Using poison


Rules Discussion

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm trying to understand how you use poison in combat.

(I saw the other thread, but it was focused more on what bonuses alchemists got from it, than the basic mechanics of poison use itself)

Okay, so let's take Black Adder Venom, an injury poison, as our example.

It requires three Interact actions to apply to your weapon, with "Applying a poison to a weapon or another item requires two hands, with one hand holding the weapon or item."

Q1. But what about the other hand? Should it be empty? Or already holding the poison? Do you need to add a fourth action to draw the poison or is that included in the three?

Once the attack hits, at least the poison starts working immediately, yes? (There is no "Onset")

---

Now, take any "monster" (NPC) that uses poison. Stat blocks usually tell you how many doses the creature has, but then it usually only says, in the Damage listing for its weapon "plus black adder venom".

The way I'm sued to reading stat blocks they are self-contained, meaning there is no extra cost in actions or otherwise to deliver the poison. Which I don't doubt for a poisonous monster, but here we're discussing human NPCs. Again to be specific, let's use Ekujae Guardians (Age of Ashes, page 11). Their Longbow entry says this:

Ranged [one-action] longbow +11 (deadly d10, range
increment 100 feet, reload 0, volley
30 feet), Damage 1d8 piercing plus
black adder venom

Q2. So should I simply add poison damage to every longbow hit? Or should I assume monsters must use the rules for Poison, meaning the Guardian can only shoot every other turn (since it takes three actions to apply Black Added Venom)?

But if so, then that makes zero sense for a poisonous animal whose bite should auto-apply to all bite attacks.

---

Then there's a Rogue level 4 feat, Poison Weapon.

You are wielding a piercing or slashing weapon
and have a free hand. You apply a poison to the required weapon. 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.

Okay, so this action doesn't include the strike. But it says nothing about drawing the poison either. And you can't hold the poison since your hand must be empty.

So what is it?

Drawing the poison, applying it, and making a strike to deliver it.

Q3. How many actions?

---

Are NPCs supposed to be better at poison use than PCs?

That is, the Ekujae Guardian is level 2. Is it intentional that this character has learned a way to draw-apply poison as a free action, allowing it to potentially deliver three doses in one and the same round?

Will there be a way for a player character build to do the same in upcoming supplements?


Q1: An action will usually contain all the sub-actions within it, so 3-actions & two free hands is all you need, with the clarification that you have to have the item to be poisoned in one of your hands.

If your poison is stowed, there would be an argument for making it available by retrieving it first, but generally if meant to be used in combat, an item should be accessible by default.

Some poisons have onset times, most do not. If unlisted, it's immediate and the target makes a save, taking the first result if they fail.

Q2: That's a great question whether the poison is factored into their level for every shot or only for the amount of times listed in their equipment line (due perhaps to equipment money). Except if it's on their weapon already, it shouldn't also be found simply as poison. And wouldn't there be spare poisoned arrows?
I figured w/ Drow, they used up their poison when they struck, but with a quiver...who knows?

But no, they shouldn't be applying it in combat unless explicitly called out since that's really, really bad tactics. And also no, creatures with natural poison attacks aren't poisoning their weapons so aren't part of these mechanics.

And same thing about drawing & applying being part of the same action for Rogues taking that feat. If not stowed, which might occur if hiding it from authorities I suppose. So an Alchemist that wants to poison in combat pretty much has to pre-poison (likely several weapons) or MCD Rogue to get to that feat.

Q3: Actions for whom? A lot of NPCs have pre-poisoned weapons ready for combat, so they're aren't using any actions at all. Those Guardians aren't poisoning their weapons in combat.
Most PCs should pre-poison too, except they're planning to fight a lot more enemies and don't necessarily want to waste it on easy targets.

PCs can already pre-poison, so "do the same..." doesn't work here. Getting poisoning from 3 actions to 1 is a huge bonus already, though poisoners are struggling in other ways.
A major part of the issue is whatever an Alchemist can poison to gain a competitive edge, can also be given to a warrior who already has an edge (which would make an Alchemist a "must have" to exploit that bonus). So there needs to be a poisoner Alchemist track where they can make poison that only they can use at peak performance, much like how they can pass out bombs, but it's Alchemists that have all the abilities to make bombs function much better or with more versatility.


Thank you but you're not really clear on what is your personal opinion, what is "common sense" according to you, and what you actually have support for in the rules.

Q1. Yes I'll run it this way until told otherwise. Obviously items stowed away can't be drawn quickly, so I was asking about poison you carry in the same way you carry potions (which you do draw in a single action).

Q2. Not sure what you're answering here and what you're answering in Q3...

A player character can't pre-apply poison to a dozen arrows before combat. The idea is that without special feats (etc) you apply poison, then strike until you hit, making that dose go away (as it is delivered). Then you'll have to apply the second dose, etc...

As long as application is a three-action activity, players will only use poison as an "opening salve".

Whether they use ranged or melee weapons here is not intended to make a difference. Per the RAW you don't apply poison to ammunition, you apply it to the weapon. For a Bow, the way to make sense of this, is if it means "to the arrow you're about to shoot from the bow".

Meaning that you use the exact same procedure for a sword as for a bow: you apply poison that's used up on a hit.

If you could pre-apply poison to a dozen arrows, but not apply a dozen doses of the poison to your sword, poison would only ever be used for ranged combat. It would also drastically improve ranged combat, in ways that clearly aren't Rules As Intended!

Which brings us back to Q3.

Your take, that the Guardians have pre-poisoned their arrows, and that this is the reason they don't have to take "poison actions" in combat, is one I find unsustainable.

The only two options are between:

a) They quick-poison each arrow (much like how quick-draw works)
b) They are bound by the same limitations as PCs, unless the description states otherwise

Of these choices, I will choose a) since it is the only logical choices for monsters with natural actions, and since b) will probably nerf tool-using monsters into oblivion.

But it sure would be nice if someone could ask the devs about this! :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I've stated is based on my opinion & my common sense already. Poison barely works, which is better than other editions where it hardly worked (unless you go all the way back to save or die). Yay? Yet if I wanted to make a poison-themed PC, I'd likely go with Green Dragon Barbarian Instinct.

The answers were written in the order of your post. I think...

Who says PCs can't pre-apply poison to a dozen arrows?
(Assuming the poison doesn't expire that is.)
Such a counter-intuitive limitation would have to be specifically cited since 1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy) and 2. There are examples of pre-poisoned ammo in the books so ammo by RAW has been poisoned individually. Therefore ammo can be poisoned.

Paizo has quite explicitly said not to approach PF2 legalistically. The rules attempt to be rigorous, but devs expect us to interpret the rules as adults, not robots. Archers put poison on arrows, not on bows. This is so clear you had to reinterpret poisoning the bow to "the arrow you're about to shoot from the bow", which isn't the same. So you have such an arrow sitting alongside its chums in your quiver, thereby why can't they be poisoned too? Or why can't you the archer pull a different arrow? Because the bow has poison slathered on it? Wuh?
(Also by that thinking, if you miss, the next arrows keep having poison until you hit or critically miss. A bit absurd.)

Perhaps there is a point mechanically to make for game balance of ranged vs. melee.
I disagree, though yes, it should make one wary.
There have already been tricks made to bypass that, such as via Doubling Rings and Quick Draw w/ an arsenal of poisoned melee weapons. I think the gold cost of the poison is what balances the issue, not the accessibility in later attacks. So Alchemists, much like they get to use bombs too expensive for others to bother with, also can make free poisons too expensive to purchase elsewhere. And just like with the bombs, they can pass them out to their buddies who might very well use them better.

Citation needed that poisoned arrows aren't RAI or that melee & ranged are supposed to balance re: poison usage.

Ranged attackers lose doses of poison more often.
A person who misses with a ranged attack wastes their dose of poison. A person who misses (non-critically) with a melee attack still has their poison. If poison were limitless, that wouldn't make a difference, favoring the ranged attacker, but it's a valuable resource so IMO it does make a difference.

I understand you think pre-poisoned arrows are unsustainable. Oh well.
But if these guys needed to quick-poison their arrows, they'd have an ability spelling that out, right? So most likely they don't, and that's most likely due to having pre-poisoned arrows because yes, it would be too severe to make them use 1/2 their turns poisoning. Tactically, they wouldn't bother.

I think the devs are avoiding making statements, likely due to orders from above. They've made few official corrections.


Castilliano wrote:

What I've stated is based on my opinion & my common sense already. Poison barely works, which is better than other editions where it hardly worked (unless you go all the way back to save or die). Yay? Yet if I wanted to make a poison-themed PC, I'd likely go with Green Dragon Barbarian Instinct.

The answers were written in the order of your post. I think...

Who says PCs can't pre-apply poison to a dozen arrows?
(Assuming the poison doesn't expire that is.)
Such a counter-intuitive limitation would have to be specifically cited since 1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy) and 2. There are examples of pre-poisoned ammo in the books so ammo by RAW has been poisoned individually. Therefore ammo can be poisoned.

Paizo has quite explicitly said not to approach PF2 legalistically. The rules attempt to be rigorous, but devs expect us to interpret the rules as adults, not robots. Archers put poison on arrows, not on bows. This is so clear you had to reinterpret poisoning the bow to "the arrow you're about to shoot from the bow", which isn't the same. So you have such an arrow sitting alongside its chums in your quiver, thereby why can't they be poisoned too? Or why can't you the archer pull a different arrow? Because the bow has poison slathered on it? Wuh?
(Also by that thinking, if you miss, the next arrows keep having poison until you hit or critically miss. A bit absurd.)

Perhaps there is a point mechanically to make for game balance of ranged vs. melee.
I disagree, though yes, it should make one wary.
There have already been tricks made to bypass that, such as via Doubling Rings and Quick Draw w/ an arsenal of poisoned melee weapons. I think the gold cost of the poison is what balances the issue, not the accessibility in later attacks. So Alchemists, much like they get to use bombs too expensive for others to bother with, also can make free poisons too expensive to purchase elsewhere. And just like with the bombs, they can pass them out to their buddies who might...

I can definitely see a lot of good points here.

It's just not what I wanted and needed out of the thread. I need official guidance on a subsection of not-clear-enough rules.

Official either in the sense somebody steers me to page 123 where I missed an important rule, or official in the sense a dev steps in and clarifies intent.

To me it does not make sense to write a rulebook that is very very detailistic and controlling, where you can't even change your grip from holding an axe with one hand to two hands without spending an action, but then more or less leave the field wide open for interpretation in an important area such as this.

By "important" I really mean "significant when and if applied". I do realize poison is a sideshow.

But not defining how much of an impact poison is intended to have is tantamount to dropping the ball, imo.

If they at least made it clear "poison is only really good for monsters" I could accept that and move on.

---

It is in that light I am not satisfied with your comments.

It makes zero sense to design poison to be massively better for ranged combatants than melee combatants, given the tight math and balance on everything else in Pathfinder 2.

Heck, they don't even give out "attribute to damage" to ranged attacks! They clearly intend ranged to play second fiddle to melee. (I'm not complaining here, just observing).

And then you tell me it should be obvious you can pre-apply poison to ten arrows, but you still need to re-apply poison after each melee hit?

Sorry, that does not compute.

PS. I hope you see I am not attacking you here. I am just finding it hard to reconcile your common sense with the ruleset as written in other areas.


I really appreciate Castilliano's input on this issue, but it would likely be very helpful if others would chime in with their ideas too :)


I'd say that you need to have the poison in hand to poison something.

General rule is you need to be holding the items you use unless they say otherwise. Poison doesn't specify that it can be used if not in hand, so it can't.

Case in point, "drinking" a potion is an interact action. You still need to have them on hand, or draw them with a separate Interact action.

"Potions
A potion is a magical liquid activated when you drink it, which uses it up.Potions have the potion trait. You can activate a potion with an Interact action as you drink it or feed it to another creature. You can feed a potion only to a creature that is within reach and willing or otherwise so helpless that it can’t resist .You usually need only one hand to consume a potion or feed it to another creature. "

As for the "free hand" required, I think it's more like in the spirit of the last sentence in potions as well, it's the hand that's holding the poison.

If it required a separate hand, it would be like "Oils": one hand holding the item, the other hand free.


So your question to Q1 would be four actions, one to draw and three to apply. Got it, Shroud!

(of course noone in their right mind will attempt this in time-critical situations like combat without the Rogue feat Poison Weapon, which cuts down the number of actions required from 4 to 1)

Do you have an opinion (or comment) on the possible melee/ranged imbalance?

That is, do you allow PCs to pre-poison as many arrows as they can afford, in the way you simply can't do with a single blade? Do you justify this using a game rule or "common sense"? (Thanks to or despite the rules)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zapp wrote:

So your question to Q1 would be four actions, one to draw and three to apply. Got it, Shroud!

(of course noone in their right mind will attempt this in time-critical situations like combat without the Rogue feat Poison Weapon, which cuts down the number of actions required from 4 to 1)

Do you have an opinion (or comment) on the possible melee/ranged imbalance?

That is, do you allow PCs to pre-poison as many arrows as they can afford, in the way you simply can't do with a single blade? Do you justify this using a game rule or "common sense"? (Thanks to or despite the rules)

i personally see no issue with poisoning ammunition.

does that favor the ranged over the melee?
sure. So what?

It makes sense to me, and poisons aren't that big of a deal either way, they are either extremely expensive, or (if by an alchemist) cost precious resources to use

the alternative, "poison a bow" sounds terrible to me, not like "it's bad for immersion" but more like "it shot Immersion on the head, covered it with concrete, and dumped it into a lake".


shroudb wrote:

the alternative, "poison a bow" sounds terrible to me, not like "it's bad for immersion" but more like "it shot Immersion on the head, covered it with concrete, and dumped it into a lake".

lol

Still would like to listen to what the devs have to say - what are the Rules As Intended :)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I can see absolutely no issue with pre-poisoning arrows (or multiple melee weapons for that matter, the 5th-level pregen Merisiel e.g. has 9 daggers on her which I'd have no issue with her pre-applying poison to some or even all of them).

According to RAW (CRP p.550) poison is applied to "a weapon or another item", so that clearly includes ammo.

There is no maximum duration given for how long it remains effective (and I don't see a reason why there should be, age-old traps still remaining poisonous is not an uncommon thing in fantasy in general)

Many NPCs have pre-poisoned ammo. While the Ekujae hunters (which you're not expected to fight, really) don't have their arrows listed as pre-poisoned and thus should not automatically apply poison damage unless they took the time to apply the poison first, others do (e.g. Cult of Cinders p.50, or Tomorrow Must Burn p.41).

NB applying poison to a bow would technically be possible but could only ever be effective if you used the bow as an improvised melee or thrown weapon. There is no reason why it should transfer poison to its arrows.

The action economy of applying poison has already been discussed. While I have a small issue with that (as I could easily see a poison being applied by having a jar of it standing on the ground or on a table and your arrows or daggers would just be dipped in - something I would consider to take only 1 action), I'm happy to concede that the game cannot model all real-world possibilities perfectly adequately and some concessions need to be made to allow for game balance.


Castilliano wrote:
1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy)

In fantasy only. Poisoned weapons have very rarely been used in reality, and only to kill after combat: The most potent poisons on earth kill in dozens of minutes.

The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.

In terms of balance, it's very hard to tell. Both systems have their pros and cons. Still, a high level ranger with poisoned arrows seem overkill to me, considering the amount of hit per rounds (and thus poison attempts) he can make.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.

Could you point to where it says that PFS explicitly excludes the RAW parts in the CRB that say e.g.

"If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed" (CRB p.444, Yes, the RAW literally include using RAI instead of RAW!)

and

"As the GM, you are responsible for solving any rules disputes. Remember that keeping your game moving is more important than being 100% correct. Looking up rules at the table can slow the game down, so in many cases it’s better to make your best guess rather than scour the book for the exact rule." (CRB p.491)

and

"As Game Master, you have the final say on how the world and rules function, and how nonplayer characters act." (CRB p.483)

and others as well, I'm sure.

Every single PFS2-table I've sat at, online or offline, has recognized that PF2 is a new system and some rules as written are flawed or at least unpolished and the GM needs to sometimes make rulings along the lines above. No GM I've ever met would seriously consider the bit about injury poisons only being activated by being applied to a weapon (and not including ammo here) as anything but an oversight on the part of whoever wrote that section.

Similarly, on the occasions where NPCs use poisoned arrows/bolts that I quoted above (official PF2 content, if not PFS2-content for now), no player would seriously argue that the poison had not been activated (as it had not been applied to a weapon but rather ammo) and thus should be inactive.


albadeon wrote:
Many NPCs have pre-poisoned ammo. While the Ekujae hunters (which you're not expected to fight, really) don't have their arrows listed as pre-poisoned and thus should not automatically apply poison damage unless they took the time to apply the poison first, others do (e.g. Cult of Cinders p.50, or Tomorrow Must Burn p.41).

Thank you.

I still take exception to "Many NPCs have pre-poisoned ammo". After all, before you pointed me to your two examples I would have thought exactly zero (0) NPCs had pre-poisoned ammo...

I still would have liked clarity right in the CRB (or Bestiary): which monsters deal poison damage as part of their attack (every time) and which monsters need to apply poison in order to use it.

I mean, an entry like Hezle (in Cult of Cinders) is perfectly clear. But the Ekujae isn't. And neither the CRB nor the Bestiary is either.

None of this should prevent me from properly thanking you - your reply is the most illuminating yet!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Okay, let me rephrase that: "there are NPCs in published official material that use pre-poisoned ammo." Those were the two examples that came to my mind, I didn't do a thorough check to see if there were any others. However, use of poisoned weapons isn't super common and in the limited number of official PF2 adventures published, I wouldn't expect to find too many examples of it.

Still, I think even those two examples are sufficient to show that the clear intention of the rules is to allow ammo to be poisoned (and pre-poisoned) and the fact that the injury poison entry doesn't mention ammo despite these two examples to the contrary is an oversight and not a deliberate limitation.

I think the Ekujae entry is just not precise enough as it is not expected that the party will fight them. I read it as them having a number of doses available but not applied to any weapon, but should they use it, it's intended to be used on the arrows (and then add the appropriate effect to a ranged hit) rather than their daggers. But yes, it's just not made as clear as in the other examples.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Castilliano wrote:
1. That's how poison arrows work (in reality & fantasy)

In fantasy only. Poisoned weapons have very rarely been used in reality, and only to kill after combat: The most potent poisons on earth kill in dozens of minutes.

The issue with RAI is that you can't bring it around a PFS table. So, RAW, you have to apply an injury poison to a weapon. Around a PFS table, any other use would be invalid.

In terms of balance, it's very hard to tell. Both systems have their pros and cons. Still, a high level ranger with poisoned arrows seem overkill to me, considering the amount of hit per rounds (and thus poison attempts) he can make.

if playing raw then you can just use javelins , daggers etc

but in my personal games ill allow poisoning arrows


albadeon wrote:


Could you point to where it says that PFS explicitly excludes the RAW parts in the CRB that say e.g.

"If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed" (CRB p.444, Yes, the RAW literally include using RAI instead of RAW!)

and

"As the GM, you are responsible for solving any rules disputes. Remember that keeping your game moving is more important than being 100% correct. Looking up rules at the table can slow the game down, so in many cases it’s better to make your best guess rather than scour the book for the exact rule." (CRB p.491)

and

"As Game Master, you have the final say on how the world and rules function, and how nonplayer characters act." (CRB p.483)

Well, it says "as a GM", not as a player. A player can't play with his own house rules. So if you want to start every game by convincing the GM to use your house rules, it's fine. But you can't use them without GM approval. Which is not the case for RAW.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Well, it says "as a GM", not as a player. A player can't play with his own house rules. So if you want to start every game by convincing the GM to use your house rules, it's fine. But you can't use them without GM approval. Which is not the case for RAW.

Yes, I'm looking at this from the point of view of a GM and I was wondering if there was actually a Society rule that I had missed somehow which specifically removed certain GM-liberties for "uniformity" or whatever other nonsense.

Otherwise, I'd argue that this case of poisoning arrows is clearly RAI which supercedes the obvious oversight of not mentioning ammo in the injury poison paragraph.

Yes, as a player, trying to convince every GM to run their games according to your house rules is not likely to succeed :). However, in this case I believe such a reasonably strong case can be made using the examples I gave above that I'd probably risk to just use it that way. I wouldn't expect any normal GM to seriously object.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually, even with RAW, if your GM doesn't approve, you cannot use it either. If your GM rules that the RAW do not represent the RAI, then tough luck, there's really nothing you can do about it.


albadeon wrote:
Actually, even with RAW, if your GM doesn't approve, you cannot use it either. If your GM rules that the RAW do not represent the RAI, then tough luck, there's really nothing you can do about it.

That's not completely true. As a PFS DM, you are supposed to follow the rules of the game.

If one of your players starts "poisoning his bow", thus following RAW, you can suggest him to use your house rule, but you can't force him to do so, as using RAW is not disrupting the game.

Of course, "poisoning a bow" is a game mechanic, the character's action is to poison his arrows. It's like taking a 5-foot step underwater or using a Strike action with a bow.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Well, the rules of the game include stuff like "if you think the rules as written don't work as intended, go with what you think is the intended version instead". Essentially, the GM can basically rule whatever he wants...

But again, I'm not at all advocating in favor of sadistic GM dictators who just want to make things hard or unenjoyable for their players, I'm just trying to convey the notion (which I believe is totally supported by the rules) that a GM sometimes needs to make reasonable adjustments and that players have no "right" to "demand" that the GM needs to accept any outrageous thing they came up with during theorycrafting based on their reading of the RAW.

In my experience, this is usually not an issue, but if ever the two sides were unable to come to an agreement, the GM's opinion is right for that game per default. If there were such unbridgable differences, however, it might be a better choice for that player not to play at that table.

In practice, if a player at my table said he was poisoning his bow, I'd ask him if his intention was to have the next arrow he fired to be poisoned and if it is, just tell him to apply the poison to the arrow instead and mark one of his arrows as poisoned. Problem solved.

If, however, he for some strange reason thought his poisoned bow would now cause all arrows from the bow to inflict poison damage, I'd inform him that that was not the case. We might disagree, but ultimately, my ruling would stand.


albadeon wrote:
If, however, he for some strange reason thought his poisoned bow would now cause all arrows from the bow to inflict poison damage, I'd inform him that that was not the case. We might disagree, but ultimately, my ruling would stand.

But if your player says he poisons his arrows (the in-game action tied to the rule action of poisoning his bow), then shoots a few arrows, manages to hit and asks your for a save against poison, what will you do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The obvious answer seems to be, "have the target make the save against the DC specified by the poison". I'm not sure what else you would expect.

That is assuming the arrow that hit actually had poison applied to it. One dose of poison is enough for one attack, so if you only poisoned one arrow, the poison only works when you shoot that arrow, obviously. Again, "poisoning the bow" will not get you more than one use out of that dose of poison. I'd rule that as poisoning one arrow, not poison all arrows shot by that bow (or even all arrows in the quiver).

[edit]
Which leaves the question what happens with the arrows that missed, since poisoned melee weapons retain their poisoned status until they hit for the first time. However, since I would expect a missed arrow the get stuck in something, either the ground, or a tree, or whatever, or break if it shattered on say a steel plate, I'd probably rule against reusability.
[/edit]

If someone was trying to argue that an injury poison that has been applied to an arrow (and not technically a "weapon") is not activated and therefore does not work, because ammo is not mentioned in that paragraph I would over-rule that someone, as I've said before.

I would apply the same logic to an injury poison applied to a trap, which is also not technically a weapon according to the RAW, btw.

Other than that, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.

There is not.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
HammerJack wrote:

The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.

There is not.

This is from the CRB, p.280, paragraph "Ammunition":

"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."

"Ammunition" is obviously intended to be distinct from "weapon" in the usage in the rules, it is merely on the table for convenience. It cannot be used without a weapon to shoot it with (except as an improvised weapon, but that doesn't turn it into a weapon anymore that it does a candlestick)

But really, even aside from ammo, what about traps? Can an injury poison be applied (and be activated) on those?

The point is moot, though, since the argument "you can't run an official table where something is allowed that isn't RAW" is moot itself. According to the RAW, RAI beats RAW and the GM is the final arbiter of what the I of any RAW is.


HammerJack wrote:

The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.

There is not.

There is not a single line considering that ammunitions are weapons. Not one. Just astrological computations about their positioning in a table. With the same logic, unarmored would be an armor. And anyway, the current debate is: Can a DM apply his own house rules during a PFS game?

albadeon wrote:
That is assuming the arrow that hit actually had poison applied to it. One dose of poison is enough for one attack, so if you only poisoned one arrow, the poison only works when you shoot that arrow, obviously. Again, "poisoning the bow" will not get you more than one use out of that dose of poison. I'd rule that as poisoning one arrow, not poison all arrows shot by that bow (or even all arrows in the quiver).

The player used one dose of poison and hits with the second arrow, for example, following RAW. What do you do?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
The player used one dose of poison and hits with the second arrow, for example, following RAW. What do you do?

When he used the dose of poison, I had explained to him that I'd rule that as applying the poison to one arrow (and if this was the first time, I'd give him a chance to reconsider if he didn't want to do that). With every shot he makes, as long as he has both poisoned and non-poisoned arrows available, he gets to specify (when he announces the shot, before the attack roll) which type he is using for the shot (edit: or alternatively we'd agree that he uses e.g. normal arrows as the standard, unless specified otherwise before the roll /edit). If a poisoned arrow hits, poison is applied, if a non-poisoned arrow hits, no poison is applied, obviously.

If he had really intended to coat the bow itself with poison specifically, I'd probably let him do it, but only after making it very clear to him that that poison could only ever be effective if he ever pierced or slashed someone with the bow itself - so not very likely. It would not apply a poison effect onto the arrow and not affect a target hit by an arrow shot with that bow.

The only exception might be a specially made bow for that purpose,

Fall of Plaguestone spoiler:
like the crossbow used by the antagonist in Fall of Plaguestone, that is specifically made to apply poison (or an alchemichal extract in this case, but similar) to a arrow being fired.

But that would be rare and come with an extra cost attached. And would still use one dose per shot.


SuperBidi wrote:
HammerJack wrote:

The argument that you can't run an official table where the poison goes on the arrow because it isn't RAW would hold more water if there was an undisputed consensus that ammunition is not a subset of weapons.

There is not.

There is not a single line considering that ammunitions are weapons. Not one. Just astrological computations about their positioning in a table. With the same logic, unarmored would be an armor. And anyway, the current debate is: Can a DM apply his own house rules during a PFS game?

albadeon wrote:
That is assuming the arrow that hit actually had poison applied to it. One dose of poison is enough for one attack, so if you only poisoned one arrow, the poison only works when you shoot that arrow, obviously. Again, "poisoning the bow" will not get you more than one use out of that dose of poison. I'd rule that as poisoning one arrow, not poison all arrows shot by that bow (or even all arrows in the quiver).
The player used one dose of poison and hits with the second arrow, for example, following RAW. What do you do?

Not really though.

Being in the same table IS enough in the absence of restrictive language (like unarmed). At least by strict Raw.

It is as "astrological computations" as saying that "those aren't the rules for PF 2 just because they are in a book merely called pathfinder 2 rulebook".

The only other thing that is the table and ISN'T a weapon is specifically called so (unarmed).

And "unarmoured" IS NOT on the "Armour table".

In fact there's a whole separate "unarmoured proficiency" right above the "armour" table.


shroudb wrote:

Being in the same table IS a very strong indicator.

It is as "astrological computations" as saying that "those aren't the rules for PF 2 just because they are in a book merely called pathfinder 2 rulebook".

The only other thing that is the table and ISN'T a weapon is specifically called so (unarmed).

And "unarmoured" IS NOT on the "Armour table".

In fact there's a whole separate "unarmoured proficiency" right above the "armour" table.

They are on the archive of Nethys. It looks like it's a difference with the rulebook.

So, as they are weapons, you can apply runes on an arrow. And apply both the bow rune and the arrow rune, because nothing states otherwise.
So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.
I think it's a major change to the rules, but if you think it's RAW, why not.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Btw, in chapter 11 of the CRB "Crafting & Treasure", ammunition is listed under consumables and not under weapons. Just saying...


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:

So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.

You'd also have to successfully argue the point that your arrows are not only weapons but specifically melee weapons. That might be tough...

It might be better to go with the actual "Ghost arrows" from the CRB. While they are a bit more pricy at 900gp and are a level 14 item, you get to reuse them forever. Probably the better deal with much fewer discussions with your GM.

(Yes, I get you were being sarcastic)


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Being in the same table IS a very strong indicator.

It is as "astrological computations" as saying that "those aren't the rules for PF 2 just because they are in a book merely called pathfinder 2 rulebook".

The only other thing that is the table and ISN'T a weapon is specifically called so (unarmed).

And "unarmoured" IS NOT on the "Armour table".

In fact there's a whole separate "unarmoured proficiency" right above the "armour" table.

They are on the archive of Nethys. It looks like it's a difference with the rulebook.

So, as they are weapons, you can apply runes on an arrow. And apply both the bow rune and the arrow rune, because nothing states otherwise.
So, at high level, I can have a bunch of ghost touch arrows for a hundred gp each and use them when needed.
I think it's a major change to the rules, but if you think it's RAW, why not.

I was poking around on AoN and found:

Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon

The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.

As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.


WatersLethe wrote:

I was poking around on AoN and found:

Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon

The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.

As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.

Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The (unreasonable) argument that arrows should themselves bes weapons aside,

I'm still interested in what you think about the way I'd handle the situation with "poisoning the bow"? Because I honestly think that is absolutely reasonable and RAI, with the RAW in that paragraph really only differing due to an editoral oversight in that ammo and traps are not mentioned in addition to weapons in the injury poison paragraph. I seriously would not even consider that "house rules" at all, instead, I would apply the RAW that declares that RAI should be used in such cases instead of the RAW.

How would you have handled it differently?
Do you think archers are not intended to not be able to shoot poisoned arrows?
Do you think one dose of poison is intended to affect more than one arrow, and if so should it be applied to the bow directly?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I was poking around on AoN and found:

Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon

The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.

As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.

Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.

At a minimum of 10k gold per shot, I would have very few qualms about letting it ride. Oh no, an extra 3d6 acid/cold/fire on one attack.

If they spring for the higher level runes they'd be staring down a 28k gold per shot price tag. A quarter of their level 20 wealth. For... 3d6 extra damage on one attacl, and some nasty crit effects.


SuperBidi wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:

I was poking around on AoN and found:

Ghost touch
Usage: etched onto a melee weapon

The rest get so expensive so fast for enchanting one arrow, I can't see it being very widely used. (And you need a +1 fundamental rune on there first). I also don't particularly mind the idea of paying a bundle for a one time use +1d6 Acid arrow.

As for Striking, that rune sets the damage of the weapon, not increasing it be a factor, so you wouldn't be able to stack a Striking Bow and a Striking Arrow.

Well, if it's ok for you to cumulate up to 6 property runes on each attack, I'm out of arguments.

For the low low cost of ~9000gp or more per arrow, since you need to have a +3 potency rune to add 3 property runes, this is really not actually a big deal, as much as it is likely not intended.

Like, 8000gp is the price given to a Spellstrike IX arrow, which casts a 9th level spell on hit. The Spellstrike arrow has some restrictions that this tricked out arrow wouldn't, but the rune arrow also has a fraction of the total effect for a significantly higher cost.

Sovereign Court

Eh, per the OP’s questions, I would probably have the 3 action poison weapon action to include drawing out the poison, but it is unlikely to be used in combat so doesn’t really have too much bearing. For the enemies, since the NPCs and other enemies are built differently to PCs I’d say that all their attacks are poisoned and just give less poison treasure if it goes on longer (pre-poisoned or whatever you decide on).


Q1 your choice if the mobs have the poison in bandoliers or other "quick access" storage to allow drawing it in the same action as applying it but they must have a free hand to apply it with the other hand holding their bow. Or alternately you could have it in some holster or something. I'm sure I've seen someone poison arrows by dipping them in a pot tied to the archer's leg in some movie or anime or other.

There is no onset in the poison's entry, so yes the affliction begins immediately.

Q2 If the guardians in your example are a humanoid race using humanoid weapons like longbows, why wouldn't they follow the same rules for the black adder venom as the players would from p 550 of the CRB? Have you seen that venom? Rhetorical, of course you have, but my point is if they're level 2 mobs, that's an awfully strong poison to allow them to skip application rules. I would allow them to have the poison pre-applied for the first round since I can't find anything that says the poison expires if not used quickly. But after that, application rules would imply every other round if they want to poison. OR you could choose to extend what I mentioned above about the poison having no expiration until a strike to imply they have as many doses of the venom as listed worth of pre-applied arrows.

And yes, obviously creatures with natural venom or poisoned attacks don't need to spend action applying them.

Q3 The free hand required by the Rogue feat is to draw the poison and apply it in one action. Normally one would require an interact action to draw, then follow application rules to apply. The feat requires one action, and doesn't include the strike. It DOES, however, allow a Rogue with the feat to use poisons (like the aforementioned black adder venom) without needing 3 actions to apply it, with the con being they have to hit with their next attack before the end of their next round or it's wasted. The trade-off for applying quick and dirty instead of taking 3 rounds to get a lasting application.


WatersLethe wrote:
At a minimum of 10k gold per shot, I would have very few qualms about letting it ride. Oh no, an extra 3d6 acid/cold/fire on one attack.

500 gp for 1d6, 2000 gp for 2d6. It's true that the 3d6 are expensive, but the other aren't. Anyway, for me, having more than 3 property runes on an attack is clearly a hack of the system. It's not for you, so I can't argue more :)

albadeon wrote:
How would you have handled it differently?

I woudn't, I was just interested.

I had an experience in the past with a DM telling me I couldn't tumble with my weapon because it was too big for that. I was having a reach weapon, and was using tumble quite a lot when stuck in melee. The issue with house rules is that you can have a player really pissed off because you forbid him to properly use his character. Anyway, as there is no consensus on poisoning arrows, there's a need for a FAQ or errata. Because you can clearly build a character based around poison and projectile weapons, it would be very sad to discover half way that the proper rules have a negative impact on your playstyle.


lol, what kind of "consensus" does there need to be on poisoning arrows? What else are you supposed to apply the poison to, the bowstring? I guess I missed it, but is someone trying to argue that arrows "aren't weapons" or something because they have their own ammunition blurb? Just because they're ammunition doesn't mean they're not weapons. Just that not all weapons are ammunition, and ammunition is purchased in bulk for convenience. This is an all B = A but not all A = B situation.

If you need something to point to and say, "they're weapons," they're listed among all the other weapons under Weapon Descriptions, pp 284-286.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Ammo is listed as consumables (and not as weapons) in the Crafting and Treasure chapter. And the description in the ammunition entry in the Equipment chapter makes it quite clear that they are still seperate from weapons despite being on that list (multiple times, as there is an entry for each weapon shooting that particular projectile) for convenience's sake. I'm pretty sure we've been through this, maybe read the thread above :).

Still, I believe the general agreement is that arrows (and not the bow itself) are the object intended to be poisoned. The paragraph on how injury poisons are applied in the Crafting and Treasure Chapter however neglects to mention either ammo or traps, which I believe is merely an oversight and should be errata'd. Officially published adventures have injury poisons applied both via ammo and via traps.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
albadeon wrote:

Ammo is listed as consumables (and not as weapons) in the Crafting and Treasure chapter. And the description in the ammunition entry in the Equipment chapter makes it quite clear that they are still seperate from weapons despite being on that list (multiple times, as there is an entry for each weapon shooting that particular projectile) for convenience's sake. I'm pretty sure we've been through this, maybe read the thread above :).

Still, I believe the general agreement is that arrows (and not the bow itself) are the object intended to be poisoned. The paragraph on how injury poisons are applied in the Crafting and Treasure Chapter however neglects to mention either ammo or traps, which I believe is merely an oversight and should be errata'd. Officially published adventures have injury poisons applied both via ammo and via traps.

I guess I didn't realize anyone was arguing arrows aren't weapons that can be poisoned because that's silly. I did literally just read the entire section on weapons, and didn't see it say anywhere that ammunition are not weapons. I did see them use the terms "weapon" and "ammunition" together in the same sentence for clarity when referring to how they're listed and which of the two decides the damage (and thus we can determine which would get the rune), but nothing to suggest ammunition aren't weapons. The entry on blowgun dart even states that they're hollow to facilitate delivering poison. (inb4 "AHA! That means blowgun darts are the ONLY ammo that can be poisoned!" ^_^;;)

Ammunition is listed in Consumables in Magic & Treasure because they're Consumables (and not Alchemical in nature, which have their own entire section) as opposed to Permanent Items on the tables in pp 536-542, not because they're not weapons. And Alchemical Poisons on pp 550-554 don't list every little thing you can apply a poison to because that would be too restrictive. They simply mention criteria for delivery, and that some methods (contact poison with weapon attacks) are "infeasible" due to reasons. Is someone nitpicking about Injury poisons specifying "applying to a weapon" as though a trap's needle, blade, jaws, etc. don't qualify as one? I mean, I guess you could only put contact or inhaled poisons in traps until that one is clarified in the Gamemastery Guide, but honestly.

Thanks for getting me up to speed on what I missed skimming the thread. 8)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).
And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).

It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.

Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.


albadeon wrote:

I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).

And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).

It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.

Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.

You've argued your point, yes.

That doesn't make your argument correct though.

As far as I can tell, ALL discussions about if "ammunition is a weapon" degrade into both factions being sure that their argument is the Raw one.

This makes only one thing clear:

That RAW supports actually none, and that even in the most official of rules reading (pfs) it's 1000% up to GM to rule if it's one or the other until clear errata about the issue is made.

The only things we know about ammunition are:

A) they appear in the weapon table WITHOUT something telling us they are not weapons.
B) they are consumables
C) there are weapons using them. Said weapon's damage is based on their ammunition.

The above is the only RAW about them.

And obviously, since there are like 3 threads about that, it can be read in multiple ways.


albadeon wrote:

I have and would again totally argue that ammunition is not a weapon (and if you think of sling stones or even irl bullets, I think it's blatantly obvious that they are not weapons themselves but rather something to be fired from a weapon).

And as I've argued above, the rules do support my view, even if they may be ambiguous enough to support multiple views :).

It doesn't really matter though, as I think we can all agree that the intended rules are that ammo and traps should be able to be poisoned.

Where exactly the exact text of the rules needs to be modified to better reflect this, I honestly don't care.

Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.


Baarogue wrote:

Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.

You are mixing 2 non-correlated things. Ammunitions can be poisoned even if they are not weapons. There is a rule, which uses some mechanics with some words and then there's the in-game translation.

Like when you say that you Strike with your bow. The rules use the word strike, but in-game you shoot.

It's the same here. When you poison a bow, you obviously poison arrows.
Considering arrows as weapon only modifies the application of the rule, not the in-game actions and description.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Baarogue wrote:
Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

Treating ammo as weapons requires you to make numerous exceptions in the rules for these "weapons", that aren't really weapons. That's a whole lot of special pleading.

If you have just an arrow, no bow, is that a weapon? How do you attack with it? It's listed under ranged weapons, so would you use a ranged attack roll? How much damage does it do? None is listed. Should weapon runes be able to be inscribed on it? I'd say no, but your milage may vary, but if you classify them as weapons you either have to let runes be used on them or make another exception.

These are weapons that have none of the traits all the other weapons have. They cannot be used to attack by themselves an any better than any other improvised weapon can, but only used to "deliver" the force of the attack of the actual weapon.

It's like arguing the rocks slung with a catapult are weapons. They are projectiles used with a weapon, but they are not weapons themselves. Or would you see those as weapons, too?

Baarogue wrote:
I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.

The very much misrepresents what I said, I only mentioned sling bullets because they can easier be imagined as as pretty much pebbles, instead of the somewhat pointier arrows and I thought that might help you see them as not weapons. They could be poisoned just like arrows, but yes, you'd need another type of poison and it would be less practical.


Baarogue wrote:

Q2 OR you could choose to extend what I mentioned above about the poison having no expiration until a strike to imply they have as many doses of the venom as listed worth of pre-applied arrows.

Only problem I couldn't find any indication in the rules themselves that poison was to be essentially a ranged combatant's game. Being able to pre-poison a dozen arrows (or throwing daggers) is vastly better than the alternatives for melee fighters.

Quote:
And yes, obviously creatures with natural venom or poisoned attacks don't need to spend action applying them.

Where in the rulebook does it say? How can a tell a given monster needs to apply poison or not?

Quote:
Q3 The free hand required by the Rogue feat is to draw the poison and apply it in one action. Normally one would require an interact action to draw, then follow application rules to apply.

Yes, obviously nobody will do it without the feat.

Quote:
The feat requires one action, and doesn't include the strike. It DOES, however, allow a Rogue with the feat to use poisons (like the aforementioned black adder venom) without needing 3 actions to apply it, with the con being they have to hit with their next attack before the end of their next round or it's wasted. The trade-off for applying quick and dirty instead of taking 3 rounds to get a lasting application.

How do you reconcile this with the findings above.

I understand you mean for this specific feat to put a duration on the poison (use before end of next round), but you also say you can pre-apply all the poison well before the combat.

Maybe you're just saying what I am saying - that melee weapons are worse off than ranged (from the poison user's perspective)?


SuperBidi wrote:
Baarogue wrote:

Alright, so we have the common ground of agreeing ammunition should be poisonable. So let me ask you this: What do you gain by arguing ammunition aren't weapons. What do you lose by agreeing that they are?

I agree that sling bullets can't be poisoned, but not because they're ammunition. They're Bludgeoning, and so can't apply Injury poison, and Contact poison would be too problematic.

You are mixing 2 non-correlated things. Ammunitions can be poisoned even if they are not weapons. There is a rule, which uses some mechanics with some words and then there's the in-game translation.

Like when you say that you Strike with your bow. The rules use the word strike, but in-game you shoot.

It's the same here. When you poison a bow, you obviously poison arrows.
Considering arrows as weapon only modifies the application of the rule, not the in-game actions and description.

That's actually how I read it originally. If that's what you and albadeon are arguing, I'm fine with it, provided one can poison multiple ammunition ahead of time if they choose.


Zapp wrote:
Baarogue wrote:

Q2 OR you could choose to extend what I mentioned above about the poison having no expiration until a strike to imply they have as many doses of the venom as listed worth of pre-applied arrows.

Only problem I couldn't find any indication in the rules themselves that poison was to be essentially a ranged combatant's game. Being able to pre-poison a dozen arrows (or throwing daggers) is vastly better than the alternatives for melee fighters.

Quote:
And yes, obviously creatures with natural venom or poisoned attacks don't need to spend action applying them.

Where in the rulebook does it say? How can a tell a given monster needs to apply poison or not?

Quote:
Q3 The free hand required by the Rogue feat is to draw the poison and apply it in one action. Normally one would require an interact action to draw, then follow application rules to apply.

Yes, obviously nobody will do it without the feat.

Quote:
The feat requires one action, and doesn't include the strike. It DOES, however, allow a Rogue with the feat to use poisons (like the aforementioned black adder venom) without needing 3 actions to apply it, with the con being they have to hit with their next attack before the end of their next round or it's wasted. The trade-off for applying quick and dirty instead of taking 3 rounds to get a lasting application.

How do you reconcile this with the findings above.

I understand you mean for this specific feat to put a duration on the poison (use before end of next round), but you also say you can pre-apply all the poison well before the combat.

Maybe you're just saying what I am saying - that melee weapons are worse off than ranged (from the poison user's perspective)?

re: monsters with natural poison. Using the Archives of Nethys because it's easier to search than the book which hasn't arrived yet (arriving today!)

Green Dragon, Iron Golem, Alchemical Golem, Chuul, Shuln, Dark Naga, Imp, Jungle Drake, Kraken, Osyluth, and Pit Fiend all have at least one attack that applies poison damage as part of the attack or applies their own venom which has its own stat block in the entry. None list a number of doses or mention applying the venom to their own fangs, claws, tentacles, etc. Some cannot be used again for X rounds, and in the case of the Alchemical Golem there's some randomness, but still no mention of application.

Homonculous has poison too. One dose, which it can refill "from its stores" with an interact action.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Using poison All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.