| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they can, but be carefull, as only the first hit will trigger poison. Per the rules you can't poison ammunitions, only weapons. So, you'll "poison your crossbow", and apply poison only on the first hit.
I want to say there's a silly rules exception about applying poison to the weapon and not the ammo, but I'm going to ignore that personally.
You also don't have to poison your crossbow bolts. You can poison the ranger's arrows, and apply poison to the fighter's sword before you guys kick down the door, etc.
Yes, they can, but be carefull, as only the first hit will trigger poison. Per the rules you can't poison ammunitions, only weapons. So, you'll "poison your crossbow", and apply poison only on the first hit.
Where in the book (or AoN) are the rules on applying poisons? I'm having no luck searching. :-(
Yes, they can, but be carefull, as only the first hit will trigger poison. Per the rules you can't poison ammunitions, only weapons. So, you'll "poison your crossbow", and apply poison only on the first hit.Where in the book (or AoN) are the rules on applying poisons? I'm having no luck searching. :-(
On page 550, under method of exposure.
On page 550, under method of exposure.Yes, they can, but be carefull, as only the first hit will trigger poison. Per the rules you can't poison ammunitions, only weapons. So, you'll "poison your crossbow", and apply poison only on the first hit.Where in the book (or AoN) are the rules on applying poisons? I'm having no luck searching. :-(
Thanks!
I keep seeing people say you can’t poison arrows, bolts and such. I know the poison application says you put it on weapons and doesn’t mention ammunition. But is there a specific call out that says you can’t poison weapons with the ammunition trait? Because arrows, bolts and blowgun darts are all on the weapon chart, and have descriptions in the weapon descriptions section. The blowgun dart of course even mentions it carries poisons.
As far as I can tell by RAW they’re weapons, just ones that are ammunition and thus use their paired weapons for damage, range and such. Even if you ignore the, at least to me, obvious RAI that you can shoot and poison people.
I keep seeing people say you can’t poison arrows, bolts and such. I know the poison application says you put it on weapons and doesn’t mention ammunition. But is there a specific call out that says you can’t poison weapons with the ammunition trait? Because arrows, bolts and blowgun darts are all on the weapon chart, and have descriptions in the weapon descriptions section. The blowgun dart of course even mentions it carries poisons.
As far as I can tell by RAW they’re weapons, just ones that are ammunition and thus use their paired weapons for damage, range and such. Even if you ignore the, at least to me, obvious RAI that you can shoot and poison people.
I agree. I can understand people arguing the other way, but I can't understand how seriously they take their own argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing people say you can’t poison arrows, bolts and such. I know the poison application says you put it on weapons and doesn’t mention ammunition. But is there a specific call out that says you can’t poison weapons with the ammunition trait? Because arrows, bolts and blowgun darts are all on the weapon chart, and have descriptions in the weapon descriptions section. The blowgun dart of course even mentions it carries poisons.
As far as I can tell by RAW they’re weapons, just ones that are ammunition and thus use their paired weapons for damage, range and such. Even if you ignore the, at least to me, obvious RAI that you can shoot and poison people.
Well, just before the chart there's
Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition. Because that and other relevant statistics vary by weapon, ammunition entries list only the name, quantity, Price, and Bulk.
Which, to me, reads that ammunition is not technically a weapon despite being on the chart.
OTOH I agree that RAI of the "applying poison" section is that ammo count as weapons, with the writer having forgotten / been unaware of the bit I just quoted. 'Cause it's silly otherwise.
I agree. I can understand people arguing the other way, but I can't understand how seriously they take their own argument.
IMO, it's just like how an unarmed attack ISN'T a weapon: If your punch isn't counted for the multitude of feats and abilities that require a weapon, it makes JUST a much sense that ammo can't be poisoned: we're kind of stepping outside 'common sense' for both IMO. It making sense to you isn't analogous to it being the RAW or RAI.
I keep seeing people say you can’t poison arrows, bolts and such. I know the poison application says you put it on weapons and doesn’t mention ammunition. But is there a specific call out that says you can’t poison weapons with the ammunition trait? Because arrows, bolts and blowgun darts are all on the weapon chart, and have descriptions in the weapon descriptions section. The blowgun dart of course even mentions it carries poisons.
As far as I can tell by RAW they’re weapons, just ones that are ammunition and thus use their paired weapons for damage, range and such. Even if you ignore the, at least to me, obvious RAI that you can shoot and poison people.
Well, just before the chart there's
Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition. Because that and other relevant statistics vary by weapon, ammunition entries list only the name, quantity, Price, and Bulk.Which, to me, reads that ammunition is not technically a weapon despite being on the chart.
It doesn’t say that the ammunition isn’t a weapon though, just that it doesn’t have it’s own statistics other than quantity price and bulk, which is abnormal for a weapon and thus worth making note of. True that ammunition doesn’t have its own additional separate listings on the chart, but that wouldn’t have served any purpose beyond taking up space and reducing clarity. They do have their own entry among the weapon descriptions though. And if they had wanted a clear separation that ammunition isn’t a weapon all it would have taken is a break in the list and a two word line noting that the following were ammunition descriptions.
It doesn’t say that the ammunition isn’t a weapon though
It kind of does though: "The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition." It's telling you to use the weapon for info and not the ammo and in that instance, they can't both be the weapon so it makes a clear distinction between ammo and being a weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM tells me that I cannot put poison on arrows/bots and that poison must be put on bow/crossbow and that during the attack poison transfers from bow/crossbow to it's ammunition, I would leave the table and never return :D
You don't understand the point.
Ammunitions are no weapons. There is not a single line stating that, and clearly you can't just say they are on the same chart to prove it.
The fact that you can't poison ammunitions per the rules is there for balance. Being able to apply poison at every attack would double a bow ranger damage output, putting it way ahead of everything else.
Poisoning a "bow" is of course poisoning it's ammunitions. Just, RAW, you'll apply poison only once. That's all.
You don't understand the point.
Ammunitions are no weapons. There is not a single line stating that, and clearly you can't just say they are on the same chart to prove it.
The fact that you can't poison ammunitions per the rules is there for balance. Being able to apply poison at every attack would double a bow ranger damage output, putting it way ahead of everything else.
Poisoning a "bow" is of course poisoning it's ammunitions. Just, RAW, you'll apply poison only once. That's all.
balance must not collide with common sense.
Find other ways to balance:
Chance to poison yourself, higher cost of poisons, poisons being illegal by default and carrying risk for owning them,
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
balance must not collide with common sense.
Half of the rules are non-sensical when you really think about them. Reflex saves to avoid a Cone of Cold without even moving 5ft., an arrow piercing your lung healed by a cure spell without first removing the arrow, a Fireball dealing 50 fire damage but only igniting scrolls, an archer shooting at a fighter smashing him, the ability to fight while blind, etc... So, why applying poison to the first hit only would be less sensical?
And anyway, poisoned weapons are only for assassinations. The fastest poisons on earth will kill you in dozens of minutes. And that is if you manage to design a poison that can be delivered through a blade wound, which would also mean designing a blade which can properly deliver such a poison. So nothing makes sense at all in this discussion.
balance must not collide with common sense.
For me, we lost that battle when we got told it take 2 seconds to put a second hand on a weapon... Or use mundane healing in 2 seconds. Or that 20 shortswords held loosely in my arms is just as unwieldy as 20 shortswords carefully packed into a backpack. or... So if we're arguing common sense, this is WAY, WAY, WAY far down on the list IMO. I wouldn't call this 'pathfinder: the common sense version' by any means.
balance must not collide with common sense.For me, we lost that battle when we got told it take 2 seconds to put a second hand on a weapon... Or use mundane healing in 2 seconds. Or that 20 shortswords held loosely in my arms is just as unwieldy as 20 shortswords carefully packed into a backpack. or... So if we're arguing common sense, this is WAY, WAY, WAY far down on the list IMO. I wouldn't call this 'pathfinder: the common sense version' by any means.
I am not going into that discussion again. LoL. Same goes for Volley.
There simply too much balance features for balance only sake.
Seem that no devs ever held a weapon of any kind.
Maybe if they made 6 actions per round instead of 3, things would be more fluid.
If you are always ending in the same discussions, maybe is it because your point of view is not the one from the devs :)
Far too many gamers want to eat the cake and have it too.
They want Fireballs. They want dragons. They want poison that simply adds damage, to allow them to kill foes in seconds.
At the same time, they complain over timing issues.
If they banned magic and monsters, I could take their criticism against the Interact action seriously.
As it is, however, they basically ignore game balance as long as it suits them, but cry "unrealistic" whenever it doesn't.
That simply isn't credible.
Pathfinder 2 is a game. Hand usage is a rource to be managed. It's made richer by your hand choice having a real game impact.
Saying you should be able to change hand usage freely simply means some configurations are invalidated, resulting in less choice and a poorer game.
Magic does not exist so we have to invent what is "realistic" and "balanced" for magic.
We could say that fireball is sor of RPG-like weapon and Dragons are more or less attack helicopters, but that is not the issue.
Issue is with actions that can be made by any of us.
And we know how those actions are complicated.
Is standing up worth 2 seconds of your time?
Yes, as most people need a second or two to stand up from lying down.
Does drawing a sword takes 2 seconds? No, if it is not a 2hander strapped across your back. 1 second might be better. Half an action?
Re-gripping a sword handle with your free hand? 1/10 of an action?
Also, there is a topic for hand usage for Medicine. I would be 1st to say that you need BOTH! hands free to do that.
Drop any weapons/shields; free action
Medicine; as many as it takes
Picking up weapons from floor; 1 action
If drinking a potion is 1 action then administrating it to knockedout ally is 3 actions(maybe 2 if generous).
Maybe if they went with 6 actions instead of 3, (For 6 seconds round) things could be made more realistic.
Then we could have:
attack; 2 actions
move; 2 actions
step: 1 action
stand up: 2 actions: 1 if trained or better in both acrobatics and athletics
spellcasting: base 4 actions, 5,3,2,1 for some spells
draw weapon: 1 action
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe if they went with 6 actions instead of 3, (For 6 seconds round) things could be made more realistic.
Or maybe is it good the way it is? Not perfect, nothing's perfect, but good enough to be playable without a calculator, have fun with it, be acceptably realistic and easy to learn?
There are a few non realistic things in the system. But do they deserve much attention as long as they don't hinder something really important?
You don't understand the point.
Ammunitions are no weapons. There is not a single line stating that, and clearly you can't just say they are on the same chart to prove it.
The fact that you can't poison ammunitions per the rules is there for balance. Being able to apply poison at every attack would double a bow ranger damage output, putting it way ahead of everything else.
Poisoning a "bow" is of course poisoning it's ammunitions. Just, RAW, you'll apply poison only once. That's all.
On the other hand, you could make a case that this is also far riskier from a resource depletion stand point, it you assume a poison is wasted on a missed strike. And to be fair, that isn't the case with weapon rules, which state it is only wasted on a critcally failed strike. But I also don't see rules specifying whether or not you can reuse ammo as a general thing. Having arrows of bolts break after being used certainly seems reasonable though and regardless if an arrow buries itself in the terrain instead of the target the poison should be gone.
Also for what it's worth the Lizardfolk Scout has 10 blowgun darts, one of which is coated with giant centipede venom. Which feels like a pretty good indication you can coat ammo, unless you assume this is a unique ability available to monsters rather than PCs.
If you are always ending in the same discussions, maybe is it because your point of view is not the one from the devs :)
'The Devs" do not have a monolithic POV. As such, you'll have some that are closer to your POV and some that are less close. Just because the game is one way now doesn't mean it can't change in the future: 3.0 changed into 3.5 because enough issues came up with the original rules set that it made sense. So it's never bad idea to voice your concerns as your concerns might just resonate with other posters including some of those devs.
Which feels like a pretty good indication you can coat ammo, unless you assume this is a unique ability available to monsters rather than PCs.
If we go by the lizardfolk, we'd have a "good indication" that the staff was meant to do 1d6 damage one handed... Or the Lamia entry would indicate that a spear does 1d4 damage. Or the Dero Strangler that lists the ranged weapon, the doses of poison and a poisoned attack but DOESN'T list poisoned ammo [same for the medusa]. Until the book gets a errata pass, I'm not sure how much weight to put into a single poisoned ammo entry when you have more poisoned ranged weapon entries that don't follow that pattern. A single entry could easily be a mistake, like an earlier draft that didn't get caught, so I'd need to see some kind of change in the rules to see it as evidence [like the other poison weapon entries listing ammo, poison weapon entry altered to list ammo, ect].
Setting aside the question of if ammunition also qualifies as a weapon for now. I’m not really convinced it’s not since the evidence seems to me just to state that arrows are also ammunition and bound by a specific rule. But without a new rule turned up I don’t think we’ll get a solid answer until the developers speak on that point.
I don’t see it as a balance issue being able to use it constantly. Poison is after all a consumable and cost money for every shot. It also does nothing if the opponent makes a save, which many foes will do with some consistency. The cost of using it at level one alone would leave a character broke after three attempts. And since the save DC is level based using the comparatively cheap lower level poisons means you’re much less likely to get any effect at all.
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.
Also, what about improvised weapons? Would you consider it wrong by the rules to poison a table knife, a sharpened stake, or the like?
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.
A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.
If the archer hits on the poisoned shot. Please note that in the opposing view the archer gets to keep shooting poison arrows until they hit or get a crit fail. That could be a lot of shots off a single poison vial.
If the enemy fails a fort save. The things that are more consistently hit will probably make the save more consistently. I wouldn’t call it a 50/50 even as a base. I haven’t been able to check myself but others are saying around 60%.
5d6 damage.
If the enemy fails a second save? 6d6 damage.
Even if we presume that 50/50 successful save that’s an average extra 8 damage round one and 5 the next. So an average damage buff of 13 over two rounds. Most combats are expected to average 4 rounds per the developers, so you’re not likely to get much more.
You’re also using a limited resource no matter how you get it, and wasting completely at least 40% of the resource from missed shots. And you can’t pile that damage up on a single target effectively. And since he gave his doses to the better ranged combatant to get more mileage out of them the alchemist is having very little combat effect, maybe an average 5 from crossbow bringing our damage buff up by 5
And compare that to say the damage support of a Druid at that level, an at level fireball deals 21 damage presuming the same 50/50 save. But they do that to every enemy within 25 feet of a central point, so multiply that by 3, 4, more?
I think it should be obvious which one will have a more dramatic effect on the combat.
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.
Yes, and 5th level wizard can deal 300d6 of damage with fireball in one round... but it won't happen every day
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
hmmm so the weapons table 6-8 Ranged Weapons lists arrows and bolts...plus page 284 under "Weapon Descriptions" lists arrows and bolts with descriptions
Arrow: These projectiles are the ammunition for
bows. The shaft of an arrow is made of wood. It is
stabilized in flight by fletching at one end and bears a
metal head on the other end.
Bolt: Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in
construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows.
...seems like based on the table and that there is a "Weapon Description" that an arrow and a bolt are both a weapon...
At least that is the way I would read it..so you can poison them at my table
In the one case where the cost of consistent consumable use isn’t money, the alchemist, they are still using up their core class feature instead. They could use them themselves and get some boost to damage, bringing them more inline with the classes that consider martial damage a priority, or they could use them to enhance their allies, biffing them like may others classes already can. In either case their abilities are not out of line with the rest of the classes.A level 8 archer with 14 Strength and weapon specialization does 2d6+3 damage with a shortbow. A wyvern poison does between 5d6 and 8d6 damage if the enemy fails the save. If the enemy fails 2 saves, damage is doubled after one round. So, if you can add that at each and every arrow... Even if the enemy makes half of its saves, we are speaking of doubling to tripling damage at no action cost as it's prebuff. It's overwhelmingly powerful in a game where buffs have been reduced a lot.
They're doing no damage and the poison is being wasted entirely on a miss, however. So this higher reward of being able to fire multiple poison shots in a row comes with the downside of not getting it back on a miss.
Yeah, that's the thing. I think even if I could poison multiple pieces of ammo, I'd be reluctant to maintain the same rate of fire as normal because those shots the penalty are pretty likely to just waste your poison.
Now if I was using a crossbow or other one shot per round things? Yeah I'd poison all my bolts. But then again at that point your action economy advantage isn't helped nearly as much.
hmmm so the weapons table 6-8 Ranged Weapons lists arrows and bolts...plus page 284 under "Weapon Descriptions" lists arrows and bolts with descriptions
Arrow: These projectiles are the ammunition for
bows. The shaft of an arrow is made of wood. It is
stabilized in flight by fletching at one end and bears a
metal head on the other end.
Bolt: Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in
construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows.
...seems like based on the table and that there is a "Weapon Description" that an arrow and a bolt are both a weapon...
At least that is the way I would read it..so you can poison them at my table
We've been over this earlier in the thread: "The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition." If ammo was a weapon, as per the description, it'd have a damage die. Since it doesn't, it's ammo and not a weapon.
I assume ammo is on the weapon listing as it's an integral item for ranged projectile weapons instead of the game trying to make a statement of it's being a weapon after telling us a clear difference between weapons and ammo.
As a note about "missing" and wasting the ammo
Are bolts/arrow/darts and other ammo destroyed on use?
Magic Ammo is destroyed. Mundane ammo... Who knows.
I do not care what the dumb-butt interpretation of RAW is. A person can definitely put poison on ammo. 1 dose per piece of ammo. But how long does it remain potent? If it really is unbalancing, just make it potent for at most an hour, or 10 minutes, etc.. Playtest should reveal how unbalancing it would be. For reagent created poisons to only remain active on a weapon for 1 day, 1 hour, or 10 minutes would not be unreasonable. Poisons that were purchased should probably lost a little longer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the archer hits on the poisoned shot. Please note that in the opposing view the archer gets to keep shooting poison arrows until they hit or get a crit fail. That could be a lot of shots off a single poison vial.
Clearly, it's very nice in terms of resource efficiency, even if, on average, the archer will hit with his first arrow (no MAP, so more than 50% chances to hit for a normal Ranger/Fighter).
If the enemy fails a fort save. The things that are more consistently hit will probably make the save more consistently. I wouldn’t call it a 50/50 even as a base. I haven’t been able to check myself but others are saying around 60%.
It depends on what you hit. Archers can choose to target spellcasters and other low fort enemies, knowing that a lot of their damage will come from poison.
And you can’t pile that damage up on a single target effectively.
Reread the poison rules, poison stacks atrociously.
5d6 damage.
If the enemy fails a second save? 6d6 damage.
First time the monster fails his save, it takes 5d6. Then, at that moment, every arrow hit will give it a save for 6d6 immediate and 5d6-8d6 automatic damage next turn (unless you make a critical success on your fort save). Poison damage explodes very quickly as soon as you get to stage 2 (and at stage 3, you're as good as dead, as we are speaking of a minimum of 30d6 of damage before the poison runs out).
Even if we presume that 50/50 successful save that’s an average extra 8 damage round one and 5 the next. So an average damage buff of 13 over two rounds. Most combats are expected to average 4 rounds per the developers, so you’re not likely to get much more.
8.75 immediate extra damage per arrow and 5.25 after one round (which is already incredible, as your Fighter/Ranger will hardly go over 13 average damage per arrow). And as soon as the monster fails one save, we get to 21.5 extra damage per arrow, 10.5 immediate, 11 automatic after one round. It's no more a bow, it's a balista.
A level 8 Alchemist has 12 reagents. Currently, one reagent makes 2 poisons (but we have to expect the arrival of the poison alchemist which will make 3 poisons out of one reagent). So, for 8% of your daily resources, you give the bow Fighter/Ranger the ability to more than double his damage output during one round. Considering how buffs (and especially prebuffs) are limited in PF2, this is something to consider.And since he gave his doses to the better ranged combatant to get more mileage out of them the alchemist is having very little combat effect, maybe an average 5 from crossbow bringing our damage buff up by 5
I hope you get a better at-will ability at level 8. Bestial Mutagen deals 2d8 + 1d6 + 4, Perpetual Bombs 1d8 + 4 + 1 persistent damage, Cantrips 4d4 + 4...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... A level 8 alchemist needs to use 1/4 of his resources to match a SINGLE level 4 fireball that's like 4 targets.
The damage is also spread over multiple rounds and given the chance to be neutralised.
Where's the issue?
In fact, buff poisons please.
We reached the Fireball point :)
I don't have anything more to add to the debate. We'll see if the devs ever change that, but currently it's not possible to poison an ammunition.
well, i mean comparing the "burst" damage a "caster" can add with a limited daily resource is obviously better compared against an equal limited resource burst damage like a spell.
comparing a limited daily resource to the damage that a martial does with a single strike is actually an atrocious comparison.
Let's do that by chosing a proper spell, not one that can only be cast in very specific situations.
Heroism is a level 3 spell. So, for a level 8 Wizard, it should be close to 8% of his resources. It's also a prebuff. It increases the damage output of 1 character by 15% roughly during a fight. Considering that a fight lasts 3 meaningful rounds, it's 45% of the damage done in one round. Heroism gives a bit more bonuses (saves and skill checks). In my opinion, the poison is still better, but we may argue that it's very similar.Heroism lasts 10 minutes, poison lasts 24 hours. Heroism has to be used before the combat, poison can be used in real time if the situation needs it. Heroism's effect for the whole combat is equivalent to poison's effect during one single round. Heroism doesn't stack with anything, poison stacks with everything (and especially well with itself). Do I really need to go on?
If you compare now with the proper poison use, which is once per weapon, you have:
Heroism lasts 10 minutes, poison lasts 24 hours. Heroism has to be used before the combat, poison also. Heroism's effect for the whole combat is equivalent to poison's effect for the whole combat. Heroism doesn't stack with anything, poison stacks with everything (and especially well with itself). Poison can be wasted if you face poison-immune enemies. Poison uses less resources (only 4% per weapon instead of 8% per round).
Sounds far more in line suddenly.
If the archer hits on the poisoned shot. Please note that in the opposing view the archer gets to keep shooting poison arrows until they hit or get a crit fail. That could be a lot of shots off a single poison vial.Clearly, it's very nice in terms of resource efficiency, even if, on average, the archer will hit with his first arrow (no MAP, so more than 50% chances to hit for a normal Ranger/Fighter).
If the enemy fails a fort save. The things that are more consistently hit will probably make the save more consistently. I wouldn’t call it a 50/50 even as a base. I haven’t been able to check myself but others are saying around 60%.It depends on what you hit. Archers can choose to target spellcasters and other low fort enemies, knowing that a lot of their damage will come from poison.
And you can’t pile that damage up on a single target effectively.Reread the poison rules, poison stacks atrociously.
5d6 damage.
If the enemy fails a second save? 6d6 damage.
First time the monster fails his save, it takes 5d6. Then, at that moment, every arrow hit will give it a save for 6d6 immediate and 5d6-8d6 automatic damage next turn (unless you make a critical success on your fort save). Poison damage explodes very quickly as soon as you get to stage 2 (and at stage 3, you're as good as dead, as we are speaking of a minimum of 30d6 of damage before the poison runs out).
Even if we presume that 50/50 successful save that’s an average extra 8 damage round one and 5 the next. So an average damage buff of 13 over two rounds. Most combats are expected to average 4 rounds per the developers, so you’re not likely to get much more.8.75 immediate extra damage per arrow and 5.25 after one round (which is already incredible, as your Fighter/Ranger will hardly go over 13 average damage per arrow). And as soon as the monster fails one save, we get to 21.5 extra damage...
So let’s take this hypothetical archer. Let’s say he has a very generous 70% hit rate on his first shot. Then let’s look at damage from poison alone. Please forgive is my math is quick and dirty, I’m not in a place where I can do much more. I’m leaving the save rate at 50% because honestly the option to target a creature you know has a low fort save isn’t a consistent option, particularly since you should have no way of knowing saves based on the new information system. You can guess, but you may be wrong or simply not have a choice about what to target. Plus fighting any boss type monster, aka one above your level, and suddenly the poison becomes way less effective right when you need a damage boost the most because unlike most other similar effects a successful save means you’re completely safe not half safe.
Shot 1 70% hit, 50% save, average damage 6.12
Shot 2 45% hit, 50% save average damage 4.72
Shot 3 20% hit, 50% save average damage 2.8
That’s a mighty damage boost of 13.64
On the monster’s turn they make a save if affected and take the affects of their new level. This could add up to a lot of damage with minimal actions spent, if the enemy keeps living and thus attacking. So to get the most out of poisons you have to keep switching targets which it also the best way to get the most damage felt to your team.
Also worth noting that you’ve now spent 240 gold in a single round of attacking. And you can’t just presume the alchemist is supplying this and also getting to do anything himself. They only get so many reagents. And this archer have just spent 1.5 of them, he might have 12 if he’s good. That’s 8 rounds, or two fights of reported average length. Less if he makes even a single bomb or mutagen so he can fight himself. Less if he buffs anyone else too. And after those fights he becomes sir “commoner with no class features.
Please explain to me how this is more powerful than a caster casting the CANTRIP electric arc with an average damage of 14, since you only feel it’s fair to compare poison to infinite use abilities. Please. I’ll wait. Though I’d also like an explanation as to why infinite use abilities are the only thing you want to compare poison to.