So, when I first read the Toxicologist 1st level benefit, I thought it worked as the Rogue's Poison Weapon feat: 1-action to apply a poison you have to your weapon.
However, on a better read, I see there are some limitations which, IMO, may strongly push Toxicologists to grab Poison Weapon via Rogue MCD.
You can apply an injury poison you're holding to a weapon you're wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity
This means you basically spend all your 3 actions to make a Strike with poison. If you grab Poison Weapon you get greatly enhanced action economy, is there a special reason for this holding requirement? Any unseen interactions with Alchemist features?
Get a familiar with valet and independent to put a poison vial in your hand without having to draw it.
Well, the rogue feat makes the poison only last until the end of your next turn. Usually not a big issue, but still a difference. You can also apply contact poisons with the rogue feat, an option that's woefully absent for the Toxicologist.
As for the action issue, you can overcome it with a familiar. Give it independent and valet as abilities and it can hand you a single poison every turn without needing any input (read: action) from you. So you only need one actio to poiaon your weapon, just like a rogue.
Valet doesn't seem that great. For a melee Toxicologist, it would have to spend a lot of their actions moving to reach the Alchemist.
Ranged Toxicologists could pre-poison all the ammunition beforehand as poison doesn't expire from what I've seen.
Valet doesn't seem that great. For a melee Toxicologist, it would have to spend a lot of their actions moving to reach the Alchemist.Why would the familiar need to move around? It just sits on your shoulder and pulls stuff out of your bandolier to give them to you.
Ranged Toxicologists could pre-poison all the ammunition beforehand as poison doesn't expire from what I've seen.
That's correct. Once applied to a weapon, poison stays on there until you either hit a target or critically fail an attack roll. The rogue's poison weapon feat seems to be an exception to this rule.
Valet doesn't seem that great. For a melee Toxicologist, it would have to spend a lot of their actions moving to reach the Alchemist.Why would the familiar need to move around? It just sits on your shoulder and pulls stuff out of your bandolier to give them to you.
I believe this is a permissive approach to the Familiar rules, can't see it being legal in PFS for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS doesn't allow you keep your familiar in a backpack or on your shoulder? Why not? A familiar is by definition a Tiny creature. And you should totally be able to have it on you. Except MAYBE if you're a small ancestry yourself.
I've never heard of any GM having a problem with a familiar being carried around. Never played PFS, though. But I seriously don't see a reason to prohibit that.
I understand from where you are coming, but from a RAW point of view, the only way I see a creature could share the movement with another creature is by mounting and by that all the limitations imposed by being mounted, basically unable to do anything but move.
I did not find any way to wear or carry a creature, even if its Tiny. I don't see a reason for a GM to flat out prohibit that, its useful but not game breaking, specially on an Alchemist.
As a player, I don't feel comfortable by showing up with a "combo" that requires some GM adjudication to work. By reading the familiar rules myself, I understand they work similar to an animal companion, they are minions, you spend actions to command them, they have AC/HP/Saves/etc and they move on the board following the rules of a Tiny creature, which can share a space with other creatures.
I guess I'll have to ask on a case by case basis and hope for a FAQ entry but since it seems I'm alone on this it probably won't happen. Thanks for the responses.