| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
During a session we were discussing Biohacks and the disintegrator weapons in the Character Operations Manual.
“You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon. You must declare prior to the attack roll that you are using a biohack and specify which effect you are using, but you select and apply the biohack as part of the action used to make the attack. You do not need to preload your weapon with biohacks. If you are making a ranged attack and miss your target, the biohack is expended along with the attack’s ammunition. A biohack delivered via a melee injection weapon is not normally expended on a missed attack. If you must attempt an attack roll with a biohack and your attack hits but deals no damage (normally as a result of damage reduction or an ability such as the vanguard’s mitigate), the biohack is expended but the target is not affected by it. After a missed attack that does not expend the biohack, you can remove it or change which biohack you are using as part of your next attack without taking any additional action.”
“Much of the design of this pistol-like weapon is based off the biological systems of the disintegration lash class of small arms, though a caustoject’s more traditional appearance is in stark contrast to its techno-organic inspiration. Caustojects create an injectable field that transforms ordinary matter into an acidic compound, disintegrating their targets from the inside. Syringes can be loaded into these weapons, allowing other materials to be quickly injected instead of an acidic discharge (in which case only the injection effect occurs—no acid damage is dealt).”
The two elements seem to contradict. In the Biohack description you need to do some damage to enable the biohack to take effect. However, the Caustoject description implies that there is no damage from the weapon but the injection effect still occurs.
If you go down the line of specific over generic, this would seem to imply that a Biohack delivered via a Caustoject effects the target irrespective of damage reduction etc but the target would not suffer any the weapon damage.
This would compare against needler weapons which would do damage in addition to delivering the biohack but would run the risk of the biohack being stopped by damage resistance.
If you take the more general text in pg42 then the Caustoject would not be able to deliver biohacks despite being an injection weapon as it would always fall foul of the no damage rule.
Is there a clear answer (It’s likely to come up in a PFS game that I’m missing that would be great), or is it more of a GM / Table variation thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd treat it as the caustoject harmlessly injects a biohack (or anything else) as long as the target has no acid resistance.
There's a few of those, and I'm not 100% sure how that's intended to work.
Strictly speaking, it shouldn't work.
Same with the wraith-sting rifles btw, non-damaging as they are.
That's just sad though, so I'd probably allow the non-damaging injection weapons to apply biohacks. Purely a houserule though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It specifically says that the injection effect occurs. That would be specific trumping general. I don't think its unusual that the injection weapon that does zero damage has a specific exception to the rule that you need to deal damage to inject someone: it wouldn't do its job otherwise.
|
It specifically says that the injection effect occurs. That would be specific trumping general. I don't think its unusual that the injection weapon that does zero damage has a specific exception to the rule that you need to deal damage to inject someone: it wouldn't do its job otherwise.
Well I agree with that, but it does create the interesting situation that a wraith-sting rifle is actually the weapon of choice for dealing with enemies with lots of DR/resistances/immunities.
I'm okay with that.
It specifically says that the injection effect occurs. That would be specific trumping general. I don't think its unusual that the injection weapon that does zero damage has a specific exception to the rule that you need to deal damage to inject someone: it wouldn't do its job otherwise.Well I agree with that, but it does create the interesting situation that a wraith-sting rifle is actually the weapon of choice for dealing with enemies with lots of DR/resistances/immunities.
I'm okay with that.
Why the wraith sting rather than the acid injector ones?
Well assuming you can inject a healing serum anyway.
Darts
These light metal shafts each have a pointed tip and a reservoir to hold toxins or other appropriate substances that are typically liquid or viscous. While most combatants rely on darts to deliver toxins to enemies, particularly desperate or overworked field medics sometimes employ darts to conveniently deliver antitoxins, healing serums, and other beneficial drugs across a crowded battlefield. In these cases, medics often practice to improve their aim to ensure that this strategy is effective when employed.
A biohack with a healing serum is a gray area, a healing serum in an injection weapon is not. Its point blank called out as working.
COM’s equipment section clarified that serums are injectable via injection weapons.
I like it, but I'm still not convinced.
Seems excessive to give biohacks specific, hard restrictions if they don't apply half the time - and that no damage limitation is very specific to biohacks.
The injection property itself has no mention of needing damage, at all. A successful hit is enough. No debate here.
Biohacks do have that seemingly absolute need for damage. I read it as a specific exception to the general injection rule, apparently others see it the other way around.
I realize this also covers DR, ER and other dmg mitigation, but I don't see where non-damaging weapons get a free pass.
The injection property itself has no mention of needing damage, at all. A successful hit is enough. No debate here.
Its under damage reduction
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as an injury-based disease, an operative’s debilitating trick, and poison delivered via an injury. Damage reduction does not negate ability damage, ability drain, energy damage dealt as part of an attack, or negative levels, nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by contact, ingestion, or inhalation. Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
Biohacks do have that seemingly absolute need for damage. I read it as a specific exception to the general injection rule, apparently others see it the other way around.
1) Its a general rule that the biohacker seems to be restating, rather than making up. (or confirming it fits on that list)
2) A gun is way more specific than a class ability
3) Its a piece of equipment in a book expanding the injection weapon properties for biohackers. It would be really wierd if it didn't work with biohacks, despite clear language trying to make it work with biohacks.
Here are two odd points that came up when I was discussing this topic with another GM the other day.
1 - Does the weapon target KAC when you load a syringe, or does it stay vs. EAC because the weapon's design is normally to target that?
2 -
You can deliver any biohack you create with any attack from an injection weapon.
This might be yet another example of poor word choice by Paizo, but that should mean that you don't need to fire a syringe from a Caustoject in order to biohack a target.
Caustojects create an injectable field that transforms ordinary matter into an acidic compound, disintegrating their targets from the inside.
The weapon (emphasis mine) doesn't lose the injection special property when you're not using a syringe. You just can't use it to fire serums or medicinals without syringes, so it should be good to go for biohackers...just so long as your target isn't immune to acid damage (or if they are, have a backup plan)!
1) stays vs. EAC, no problems.
2) I don't follow what you're trying to say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 - I could see different GMs ruling each way on that, even though I agree with you.
2 - I was remarking on the coolness that a Biohacker can use a caustoject's normal acid attack in conjunction with a biohack without having to enact the 0 damage syringe option (unless the target is immune to acid).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The weapons have absolutely zero point to them if they target KAC when loaded with a biohack. There's NO rules justification for getting there. They are loaded with a SERUM. Not a dart. The entire point of the weapon is being able to load a serum in something that ISN"T delivered by a dart.
1 - I could see different GMs ruling each way on that, even though I agree with you.
They would be wrong, plain and simple.
]
biohacks are not syringes, they are not a material that gets injected, they are an EX ability that is applied to the attack,
Applied to any attack with an injection weapon... If its not using the syringe then why does it require an injection weapon?
how does this energy field then allow you to inject them with poison instead of the acid like effect? no idea, the causto- weapons are a bit 'wierd science' :D
The caustoject uses syringes. That's why it doesn't do damage when injecting something.
The caustolance use a special tank that is attached to the weapon’s barrel. (I have no idea how this works either)
Yep I'll probably never use Caustojects over a nightarch pistol myself. Due to the fact that jets use a needle and it must be loaded (so injecting anything other than a biohack or Medicinal Mastery (both are added to attacks with injection-not loaded).
Much of the design of this pistol-like weapon is based off the biological systems of the disintegration lash class of small arms, though a caustoject’s more traditional appearance is in stark contrast to its techno-organic inspiration. Caustojects create an injectable field that transforms ordinary matter into an acidic compound , disintegrating their targets from the inside.
Syringes can be loaded into these weapons, allowing other materials to be quickly injected instead of an acidic discharge (in which case only the injection effect occurs—no acid damage is dealt).
The jects do NOT use a needle/dart. You put a syringe (not a needle, which is ammo) into it, and the weapon fires a force field filled with whatever was in the syringe instead of its usual acid. It targets EAC instead of kac (which is almost a +2 to hit) and doesn't need to damage to inject.
If you're keeping a gun filled with medicinals to shoot your allies you want one of these. You target their easier to hit EAC, and don't need to get through your tanks DR with a needler and it won't damage them to heal them.
The only thing you'd use the nightarch for is if something is acid resistant.
Keep in mind that a syringe is the plungery part of the needle... its a needle minus the scary part. So what I'm picturing is something like this
also hits the issues with some things (biohacks and i think poisons) where the injection doesn't work if there is no damage. Which for the small arm caustos I don't think it does when injecting other things. I don't think it gets the bypass that electing to do no damage via injection mastery does.
Similiar to the issue with the Injection sniper rifle not working due to no damage
The biohacker rule is just restating the general rule that things that are injected do no damage.
The gun is a very very specific rule and should override that.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Zwordsman you're not answering the objection I have to your statement.
Specific trumps general.
How a gun works is about as specific as a thing there is.
(normally as a result of damage reduction or an ability such as the vanguard’s mitigate), the biohack is expended but the target is not affected by it.
Yes, this rule is there, but the caustoject should superceed it. The biohacker rule is just a restatement of the general rule about attacks and riders. Yes, you have a rule saying the opposite but you're not acknowledging or dealing with a rule to the contrary.
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as an injury-based disease, an operative’s debilitating trick, and poison delivered via an injury. Damage reduction does not negate ability damage, ability drain, energy damage dealt as part of an attack, or negative levels, nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by contact, ingestion, or inhalation. Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells.
General rules: The snake doesn't get through your chaps, it doesn't poison you
Biohacker level specific: The biohacks use the same rules as poison.
Gun level specific: this gun doesn't need to damage something to inflict the condition.
Without that the gun would NEVER work
@BigNorseWolf -> I begin to think it's a faq candidate...
Did you mean that the 'takes effect' from the caustoject means it overrides that specific damage check? But then it would also overridie any other restriction on injections (such as biology etc) Wouldn't it?
This absolutely does not follow. At all.
The caustoject overrides the rules it says it overrides (neeeding to do damage) does NOT , in any way, shape, or form, argue that the caustoject overrides all of the rules.