| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything dies before it has any chance to have a meaningful impact. And that's when it's working.
Some parties are also uncooperative and generally unwilling to "shoot it and run away." Even had one player say that I'm the problem, that I'm the one who doesn't want to cooperate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly, I agree that alchemical poisons are not a good item group.
That said, I do find inhaled poisons to be the most usable type for my PCs, and that's partly because I can pop the item for 1A to hit an AoE.
Inhaled does not have the double-roll issue of needing to hit a Strike first, has use for lingering zone denial, and is a potential action waster (GMs read the text that allows creatures to spend 1A to get a bonus VS the poison, and they are temped to use that mechanic)
the L9 Terror Spores deserve a mention, as the Stage 1 effect is Frightened 2. There's a lot of stuff that interacts/combos with Frightened, and the condition also only decays by 1 each round. Mustard Powder is good, but the Sickened is on Stage 2, so someone usually has to fail twice to get the lingering debuff to stick.
Now that all Alchs get scaling DC on all prep items, inhaled poisons can be item-relayed and popped for 1A rather easily, and make for a decent candidate for your 1-2 of your daily item budget.
Main caveat is that you still really want to affect 2 or more foes w/ an inhaled pop to make it worth it most of the time.
=============
Injury poisons... I mostly just coat my main weapon with a single VV dose of something like Clown Monarch and forget it. If I get lucky, it's a 0 Action boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poison is situational. Whether the situation comes up depends on the game and the party. It's certainly something you should ask the GM about in case the campaign is all undead and elementals.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Worked pretty alright against my players. Almost had a PC die against a spider encounter in Troubles in Otari, when using Hunting Spiders instead of Giant Spiders. Was the poison that nearly did them in. less so the spiders, they reached dying 3 before their rolls turned a bit more lucky.
Though yeah, sounds to me like your PCs are being uncooperative. Either way, poison should feel like a longer-term tool. If they aren't willing to use poison the way poison works.
Poison on players tends to be stronger because players will (hopefully) live throughout all of combat. You can't make that guarantee for NPCs.
And this is from the number 1 toxicologist stan this side of mars. Really, if poison isn't working, you should try more poison. Perhaps with a side of bombs. Poisonous bombs.
Poison seems to be something the party can lean into to integrate an alchemist, but doesn't get much focus because it isn't really part of the heroic fantasy. You can use it with something like an injection spear (letting one party member equip another), and there are a few feats that work with it, but it doesn't really seem like something that'll work outside of specific experimental party setups, for when one of your gaming group wants to try unusual builds that don't work with normal parties.
Lethargy poison can end a boss fight if you're lucky. The biggest issue is DC scaling, which is harsh unless you're a toxicologist or you get the alchemist archetype and then the Level 12 feat.
Archetype + poisoner + feat gets you 8 free poisons at full DC per day. It's a bit expensive but now you have 8 chances to hit the win button.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lethargy poison can end a boss fight if you're lucky. The biggest issue is DC scaling, which is harsh unless you're a toxicologist or you get the alchemist archetype and then the Level 12 feat.
Archetype + poisoner + feat gets you 8 free poisons at full DC per day. It's a bit expensive but now you have 8 chances to hit the win button.
Lethargy is an incap poison, because not even poisons can get a genuinely fight-ending effect at stage 3 without serious strings attached. Not sure how often your boss is a lower level than your PC, so you have to deal with the incapacitation trait.
I have literally never seen a foe fail down to the bottom stage of a poison before, such as for Lethargy to reach the 1d4 hrs of forced sleep.
One of the reasons why foe poisons really can hurt PCs, but PC poisons always seem to suck, is due to how monsters use different rules.
Naturally poisoned monster fangs remain poisoned after a hit, and every repeated strike has the chance to invoke an unlucky Fort save. PCs meanwhile, are stuck with pre-poisoning a single strike at a time.
Combine that with every alch item costing the exact same budget for Alchemists, and it's easy to see why spending that resource on a Numbing Tonic, Skunk Bomb, etc, is such a better prospect than hoping for an un/lucky poison to help out.
Everything dies before it has any chance to have a meaningful impact. And that's when it's working.
Some parties are also uncooperative and generally unwilling to "shoot it and run away." Even had one player say that I'm the problem, that I'm the one who doesn't want to cooperate.
Poison is a side gig. I use poison since the release of PF2 and had a few lucky hits with it but it's nothing you can rely on. Use Poison if it doesn't cost much otherwise skip it. And do it before the fight (and don't use anything that asks for an action to use Poison, like Poison Injectors).
I also had uncooperative players. So I no more bring poisons to pick up parties, I keep it for groups of players I know of.
Last but not least: Poison really gets better the more you level. At low level, enemies die so quickly it never has time to deal damage. But the higher the level and the longer enemies survive, especially mooks. Also, Poison damage raises faster than weapon damage and debuffs are also much better so at some point it becomes quite nice.
The repeatable aspect is indeed crucial. PF2's poison rules make it so that the expected value of exposing a creature to poison is higher the more it has already been exposed to the same poison.
Having played with the numbers, it's not true. From a pure damage perspective, the first poison exposition is as valuable as a subsequent exposition while the enemy is at stage 1. Expositions while the enemy is at stage 2+ are not really interesting.
From a debuff perspective, it's complicated as there's in general a specific stage you want the enemy to be at as it brings the good debuff (like Stage 2 for Giant Wasp Venom while Stage 3 doesn't increase it).This is also why I'm skeptical about the new Toxicologist
The old Toxicologist was quite bad. The builds relying on tons of poison applications (using mostly bow or thrown weapons) were among the worst Alchemists builds. So they are dead but I'm not sure it's such a loss.
I'm certainly not sure now why they felt the need to nerf poison damage in GM Core
Depending on levels, there were a mix of buffs and nerfs. Poison, as a whole, hasn't moved much. I'm still sad for Wyvern Venom that was so charismatic...
|
Poison can be very potent and useful IF the group is willing to adopt a very uncommon approach to battle which is remarkably effective but most feel isn't very heroic/fun.
Hit and run, guerilla tactics, and tactical retreat once you've weakened/hurt/scared your opponents. Most gamers don't ever even think about retreat when playing these days and groups often would rather just face tank threats that could wipe the floor with them while losing one or more party members permanently than to do some chip damage, take out a few mooks, and potentially injure/poison/cripple the important enemies before backing off and/or just flat out running away.
If the party has a mind to ambush enemies, toss out some persistent nasty conditions, poisons, and maybe take out a few enemies before retreating to a safe area/distance where they'd not be easily followed you'd find that it makes even combats where you're outnumbered and are facing a stronger enemy than you could normally take without great pain/prep/buffing FAR easier and in most situations where the enemies don't have an experienced healer of their own with curatives/elixirs/antidotes (which is extremely rare) practically a trivial affair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poison can be very potent and useful IF the group is willing to adopt a very uncommon approach to battle which is remarkably effective but most feel isn't very heroic/fun.
Hit and run, guerilla tactics, and tactical retreat once you've weakened/hurt/scared your opponents. Most gamers don't ever even think about retreat when playing these days and groups often would rather just face tank threats that could wipe the floor with them while losing one or more party members permanently than to do some chip damage, take out a few mooks, and potentially injure/poison/cripple the important enemies before backing off and/or just flat out running away.
If the party has a mind to ambush enemies, toss out some persistent nasty conditions, poisons, and maybe take out a few enemies before retreating to a safe area/distance where they'd not be easily followed you'd find that it makes even combats where you're outnumbered and are facing a stronger enemy than you could normally take without great pain/prep/buffing FAR easier and in most situations where the enemies don't have an experienced healer of their own with curatives/elixirs/antidotes (which is extremely rare) practically a trivial affair.
I feel like the issue here is one of what is fun for every player at the table.
I think by default, the expectation is not "hit and run" tactics. It's to engage in the fight and continue fighting until you win. And even if retreat is on the table, it's usually not a retreat with the thought of coming back, at least not until you've gotten rid of any lingering effects and healed as much as possible.
I would personally consider it an incompatible play style, unless it had been discussed beforehand and the whole party bought into playing this style. If the party were really interested in it, perhaps the GM could give a free archetype to give everyone a free poison related archetype power so it makes sense for everyone to engage in this style.
A scout with Blowgun Poisoner and a snare would work for most parties who can at least work with the idea of an ambush.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue with poison comes from a difference in expectations. If you expect Poison to be your main contribution in combat then you'll be highly disappointed. If it's just another string to your bow then it's doing fine.
As it's prebuff, I don't expect Poison to ever end up in a place where it'll be the main contribution of a character even after dozens of erratas and remasters.
I view it as a way for a martial character to expand their options without using magic.
As time allows I'll be trying out a ranger poisoner build with a crocodile companion - I was tempted to go with salamander but I would be utterly shut down in some fights. The companion provides a solid damage baseline and ensures my poison gimmick can shine when it works and not be an issue when it fails.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit and run, guerilla tactics, and tactical retreat once you've weakened/hurt/scared your opponents. Most gamers don't ever even think about retreat when playing these days and groups often would rather just face tank threats that could wipe the floor with them while losing one or more party members permanently than to do some chip damage, take out a few mooks, and potentially injure/poison/cripple the important enemies before backing off and/or just flat out running away.
The main issue with this is that it really opens up the exact same tactic to the DM to use on a regular basis. Usually a DM avoids such tactics for normal play but once its the general go-to tactic, it can come back on the table. Most groups would rather drop poison guerilla tactics than keep getting their 10 min rests interrupted by ambushes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poison can be very potent and useful IF the group is willing to adopt a very uncommon approach to battle which is remarkably effective but most feel isn't very heroic/fun.
Hit and run, guerilla tactics, and tactical retreat once you've weakened/hurt/scared your opponents. Most gamers don't ever even think about retreat when playing these days and groups often would rather just face tank threats that could wipe the floor with them while losing one or more party members permanently than to do some chip damage, take out a few mooks, and potentially injure/poison/cripple the important enemies before backing off and/or just flat out running away.
If the party has a mind to ambush enemies, toss out some persistent nasty conditions, poisons, and maybe take out a few enemies before retreating to a safe area/distance where they'd not be easily followed you'd find that it makes even combats where you're outnumbered and are facing a stronger enemy than you could normally take without great pain/prep/buffing FAR easier and in most situations where the enemies don't have an experienced healer of their own with curatives/elixirs/antidotes (which is extremely rare) practically a trivial affair.
Retreat isn't practical a lot of the time, but even when it is poison still isn't that great. Most enemies aren't so foolish as to just go back to wait around if the poison doesn't kill them: they'll go alert others that they were attacked and now the whole place is on alert. If you're going to ambush them: you want to finish the job (which a good ambush makes easier as it tends to give a tactical advantage).
And in a fight, long running poison also isn't great because PCs tend to want to focus fire to deny the enemy forces actions. Sure the poison might kill the target in 4 rounds if you do nothing else too it, but the Barbarian hitting it make that happen faster so that enemy can't attack back.
Poison with significant upfront effects is pretty nice and can definitely help. So it's not useless, but if it requires groups to run away frequently or spread damage around multiple enemies to be effective, then it's not really a very good primary tactic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hit and run, guerilla tactics, and tactical retreat once you've weakened/hurt/scared your opponents. Most gamers don't ever even think about retreat when playing these days and groups often would rather just face tank threats that could wipe the floor with them while losing one or more party members permanently than to do some chip damage, take out a few mooks, and potentially injure/poison/cripple the important enemies before backing off and/or just flat out running away.The main issue with this is that it really opens up the exact same tactic to the DM to use on a regular basis. Usually a DM avoids such tactics for normal play but once its the general go-to tactic, it can come back on the table. Most groups would rather drop poison guerilla tactics than keep getting their 10 min rests interrupted by ambushes.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. PCs and NPCs are, and should be, fundamentally unequal.
Their actions should be guided by the narrative, not by some unstated and ultimately unknowable assumed social contract.
Poisoners should be using poison effectively, dumb brutes should be relatively straightforward in theor assaults, caredul assassins should be attacking PCs at their most vulnerable, clever enemies should be learning the PCs tactics after multiple engagements, etc. Failing to do these things makes for a rather shallow and uninteresting play experience.
That said, it's a totally fine attitude to have if it's clearly communicated to the whole table up front and everyoneis onboard with artificial self-limiters.
Strikes me as walking on egg shells unless you make clearly defined do/don't lists or some such though.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The moment you attack a dungeon/complex, in any situation other than there being 50 ft long hallways between each room and heavy doors blocking out sound (or there otherwise being a source of loud noise in every room such as manufacturing or a noisy kitchen, etc) every combat should at LEAST put the next room on high alert no matter what and set off a chain reaction through the entire area.
The whole idea that each encounter should earn the party 10-15 minutes of uninterrupted peace and quiet without having to retreat a significant distance is silly to the point of being unbelievable. The moment a dungeon has invaders, in basically any case other than super-sized mega-dungeons, it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes for the entire place to be on high alert, arming themselves to the teeth and rushing in to fight the invading forces.
In situations where the combat is executed in a manner where stealth is the point it is justifiable to let the status quo rest as-is but anything other than that... dungeons with only one entrance/exit should have the room the party was in nearly swarmed with enemy reinforcement ASAP and in situations where there is more than one entrance/exit the party should have to make a hasty retreat or learn to expect that they'll be retaliated against from not only deeper in the complex but also the entrance they came in.
Yes, it's not the brain dead clear one room, rest, clear one room, rest, buff up for mid-boss, fight, rest, rinse repeat that SEEMS to be the implied norm but that makes about as much sense as how NPCs in MMO dungeons operate without any sense of tactics, strategy or even in self-preservation. If folks are really playing the game like that they are getting a less tactical or realistic experience than they'd get playing the original version of Risk. If players want to be challenged and make decisions that are impactful at all beyond "how do I spend my 3 actions, one round at a time" once every 10-20 minutes of in-game time then you have to treat the enemies (unless they're fighting mindless opponents without any significant precise senses to speak of) like they are at least as self-aware and tactically sound as a group of young-5's kindergarteners.
I seriously don't understand how it seems to have become the expected norm that each area/encounter is self-enclosed and that intelligent creatures won't ever actively react to the presence of enemies, work to act as reinforcements to their own allies, or use any type of tactics to get the upper hand. There are plenty of pre-published works out there that DO write encounters with this in mind and the assumption that the moment the complex is noticeably invaded that deeper within operational changes, arming, and reinforcement tactics kick in but it seems like these are the exceptions rather than the norm because of just how hard it would be to write that kind of book and instead the authors left it up to the GMs who... just never did anything with it, seemingly lots of folks took that absence to mean that bad guys should just sit on their hands while their coworkers/friends/family are noticeably slaughtered the next room over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A scout with Blowgun Poisoner and a snare would work for most parties who can at least work with the idea of an ambush.
The new feat that allows you to stay hidden after using a blowgun could make a sneaky poisoner type person ranging in front of the group tapping a few mobs with poisons to weaken them up before kicking off the fight.
Tox is a proactive type spec you want to be fighting when you choose to fight while preparing yourself before going in. It has a lot harder time dealing with a fight suddenly appearing on top of them where a bomber will generally be stronger.
Talking about co-operative play about poison I find surprising that the advance domain spell from Indulgence, "Take it's Course" hasn't been mentioned.
How does it play now with the remaster toxicologist and poisons?
Can you explain?
Reframing the question would give: Is it better to have 1 enemy at Stage 2 or 2 enemies at Stage 1?
I think you now understand why I have a different answer.As for the calculations, I've considered an enemy with Moderate Fortitude Saves +2 (as Fortitude saves are among the highest ones). And I've calculated the Poison damage on exposition + one save as enemies tend to die quickly once they start taking damage but still generally survive enough to get one turn and as such one save against Poison.
Calculating for the unexposed enemy was obvious, I've just calculated one chance of exposition plus, if they failed or critically failed their save (don't forget the critical failure), a second save at Stage 1/2 and as such possible extra damage.
The already exposed enemy was a bit less obvious. I've calculated one chance of exposition while at Stage 1 plus, if they failed or critically failed their save, a second save minus the damage of the second save if they had stayed at Stage 1.
To explain the second point: if you are at Stage 1 and fails your save against a second exposition you go to Stage 2. Then at the end of your turn let's say you roll a failure, go to Stage 3 and take Stage 3 damage. But you can't just add Stage 3 damage to the calculations, as if you hadn't been poisoned a second time (and as such had stayed at Stage 1) and had failed your save at the end of your turn you'd have been at Stage 2 and would have taken Stage 2 damage. So much less extra damage from being at Stage 2 on the second save.
The result was that both graphics were extremely close to each other with less than 10% damage difference. That's why I say that it's as interesting to pile Poison on a single target than to spread it on multiple enemies.
As a side note, I've also calculated the expected damage when the enemy is at Stage 2 and it crumbles. But managing to poison an enemy at Stage 2 is a rare occurrence, I've never seen it happening.
Also, to give an idea of Poison damage, it is really low at low level but once you get to the 2-digit levels it becomes nearly equivalent to the damage of Electric Arc (on a single target). So nothing incredible but still a free Cantrip per poisoned weapon.
I must have saved these graphics on my computer, if you want I can try to find them. I may also one day try to make them again with the new poisons released and some nice remaster additions like Pernicious Poisons.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have given poisons as rewards to PCs, and they have used them frequently.
At no point has an enemy ever failed a save against it, much less have they ever failed a save at a point in time that it mattered.
Meanwhile, NPCs use poisons all the time and PCs occasionally fail, and they are seriously debilitating to PCs.
All this reinforces is that Poison is a GM tool, not a player tool, not unlike Incapacitate spells.
My group has had recent anecdotal success using poison. The alchemist was able to get an inhaled poison off against 3 targets (2 on-level, 1 level +2) in a choke point who's low save was fort. It inflicted some powerful bleed damage and drained 1 which further debuffed subsequent saves. The choke point forced enemies to run into the cloud in order to flee or enter the combat which did force the poison into stage 2 for some prematurely.
Overall a pretty big success, still wouldn’t have been possible without powerful alchemy increasing the DC. I would be really interested to see some feats that mess with inhaled poisons like making the area bigger or a different shape like a cone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The choke point forced enemies to run into the cloud in order to flee or enter the combat which did force the poison into stage 2 for some prematurely.
Surely enemies can't get effected more than once by multiple exposures to the same dose of poison?
The choke point forced enemies to run into the cloud in order to flee or enter the combat which did force the poison into stage 2 for some prematurely.Surely enemies can't get effected more than once by multiple exposures to the same dose of poison?
I think for something like inhaled gas if the gas lingers and they go back into it that would I think correctly be considered a new dose of that poison.
As far as I can tell there is nothing stopping it.
Multiple exposures to the same curse or disease currently affecting you have no effect. For a poison, however, failing the initial saving throw against a new exposure increases the stage by 1 (or by 2 if you critically fail) without affecting the maximum duration. This is true even if you’re within the poison’s onset period, though it doesn’t change the onset length. If the poison does not have an onset time or it’s already elapsed, you are immediately subject to the effects of the new stage.
Its a multiple exposure to the same effect for a poison. As far as I can tell theres nothing in the inhaled or poison traits that would disallow it? Its the first time for me running inhaled poisons so I could have missed something.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that's the case, it makes inhaled poisons absurdly more powerful and more cost effective than other poisons, especially if you build into it with things like forced movement effects.
I think for something like inhaled gas if the gas lingers and they go back into it that would I think correctly be considered a new dose of that poison.
A new exposure perhaps, but not a new dose. Better to not mix up the terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I can tell there is nothing stopping it.
Multiple exposures to the same curse or disease currently affecting you have no effect. For a poison, however, failing the initial saving throw against a new exposure increases the stage by 1 (or by 2 if you critically fail) without affecting the maximum duration. This is true even if you’re within the poison’s onset period, though it doesn’t change the onset length. If the poison does not have an onset time or it’s already elapsed, you are immediately subject to the effects of the new stage.Its a multiple exposure to the same effect for a poison. As far as I can tell theres nothing in the inhaled or poison traits that would disallow it? Its the first time for me running inhaled poisons so I could have missed something.
It is (frustratingly) outside the written rules, but I do think this is trying to convey that all alch poisons are single exposure per creature items.
If you poison a big bottle of wine, the drinker is exposed to a single dose as soon as they have consumed enough to count. They will not have to roll multiple saves if they happen to drink 2 glasses a hour apart from each other. But if the cake is also poisoned |with a 2nd poison item|, then that's a second save they need to make.
Same goes for contact poisons. There's no rule saying an exposure event deletes the poison as there is for injury. In theory, a group of NPC can pass around a poisoned statuette and each be exposed to the poison. But once the statuette is handed back to the first NPC that has already rolled, they do not have to roll a 2nd time. However, if the group then begins to examine a bejeweled necklace...
IMO, this "one exposure per creature" (per poison item) also applies for inhaled.
However, where there is wiggle room is that I would argue the Alchemist can pop a 2nd copy of the same poison to trigger a 2nd exposure event. If you want to say that overrides the first, or you prefer that the two clouds stack, that's up to you.
Right, things like Sticky Poison feat (alchemist) can sometimes give you two exposures off a single injury poison dose if you pass the flat check, so there's other areas where it matters that the terms be distinct.
Looking at the rules for multiple exposures it seems like if somebody inhales poison fails their save and is poisoned and then leaves the cloud and then goes back through it would progress the stage of the poison but not effect the duration. If the poison had worn off them and they went back into the cloud they would have to roll a save as normal.
This is different than diseases or curses where once you get them the same curse/disease can't re-expose them.
I guess this would be an advantage of an airborne lingering poison. I haven't looked to see how many of these things even exist in the game but it does seem like it could be potentially nasty.
I think the more common reexposure to the same poison is more likely with some of the talents where the poison can possibly not get used up on the first hit or the sticky poison to ramp up the poison level fast.
For the statue example I think if there was a poison that stayed on the statue after the first touch was passed around and came back to you if you had initially failed the first saving throw it would indeed increase your stage as per the rules. Honestly it makes sense you are basically giving yourself a bigger and bigger dose each time you are fiddling with the poison.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like some folks are treating a second exposure like an automatic increase of the stage, when the section on multiple exposures seems quite clear that this is the result of a new failed save. Just wanted to poke my nose in here in case it wasn't just me getting that impression
Multiple exposures force a new save that can only do nothing or bump the stage up. It can be quite brutal, which is part of why it's gated behind a lot of investment.
Stage 3 Giant Centipede Venom can easily shift the tide of a close battle.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding but it sounds like some folks are treating a second exposure like an automatic increase of the stage, when the section on multiple exposures seems quite clear that this is the result of a new failed save. Just wanted to poke my nose in here in case it wasn't just me getting that impression
In my case the guys did make extra saves for subsequent exposures. However bad rolls + drained 1 + alchemist class DC meant a stage increase for most of them.
When do you make saves against poison in the turn order?
Our druid got hit by a poison crossbow bolt and it brought our game to a screeching halt.
It'd be unworkable if you had to track poison on each monster's turn, especially as turns shift and monsters die. So yeah, it's a bummer to get poisoned w/o a full round to address it, but that's how it works.
So...neither of you really know for sure?
If the save is made on the victim's turn, does that mean they'd have to save twice before they're able to do anything about it? (Asked by a fellow player at tonight's table.)
Poison continues to suck. LOL.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
After the initial exposure save, the victim makes the save at the end of their turns. If there's no onset time, the victim suffers the stage 1 effect when they fail the exposure save.
After the initial exposure save, the victim makes the save at the end of their turns. If there's no onset time, the victim suffers the stage 1 effect when they fail the exposure save.
Alright, but where is that actually stated within the rules?
I can't find "at the end of their turn" anywhere regarding poisons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After the initial exposure save, the victim makes the save at the end of their turns. If there's no onset time, the victim suffers the stage 1 effect when they fail the exposure save.Alright, but where is that actually stated within the rules?
I can't find "at the end of their turn" anywhere regarding poisons.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2389
It's all right there in the afflictions rules: "Diseases and poisons are types of afflictions"
"At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. "
This may help:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2430
"You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions"
After the initial exposure save, the victim makes the save at the end of their turns. If there's no onset time, the victim suffers the stage 1 effect when they fail the exposure save.Alright, but where is that actually stated within the rules?
I can't find "at the end of their turn" anywhere regarding poisons.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2389
It's all right there in the afflictions rules: "Diseases and poisons are types of afflictions"
"At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. "
This may help:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2430"You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions"
Say I get poisoned by a monster's bite, with a venom that ticks every round.
Would it not tick down on the monster's turn? After all, if the victim goes right after the monster, it can't be said that one round has passed.
After the initial exposure save, the victim makes the save at the end of their turns. If there's no onset time, the victim suffers the stage 1 effect when they fail the exposure save.Alright, but where is that actually stated within the rules?
I can't find "at the end of their turn" anywhere regarding poisons.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2389
It's all right there in the afflictions rules: "Diseases and poisons are types of afflictions"
"At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. "
This may help:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2430"You then attempt any saving throws for ongoing afflictions"
Say I get poisoned by a monster's bite, with a venom that ticks every round.
Would it not tick down on the monster's turn? After all, if the victim goes right after the monster, it can't be said that one round has passed.
I imagine this rule functions this way for the purpose of keeping the game from being horribly bogged down.