Again this reading makes most non-bomb items really bad with quick alchemy. Notably this also effects investigator, who can only quick tincture items and are limited to elixirs and tools, lack enduring alchemy and alchemical chart doesn't work with tincture. The entire alchemical sciences methodology becomes kind of nonfunctional.
Simply put, if Quick Alchemy elixir, and thus -ALL- mutagen durations expired the round after they were created, even if they had been consumed, then there is even less point in playing a Mutagenist then there already is.
If Quick Alchemy poisons expired the round after they were created, even if they had already been applied to a weapon, then there is literally no point in playing a Toxicologist.
Yes, this is the whole point, this is why I'm trying to talk about it. Please engage w/ the two blurbs and think through the rules as written.
Please, can we stop with the "this is too bad to be true, therefore I'm going to pretend the words are different."
The whole point of this thread is to get this fixed, not to house-rule buff the Alchemist, "because it would be terrible otherwise"
This cheat ruling already removes any reason to play Tox, why would anyone pick the subclass when 90% of its power can be gained with the single Breadth Feat? Who cares about only needing 1 action to apply injury poison if I can poison everything between every combat?
.
The core burr that cannot be ignored is that the common houserule does not work. If the "non-permanent effect does not mean poison that's been applied" ruling is used, you've loopholed out of the "becomes inert" safety catch, and said poison NEVER fades, it's permanent even if done via daily reagents.
Either you are claiming the very trait meant to cause the free alch items to fade away actually meant to allow Alchs to bank daily resources into poisoned arrows forever, or you have to admit the effects fade too.
All the non-permanent effects.
When I realized that, it lead me to re-reading everything Quick Alch related, and realizing the designers meant that to be the intended play the whole time. (Why would anyone use an Alchemical Chart? Why so many 1-turn bomb effects? Why is Skunk, or Mustard Powder so much above the norm? A Tox w/ Perpetual Mustard would want to hold the Chart so his clouds double their duration, or a Skunk happy bomber can keep the Sickened up, still niche, but 2x duration becomes worth considering a hand.)
Which leads to: "oh wow, the designers may not know how everyone's not playing Alch the way they think we are. This is core enough to the class that it's worth getting some direct statement of assurance to get fixed in time for the reprint / update."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read through this entire thread. Nor do I have any play experience or much theorycrafting analysis on Alchemist.
However, I do have to chime in on this.
Please engage w/ the two blurbs and think through the rules as written.
Please, can we stop with the "this is too bad to be true, therefore I'm going to pretend the words are different."
The argument of 'too bad to be true' (theAmbiguous Rules rule) is rules as written. So a blanket ban on 'too bad to be true' here on the rules forum is not appropriate.
The whole point of this thread is to get this fixed, not to house-rule buff the Alchemist, "because it would be terrible otherwise"
This cheat ruling already removes any reason to play Tox, why would anyone pick the subclass when 90% of its power can be gained with the single Breadth Feat? Who cares about only needing 1 action to apply injury poison if I can poison everything between every combat?
You can certainly make a case that your interpretation is closer to the printed rules and is not too bad to be true. But you should also expect and be prepared for people giving their alternative interpretations of the rules, or giving their reasoning for why your ruling is too bad to be true.
But as far as 'fixing' this, there are only two groups of people who can do that. The game developers who release an errata, and a particular group of gamers who agree to invoke The First Rule or the Ambiguous Rules rule to fix it at their table.
I am not a part of either of those groups as the definition relates to you. I expect that the majority of the people who have posted in this thread are also not game developers or in your personal gaming group. So the best that any of us can do is to present the various arguments for or against a particular ruling and discuss it. With the intent that doing so here will avoid hurting feelings among your group of friends when you attempt the conversation with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But put it in the hands of an NPC with unique poisons, higher DCs, and damage, and it's a potent PC killer, which seems to be the niche it fills.Poison is dangerous at low level, but I've nearly never seen high level poisons that were really that nasty. In general they do extremely low damage compared to Alchemist's poisons and have manageable debuffs.
It does about the DPR of a second strike, with the success rate of a consecutive saving throw spell. Neither of which are all that good.But it doesn't cost a single action. Poison works roughly a third of the time (so as much as a secondary attack, roughly) and deals nearly a martial attack damage. So it's like a free secondary attack per poison use.
Immunity to poison is definitely a concern, but it's mostly on Undeads and Constructs, so it's very often campaign dependent (at least partly).
A lot of higher level enemies don't use poisons, it tapers off at around 12th level or so, which is true, but through that time there are still plenty of nasty poisons that either inflict a bunch of damage or put on conditions which hinder our ability to affect the enemy and/or makes them far more potent against us. We've had a couple near TPKs because of poisons, and of course when we go to use them, they aren't anywhere near as reliable or efficient on enemies. That's because the enemies have higher Saves than us, are far more privy to be immune to poisons, and the Save DCs are pretty bad for at-level or stronger enemies anyway. Oh, and they don't have any lasting effects worse than the Dead condition, so, yeah. Not fun or interesting for players, far more devastating/useful from an NPC standpoint, as I said.
The big thing is that you spend the action cost prior to an encounter. Once the roll is saved against, you need to spend actions in-combat (usually one or two depending) in order to try to apply it again, and that runs into the issue of not working with bludgeoning weapons, which, for the most part, are basically the best weapons in the game. As for it dealing damage, the enemy has to fail the save (which isn't going to happen a lot of the time), and they aren't likely to fail into it even more, meaning it does a "delayed" strike's worth of damage at-best, and at-worst was a waste of "pre-buffing."
I haven't read through this entire thread. Nor do I have any play experience or much theorycrafting analysis on Alchemist.
However, I do have to chime in on this.
Please engage w/ the two blurbs and think through the rules as written.
Please, can we stop with the "this is too bad to be true, therefore I'm going to pretend the words are different."
The argument of 'too bad to be true' (theAmbiguous Rules rule) is rules as written. So a blanket ban on 'too bad to be true' here on the rules forum is not appropriate.
The whole point of this thread is to get this fixed, not to house-rule buff the Alchemist, "because it would be terrible otherwise"
This cheat ruling already removes any reason to play Tox, why would anyone pick the subclass when 90% of its power can be gained with the single Breadth Feat? Who cares about only needing 1 action to apply injury poison if I can poison everything between every combat?
You can certainly make a case that your interpretation is closer to the printed rules and is not too bad to be true. But you should also expect and be prepared for people giving their alternative interpretations of the rules, or giving their reasoning for why your ruling is too bad to be true.
But as far as 'fixing' this, there are only two groups of people who can do that. The game developers who release an errata, and a particular group of gamers who agree to invoke The First Rule or the Ambiguous Rules rule to fix it at their table.
I am not a part of either of those groups as the definition relates to you. I expect that the majority of the people who have posted in this thread are also not game developers or in your personal gaming group. So the best that any of us can do is to present the various arguments for or against a particular ruling and discuss it. With the intent that doing so here will avoid hurting feelings among your group of friends when you...
I very much appreciate this. And completely agree.
Too bad to be true is subject to wildly varying opinion, perhaps more than too good to be true, and I am hoping to get more eyes to read through the rules as written.
Removing as much interpretation as possible.
What ultimately determines if the text needs fixing is, if the text needs fixing. Common community houserules are fine, but can be a worrying sign.
As erratas have happened to Alch (which I've benefited from as a Chirugeon) and this seemingly priority problem was not fixed, I worry that this broken text is unknown to the right person at Paizo.
.
Again, as is, either all impermanent item-caused effects should disappear with the item, or you've got an infinite, truly permanent loophole for injury poisons that you need another improvised houserule to patch over.
With the "bad" options that exist for extending 1 more turn of Quick Alchemy, it seems it all was, and still is to some designer, intended to poof shockingly quickly. If 99% of the community is out of step w/ the class designer, that ought to be addressed as soon as possible.
.
Infused and Quick Alch again:
Infused: You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again.
Quick Alchemy:You swiftly mix up a short-lived alchemical item to use at a moment's notice. You create a single alchemical consumable item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book without having to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical reagents or needing to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn.
A lot of higher level enemies don't use poisons, it tapers off at around 12th level or so, which is true, but through that time there are still plenty of nasty poisons that either inflict a bunch of damage or put on conditions which hinder our ability to affect the enemy and/or makes them far more potent against us. We've had a couple near TPKs because of poisons, and of course when we go to use them, they aren't anywhere near as reliable or efficient on enemies. That's because the enemies have higher Saves than us, are far more privy to be immune to poisons, and the Save DCs are pretty bad for at-level or stronger enemies anyway. Oh, and they don't have any lasting effects worse than the Dead condition, so, yeah. Not fun or interesting for players, far more devastating/useful from an NPC standpoint, as I said.
The big thing is that you spend the action cost prior to an encounter. Once the roll is saved against, you need to spend actions in-combat (usually one or two depending) in order to try to apply it again, and that runs into the issue of not working with bludgeoning weapons, which, for the most part, are basically the best weapons in the game. As for it dealing damage, the enemy has to fail the save (which isn't going to happen a lot of the time), and they aren't likely to fail into it even more, meaning it does a "delayed" strike's worth of damage at-best, and at-worst was a waste of "pre-buffing."
Poisoned ammo is a great way to help with this, especially if you've got a reload 0 weapon.
You don't have to shoot it round 1, and can instead attempt a debuff like Fear or Sickened first to make them more likely to fail. Bonus if someone grapples/trips the target.
It turns out the poison list is all over the place, but "usually" on-level poisons have a higher than Class DC. For me at L7, the Sloughing Toxin is +2 my DC, does dmg with every enemy move/attak action, and if they fail all the way down, lasts an hour for some reason, lol. Basically a death sentence, but that one is specific to the campaign and I've not seen happen.
Also, Inhaled Poisons are great for in-combat use. Prep or Quick, it's just 2 actions to grab/make & use, and there's no chance to miss a Strike. Even the lingering threat of the cloud is useful, there's shockingly few ways to make a terrain hazard like that.
As Inhaled poisons are not MAP, they can be put in a combo. Toss a Dread Ampule, if you get the Fear on hit, then pop the Mustard Powder w/ the rest of your turn.
Advanced alchemy: During your daily preparations, after producing new infused reagents, you can spend batches of those infused reagents to create infused alchemical items. You don't need to attempt a Crafting check to do this, and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical reagent requirements. Your advanced alchemy level is equal to your level. For each batch of infused reagents you spend, choose an alchemical item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book, and make a batch of two of that item. These items have the infused trait and remain potent for 24 hours or until your next daily preparations, whichever comes first.
Infused items need a duration for how long they stay potent for because its different from the infused trait ending the effects after daily prep. If advanced didn't have this line you could just stock up on items because at no point do their effects ever happen, you haven't used them.
I think clauses like that are common across the game's ruleset, because daily prep and sleeping does not happen consistently every 24 hrs. Can't let stuff last extra long just because you're on a marathon.
This is more jank that's caused by the strange "item and effect are completely different timers" reading, and there will likely be more.
Here's another blub mentioning Infused. This one is the opposite side of the can't let it last too long, and will destroy them early.
"As soon as you make your next daily preparations, your infused reagents from the previous day's preparations are instantly destroyed, and nonpermanent effects of your previous day's infused items immediately end. While infused reagents are physical objects, they can't be duplicated, preserved, or created in any way other than your daily preparations. Any such artificial reagents lack the infusion and are useless for advanced alchemy or Quick Alchemy."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of higher level enemies don't use poisons, it tapers off at around 12th level or so, which is true, but through that time there are still plenty of nasty poisons that either inflict a bunch of damage
I'd be interested in knowing a mid level poison that does "a bunch of damage". I've always found that Alchemist's poisons were at that time the highest damage dealing poisons in the game.
Once the roll is saved against, you need to spend actions in-combat (usually one or two depending) in order to try to apply it again
Sure, you can. But you shouldn't. Poison is only for prebuff, not for combat application (where it is worse than just striking).
As for it dealing damage, the enemy has to fail the save (which isn't going to happen a lot of the time), and they aren't likely to fail into it even more, meaning it does a "delayed" strike's worth of damage at-best, and at-worst was a waste of "pre-buffing."
You can't know if prebuffing will be useful. You can cast Heroism on the Fighter and they'll never succeed at a check thanks to it. Prebuffing is by nature unreliable, and poison is maybe the less reliable type of prebuffing.
But free damage is free damage. A free secondary attack once per fight per slashing/piercing weapon is something I definitely take. And not everyone goes for the bludgeoning meta (also, they will be nerfed with Remaster).| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, I've used Poison quite a lot in PFS environment. I have 2 different experiences between my Chirurgeon who is just poisoning allies' weapons and my Mutagenist who also uses Poison by himself.
I've found that my Chirurgeon experience with Poison was rather bad. I often have a single weapon to poison in the party and it doesn't feel really good when poison comes into play (also I tend to forget it more often as I don't use it myself).
On the other hand, with my Mutagenist I had quite a good experience with Poison. I have at least my weapon to poison so in general I poison 2 or 3 weapons. Using it myself, I rarely forget about it and as there are more poisoned weapons other players quickly learn about it. Finally, it more often reaches higher stages for nicer effects (stage 1 effects are in general rather meh). So it makes Poison a group thing, which makes it much more satisfying.
A lot of higher level enemies don't use poisons, it tapers off at around 12th level or so, which is true, but through that time there are still plenty of nasty poisons that either inflict a bunch of damageI'd be interested in knowing a mid level poison that does "a bunch of damage". I've always found that Alchemist's poisons were at that time the highest damage dealing poisons in the game.
Once the roll is saved against, you need to spend actions in-combat (usually one or two depending) in order to try to apply it againSure, you can. But you shouldn't. Poison is only for prebuff, not for combat application (where it is worse than just striking).
As for it dealing damage, the enemy has to fail the save (which isn't going to happen a lot of the time), and they aren't likely to fail into it even more, meaning it does a "delayed" strike's worth of damage at-best, and at-worst was a waste of "pre-buffing."You can't know if prebuffing will be useful. You can cast Heroism on the Fighter and they'll never succeed at a check thanks to it. Prebuffing is by nature unreliable, and poison is maybe the less reliable type of prebuffing.
But free damage is free damage. A free secondary attack once per fight per slashing/piercing weapon is something I definitely take. And not everyone goes for the bludgeoning meta (also, they will be nerfed with Remaster).
Somebody pointed out that ammunition doesn't have that issue, meaning it is best for projectile weapons, though honestly, I am still hesitant about poisons for weapons being particularly effective, even if it is "free."
Buffing a Fighter with Heroism is different, since it boosts more than just damage, and doesn't require the enemy to roll bad to benefit. Boosting to-hit (making secondary attacks more reliable and primary attacks more effective), saves (better defenses against enemy abilities/spells), and skills (more reliability with Demoralize, Athletics, etc.), is both far better and more reliable than any given poison, which enemies can either easily save against, or be outright immune to.
As for bludgeoning getting a nerf, it deserves it, since even with the nerf, it is also the least resisted physical damage in the game, and can still be potent with a Crushing rune. But I will agree that most players I've gamed with haven't used bludgeoning until most recently, though that is because of the sword/dagger fantasy more than anything.
Somebody pointed out that ammunition doesn't have that issue, meaning it is best for projectile weapons, though honestly, I am still hesitant about poisons for weapons being particularly effective, even if it is "free."
It's not better for projectiles, it's different. The advantage of weapons is that you keep the poison on a failure (but not critical failure) to the attack. So it's less costly. You don't care about that for Poisons created with Perpetual Infusions, but for Poisons created with Advanced Alchemy it's an extra cost even if it's also very interesting to choose when to shoot a poisoned arrow.
Buffing a Fighter with Heroism is different, since it boosts more than just damage, and doesn't require the enemy to roll bad to benefit. Boosting to-hit (making secondary attacks more reliable and primary attacks more effective), saves (better defenses against enemy abilities/spells), and skills (more reliability with Demoralize, Athletics, etc.), is both far better and more reliable than any given poison, which enemies can either easily save against, or be outright immune to.
But also more costly (2 actions that will certainly be used during first round of combat). So everything's balanced to me.
But I will agree that most players I've gamed with haven't used bludgeoning until most recently, though that is because of the sword/dagger fantasy more than anything.
That's also what I've seen: the weapon of choice has more to do with the player fantasy than with efficiency. Especially when the actual difference is rather small (and will get negligible with the nerf of Flail/Hammer Critical Specialization).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the trouble of referring to things as a cheat or exploit is that you're essentially offering up a "too good to be true" alongside your rule reading, which is why you are frequently getting people saying the other reading is "too bad to be true".
I agree with others that there's a separation between item duration and effect duration.
I think poisoned weapons are an item effect, and therefore wear off at the next daily preparation. They can't be used to poison weapons across days.
Toxicologist has access to more than one perpetual poison and aren't limited as much in their selection of poison. Their advanced poison also scales with their class DC instead of just the quick alchemy ones. So I don't think the Perpetual Breadth feat replaces the need to be one.
I think the confusion is still worth pointing out, since clarification would be good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree that the rules for Alchemists and Quick Alchemy could be much more clearly written. Frankly, I'm hoping that Alchemists get to where they needed to be the whole time when they're updated in the Remastered edition.
But my point is that, to the best of my knowledge, the interpretation of "things made with Quick Alchemy fade at the start of your next turn/end of your next turn (if you have the Enduring Alchemy feat) regardless of whether activated or not" is not an interpretation that anyone else seems to use.
And given that there's years of organized play with the P2E rules, if that were the case, that, for example, a Quick Alchemy made mutagen faded the round after it was created, even if consumed, someone would have brought it up before. Because then, literally, there is no point to Quick Alchemy other than to make things that are not intended to have a greater than one turn duration, like healing elixirs, or bombs, because they're intended to be used as quickly as possible.
Somebody pointed out that ammunition doesn't have that issue, meaning it is best for projectile weapons, though honestly, I am still hesitant about poisons for weapons being particularly effective, even if it is "free."It's not better for projectiles, it's different. The advantage of weapons is that you keep the poison on a failure (but not critical failure) to the attack. So it's less costly. You don't care about that for Poisons created with Perpetual Infusions, but for Poisons created with Advanced Alchemy it's an extra cost even if it's also very interesting to choose when to shoot a poisoned arrow.
Buffing a Fighter with Heroism is different, since it boosts more than just damage, and doesn't require the enemy to roll bad to benefit. Boosting to-hit (making secondary attacks more reliable and primary attacks more effective), saves (better defenses against enemy abilities/spells), and skills (more reliability with Demoralize, Athletics, etc.), is both far better and more reliable than any given poison, which enemies can either easily save against, or be outright immune to.But also more costly (2 actions that will certainly be used during first round of combat). So everything's balanced to me.
But I will agree that most players I've gamed with haven't used bludgeoning until most recently, though that is because of the sword/dagger fantasy more than anything.That's also what I've seen: the weapon of choice has more to do with the player fantasy than with efficiency. Especially when the actual difference is rather small (and will get negligible with the nerf of Flail/Hammer Critical Specialization).
It is better in that you do not need to spend actions in-combat to repoison them on a hit, but I did forget the whole "still lost on a miss" bit. Of course, if you are making, say, 12 attacks in a combat, and half of them hit, that is 6 rolls to be made, compared to one on a given hit from a melee weapon. So different, yes, but also better IMO.
Heroism is 10 minutes, and the idea behind pre-buffs is that you aren't spending actions in-combat for them, meaning if you know there will be a fight in a couple minutes, it's not being wasted. Changing the rules for applying Heroism to require in-combat actions defeats the point of the comparison being made, which is that both are out-of-combat buffs to bring into combat with you.
I don't think that forcing an enemy Prone is a small difference, since you are doing both the Sword and the Brawling critical specialization both simultaneously as well as better. But I do agree that once the change is made, critical specializations won't be a very important aspect of weapons anymore, and are more of a "neat" option than anything (since any class post-CRB doesn't get innate critical specialization anymore).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't take credit for the idea (I know someone on a Discord who told me about it) but I've grown to like the idea of a Toxicologist using javelins, a Thrower's Bandolier and, naturally, Quicksilver Mutagen.
Not for me (I have an irrational dislike of poisons in general) but were I to council someone wanting to play a Toxicologist, I would recommend the build.
Part of the trouble of referring to things as a cheat or exploit is that you're essentially offering up a "too good to be true" alongside your rule reading, which is why you are frequently getting people saying the other reading is "too bad to be true".
I agree with others that there's a separation between item duration and effect duration.
I think poisoned weapons are an item effect, and therefore wear off at the next daily preparation. They can't be used to poison weapons across days.
Toxicologist has access to more than one perpetual poison and aren't limited as much in their selection of poison. Their advanced poison also scales with their class DC instead of just the quick alchemy ones. So I don't think the Perpetual Breadth feat replaces the need to be one.
I think the confusion is still worth pointing out, since clarification would be good.
The sticking point is that whichever side you interpret it, you get one of the two "unfair" outcomes.
If you agree that the poison fades, then the Quick Alch phrasing means the slathered blade becomes inert at the start of the next round, preventing the lasting Perpetual prebuffing.
But my point is that, to the best of my knowledge, the interpretation of "things made with Quick Alchemy fade at the start of your next turn/end of your next turn (if you have the Enduring Alchemy feat) regardless of whether activated or not" is not an interpretation that anyone else seems to use.
And given that there's years of organized play with the P2E rules, if that were the case, that, for example, a Quick Alchemy made mutagen faded the round after it was created, even if consumed, someone would have brought it up before. Because then, literally, there is no point to Quick Alchemy other than to make things that are not intended to have a greater than one turn duration, like healing elixirs, or bombs, because they're intended to be used as quickly as possible.
I agree that no one uses it, including my table, and after reading everything I could, I was shocked to find that the class and its option makes far more sense if positive Quick Alch effects were intended to fade after one round at base.
That's why I made the post to begin with. I'm currently under the impression that the Alch designer at Paizo wants/thinks everyone is playing w/ Quick Alchemy with effects that fade after 1 round.
This was most clear to me with Treasure Vault. Skunk Bombs are *way* above the norm, but only if their AoE Sickened is allowed to last indefinitely.
Mustard Powder is similarly way out of line for something perfectly placed to be a Perpetual for Tox (lvl 5 item, which is the max lvl Tox can pick w/ the LvL 11 class feature).
If the Tox can gas up a 1-min 10ft square with a non-MAP serious debuff w/ each 2-action freebie, that's even better than a similar options available to a lvl-11 Kineticist, IMO.
But if each cloud was meant to fade after 1 turn (without investment), then it's strong, but fine.
And lastly, the Alchemical Chart. It requires occupying one of your 2 hands, just about as serious an investment as you can get during combat. In exchange, you get: 1 more turn duration of Quick Alchemy.
If popped items get their full listed duration, that's *horrible*. It then only provides an extra turn to pop the item for no other benefit, meaning you're somehow needing to brew--> use across turns. Considering how many actions one could save by holding something else in their hand to begin with, it literally does not save actions, only theoretically allows one to "clip" turns.
If the Chart doubles the duration of stuff like (Quick) Mustard Powder's cloud, that's still honestly kinda bad, but it at least gives it a real niche. Especially for a Skunk Bomber.
.
Even stuff I've always seen, like Mutagenic Flashback, or Revivifying Mutagen make far more sense if the Quick brews were always intended to be super short acting.
That Quick-made-effects fade idea reshuffles a lot of the Alch's options, and in general brings them more in-line w/ each other.
Another example, why does Elixir of Life need a rider effect that adds +1 to poison and disease for 10min? Oh, it's to give you better reason to prep them w/ Advanced Alchemy even if one's not a Chirugeon. If you leave those Reagents raw and only Quick as needed, you loose that buff.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
/snip
For reference:
An item with this trait can be used only once. Unless stated otherwise, it's destroyed after activation. Consumable items include alchemical items and magical consumables such as scrolls and talismans. When a character creates consumable items, they can make them in batches of four.
An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item. If that Strike is a success and deals piercing or slashing damage, the target must attempt a saving throw against the poison. On a failed Strike, the target is unaffected, but the poison remains on the weapon and you can try again. On a critical failure, or if the Strike fails to deal slashing or piercing damage for some other reason, the poison is spent but the target is unaffected.
An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction.
-
The problem with your continued assertion is that you are failing to grasp [or willfully refusing to acknowledge?] the distinction between the Alchemical Item and the effects it generates. It is not even that particularly nuanced, either. Quite simply, quick alchemy creates a short-lived item. As long as it is consumed in time, that item creates a potentially long-lived effect with its own duration that is wholly separate from the item itself.
When you use quick alchemy you create an Alchemical Item. We'll use your example of Clown Monarch. It is a level 5 item with the traits "Alchemy", "Consumable", "Injury", "Poison", and because it was made with quick alchemy, "Infused". That item, other feats and class abilities notwithstanding, must be consumed before the end of the turn, or else it becomes inert/impotent/powerless.
It is consumed by activating it and, since it is an injury poison, it is activated by applying it to a weapon or to ammunition. Once it is consumed, the item with all those traits no longer exists. Now, there is a oil/paste/powder/smear/substance/whatever on the weapon/ammo to which it was applied. This is wholly and completely separate from the alchemical item "Clown Monarch" which has now been consumed.
Per the Injury trait, that oil/paste/powder/smear/substance/whatever stays on the weapon/ammo until either the weapon/ammo is used to make a strike or until your next daily prep per the Infused trait.
If a successful strike is made with the poisoned weapon/ammo, then two things happen: (1.) the oil/paste/powder/smear/substance/whatever on the weapon/ammo is "consumed" and (2.) the target must succeed at a fortitude save or suffer the affliction caused by the poison.
Yes. That does mean that an Alchemist with the ability to quick alchemy injury poisons with perpetuals has the ability to freely make and apply poisons to the party's weapons and ammunition between encounters.
If your opinion is that that is too strong, by all means houserule it.
However, you most certainly have not suddenly discovered a glaring fault in how its been played after several years.
...
As I have repeated, that is willfully ignoring what Infused says:
"You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again."
My reading of this is that both the item and effects created by it are put into a umbrella terms of "potent" and "inert." Any further reference to potency is to encompass both, such as in Feats, ect. Moreover, the end of effects is impossible to ignore within the Infused text.
All Quick Alch does is change the timeout from "next daily prep" to the start of next turn.
Just with Advanced Alchemy, this Infused blurb *needs* to encompass effects, otherwise you can "bank" Reagents by slathering poison onto arrows.
If the "becomes inert" does not encompass the caused effects, injury poison is already infinite. The Perpetuals just make it easier to notice.
This "willful refusal" to engage with that clause seems rather absurd to me, I don't get how the blurb specifically says "effects from your infused alchemical items" and so many just pretend it does not apply. As written, just the *afflictions* caused by the items are allowed to extend beyond the timeout.
That's pretty damn black and white.
.
Specific beats general. Effects created by the Infused items are governed by the Infused rules, which look to me to be explicitly made to prevent such infinite banking shenanigans.
If you disagree with my reading of the Infused blurb, please say as such, instead of claiming that I'm willfully refusing to acknowledge a bunch of irrelevant bunk. Infused directly calls out the effects created by items to end, which is an obviously necessary thing to include in the mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, just the *afflictions* caused by the items are allowed to extend beyond the timeout.
Agreed... the problem is the timeout is "when you make your daily preparations again" not "when the item would have expired if you never used it"
Like it's literally right there, the rule telling you the maximum duration for non-affliction effects in order to prevent infinite banking. You literally bolded the answer! So I have to agree:
That's pretty damn black and white.
As written, just the *afflictions* caused by the items are allowed to extend beyond the timeout.Agreed... the problem is the timeout is "when you make your daily preparations again" not "when the item would have expired if you never used it"
Like it's literally right there, the rule telling you the maximum duration for non-affliction effects in order to prevent infinite banking. You literally bolded the answer! So I have to agree:
That's pretty damn black and white.
What exactly is this take? I honestly am loosing clarity of intent within the condescending snark.
.
At base, an infused item and its potential effects last until the next daily prep.
If you daily prep a poison, it does not matter if it's still in the vial, or on a blade. It fades when the item becomes inert.
Sentence one "has a limited time before it becomes inert."
Sentence two, what does that mean? "this also includes non-permanent effects caused by the item"
.
If we agree on that, then add Quick Alchemy:
"You swiftly mix up a short-lived alchemical item to use at a moment's notice. You create a single alchemical consumable item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book without having to spend the normal monetary cost in alchemical reagents or needing to attempt a Crafting check. This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn."
So a Quick-Alch item uses the infused rules, but triggers the same timeout mechanic, just much sooner.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The take is that the effects from your infused items last at most until your next daily preparation, because that's what the rules say they do.
That's the RAW. It is literally spelled out right there in plain text.
There is no line of text anywhere in any book that says items created from quick alchemy have shortened effect durations. There is text that says the item itself has a limited duration, but there's nothing that also extends that to item effects as well.
That's it. There's nothing else here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will only ever go in circles.
We're already clear on where the disagreement is.
Trip.H: The duration of the item and effect last until next daily prep. With quick alchemy, the duration of both the item and the effect last until the start of your next turn.
Most other people here: The duration of the item and effect last until next daily prep. With quick alchemy, only the duration of the item, not its effect, are specifically overridden to last until the start of your next turn.
Re: "This item has the infused trait, but it remains potent only until the start of your next turn."
I firmly believe the "it" in this rule refers exclusively to the item, and that it's an extra insertion to assume it applies to both the item and its effect. To assume "it" refers to both the item and its effects asserts more than is written.
For extra context, the duration of how long infused items last, rather than their effects, is specified not in the Infused trait, but in advanced alchemy and quick alchemy. The infused trait just allows for both. The ", but lasts until the start of your next turn" seems more likely to be an artifact of the fact that this text is written in a book. So you would read the advanced alchemy section, see that those infused items last until your next daily preparations, and then read the Quick Alchemy section immediately after, and see it clarified that these only last until the start of your next turn instead of what we see in the section immediately prior.
Perhaps that's also an assumption, but it seems like less of one.
As I have repeated, that is willfully ignoring what Infused says:
"You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert. Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again."
I did not ignore what infused says. In fact, review my example of the poisoned weapon: "Per the Injury trait, that oil/paste/powder/smear/substance/whatever stays on the weapon/ammo until either the weapon/ammo is used to make a strike or until your next daily prep per the Infused trait."
My reading of this is that both the item and effects created by it are put into a umbrella terms of "potent" and "inert." Any further reference to potency is to encompass both, such as in Feats, ect. Moreover, the end of effects is impossible to ignore within the Infused text.
/sigh
Read the infused trait again. I'll break it down:
The item has a limited time before it becomes inert (meaning that the item can no longer be activated).
This is separate from the item, made all the more clear by the fact that it has its own sentence. Nothing in either sentence ties the effects from infused alchemical items to the term "inert".
All Quick Alch does is change the timeout from "next daily prep" to the start of next turn.
Quick alchemy makes zero reference to the durations of the effects generated by the items. Quick Alchemy changes two things with regards to infused item creation: (1.) the number of items created per infused reagent and (2.) the shelf-life of the item created.
In no way does Quick Alchemy modify the durations of the effects.
If the "becomes inert" does not encompass the caused effects, injury poison is already infinite. The Perpetuals just make it easier to notice.
You're plain wrong. Infused items become inert. Period. All stop.
The second sentence in the infused trait covers the caused effects inclusing injury poisons applied to weapons.
If "becomes inert" encompasses the caused effects, as you disingenuously insist, then there is simply no need for the second sentence of the Infused Trait.
This "willful refusal" to engage with that clause seems rather absurd to me, I don't get how the blurb specifically says "effects from your infused alchemical items" and so many just pretend it does not apply. As written, just the *afflictions* caused by the items are allowed to extend beyond the timeout.
Wow. Your smarmy, patronizing is rising to new levels. Accusing me of failing to engage with the written text is utterly dishonest.
I am engaging with the clause by explaining to you that the first sentence of the infused trait states that the infused item is short lived and "becomes inert". You are the one that is trying to extend that clause beyond its scope. IF the effects were included in that first sentence you would have a point. They are not. Paizo also did not write that "becoming inert means that the effects also end." Instead, they clarified what happens to the effects separately from what happens with the item.
If you disagree with my reading of the Infused blurb, please say as such...
Well let me make it clear: I disagree with you because you are wrong.
What does "remains potent" even mean? The infused trait doesn't mention potency, so why are you applying that point to the infused trait?
Potent and inert are antonyms, and they both gets used in reference to infused reagents and the infused trait. I am here to draw attention to some bad rules in need of constructive criticism, so I certainly would have phrased it differently, but that potent/inert opposites does check out (to me).
.
I firmly believe the "it" in this rule refers exclusively to the item, and that it's an extra insertion to assume it applies to both the item and its effect. To assume "it" refers to both the item and its effects asserts more than is written.
Thank you for phrasing this in a manner that I am able to understand, and I now get where the disagreement lies.
The infused trait is on an item.
Infused:"You created an alchemical item with the infused trait using your infused reagents, and it has a limited time before it becomes inert."
Same exact style of it being the item. I honestly did not realize people where reading the "it" differently between Infused & Quick Alch.
.
To clarify/elaborate: the non-quick version works the exact same. The item "looses potency" --> what does that mean? --> both item and child effects end
The whole "non-permanent effects fade" is there because that's not normal for said item to pass it's timer onto the effect. As has been mentioned, using a consumable destroys the item, and it spawns an effect that's independent of it.
This inheritance is what it means to be Infused. Infused is there to prevent the child effect from being an independent entity on separate timer. Infused item effects are children of the item, and carry the Infused rules.
Living example:
If you make two infused "slow smokers" that make smoke for 10hrs, and pop one of them 1hr before next daily prep, both the remaining item and the smoke stop and disappear after 1 hr. They have both "become inert".
That's what "becomes inert" means. It's making sure child effects cannot outlive the parent item.
.
I think Advanced Alchemy might help here:
"Advanced Alchemy
During your daily preparations, after producing new infused reagents, you can spend batches of those infused reagents to create infused alchemical items. You don't need to attempt a Crafting check to do this, and you ignore both the number of days typically required to create the items and any alchemical reagent requirements. Your advanced alchemy level is equal to your level. For each batch of infused reagents you spend, choose an alchemical item of your advanced alchemy level or lower that's in your formula book, and make a batch of two of that item. These items have the infused trait and remain potent for 24 hours or until your next daily preparations, whichever comes first."
Here is the same "items remain potent."
Again the text cannot say "items will disappear in __" because that would omit the child effects. Instead, it defines what potency/inert means within Infused, and uses those terms.
Once made, Quick Alch items are Advanced Alch items, except they become inert at the start of the Alch's next turn.
And again, if "becomes inert" does not include the child effects, you get the infinite poison arrow exploit.
.
So yes, you are absolutely correct that Quick Alch's "it" is talking about the item. That's always been my reading.
What it means for that item to "loose potency" is defined in Infused, which is to take any child effects with the timeout of the parent item.
did not ignore what infused says. In fact, review my example of the poisoned weapon: "Per the Injury trait, that oil/paste/powder/smear/substance/whatever stays on the weapon/ammo until either the weapon/ammo is used to make a strike or until your next daily prep per the Infused trait."
No.
It, the item, exists until it becomes inert. By default, that's the next daily prep. And when an item becomes inert, any nonpermanent effects ends as well.
.
From advanced alchemy:
"...These items have the infused trait and remain potent for 24 hours or until your next daily preparations, whichever comes first."
If loosing potency did not delete the item and effect at the same time, one of the two would stick around and break the mechanic.
Any and all references to "it becomes inert" is talking about an item, or one that has been used/consumed.
Any and all times an item would become inert, any nonpermanent effects fade at the same time.
.
Quick Alchemy changes two things with regards to infused item creation: (1.) the number of items created per infused reagent and (2.) the shelf-life of the item created.
Quick Alch changes when "becomes inert" happens. Not what "becomes inert" does. Which is also delete child effects, that's the whole point of the trait, because normally that behavior does not happen.
No, it doesn't. Advanced and quick alchemy, as well as quick tincture explain how long their infused items remain potent for, because they have to. If the definition of inert is making "Any nonpermanent effects from your infused alchemical items, with the exception of afflictions such as slow-acting poisons, end when you make your daily preparations again", couldn't you still do the "infinite arrow poison exploit" by just like waiting a turn, bypassing when quick alchemy would normally end the effect as the unused poisons doesn't have any effects to end?The take is that the effects from your infused items last at most until your next daily preparation, because that's what the rules say they do.No, the text says the item becomes inert.
I have tried to say this many times. Becoming inert means the infused item's timeout also takes any child effects with it.
I'll repeat the example:
If you make two infused "slow smokers" that make smoke for 10hrs, and pop one of them 1hr before the "becomes inert" trigger of daily prep, both the remaining item and the smoke stop and disappear after 1 hr. They have both "become inert".
That's what "becomes inert" means. It's making sure child effects cannot outlive the parent item.
Also on what the wording of Inert means there's a section of the lozenge trait
You Activate an alchemical lozenge by putting it in your mouth. It stays there, slowly dissolving and releasing its ingredients over time. You can bite a lozenge for a secondary effect. The action this takes is noted in the item. As soon as this secondary effect is over, the lozenge is used up and its benefits for you end. You can drink elixirs, potions, and beverages with a lozenge in your mouth, but you can't benefit from more than one lozenge at a time. If you have two lozenges in your mouth at the same time, both become inert. You can also spit out a lozenge as a single action to end its effect and make it inert. A lozenge dissolves due to its alchemical ingredients, so it typically still works even if you don't have saliva.
If turning inert also turned off the effect they wouldn't need to specify it both ends the effect and makes it inert
I can't take credit for the idea (I know someone on a Discord who told me about it) but I've grown to like the idea of a Toxicologist using javelins, a Thrower's Bandolier and, naturally, Quicksilver Mutagen.
Not for me (I have an irrational dislike of poisons in general) but were I to council someone wanting to play a Toxicologist, I would recommend the build.
It works at high level, but before level 10+ it just doesn't deal much damage. That's the issue with the Toxicologist and why I rate it so badly: the first 10 levels are a chore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is better in that you do not need to spend actions in-combat to repoison them on a hit, but I did forget the whole "still lost on a miss" bit. Of course, if you are making, say, 12 attacks in a combat, and half of them hit, that is 6 rolls to be made, compared to one on a given hit from a melee weapon. So different, yes, but also better IMO.
Unless you have to pay reagents for these 12 poisoned arrows, and then it's just not possible. It's better in the context of Perpetual Infusions. Outside this context, it's different but not really better.
Heroism is 10 minutes, and the idea behind pre-buffs is that you aren't spending actions in-combat for them, meaning if you know there will be a fight in a couple minutes, it's not being wasted. Changing the rules for applying Heroism to require in-combat actions defeats the point of the comparison being made, which is that both are out-of-combat buffs to bring into combat with you.
Using Heroism as prebuff happens, but it's rather rare unless you are playing some kind of super simple dungeon (or are ok with wasting a spell slot quite often). In other adventuring conditions, 10-minute duration makes it hard to use as prebuff. On the other hand, the poison 1-day duration is very easy to use as prebuff.
So you can see Heroism short duration as an impediment or you can consider that Heroism is not supposed to be used as prebuff outside niche situations. Just 2 different way of looking at the same thing (half empty or half full, I could say).Anyway, I don't consider that Heroism is comparable to Poison in how it can be used. Poison is prebuff, Heroism is hard to use as prebuff even if it's super strong when it happens.
It is better in that you do not need to spend actions in-combat to repoison them on a hit, but I did forget the whole "still lost on a miss" bit. Of course, if you are making, say, 12 attacks in a combat, and half of them hit, that is 6 rolls to be made, compared to one on a given hit from a melee weapon. So different, yes, but also better IMO.Unless you have to pay reagents for these 12 poisoned arrows, and then it's just not possible. It's better in the context of Perpetual Infusions. Outside this context, it's different but not really better.
Heroism is 10 minutes, and the idea behind pre-buffs is that you aren't spending actions in-combat for them, meaning if you know there will be a fight in a couple minutes, it's not being wasted. Changing the rules for applying Heroism to require in-combat actions defeats the point of the comparison being made, which is that both are out-of-combat buffs to bring into combat with you.Using Heroism as prebuff happens, but it's rather rare unless you are playing some kind of super simple dungeon (or are ok with wasting a spell slot quite often). In other adventuring conditions, 10-minute duration makes it hard to use as prebuff. On the other hand, the poison 1-day duration is very easy to use as prebuff.
So you can see Heroism short duration as an impediment or you can consider that Heroism is not supposed to be used as prebuff outside niche situations. Just 2 different way of looking at the same thing (half empty or half full, I could say).
Anyway, I don't consider that Heroism is comparable to Poison in how it can be used. Poison is prebuff, Heroism is hard to use as prebuff even if it's super strong when it happens.
I was pretty sure you could take a stack of 10 ammunition for a given dose of Poison and apply it to each one, but maybe I am wrong. If so, then I can agree that poisoning several ammunition items is likewise underwhelming.
To be clear, I generally believe that pre-buffing with Heroism is a waste of spell slots, even if it lasts 10 minutes, but I also wasn't the one initially using Heroism as a comparison to Poison prebuffs, of which I disagree that it is equally effective, since Martial accuracy is more reliable than enemy Saving Throws, as well as it affecting multiple given checks/DCs, nor being potentially subject to resistances/immunities.
You can't know if prebuffing will be useful. You can cast Heroism on the Fighter and they'll never succeed at a check thanks to it.Prebuffing is by nature unreliable, and poison is maybe the less reliable type of prebuffing.
So temperans, do you think processed traited alchemical foods are completely useless with quick alchemy on purpose, that they had it be able to be activated if you made it with quick alchemy but instantly the effect would go away
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....
Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.
Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.
I have tried to say this many times. Becoming inert means the infused item's timeout also takes any child effects with it.
Can you cite a source for this? As far as I can tell this is a concept you have entirely invented for your own purposes.
Literally a single line of rules text anywhere in the game supporting this argument, but as far as I can tell it doesn't exist, because nobody's produced it yet.
I'll repeat the example:
If you make two infused "slow smokers" that make smoke for 10hrs, and pop one of them 1hr before the "becomes inert" trigger of daily prep, both the remaining item and the smoke stop and disappear after 1 hr.
Right, because the rules for infused items specifically say, plain as day, that effects expire before your next daily preparation.
But that has nothing to do with your houserule where you instead make the smoker only last one round in contradiction rather than agreement with the RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....
Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.
Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.
While I agree completely that the OP's reading doesn't hold up, I dont think this logic really holds well. Organized Play sessions are run by GMs running the game to their best understanding of the rules of the system. There's no special qualification involved, and not generally anyone from Paizo checking in to make sure rules were handled correctly. Rules mistakes being made in organized play happens as much as in home games, and without much more chance of it turning into an errata.
Perhaps I'm treading old ground here, but....
Given Paizo's involvement with organized play, it is simply not credible to believe that, over the entire time, that Paizo saw zero Alchemists being played, using Quick Alchemy to create Elixirs/Mutagens/Tools/Poisons, have their durations last more than the one turn, even if consumed, and not say something if that were the incorrect way to use them.
Especially given the amount of errata published concerning the Alchemist class that is already in existence.
The only "goal" at all w/ this thread is to get someone from Paizo to look at the text that's still on the books for every player, and fixing it.
In games like this there's always isolated players that do not connect to the wider zeitgeist and and tap into the common/universal houserules.
I do think you are overestimating how many people read the rules of other classes to the extent to even be aware of something like this.
The only reason I checked was because of people talking about how "at least the Tox gets infinite injury poisons." Because I do play an Alch and have used poisons, I know they are nearly-always prebuffs, meaning the only bit of balance left is that they've got to cost resources (and I knew that meant that any Alch could abuse it, not just Tox).
I still think many here are not considering the danger of a perma poisoned party, it's one of the only things in the game that actually does stack with itself on repeated exposures, perfect for the dogpile.
A consumable prebuff is the actual worst kind of thing that could be produced infinitely like this.
I'm really, really hoping that I'm wrong about a/the Paizo Alch devs *intending* for Quick Alch effects to last only a turn, but I think there's a whole of circumstantial things that click with that guess.
I've got half a mind to expand on the 10-min refilling "Wells" substitute for current Quick Alch idea, as the main thing Paizo seems to *really* not like that the Alch can get be a full-book caster maker, yet produce any single one at will like a repertoire caster.
A system to use daily Reagents to make recharging item-specific Wells, and Subclass partially generic Wells, might remove the crushing fear of the Alch running wild.
The "make anything" could still be included as a post-lvl 10 Feat or Class feature, as I think some of this "gotta make 1000% sure Alch's can't break the game" fear comes from it being a potential Dedication.
If you're so sure the effects are supposed to only last a turn what is your explanation for the new alchemical food traits from treasure vault me and meatshed previously brought up in the thread
If you're so sure the effects are supposed to only last a turn what is your explanation for the new alchemical food traits from treasure vault me and meatshed previously brought up in the thread
Processed:
"An alchemical consumable with the processed trait can be created with Quick Alchemy but is too complex to create in a single action. Using Quick Alchemy to create a processed item takes 1 minute. If the item would take more than 3 actions to Activate, the time the item remains potent after you create it is equal to its activation time. For instance, a processed item that takes 10 minutes to Activate would remain potent for 10 minutes when created with Quick Alchemy instead of remaining potent only until the start of your next turn. This trait doesn't change other specifics of Quick Alchemy. You could, for example, use double brew to create two of the same processed item over the course of 1 minute."This does appear to contradict the "goes inert takes nonpermanent effects w/ it timeout" reading, and I appreciate you calling it to my attention.
There's 0 spare time from the extended duration until it poofs, leaving 0 time for such a buff to last.
If that's the case, it would mean the DC scaling, perma-poisoned party for 1 L8 Feat is RaW.
Well, at the least, the "poison the army over a month" scenario would still not function.
.
Can anyone picture a scenario in which an Alch would willingly hold an Alchemical Chart?
Even a Quick Bomber would have a whole lot of things competing for that hand slot.
That hand alone kinda kills the one class feature that might work w/ it, Double Brew, as you'd drop the 2nd bomb if you tried to use the Chart to avoid MAP and save 1 Quick Brew action.
Hmm. Alacrity, the triple brew, specifically says you only get to have 1 of them stow on your person.
I guess if you unlock that at L15, you could make 3 items, let one fall, toss one. Next turn, Quick Bomb 2nd. 1 action saved.
.
Alchemical Chart (Greater)Item 18
Source Treasure Vault pg. 62 1.1
Price 19,000 gp
Bulk L
The chart works for Quick Alchemy items of level 18 or lower.
Wtf, why the ever-loving **** would it cost 19,000 gp to get the ability to extend Quick Alch potency by 1 round, only if you sacrifice a hand? I really do not understand this bloody enigma of an item, how did this get in the Treasure Vault? Did all the Alchemists get locked out of participating?
I think the alchemical chart is bad but also it's kinda buying an item to replicate a feat, I also think the feat is not good but thinking about it from that perspective I can see how it got made