison in PFS), it does make sense to distinguish between the two.
Think of it this way.
Applying poison to a weapon is like painting. There's a difference between being able to skillfully paint and not get any paint on yourself and just painting haphazardly and not caring if you get paint on yourself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The effect is irrelevant. You either have Poison Use or you don't.
|
|
Think of it this way.
Applying poison to a weapon is like painting. There's a difference between being able to skillfully paint and not get any paint on yourself and just painting haphazardly and not caring if you get paint on yourself.
I completely understand this bit. You want the "certificate of pretty poison painting"
Not entirely joking. Essentially, you, and others on this thread, don't care what an ability does, so long as the name of the ability is listed in the prerequisites. And that answers my original question.
It's a peculiar approach, but as mentioned above, some groups house-rule additional features onto existing rules which impact this in a greater capacity.
I did ask, at several points, if the end result is that a poison immune character is functionally also having poison use. This seems to be met with far too much hostility, and very little attempts to answer the question.
Basically, answer is: yes, poison use is completely covered by immunity to poison. Poison immunity also does other things. This does not grant poison use as a class ability, but functionally the poison immune character also has poison use.
If you so want to strong arm this, the most homebrew thing I can think of is a PC can attempt to apply Poison on their weapons, but at a certain success rate based on skill checks (craft alchemy or something), of which failure means the waste of the poison as well as a chance of poisoning themselves.
However, a PC who is trained in Poison use automatically succeeds in the attempt with no chance of failure.
With poison immunity you can use poison, but you're pretty bad at it. You probably stab yourself with a poisoned knife on accident regularly. Luckily the effects of failure are negated.
With poison use you're a professional. You don't ever nip your finger with a poisoned blade or anything so pedestrian. Failure has a high price, so you are very careful.
The effect is irrelevant. You either have Poison Use or you don't.If I'm asking if the effect is the same, the question is relevant. I don't understand why answering my question is so difficult.
It's already been answered multiple times. Poison Immunity is not sufficient to qualify as Poison Use because it is not Poison Use. Similarly, having Strength and Dexterity modifiers of +1 or higher is not sufficient to qualify as Weapon Focus (dagger). The actual effect of Poison Use and Poison Immunity doesn't matter for this purpose.
Yes, but all it really does is waste the dose of poison. Which considering the price of any good poison, is shameful enough.
This isn't true. "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."
This doesn't alter the fact that poison use and immunity to poison are two different abilities.
Another way to think of it is improved initiative. Do you count as having it if you have an 18 dex? Both give you a +4 initiative after all. The answer is the same as the OP's question. A big NO.
You're asking about being a guild poisoner. The salient point here is that although poison use and poison immunity have overlapping mechanical effects, the source of those effects is different. I don't think anybody is disagreeing about the fact that the immunity basically or entirely covers the direct mechanical benefits of poison use.
Example: suppose you are hiring someone to determine disease containment protocols and have two applicants. Both point out that they're good candidates because they know how to stay in contaminated areas without catching diseases. The first candidate has and knows how to use hazmat suits and how to safely dispose of waste, etc. The second has a mutation that renders him immune to all the relevant diseases.
That's basically the difference between the two. Poison use represents expertise in the handling and use of poison, which will be useful in determining how to use it more effectively (I haven't looked at what guild poisoner actually does, but that seems like a safe description). Poison immunity is a fact about your body, not your mind.
You still risk rolling a natural 1 on an attack and losing the dose of poison for no effect on yourself. This shows that immunity and use are not equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.Don't suppose you noticed that poison use doesn't prevent this either. Poison use is specific to applying the poison to the weapon, the natural 1s on attack rolls is not prevented via the poison use ability.
All poison use does is affect the 5% chance to poison yourself when applying the poison to the weapon. That's it. An assassin or guild poisoner can still poison themselves on an attack roll of natural 1 (unless they also have poison immunity).
Applying poison to a weapon or single piece of ammunition is a standard action. 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 poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder. Characters with the poison use class feature do not risk accidentally poisoning themselves.
Note that it doesn't say, "only when applying a poison to a weapon." It says they do not risk poisoning themselves. This means also with a natural 1 on the attack.
You still risk rolling a natural 1 on an attack and losing the dose of poison for no effect on yourself. This shows that immunity and use are not equivalent and shouldn't be treated as such.Don't suppose you noticed that poison use doesn't prevent this either. Poison use is specific to applying the poison to the weapon, the natural 1s on attack rolls is not prevented via the poison use ability.
All poison use does is affect the 5% chance to poison yourself when applying the poison to the weapon. That's it. An assassin or guild poisoner can still poison themselves on an attack roll of natural 1 (unless they also have poison immunity).
Reread the general section about poisons -- characters with the poison use do not risk poisoning themselves if they roll a natural 1 on an attack roll even if the wording in the class feature description fails to mention it (as is the case with the Assassin prestige class description).
|
|
2nd or third time with this quote
Applying poison to a weapon or single piece of ammunition is a standard action. Whenever you apply or ready a poison for use, there is a 5% chance that you expose yourself to the poison and must save against the poison as normal. This does not consume the dose of poison. Whenever you attack with a poisoned weapon, if the attack roll results in a natural 1, you expose yourself to the poison. This poison is consumed when the weapon strikes a creature or is touched by the wielder. 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.
In both the above (which is found in the afflictions section regarding poison) and in the poison use (ex) ability, both describe poison use as only in regards to "applying" the poison. The attack roll thing is a separate feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Murdock, in the Poison section which I posted above, there is no mention about "when applying poison." It merely is "do not risk poisoning themselves." Which means both applying or attacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never knew you could poison yourself when attacking also. Good to know. I guess that makes "poison use" better than I thought it was.
In regards to the original question being immune to poison is no substitute for knowing how to use poison.
A guild poisoner has to know how to use poison because
1) the rules say so
2) it makes some sense --presumably you should be able to teach others to use poison carefully (which would be represented by taking something that gave access to poison use ability).
Immunity does not substitute here. Just because you can roll around in the stuff and it doesn't affect you doesn't mean that you know the proper method of using it and applying it. It just so happens that you wont harm yourself if you do it wrong and mess it up.