| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, there was a blog post back during the playtest where Mark Seifter said Paladins can poison their weapons.
"We still have all the basic tenets of the paladin from Pathfinder First Edition, with one exception: we've removed poison from the tenet of acting with honor. While there are certainly dishonorable ways to use poison, poisoning a weapon and using it in an honorable combat that allows enhanced weaponry doesn't seem much different than lighting the weapon on fire."
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkrq?Paladin-Class-Preview
Individual players can still disagree, of course, but it isn't supported by the rules or intent of the game,just personal preference.
At the end of the day it's their choice to use poisons or not; but I do appreciate that it can be frustrating when PC behaviour is based on a player misunderstanding or wilfully ignoring something about the system and setting (or worse, they misunderstand our own world history and misapply it to the game). It can be especially frustrating when it locks out a significant contribution that your character makes to the party. It a situation I've been in a number of times and tbh there's not a lot that can be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that words carry power.
So nobody has to keep wondering why some part of the player base does not want to use poison, simply due to the (evil, underhanded, shady, amoral etc.) connotations related to "poison" even if Paizo intended the use of poison as part of the normal game mechanics.
Perhaps weapon enhancing oil or similar would have been a better name.
Other examples of words used in the CRB that seem to show a certain discrepancy in between the Paizo intended meaning and the "general" meaning include the "Scout" exploration ability or the "Warpriest" cleric subclass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, there was a blog post back during the playtest where Mark Seifter said Paladins can poison their weapons.
"We still have all the basic tenets of the paladin from Pathfinder First Edition, with one exception: we've removed poison from the tenet of acting with honor. While there are certainly dishonorable ways to use poison, poisoning a weapon and using it in an honorable combat that allows enhanced weaponry doesn't seem much different than lighting the weapon on fire."
https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkrq?Paladin-Class-Preview
Individual players can still disagree, of course, but it isn't supported by the rules or intent of the game,just personal preference.
Thanks a lot Captain, that's what I was looking for. I'll try to raise awareness in my closest gaming group. And maybe, games after games, it'll be acceptable for everyone to poison their weapons.
Otherwise, I may decide to stop playing this character, but I'll prefer not to.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue I see with champions of good not using poisons isn't because of arbitrary "honour" nonsense but the fact that in makes giving mercy rather difficult. It does make sense though that they would use non-fatal debilitating poisons as would make it easier to safely subdue a foe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how Poison is any more or less immoral than, say, setting someone one fire or cutting an artery so they bleed out...
Or using a crossbow? But that got banned historically because it felt like cheating, or it was dangerous to nobles in their heavy armour.
One of the popes tried to ban archery and crossbows but it was largely ignored even at the time and never stuck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poisons are a weapon like any other. Killing people is bad, doing so in a way designed to cause unnecessary suffering would be bad but really in a game of fireballs and spells that allow you to bite chunks of people poison should hardly matter.
Poison used to assassinate might be bad to those with an honourable code but then any sneaky way of killing would be bad. Lastly poison used indiscriminately could be considered reckless/evil like poisoning a cupcake assuming the target will eat it but instead they give it to their kid. Poisoning food/water is bad cause it is likely to cause collateral damage.
Just like strategic bombing and even drone strikes. The morality of which still remains contested.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue I see with champions of good not using poisons isn't because of arbitrary "honour" nonsense but the fact that in makes giving mercy rather difficult. It does make sense though that they would use non-fatal debilitating poisons as would make it easier to safely subdue a foe.
I could see a champion of a good cause using knockout style poisons specifically because "some things just won't stop fighting you until they're unconscious, and this is the most merciful means of rendering them unconscious I can manage."
If you had someone go slit all their throats once they're peacefully snoozing thanks to your knockout darts, that sort of undermines all of this, but you could like "bind their hands and take their weapons away."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the argument about not "foisting" your character's thing onto others. But I flatly reject the argument that "if your build requires other characters" it's somehow bad.
How about the [insert just about any spellcaster] who has a buff that helps out a combat character? Are they a bad character because they require a target for that buff that is not them self? i.e. we all go on and on about how Magic Weapon is such an incredible level 1 spell pick, and I'm sure pretty much every Cleric and Wizard in PFS has it prepared. But also, most of those Clerics and Wizards aren't the best character to receive that spell - the martial weapon user is.
Does that count as "foisting" your character's thing onto somebody else?
How about a Bard who Inspires Courage? Don't we all agree that a Bard is a top tier buffer? Would we look askance at a player who is displeased with receiving the Inspire Courage buff? Sure we would, and we'd say "dude it's a cooperative game, that buff is really helping to boost your power, just accept it."
Yet SuperBidi is dealing with a rejection of what his character does (buff the attacks of other players) on account of an archaic mode of thought.
So... yeah, I still agree that it's against the grain of what PFS is all about to "force" a fellow player to do something they don't want to do, and I'm not advocating for SuperBidi or anybody else to have license to inflict any particular behavior or action or whatever on a fellow player, but I do feel like a spotlight needs to be shone on how incredibly similar what SuperBidi's character is doing to what just about every other spellcaster is doing, and what martials are doing when they flank or knock down or disarm or grapple or.... etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are injury poisons bad/evil/chaotic and only used by sketchy characters?
Or are they a tool that even paladins could use if they have an Alchemist in the party?
In the 1st edition AD&D, using poison was considered an evil action. Because most every poison had the same effectiveness (save vs. poison or die), it was also a matter of game balance that only assassins (who were by the rules, evil) could use poison.
I think that his bias against poison has somehow continued up through PF2e. In fact, in most PF1e and D&D 3.5 games I've played, poison is rarely used by the PCs, but I believe some of that is due to the cost of poisons, and some of that is due to the bother of adding an extra mechanic to an already rather complicated rule set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello everyone,
I've had a recurring problem lately: I play an Alchemist in PFS, and poison is one of her main tools. As such, at the beginning of sessions, I ask who has piercing/slashing weapons so I can poison them. And I got a lot of players/characters straight up refusing poison. Even a Rogue...
You can't force your abilities onto other players.
If you keep having this experience, play something else.
PS. To answer your question, no, poison isn't evil. It's neutral. That still isn't a great argument to foist your abilities onto other players.
Please accept that "but I need you to accept this for my build to be effective" isn't a good argument. If your build relies on having others do something they don't want to do, then don't play that build.
Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.
In the 1st edition AD&D, using poison was considered an evil action. Because most every poison had the same effectiveness (save vs. poison or die), it was also a matter of game balance that only assassins (who were by the rules, evil) could use poison.
I think that his bias against poison has somehow continued up through PF2e. In fact, in most PF1e and D&D 3.5 games I've played, poison is rarely used by the PCs, but I believe some of that is due to the cost of poisons, and some of that is due to the bother of adding an extra mechanic to an already rather complicated rule set.
One of the reasons why poison use is usually considered underhanded or rightout cheating is that it is very possible to win the fight and still lose your life (RL as well as IG).
So despite Paizo's official stance on the matter if I were to play a Paladin of Iomedae or similar character I would probably still have a lot of doubts about poison use. However I also think this should be the exception in terms of group dynamics, not the norm, like a character of Rahadoumi origin that may be declining Cleric healing.
In some older versions of D&D, poison use was mostly restricted to evil characters, and was on the list of things that a paladin would leave a party over. I could see some players still having that sort of holdover if they started in those games, even though they no longer apply.
And later they had "good" poisons called ravages. Did the same thing but were totally different and not evil^^
I don't see how Poison is any more or less immoral than, say, setting someone one fire or cutting an artery so they bleed out...Or using a crossbow? But that got banned historically because it felt like cheating, or it was dangerous to nobles in their heavy armour.
One of the popes tried to ban archery and crossbows but it was largely ignored even at the time and never stuck.
And even he only tried to ban it against certain groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm assuming you're talking to me - and no, I never made the argument "builds that require other characters are bad".
Only builds that require other characters to do stuff they don't want to.
A build that gives you a bonus to the things you do, or double damage or whatever will generally be be appreciated.
But even a build that does nothing except double the output of another character is not necessarily good. If that other character goes "I'd appreciate it if you did your own thing and left me alone" even "double damage to you, nothing for me" is not necessarily a good build.
THAT is what makes the build good - the fact their efforts are appreciated.
Since poison will never be universally accepted or appreciated, a "hand out poison" build will always remain a "bad build", unless of course you know you're playing with people that accept it, which is not a given when you play with strangers.
No, there's a game setting and you are supposed to follow it. If you decide that goblins are evil and you don't want to heal them or you make everything possible not to allow them to flank enemies, you are the one disturbing the game, not the goblin player and as such you are the one who should change character.
You can't blame a player for creating a character that is perfectly supported in game because you have a different view on what he does and provide. If it causes you an issue, you are the one supposed to adapt.
So, my position is fine. Obviously, if I meet a lot of resistance and if I can't properly play my character I'll switch. But it's not because my character is bad but because other players behave wrongly when I bring it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.Imagine respecting the wishes of other people.
Imagine asking people first.
Imagine bringing along a self-sufficient character for those times nobody wants you in their character actualization.
---
But the point here is that the OP learned a valuable lesson, which is: you need to ask first, instead of just assume your contributions will be appreciated or even accepted.
The thing to watch out for is player entitlement...
Again I'm sortof in agreement and sortof not.
Asking first, that's great! But it's not always possible to completely pivot your character right before the session. Some classes will do that better than others (imagine asking a Sorcerer to have completely different spells.. I imagine a Divine Sorcerer would be leaning into buffing, you know? They can hardly pivot into Fireballs just because the others in the party are somehow uncomfortable with being buffed).
But again, I really don't agree with the notion that people don't want buffs. I mostly play home games, but I've got a couple conventions worth of PFS under my belt, and I've never ever seen somebody refuse a buff, never seen somebody feel as though a buff messed with "their character actualization." The universal response I've seen is "awesome, I would love to do more damage/be harder to hit/etc." Which leaves me feeling as though these are arguments brought up to help push back against poisons in particular, as other buffs aren't problematic at all.
And player entitlement - that sword does cut both ways, right? Yes, I suppose you can call it player entitlement to assume that when you bring a buffer, others will accept your buffs. But that's also a core part of RPG combat. And it must also be agreed that a player deciding to refuse help for any reason is also player entitlement, right? And wouldn't refusing help be considered the more problematic aspect of player entitlement?
I really like the argument above by SuperBidi about the goblin player who doesn't get healed. That's a player choice (playing a goblin) that is sanctioned and supported by the rules that is often contentious (there is a subset of the players of this game who don't like that goblins are a player option now). So, it's fine to hold that belief, but at the point where you cut off a fellow player because they made that choice... both players are entitled to their view - the one that goblins are bad, the one that goblins are good - but one player's entitlement is ruining the fun of the other. Perhaps both would say it's the OTHER player who is doing the ruining.. but one player is supported by the rules and the other isn't.
Personally I feel like that seals the issue, but I can also see how we're spinning our wheels and not really seeing eye to eye on this, so I'll probably bow out of the thread at this point to avoid going in further circles. There have been a lot of great points on both sides, I think, and an issue like this has lots and lots of legacy issues that are driving player thought.
I hope the next time any of us get to a PFS table where some other player has brought what we personally consider an oddball, badwrongfun, ineffective, or whatever sort of character, we will remember this thread, remember that the point is to cooperate, and then we'll see if we can find a way to incorporate their strange character into the fun everybody is having.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So while poisons aren't evil and rejecting them based on alignment isn't entirely rationally, it is worth noting that Paizo recently published tacit approval of rejecting buffs from other characters: the superstitious barbarian. And while that instinct grants mechanical advantages to doing so, "my character wouldn't do that" remains a valid response either way. The nice about the alchemist is you can probably establish this early and adapt your prepared items to your current party.
Incidentally, where did PFS land on poisoning ammunition? I remember some posters arguing by RAW you poisoned a bow and not an arrow which felt too silly to ever hold up in play.
Incidentally, where did PFS land on poisoning ammunition? I remember some posters arguing by RAW you poisoned a bow and not an arrow which felt too silly to ever hold up in play.
It has been erratad, now you can poison ammunitions properly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine playing a buffing character and all your spells that would be a net positive for the party are refused by other players. Sure you cant force them but anyone who's not a complete jerk would make somevoncessions for things that would help the other player have fun. Especially if it helps keep them alive, too.Imagine respecting the wishes of other people.
Imagine asking people first.
Imagine bringing along a self-sufficient character for those times nobody wants you in their character actualization.
---
Look, I obviously understand that a Cleric's healing is going to be appreciated almost universally.
But the point here is that the OP learned a valuable lesson, which is: you need to ask first, instead of just assume your contributions will be appreciated or even accepted.
The thing to watch out for is player entitlement - the notion that you have a right to be offended when your help is turned down. You actually don't have that right. You should always ask politely, and if you get a polite "thanks but no thanks" reply, you should be prepared to play your character without relying on boosting others.
This is just common sense.
Nah, maybe this is ok with PFS type people but in any real teamwork setting this logic is insanely toxic. It's not entitlement to want to be able to use your abilities in a game that explicitly says you can use those abilities. God forbid somebody wants to play a support character! Oh wait you're actually fine with support characters you're just using this logic specifically for poisons which has no in universe basis at all.
Look, I'm not saying a GM should force somebody to let themselves be buffed in any certain way. But undeniably in my opinion anyone who straight up refuses to let a person play their character style (and yes, supporting as an alchemist poisoner is an explicit part of the game) is a detriment to their table and also a completely socially unaware tool.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Call it alchemical ointment for the improvement of weapons and EVERYONE will want it.
Is Superbidi to be blamed or his character's contribution to the party's success to be hampered just because Paizo used a loaded word?
Should Paladins fall just for using Thievery?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest ethical question is "can you control the damage"? With punching, someone can surrender and you can stop punching them. With poison, if they surrender, can you stop the poison? If no, then it could end up killing someone who surrendered, which would be murder and an evil act. That is why canonically paladins were prohibited from using poison in some D&D editions.
Bleeding damage is extremely common, Flaming Runes also deal persistent damage, most acid spells and items, etc... There are tons of ways to deal persistent damage and I'm pretty sure Paladins use Flaming swords without thinking a second about the ethical implication of doing so.
At some point, you have to accept that attacking someone with a sword may kill him. And sometimes, you may kill someone who could have surrendered if you were dealing less damage, persistent or direct one. But I don't think Paladins only use blowguns because it's the surest weapon to never kill someone by accident.
If you don't want to kill someone, you use non-lethal damage. And in the case of poison, the flat of the blade (as a single attack with the flat of the blade removes the poison, something impossible with, for example, a Flaming Rune).
We don't generally consider people poisoning rats in their house to be evil, but we do generally consider people punching non-consenting adults to be evil.
The biggest ethical question is "can you control the damage"? With punching, someone can surrender and you can stop punching them. With poison, if they surrender, can you stop the poison? If no, then it could end up killing someone who surrendered, which would be murder and an evil act. That is why canonically paladins were prohibited from using poison in some D&D editions.
i guess paladins shouldn't use daggers ever? after all if they crit / have crit specialization they can make somebody bleed.
This also means they have no excuse to use non-lethal poisons like lethargy poison, for example.
edit: in fact, champions can access domains of their deities. Would a champion truly never use fire ray because they could accidentally kill them with a crit and light them on fire?
It seems silly and people are only applying this logic to poison because of their own subconscious biases.
The biggest ethical question is "can you control the damage"? With punching, someone can surrender and you can stop punching them. With poison, if they surrender, can you stop the poison? If no, then it could end up killing someone who surrendered, which would be murder and an evil act. That is why canonically paladins were prohibited from using poison in some D&D editions.Bleeding damage is extremely common, Flaming Runes also deal persistent damage, most acid spells and items, etc... There are tons of ways to deal persistent damage and I'm pretty sure Paladins use Flaming swords without thinking a second about the ethical implication of doing so.
At some point, you have to accept that attacking someone with a sword may kill him. And sometimes, you may kill someone who could have surrendered if you were dealing less damage, persistent or direct one. But I don't think Paladins only use blowguns because it's the surest weapon to never kill someone by accident.
If you don't want to kill someone, you use non-lethal damage. And in the case of poison, the flat of the blade (as a single attack with the flat of the blade removes the poison, something impossible with, for example, a Flaming Rune).
All persistent damage is far easier to remove than poison though. The only way to actually heal poison is with one specific divine/primal spell (meaning a party who relies on Occult spellcasting for support can't do anything), and even then you still are at the mercy of counteract checks. A heal potion/elixir or a simple Medecine check will remove any bleeding, dousing a burning person will extinguish them, but an antidote merely improves their chances instead of actually curing them.
I'd say that the increased difficulty to stop poison is definitely a concern.And yes, you wouldn't be attacking lethally if you knew from the start you wanted to let your enemies live, but the situation may change during a battle. (i.e. if an enemy surrenders, if you realise you were tricked into attack people you shouldn't have, etc...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All persistent damage is far easier to remove than poison though. The only way to actually heal poison is with one specific divine/primal spell (meaning a party who relies on Occult spellcasting for support can't do anything), and even then you still are at the mercy of counteract checks. A heal potion/elixir or a simple Medecine check will remove any bleeding, dousing a burning person will extinguish them, but an antidote merely improves their chances instead of actually curing them.
I'd say that the increased difficulty to stop poison is definitely a concern.
And yes, you wouldn't be attacking lethally if you knew from the start you wanted to let your enemies live, but the situation may change during a battle. (i.e. if an enemy surrenders, if you...
Healing someone doesn't remove bleeding. Dousing a burning person doesn't extinguish them (unless you can throw them in a lake, which is highly situational).
Poison is actually one of the least lethal type of Persistent damage if you are at first stage as it's extremely easy to get rid of it. And at later stage you should quickly meet the end of the effect.Burning and Bleeding... I've seen some deaths because of these, as you can't remove them without quite some luck. DC 15 is hard to get, DC 10 if you have assistance is not that easy. And you take damage before rolling the check, unlike poison.
Poison is actually one of the least lethal type of Persistent damage. That's why most people will prefer to deal bleed persistent damage to poison damage.
All persistent damage is far easier to remove than poison though. The only way to actually heal poison is with one specific divine/primal spell (meaning a party who relies on Occult spellcasting for support can't do anything), and even then you still are at the mercy of counteract checks. A heal potion/elixir or a simple Medecine check will remove any bleeding, dousing a burning person will extinguish them, but an antidote merely improves their chances instead of actually curing them.
I'd say that the increased difficulty to stop poison is definitely a concern.
And yes, you wouldn't be attacking lethally if you knew from the start you wanted to let your enemies live, but the situation may change during a battle. (i.e. if an enemy surrenders, if you...Healing someone doesn't remove bleeding. Dousing a burning person doesn't extinguish them (unless you can throw them in a lake, which is highly situational).
Poison is actually one of the least lethal type of Persistent damage if you are at first stage as it's extremely easy to get rid of it. And at later stage you should quickly meet the end of the effect.
Burning and Bleeding... I've seen some deaths because of these, as you can't remove them without quite some luck. DC 15 is hard to get, DC 10 if you have assistance is not that easy. And you take damage before rolling the check, unlike poison.Poison is actually one of the least lethal type of Persistent damage. That's why most people will prefer to deal bleed persistent damage to poison damage.
My mistake, I must have confused the bleeding rules with some from another game. It seems I underestimated how lethal persistent damage is. With how lethal and difficult to undo it actually is, I actually think that characters avoiding anything that might cause persistent damage makes a lot of sense then.
If we give poison the Evil trait, and make all creatures that deliver or possess Poison have an Evil alignment, there would be more credence for the naysayers of poison. Otherwise it's just strictly RP/Legacy reasons as to why not to use it.
I didn't like using poison in PF1 simply because most enemies were immune to it. Animals, Plants, Oozes, Magical Beasts? Immune. Undead, Monstrous Humanoids, Outsiders, and Dragons? Also immune. Literally except for other actual humanoids (and even then there were exceptions), it was so impractical to use poisons. Between that, bad mechanics, poor DCs, and outrageous costs, poisons were nothing but a GM "screw you over" tool. If it was better and more efficient? Then yeah, it'd see more use.
Of course, poisons have improved in this edition with effectiveness, and resolving them is simpler, but it's still bad as a player to use poisons, with the tight math making holding onto multiple quantities of poisons like any other consumable a bad idea, WBL values, and still relatively poor applications competing with action economy and available hands, it's no good.
Consider that, as a regular poison user, it is at-best a pre-buff attack that can miss and lose the effect (more for ammunition than actual weapons), or simply do nothing for enemies with strong resistances, fortitude saves, or immunities. Then consider that it costs an exorbitant amount of your WBL that could have been used for other, better consumables or going towards another permanent item. Then remember that once it's "used," depending on what it's applied to, you have to reapply it, which takes hands and actions in an area where doing so is risky if not dangerous with Attacks of Opportunity everywhere, competing for other hands and actions which could easily be put to better use.
In short, screw the RP/Legacy reasons, I don't use poisons because they're just a bad option in general. Except against party members, and if I was a GM.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, poisons have improved in this edition with effectiveness, and resolving them is simpler, but it's still bad as a player to use poisons, with the tight math making holding onto multiple quantities of poisons like any other consumable a bad idea, WBL values, and still relatively poor applications competing with action economy and available hands, it's no good.
Well, SuperBidi's character (the one that prompted this thread) is an Alchemist, meaning he can get dozens of doses of poison free every day and prep everyone's weapons before every fight.
I think it's definitely solid in the specific circumstance that you're already playing an Alchemist and can thus avoid most of these drawbacks basically for free.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, as Deadmanwalking said, I play an Alchemist and I prepare in general a dozen of poison doses per day. PFS tends to favor large parties, 5 to 6 players in general, which gives me a lot of potential poison applications (in general 3-4 of them if all players accept it). So, even if each dose of poison is quite bad I expect to compensate through sheer numbers of applications. Amongst 3 or 4 saves, failing one becomes a common sight.
But that's if all players (or most of the players) accept poison. But recently, it was closer to 50% of players accepting poison and suddenly the sheer numbers are no more there. So, it's true I can always prepare something else instead of poisons, I'm not completely screwed. But as I'm not getting the bomb feats, I'm mostly stuck with Elixirs of Life and the position of a full healer. Which is not what I was planning with this character (and Alchemist class doesn't make great healers anyway).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, poisons have improved in this edition with effectiveness, and resolving them is simpler, but it's still bad as a player to use poisons, with the tight math making holding onto multiple quantities of poisons like any other consumable a bad idea, WBL values, and still relatively poor applications competing with action economy and available hands, it's no good.Well, SuperBidi's character (the one that prompted this thread) is an Alchemist, meaning he can get dozens of doses of poison free every day and prep everyone's weapons before every fight.
I think it's definitely solid in the specific circumstance that you're already playing an Alchemist and can thus avoid most of these drawbacks basically for free.
The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).
Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.
Of course, poisons have improved in this edition with effectiveness, and resolving them is simpler, but it's still bad as a player to use poisons, with the tight math making holding onto multiple quantities of poisons like any other consumable a bad idea, WBL values, and still relatively poor applications competing with action economy and available hands, it's no good.Well, SuperBidi's character (the one that prompted this thread) is an Alchemist, meaning he can get dozens of doses of poison free every day and prep everyone's weapons before every fight.
I think it's definitely solid in the specific circumstance that you're already playing an Alchemist and can thus avoid most of these drawbacks basically for free.
The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).
Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.
Did you read the post you quoted and notice words like "prep everyone's weapons BEFORE the fight"? Because this is a bad look.
And that's without touching the toxicologist research field letting DCs scale to your class DC and such.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).
Toxicologist fixes this. And is otherwise a pretty solid research field, really, given that there's a Poison Bomb.
Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.
As Captain Morgan notes, I said 'before the fight' and did so for a reason. The good way for an Alchemist to leverage poisons is for everyone to get their weapons poisoned between fights. The poison will just sit there until used, after all, and is free (this is prohibitively expensive to do with non-free poison). This means that every combat a number of on-level poisons equal to the number of weapon users in the PC group will probably be used for a cost of 0 actions during the fight.
That's a fairly hefty damage buff to a party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that the poison DCs don't scale and that their damage and effects don't scale, either. I mean, I guess they do, but they aren't as fluid or approachable as, say, proficiencies, which is the DC these things are meant to go against. So, you'll have plenty of levels where you're doing jack all unless the bad guys roll a 2 on their save (though even then if the DCs are up to snuff, but that's a system issue and not a scaling issue).Toxicologist fixes this. And is otherwise a pretty solid research field, really, given that there's a Poison Bomb.
Not to mention, handiness and action economy. It takes an action to draw a poison (and a free hand, so if you're holding, say, a couple bombs, something's gotta go), an action to apply said poison to a weapon (or ammunition, though this can be done in bulk before combat, so it should last an entire encounter otherwise), which has to be adjacent to you, or also in your hand (referring which then leaves you an action to maybe deliver the poison with a strike, or move into position to do so next round? It's no less clunky than drinking potions or using bombs in combat. It's just awful, even with investments to help negate these drawbacks.As Captain Morgan notes, I said 'before the fight' and did so for a reason. The good way for an Alchemist to leverage poisons is for everyone to get their weapons poisoned between fights. The poison will just sit there until used, after all, and is free (this is prohibitively expensive to do with non-free poison). This means that every combat a number of on-level poisons equal to the number of weapon users in the PC group will probably be used for a cost of 0 actions during the fight.
That's a fairly hefty damage buff to a party.
ironically people complain about the lack of an ability to buff up before a fight, but also completely ignore alchemist, who is arguably the best at buffing their party before a fight. Especially in early game where you don't have to worry about having magic weapons yet, having backup weapons that are poisoned are really strong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ironically people complain about the lack of an ability to buff up before a fight, but also completely ignore alchemist, who is arguably the best at buffing their party before a fight. Especially in early game where you don't have to worry about having magic weapons yet, having backup weapons that are poisoned are really strong.
Right now, I think most people are doubtful about poison efficiency. I haven't seen anyone on these boards reporting a poison-centric play experience. I think it explains quite easily why poison is often omitted from the list of long term buffs.
Did you poison your teammates weapons or were you the only one to use poison?
Did you poison your teammates weapons or were you the only one to use poison?we were high-ish level (10) so i had enough poisons to have the 1st strike of my allies attack in each combat with poison.
Apart from me there were 2 more martials (well 3... but 3rd one was a monk and you can't poion unarmed) so in first day that was only 6 poison attempts by them (3 encounters) and in second day 8 poison attempts (4 encounters)
although in 2 out of 7 of the encounters that meant that they were automatically wasted since we encountered undead and the allies didn't have the option to not use their main weapon just to preserve the poison on it.
That said, it was my own attacks that had the most chances of success to poison someone since the allies didn't have the -2 from pinpoint, making the majority of enemies save vs the poisons. I didn't count how many were saved and how many were succesful, but if i had to eye ball it i'd say that the poisons were usually succesful vs the mooks and i think both bosses didn't failed a single save vs them.
The problem why i say it was just an average experience was exactly because the mooks who were the ones that usually failed the saves didn't live long enough to actually capitalise from extended poison damage either way
THAT said:
it was just 2 sessions and 7 encounters in total, certainly not enough to have an absolute "average", it could well might have been that i was just unlucky.(but since PF2 gave "succesful saving throw" to do something in most cases to alleviate such occurances, i don't get why we can't get at least something happening if the enemies make their saving throws for a poison focused alchemist, even "half stage 1 damage" would be enough to not make you feel like you are wasting resources doing absolutely nothing...)
I believe you still take full stage 1 damage on a hit (or double that on a critical), but the effect does not persist after that (such as if it makes you clumsy 1 or something).