| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I just want clarification on the toxicology biohack, it was explained to me just now that it does damage as well.
The explanation coming from the phrase, this is a poison effect in the description
So what I'm being told is because it is a poison effect it follows the rules of poison. So lets say my biohack dc is 14, when a creature using natural attacks attacks whomever I have given the booster to they have to roll a fort save of dc 14 or take -2 to hit, if they succeed then they don't take the -2 however on a success or failure poison rules state they take the dc (14) -10 damage.
This means that every time a creature attacks whomever is being effected by the booster with natural weapons then they take 4 damage in this example. And depending on the save may or may not take -2 to attack.
Same with inhibitor, because its a poison effect even if they save vs inhibitor they still take the poison damage.
Is this right?
the toxicology boost is this:
Booster: You cause a living creature to sweat a foul secretion.
Any living creature attacking the affected target with a natural
attack takes a –2 penalty to the attack. This penalty is a poison
effect. If the attacker has active environmental protections
(such as those provided by most armor), the penalty applies
only after the attacker has hit and damaged the target once.
I have just been playing at this is a poison effect meaning if they were immune to poison they were immune to the biohack.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that the way you were previously playing it is correct.
The toxicology booster and inhibitor do not have a save. They don't gain an unstated fortitude save because they are a poison effect. They do not do damage on exposure, based on the save they don't have. They do get blocked by poison immunity.
Agree with Hammerjack, they don’t have saves so no damage. It’s just there because it’s such a powerful effect they limited it against poison immune things, at least until you take the theorem that strips away the poison tag.
I'm not sure if you can remove a poison biohack with Remove Affliction either.
A creature that is cured with remove affliction takes no additional effects from the Curses, diseases, infestations, or poisons removed, and any temporary effects are ended, but the spell does not reverse instantaneous effects, such as Hit Point damage, temporary ability damage, or effects that don’t go away on their own (such as poison states).
It IS a poison, even if its using the more specific biohacker rules than a regular one. Even if the dichotomy between a poison affliction and a poison is true, remove affliction doesn't care it's gone.
It's a poison effect, but it's not a poison. Does it have a DC for the Remove Affliction spell to target?
I think the weirder part of trying to apply remove affliction is that the spell requires a roll against the DC of the affliction, though biohacks having a general DC formula could make it workable.
Oh I fully believe RAI is that the statement should be this is treated as a poison effect for the case of immunity or something along those lines. But RAW is there anything to point to that says having a poison effect does not mean also applying the rules to poison to those effects.
I’n the case that prompted the post both the player and the GM where on the same page as how to play the biohack. Which was to apply poison rules to them.
Oh I fully believe RAI is that the statement should be this is treated as a poison effect for the case of immunity or something along those lines. But RAW is there anything to point to that says having a poison effect does not mean also applying the rules to poison to those effects.
I’n the case that prompted the post both the player and the GM where on the same page as how to play the biohack. Which was to apply poison rules to them.
You're reading more depth into the raw than is actually there and calling it the raw, it's not. its your reading of it.
You're reading more depth into the raw than is actually there and calling it the raw, it's not. its your reading of it.
It’s not my reading of the ability thank you. This stems from a game I was playing in which the GM and Player were running the ability as outlined.
But if I get a player in a game I’m running using the interpretation outlined above. I’d like more to point to to say your reading of the ability is wrong outside of a comment like this one.
I get that it might be a case of me just having to say it won’t be played that way at my table the end. But again, If possible, I like to back that type of statement up with something from the book.