Hello, I have a question about Toxicologist.
Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.
A creature with immune to poison takes acid damage instead of poison damage, does the creature have also the other effects from the poison at the different stages ?
Is it possible to add virulent trait to a poison ?
Thanks for your future answer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is argument on this one.
Either you read both those sentences as 2 different rules, or the first is there as an introduction, and the 2nd is the only mechanical rule.
IMO, both are mechanical rules.
The first "Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison."
is a rule to enable one to bypass the immunity mechanic itself.
Now, all foes can suffer the poison afflictions, but they are still immune to poison damage.
So, mechanic rule #2 is there: "A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons ..."
.
The main "catch" or easy to miss detail here is the bit on "your infused poisons"
note it does not say "items with the poison trait"
The item groups are often forgotten, but mechanically relevant here. 1/4 of the alch items are the "alchemical poisons" which is what this text is talking about.
If an item has an exposure trait, like inhaled or injury, you know it's an alch poison. But, the poison trait can be there on many items that are not alch poisons.
You can ask/beg your GM for it as a houserule, but RaW, the Tox special bypass does not apply to things like Skunk Bombs.
I don't actually know of a way to add virulent to an alch item affliction that lacks it. You generally just keep an eye out for the rare poisons that are virulent, and consider them improved by that tag.
Hello, I have a question about Toxicologist.
Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.A creature with immune to poison takes acid damage instead of poison damage, does the creature have also the other effects from the poison at the different stages ?
Is it possible to add virulent trait to a poison ?
Thanks for your future answer.
There are 2 "poisons" in the game. The poison when you see its immunity means that it is immune to damage and there are the afflictions caused by poison.
The toxicologist states 2 things:
Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison.
So poison immunity doesn't works for your infused poisons at all. Allowing the affliction to work normally.
A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.
This is also simple, just states if the damage type of your infused poisons is poison but it would take more damage if it was acid, so use acid instead.
Is it possible to add virulent trait to a poison ?
As far as I know, no. At most you can choose a virulent poison.
There isn't a distinction.
Traits define items.
An "item with the alchemical trait" is synonymous with "an alchemical item" the same way an "item with the magic trait" is "a magical item".
An "item with the alchemical, infused, poison trait" is synonymous with"infused alchemical poison".
There absolutely is a difference, this is 100% clear. Tools are defined by not being in the other 3, which could not happen otherwise.
More importantly, you are using the wrong definitional trait for alch poison. The text explicitly states that alch poisons have a method of exposure trait and the category is not defined by the poison trait.
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
Contact: A contact poison...
Ingested: ...
Inhaled: ...
Injury: ...
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3185
Each item category is exclusive to another, there is no item that is in two at the same time. Some special abilities allow one to treat an item as if it were in another category. That only matters because the category matters.
For other classes/archetypes this matters even more, such as Alch Sci Investigators only be allowed tools and elixirs.
Again, the tools category is even explicitly defined by not being in one of the other big 3 categories. If the poison trait defined an item as an "alch poison" then no Alch Tool could ever deal poison damage, because having that poison trait would re-categorize the tool into being something else.
.
Again, this detail really is indisputable. I certainly have seen "power whiner" objections, but never seen someone be able to handle that alch poisons are explicitly defined as those items with an affliction exposure method.
And we know the text will use traits when it wants them, and categories when it wants them thanks to examples like Chir which use both terms.
And again, there are poison trait items in every category, because the poison trait is there any time the creature poison immunity is supposed to block things, such as with poison damage.
But ... even then I agree with shroudb in that this most likely references poison as a trait, With the behavior found in Field Vials likely being part of the RAI.
No, pretending Tox's immunity bypass works with all poison trait items really is just a "but I wanna Skunk Bomb that skeleton" argument. Item categories have always mattered, and the poison group is the one where this is most important. The text explicitly talking about what Alchemical Poisons are is not ambiguous. They need to have 1/4 exposure method traits to be an alchemical poison.
It's like trying to pretend a healing salve is an elixir when it lacks the definitional trait.The reason why certain RFs have abilities that change the category or reference traits is because that matters.
"A creature can drink the vial for this benefit, or you can throw the vial at a willing creature within 20 feet as an Interact action to heal that creature. In either case, a vial used this way loses the acid and splash traits and gains the coagulant and healing traits, plus the elixir trait if a creature drinks it."
or
"You can drink the contents of one your versatile vials to suppress the drawback you take from one mutagen currently affecting you until the beginning of your next turn. A vial used this way loses the acid, bomb, and splash traits and gains the elixir trait.
or
"Your versatile vials have the poison trait and deal poison damage instead of having the acid trait and dealing acid damage (though your field benefit still applies). You can apply the contents of a versatile vial to a weapon or piece of ammunition as an injury poison. "
This is further reinforcement that this distinction exists. You need specific rules to override the normal behavior, as these features do. As VVs are bombs at baseline, Bomber's entries have no mention of treating the VVs as a different type of item under certain conditions.
Again, treating all poison trait items as "alchemical poisons" would break things.
Elixirs like Frogskin Tincture have the poison trait. If you drink one, your skin oozes with poison. This ooze even directly carries a poison affliction. But because categories matter, this is still 100% an elixir. If having the poison trait meant this elixir was an alch poison, then PCs who were immune to poison couldn't benefit from drinking it.
The only way to comprehend that the poison trait is on an item for damage or immunity reasons, *sometimes,* is to acknowledge that you cannot use the poison trait to know if an item is an alch poison or not.
Which is why the text itself defines alch poisons via the method of exposure traits. If the poison trait alone worked, then that text would not be there.
Again, I'm not making this up.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3180
Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools.
The tools group distinction matters a whole lot for alch sci Investigators.
If having the poison trait was definitional to being an alch poison, then tools w/ the poison trait would instead be miscategorized and unusable to them.*
[...]which contains the formulas for two common 1st-level alchemical items of your choice (these must be elixirs or tools), in addition to the formulas gained from Alchemical Crafting.
[...]You quickly brew up a short-lived tincture. You create a single alchemical elixir or tool of your level or lower that's in your formula book
The lack of inhaled trait is why an alch sci can make the Blindpeper Tube. It mechanically works a lot like the [inhaled] dark pepper powder, but because the Blindpeper tube avoids the exposure traits, it's therefore a tool.
.
Your "definition" makes 0 sense, and would mean that all bombs are tools. This would make alch sci's Quick Tincture able to make bombs.
In fact, if you used your definition for alch tool, the those investigators would have access to every single alchemical item minus a drinkable food or two that lack the elixir trait.
.
Seriously, just think it through for a second. Alchemist has always had to respect the item categories due to their free formulas, including our perpetual items! This distinction was never an argument back then, because it was obvious that Tox's perpetuals did not include Skunk Bombs, because those are alch bombs and not alch poisons.
.
"Alchemical Poisons" are annoying to talk about because the first text in base Alchemy introducing them does talk about the poison trait, while pointing you to read the actual category page, which makes it 100% clear that only the items that have methods of exposure are the alch poisons.
Alchemical poisons are potent toxins distilled or extracted from natural sources and made either stronger or easier to administer. Each poison's stat block includes the Price and features for a single dose. Poison doses are typically kept in a vial or some other type of safe and secure container.
Applying alchemical poisons uses Interact actions. A poison typically requires one hand to pour into food or scatter in the air. Applying a poison to a weapon or another item requires two hands, with one hand holding the weapon or item. The Usage entry for a poison indicates the number of hands needed for a typical means of application, but the GM might determine that using poisons in other ways functions differently.
The full rules for how poisons and other afflictions work are found here. A creature attempts the listed saving throw as soon as it's exposed to the poison; on a failed save, the creature advances to Stage 1 of the poison after any listed onset time elapses.
Virulent Poisons: Some poisons have the virulent trait. You must succeed at two consecutive saves to reduce a virulent affliction's stage by 1. A critical success reduces a virulent affliction's stage by only 1 instead of by 2.
Click here for the Alchemical Poisons category page.
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
Contact: A contact poison is activated [...]
If you want to be super anal, then I can use this to disqualify all bombs, because the text says that poisons use Interact, while bombs are Strike activated.
The main note here is that there is 0 text inside the actual alch poisons sections to indicate the poison trait matters at all. The phrase "poison trait" never appears once.But there is that kind of language for the other special category items that are defined by single traits.
Bombs have the bomb trait.
Elixirs are alchemical liquids that are used by drinking them. They have the elixir trait.
If you take these 2 other definitions to matter, then you've got to respect the alch poisons section defining them as carrying one of the exposure method traits. (and yes, "saying each X has __" means that something lacking ___ cannot be an X) There's just no avoid that rule.
.
When you have things being described or categorized in multiple locations, you apply all of them, you don't get to pick and choose.
Tools are both mentioned as "Alchemical tools are consumable items you don’t drink." (wtf where they thinking with this) and are also "Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools."
.
Poisons have the same annoyance w/ their definition.
You have to use both "The bomb, elixir, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages." and aaallll the text of the alch poisons page, especially "Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison."
To resolve both these texts smooshed together, you have to understand that while the poison trait indicates an alch poison, it is not definitional, and that the actual page on alch poisons is where the real, more specific definition lies.
.
*If you want to be absolute-RaW, then because that prior text defining tools as "lacking the above traits", instead of saying "not in these three categories," that would mean tools with the poison trait are not actually tools, and are left in uncategorized limbo, even when they are not alch poisons.
If the item categories did not exist, then they would not be used by the rules, ffs.
And you are still refusing the absurdly obvious fact that alch poisons are defined by the exposure method trait, not the poison trait.
Again, read the bloody section named "Alchemical Poisons"
Bombs cannot be in there, nor odd poison trait things like Frogskin Tincture, Toadskin Salve, Sargassum Phial, etc.
FFS, your "poison trait only" would mean that Bane & Blister Ammunition are "an alchemical poison" instead of being Alchemical Ammunition, which is a sub set of Tools.
Dude, what are you doing.
Yes, the basic intro text of the Alchemy section is so oversimplified that it's outright incorrect. You have to resolve that in a way that doesn't break things and create contradictions. If you rewrite the "doesn't have these traits" into "is not one of these categories" then literally everything else works.
Dude, not a single line of the Alchemical Poisons section is compatible with a bomb or an elixir. You are plugging your ears and pretending all that text is somehow irrelevant.
And again, you are not applying basic logic here.
As a logical equation, if all Alch Poisons have an Exposure Trait, then it is logically correct to say that any item lacking an Exposure Trait cannot be an Alchemical Poison.
You are refusing to accept that the same text within the overview Alchemy section, which directs one to read the Alchemical Poisons section, is not the whole story.
You are failing to grasp (or pretending to) that something "being poisonous" is not the same thing as "being an alchemical poison." As explained in the Alchemy section, "alchemical poison" is a special term, which is defined in the section named Alchemical Poisons.
Your objection is like insisting on everything that explodes or pops in some way *must* also be a bomb.
Specific overrides general, and the "Alchemical Poisons" section has way more "right of way" than the one phrase info in the Alchemy section, which isn't even technically wrong! It does not define the categories there, and uses the non-absolute word of "indicate"
All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools.
The "special categories" of items only get traits that "indicate" instead of an "all" or "are defined by." And this instruction is "mostly true" as most of the alch items w/ the poison tag are alch poisons.
Note that this paragraph does know to use absolutes when it wants to. "All" alch items have the alch trait is definitional and correct.
.
The only way any reader can say that a magic wand is "not an alchemical item" is if they use the same logic rule of "all X have ___" granting the rule of: "it lacks ___, therefore it cannot be a X" that applies to the exposure method traits. You are bullshiting super duper hard to keep pretending that basic logic does not apply this one time.
.
Again, I have never once seen a Tox player genuinely poo-poo about their free formulas or Perpetuals and insist they can pick any item with the poison trait.
It is intuitive that alch items exist in a couple of mutually exclusive categories. The remaster even made those borders more clear with changes to things like Healing Bomb removing the elixir-bomb double trait, and change to "as if it were a bomb" style wording.
It's only post-remaster that this is became "a debate" because suddenly there's a great deal of power to be gained from rewriting "your infused poisons" into "your infused items with the poison trait."
|
I've had a hunt and I'm pretty sure there's no way to add virulent to a poison. It's just a trait some poisons have.
However - there is the poison concentrator, which doesn't add virulent, but can help make poisons more potent. It's not the most useful thing, but if there's a particular posion you like using, it can make it a bit better.
It's the closest I could find to just adding the virulent trait, at any rate.
The main reason I'm certain that Tox does not get to change the text "your infused poisons" into "items with the poison trait" is because the text from other Fields (and feats) does use traits when it wants to, and feats involving the term "alchemical poisons" no longer make sense if that means all poison-trait items.
This goes outside Alchemist as a class, too.
There are plenty of subclasses/Archetypes, like Poisoner, who would get a nonsense boost from being able to get any item with the poison trait. I don't think any player has ever argued at a table that because they could "prepare alchemical poisons" each day, that they were allowed to use that for Dread Ampoules (yes, the fear bombs have the poison trait) or Pucker Pickles.
.
Aside from, ya know, the text "Alchemical Poisons" very clearly saying that alchemical poisons is a special term with a whole set of paragraphs explaining how they are items that trigger exposure events, and how exposures happen, etc,
lets look at a feat that no longer computes, because guess what, when the text says "alchemical poison" it really does only mean those items that trigger exposure events.
You can add a toxic additive to an alchemical poison to make it splash poison on its target. A poison with this additive deals an amount of poison damage equal to the poison's level if the target succeeds at its initial saving throw against it. A target that critically succeeds at its saving throw against this poison still takes no damage.
There are bombs like Skunk, Blightburn, and Trueshape that all have the poison tag and would now deal extra damage because they invoke saves.
Or do they?Because "initial saving throw" is a special term that, ya know, is only defined inside alch poisons and their exposure events.
If all poison trait items = alch poisons was actually the rule, then the text would be sure to say this only works with "exposure events" and not all items w/ saves.
This feat unambiguously assumes that "alchemical poisons" are only those items w/ "initial saving throws."
This is as good of a "smoking gun" as it can get for things like this.
.
Another feat is Alter Admixture, which lets you re-make a prep item, explicitly requiring that the item is of the same special category:
... You can change an alchemical bomb into another type of alchemical bomb, an elixir into another type of elixir, or a poison into another type of poison. ...
These examples just do not make sense if the poison trait = alch poison. In part because that ruling *requires* you also break the notion of the big 4 categories being mutually exclusive, which this feat further evidences.
You cannot restrict someone to remake a Skunk into only another bomb if that skunk is also an alch poison. The feat's text no longer makes sense if the categories overlap, and it is blatantly obvious that it would have been written differently if items could be in multiple categories at once. At the absolute minimum, the text would have to fill in the blank about what happens to multi-category items, are they double-restricted or doubly-permissive?
It is 100% obvious that these categories are mutually exclusive yall.
No honest Alchemist veteran can pretend that "the poison trait means it's an alchemical poison." The understanding of the special categories is all over the class.
Even AoN "enforces" this understanding. Click on any underlined link that says "a poison" and see where it takes you. That list of "alchemical poisons" does not include things like Skunk Bombs yall. It would be simple enough to list items in multiple categories, but it does not. Because it's stupid to claim that bombs, elixirs and ammo are "alchemical poisons." And post-remaster, it's become a dumb power-grab.
FFS, even the poison trait itself is begging yall to understand that it can be there for multiple reasons; sometimes because it's an alch poison w/ an affliction + exposure going on, and other times it's so that "+1 to saves against poison" triggers, or even just for poison damage resistance to function:
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 poison trait has to do double duty to denote poisonous things while also being damage type trait yall, it's not a categorization trait like [bomb] or [elixir], and it never was. That's why the text told you to look for an exposure trait to know.
Again, the text in base Alchemy does not define the 3 special categories, it only claims those traits indicate them, and explicitly instructs the reader to those sections.
It is 100% certain that the 3 categories are not defined in that Alchemy blurb, because the categories themselves are not even named there.
It is not viable to claim that "Alchemical Poison" is defined by text that goes so far out of its way to make sure no one thinks it's defining the thing, that the text "Alchemical Poison" never appears. FFS dude, what are you doing.
All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools.
The author even squeezed the "I'm pointing you to go there for the definition" instruction into the same bloody sentence to remove the possibility for misinterpretation.
It is not valid to claim this paragraph defines the 3 categories, this paragraph only introduces the concept of their existence.
.
Are you going to make a real counter-argument to the argument evidenced by Pernicious Poison and Alter Admixture? Or are going to continue to weakly "nuh-uh!"
The big 3 are all mutually exclusive categories explained in their respective sections, evidenced by Alter Admixture. Any time the text references alchemical poisons, it is *only* talking about the items that trigger exposure events, as evidenced by Pernicious Poison.
A Tox can make any kind of bomb the same way a Bomber can make any alch poison. All alchs can take Pernicious Poison. That does not mean they get to completely black out the text under "Alchemical Poisons" to misuse a non-definition provided in the general Alchemy section, so that they get to boost items they were never intended to.
.
Again, the poison trait is non-definitional, and it is there any time an item is poisonous or deals poison damage. An "alchemical poison" is a special category of item more specific than that, and is one that carries an exposure method trait.
Your claim does not allow for any alch item to deal poison damage *without* becoming an "alch poison." That should prompt self-reflection that it is an invalid claim of the trait tag.
Just to tally up the requirements and RaW problems involved in the "all alch items w/ poison trait are in the special alchemical poisons category" ruling:
.
1. Take the Alchemy paragraph that lacks the phrase "alchemical poison" to (exclusively) define "alchemical poisons".
2. Ignore all text within "Alchemical Poisons" that would render the category more specific than 1. alone. When this text contradicts 1., ignore it. When this text provides a rock-solid requirement that all items of this category have a method of exposure trait, ignore it because the more general 1. gets to overrule the more specific rule here. This one time, for "reasons."
3. Must claim that Pernicious Poison feat is written wrong, detailed above.
4. Must claim that Tenacious Toxins feat is written wrong.
The maximum duration of any poison you create increases by an amount equal to the poison's stage 1 interval, to a maximum of twice the poison's maximum duration.
this text only makes sense if "poison" is limited to *only* the items that have a stage 1 interval.
5. Must claim that the big 3 special categories are not mutually exclusive to one another, when they clearly are.
6. Must claim that Alter Admixture is written *very* wrong, else 4. collapses. Detailed above.
7. Must ignore that the poison trait's own text informs that it is not definitional, and can be there for multiple *different* reasons.
8. Make it impossible for an alch item to involve poison damage or poison effects (which add poison trait) without being member of, and invoking considerations of the "alchemical poisons" special category. Doesn't matter if it's an alch food, that tasty Pucker Pickle is and triggers all "alchemical poison" considerations. (Meaning that bite-happy constructs, skeletons, etc would be affected by the Pickle, lol)
.
____________________________________________________
If you accept that Alchemical Poisons are defined in the "Alchemical Poisons" section, here are all the RaW problems on this side of the binary.
1. Alchemical items with the poison trait, but that are not in the big 3, are left outside of the Tools group, and consequently lack a special category RaW.
.
That's it. That's the only poison-problem if you, ya know, consider the text of "Alchemical Poisons" to be valid rules.
.
All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools.
While the sentence informing the existence of the big 3 is non-definitional, the sentence on alch tools *is* definitional.
This comparatively minor issue can be fixed if you swap the lack of traits into the lack of one of the three categories.
.
Note that I'm *not* getting into the problems caused by first: taking the "Alchemical tools are consumable items you don’t drink." as the sole tools definition, consequently need to second: null the above definition, and lastly: combo that with the asspull of the special categories not being mutually exclusive.
While that knot of nonsense does create absurdities like "only tools & elixirs" alch sci investigators getting every single alch item minus 1 (the one tea that lacks the [elixir] tag), that is not a part of this poison question.
Because you can't *only* grant the Tox that perk. In order to reach that end, the method requires redefining what an alchemical poison is all across the whole system.
.
If you want to houserule change that text in order to buff the Tox so that specific feature works on all alch items w/ the poison trait, that's a great idea which I wholly support.
But that's not what the text is, so twisting the RaW with that much nonsense to force that *ruling* using the existing text, that knocks over a lot of dominoes. Those I'm aware of are numbered up in that post. You can't get to that ruling RaW without also doing each of those.
.
While it seems especially lame RaW that Tox is limited to only buffing their alch poisons, that's been the norm for Alchemist this whole time. It's not new, the new part is how much of a boost those specific items can get.
Being able to Skunk Bomb ghosts, constructs, etc, is genuinely a big enough deal to change how a Tox plays.
Here's a quick link to the alch items with trait search as: | [poison:must have] [exposure method traits: can have none]
This lists the items that get elevated into the special category that should not be (and have been added to AoN).
Putting aside the breaking of things,
As of now, the "power gain" for Tox is mostly the bombs, Bane Ammunition, Pucker Pickle (it's actually very good at it's job), and maybe Toadskin that standout as benefiting significantly, but the item list will keep growing.
Declaring "I'm right, you're wrong" doesn't fly very far without any evidence to fuel it.
When the other guy has a whole list of "why nots" that you refuse to address, that "argument" of yours doesn't even achieve liftoff.
__________________________________
I forgot to directly press you on why you do not add the 2 texts together instead of nulling Alch Poisons.
Even if you incorrectly take the "trait indicates category" as definitional to alch poisons, that should add an extra restriction that pairs with the "all alch poisons have an exposure trait" rule inside of Alch Poisons.
Meaning all alch poisons must have both the poison trait *and* an exposure trait. It completely defies the rules to nullify a more specific restriction because [___].
Iirc, this "both" ruling would only kick Dark Pepper Power out of the alch poisons and into tools, as it's the only non-poisonous alch poison.
I've still got no clue how you pretend that ~"each alch poison has an exposure trait" rule doesn't get to exist/function.
Again: nothing, absolutely NOTHING says that only things with exposure are poisons.
That is correct. Not all poisons (generic category of items that behave a certain way) have an exposure trait.
However, all Alchemical Poisons (a specific subset of poisons) do have an exposure trait. The salient line in the Alchemical Poisons definition is under the "Method of Exposure" heading: "Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits..." It then lists and describes the traits: Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, and Injury.
The powerhouse in that sentence is the word, "Each." It is an exclusive term; if each item in a category has certain characteristics, then by definition, items lacking those characteristics do not belong in that category.
Ergo, if a poison lacks a trait describing the exposure method then it is not an Alchemical Poison.
Thus, items with the "Alchemical" and "Poison" traits, but lacking an exposure method, are Alchemical Items and are poisons. However, they are not Alchemical Poisons.
[...] But that has no bearing on my understanding regarding Tox's Field Benefit. It seems with how it is worded the concensus is that it applies to all infused items with the poison trait. since it doesn't state the item group by name. [...]
That's sadly not the case. It really does need to say poison trait for you to use poison trait.
The system does use "your/the poison(s)" as shorthand for "alchemical poisons" in a few places iirc, and not just the Tox field benefit. When alchemy text refers to something as "a poison" the default is "alchemical poison," and not "something poisonous" / [poison] tagged.
You can add a toxic additive to an alchemical poison to make it splash poison on its target. A poison with this additive deals an amount of poison damage equal to the poison's level if the target succeeds at its initial saving throw against it. A target that critically succeeds at its saving throw against this poison still takes no damage.
This is just a quick example of how the text may say the full "alchemical poison" once initially, then just say "poison" for brevity. Same pattern with Toxicologist; in the Formuals it's "two commmon 1st-level alchemical poisons" then after that it's "your infused poisons."
(Tox is explicitly allowed to treat their FVs as a unique injury poison, which is why it's useful to clarify the the FB still functions for this unique pseduo-item poison. I'm not sure why this would provide standing to re-write the text to say items w/ poison trait.)
.
This is also Foundry's implementation.
Well, this has me curious. Does Foundry fully automate this, and applies the poison-acid conversion for things like Skunk Bombs automatically?
Or is it a toggle that needs to be switched on/off in order to happen?
Field Benefit You can apply an injury poison you’re holding to a weapon or piece of ammunition you’re wielding as a single action, rather than as a 2-action activity. In addition, you flexibly mix acidic and poisonous alchemical compounds. Your infused poisons can affect creatures immune to poison. A creature takes acid damage instead of poison damage from your infused poisons if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature (as determined by the GM). Typically, this benefit applies when the creature has an immunity, resistance, or weakness to one of the damage types.
Since the Toxicologist Field Benefit does not limit the benefit to Alchemical Poisons (only poisons that have a trait identifying the exposure method), but, instead, applies it to infused poisons (any item with both the Poison and Infused traits), any alchemical item with the poison and infused traits are modified by the Toxicologists' Field Benefit.
Thus, a Toxicologist using Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy to make, say, a Skunk Bomb, which has the Poison trait natively and gains the Infused trait from being made by the Toxicologist with Advanced Alchemy or Quick Alchemy, gains the benefits of "affect[ing] creatures immune to poison" and "[dealing] acid damage instead of poison damage... if either the creature is immune to poison or that would be more detrimental to the creature" with said Skunk Bomb.
Suggesting that "infused poisons" is somehow shorthand for "infused alchemical poisons" is spurious, at best. Paizo is pretty specific when they mean "alchemical poison." See: Poison Concentrator*.
This compression apparatus can reduce two poisons into a more concentrated dose. As a 10-minute activity that has the manipulate trait, you can use a poison concentrator to combine two doses of the same alchemical poison, creating a single concentrated poison with a +1 item bonus to its DC.
Well, it is nice to have a reasonable disagreement for a change. It's honestly a reasonable read to assume Paizo wouldn't shorthand an important detail like that. But....
My familiarity with how the text does indeed shorten alchemical poisons into just poisons (sometimes without a single full "alchemical poison" to prime for the shorthand) means that I cannot agree.
I'll quote another feat that demonstrates this.
Your victims tend to expire long before your poisons, since the latter have been specifically formulated to last longer. The maximum duration of any poison you create increases by an amount equal to the poison's stage 1 interval, to a maximum of twice the poison's maximum duration.
This text only makes sense if every compatible item is an alchemical poison that has a "stage 1 interval," otherwise you are adding a null to an item that itself may have a null duration.
Despite only functioning for alchemical poisons, the word "alchemical" does not appear once, only the sans-alchemical shorthand. If "any poison you create" equates to poison trait items, the GM has a whole lot of null stuff to adjudicate.
This is why I'm confident that in text involving alchemy like this, the default of "poisons" as a category is a shorthand for "alchemical poisons," and you need specific mention of the trait to get it.
.
Alter Admixture also does the same "zero 'alchemical poison' mentions", and even AoN links "a poison" to the Alch Poisons list, not the poison trait.
[...]You can change an alchemical bomb into another type of alchemical bomb, an elixir into another type of elixir, or a poison into another type of poison.[...]
.
Oh, almost forgot the legacy (and not reprinted) feat that supports this in reverse.
By concentrating your poisons’ toxic components, you make them harder for victims to resist. When you craft an alchemical item with the poison trait by any means, the DC is increased by up to 4, to a maximum of your class DC.
So the text does / did use the poison trait when it wanted to boost all poison-trait items.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
. . .
/heavy sigh
In deep-diving the rules and formulating my rebuttal to prove that you are wrong and I am right, I must confess... I have discovered the reverse.
The underlying cause of the disconnect, I believe, is Paizo's unfortunate use of one word, particularly as a trait, in multiple and dissimilar ways. Sort of like the old question of whether an attack is an attack or an athletics check.
The Poison trait says, "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 poison trait on an item simply indicates that the item is poisonous. It is the presence of a Method of Exposure trait (Contact, Ingested, Inhaled, or Injury) that defines an item as a poison.
So an item can be poisonous (adjective) without being a poison (noun). Example: Skunk Bomb. While it has the poison trait it lacks a method of exposure trait. It is not a poison; it is a poisonous bomb.
Therefore, I must agree and similarly conclude that Paizo's use of the word "poison" as a noun (singular or plural), modified or unmodified, must indeed refer to items that have a method of exposure trait. This included toxicologists' "infused poisons" thereby limiting their field benefit to alchemical items they create with Advanced or Quick Alchemy (and thus "infused") and have a method of exposure trait. In other words, the Tox. Field Benefit only applies to the items called Alchemical Poisons.
I'm highly confident the RaI was the more restrictive alch poisons only, but I'm not going to press it.
I hate to phrase it like this, but if you ever encounter text where Paizo *could* restrict the Alchemist, they probably did. It's kinda nuts how ~"scared of" the class Paizo is, and it only got worse in the remaster.
From removing the ability to use Additives w/ prep items, to adding a once p turn Additive limit. Even preemptively blocking Additives with the freebie quick vials... how scared to you have to be to block that???
In a lot of ways, the gains of recharging alch were not worth the losses, especially for some alch subtypes. I've heard some Tox players saying the buffs were less than the nerfs. It's really sad.
And who TF thought that Healing Bomb of all feats needed to be nerfed? Someone had to honestly look at the feat and somehow think that nerf was justified. They also had to think the new version was still a viable choice, which just blows my mind that they can be that absurdly out of touch.
(and no, the Gliminal thing is a cope, but I encourage houserules to enhance your fun.)
I was naive to think they'd genuinely give the Alch a remote-use item ability, or at least buff H-Bomb into being a full on "Elixir Bomb" or some such. Never was pessimistic enough to expect a nerf to the very niche feat into complete uselessness.
.
As far as Foundry and the Tox FB thing goes, I agree that ability being a toggle puts credence to the Foundry devs leaving it to the players/GMs to adjudicate (and it was probably way easier to implement it to just care about poison to acid dmg).
.
I also checked AoN, and they use the "both" method where items need the poison tag & an exposure tag to be inside alch poisons.
IMO, the poor Dark Pepper Powder should get to have the unique perk of being the only non-poisonous alch poison, but I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist if Nethys disagrees and brands that a tool instead. (and yes, the main 4 categories are mutually exclusive, and the "not one of the other 3" is the used definition for tools everywhere I can see)
.
I'm honestly still a little sad / miffed that I probably got the only neat poison cantrip gutted. Puff of Poison used to borrow the inhaled mechanic from alchemist (which is how I found it), and it had a genuine niche of putting up a lingering 2x2 cloud w/ some decent-enough persistent chip damage if the foes entered it.
The remastered version cut out [inhaled] and gutted it, it's now single target w/ no cloud at all. And without those perks, the H +2 just makes it DoA and a complete dud of a cantrip.
So the alchemist curse sometimes extends even beyond the class and drags others down with it, lol. Oof, it is not fun at times. I hate being the guy to rain on parades like this.
|
I'm with trip on this one. Alchemical poisons are a specific category, not just any item with the poison traitThe same section very clearly states that:
"The poison Trait puts the item in the Poison Category"
Very hard to dispute the very clear language there:
All alchemical items have the alchemical trait. Most also have the consumable trait, which means that the item is used up once activated. The bomb, elixir, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages. Alchemical items without any of these traits are called alchemical tools.
I think it's pretty easy actually. It's all been said above. You just disagree which is ok
If the Trait didn't define the category, the rule about that very fact wouldn't have to be printed in the 1st place.
Simply stating that categories are exclusive (which is not said in any single sentence in any book printed) and listing the categories would have been enough.
But unlike that, the Rules go out of their way to say that not only are the categories NOT exclusive (since an item can have multiple traits) but also define the rules of how to actually create said categories:
Bomb trait: bomb category
Elixir trait: elixir category
Poison trait: poison category
Neither trait: tool categoryThere's obvious overlap above in any item with multiple traits.
Dude, please. The poison trait is a multi-function trait that has to be there for poison saves and damage. It's like the fire trait.
That is why there is 0 mention of the poison trait inside Alchemical Poisons. If the trait mattered, it would be repeated there. Because the bomb & elixir traits are singularly definitional and not multi-funcitonal like poison, their own alch category sections spare the few words to say "bombs have the bomb trait."
Alch poisons does not do this, and you have to accept there is significance to that omission.
.
As to overlapping special categories, no.
As seen in the changes to Healing Bomb, Paizo not only dislike special cases where mutli-cateogry items can exist, but they have gone out of their way to remove these possibilities (elixir + bomb traits in the old feat) to instead use wording "throw the elixir as though it were an alchemical bomb" which never adds the trait. Even though it is a speical case where it would be fine to have a multi-category item, imo.
I do not know of a single case where an alch item is in multiple categories*.
The items are instead structured where items are "mutli-category" via child sub-categories of the big 4. This provides layers of rules, where all the elixir rules apply to mutagens, all the poison rules apply to drugs, etc. (It's actually very good design imo)
They had/have some awkwardness with alch foods, because earlier on in pf2 they established that *all* beneficial drinkables have the elixir tag, so that one is awkwardly split between elixirs and tools (and they forgot to elixir tag a rare tien xia tea).
It's also noteworthy that mutagens are not a "big" category, and are instead a sub-set child category of elixirs. If there *was* overlap between categories, then there would be no reason to exclude them from that same top-level importance. Instead of being it's own thing with overlap cause by trait, the Mutagens text exists *inside* the elixirs as a child category. (though HotW has added a non-elixir mutagen, likely in error)
What's crazy / frustrating is that I know you have the clues you need to gain these insights, but do not put the pieces together. You know about the bizzare one-sentence Tool description/"definition" in the CRB: "Alchemical tools are consumable items you don’t drink."
Now why tf would drinking and not eating/swallowing be the line? This is 100% to double-draw the mutually exclusive line between Elixirs and Tools. Because they established that drinkables (and not comestibles) get the elixir tag --> tools cannot be drunk. This kind of awkwardness only matters if the categories are exclusive, and should trigger more thoughts about the poison tag's role in alch items.
You gotta be able to take a step back and gain a detached PoV and put together clues like this.
*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)
Yup, using mechanics of other categories is absolutely fine and dandy.
It's even possible to print items that are members of 2 or more, they'd just need to say that. I do not think Paizo will ever do it though, as the nature of printing / page placement means that any single item will likely only ever belong to 1 big category and then invoke the rules/mechanics of others.
It's super duper easy for items to do it, Frogskin could just have "the exuded toxin is considered an alchemical poison created by your alchemy" and that would be plenty. But we still have to resist the temptation to inject compatibility rules like that when they do not exist, because those are still mechanical changes.
As for V Vapor, if I had a player who wanted to use it because of the inhaled trait, I'd give them each bomb making a default cloud, and invent a mechanic that creatures inside suffer the on-hit effect.
|
|
*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)Agreed, It is Grand Bazaar after all, Plenty of wonky items in that book that were misprints or just the author including something without considering the meaning of the trait, Similar to some of the earlier contents where they were written before the CRB was done.
It would however be possible with the rules that they could print a bomb that also used the inhaled trait proper. We have bombs that apply disease afflictions so its not a large step to have a bomb actually use the inhaled trait mechanically.
But they could also just have the mechanical text on the item itself and forego the trait, instead just say that targets are exposed to an affliction. Frogskin Tincture does it similar. Where the affliction 100% without a doubt is a poison even when the item itself is not an alchemical poison due to lacking the neccesary traits.
I still giggle at the fact we got a clockwork version of a weapon years before the actual weapon. Grand bazaar you goofy little book.
Dude, please. The poison trait is a multi-function trait . . .
Expanding on this. The Poison trait confusion is very similar to the problems with the Attack trait. Not all actions with the Attack trait are attacks. Some are athletics checks.
The poison trait, alone, merely indicates that an item is poisonous (adjective). For an item to be a poison (noun), it must also have one of the four method of delivery traits.
An effect with this trait delivers a poison or deals poison damage. An item with this trait is poisonous and might cause an affliction.
(Emphasis added)
Alchemical Poisons, Method of Exposure:
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
.
Not all items with the poison trait cause afflictions. Those items are merely poisonous (e.g.: Skunk Bomb), but are not poisons. The items with the poison trait that do cause afflictions also have a method of exposure trait and are poisons.In other words, poisons (noun) are substances that cause afflictions. If something with the poison trait does not cause an affliction, it is merely poisonous and not a poison.
*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)
Vexing Vapor does appear to be a misprint. While it has the Inhaled trait it does not have the affliction mechanics characteristic of alchemical poisons. It does not have a saving throw, maximum duration, and stages entries of alchemical poisons.
|
|
*(Vexing Vapor finally mentioned. ugh, that item seems like an outright print error, so I've tried to ignore it for this discussion. It's possible it was intended to have a lingering cloud impose the debuff on those inside, but forgot a mechanical sentence. Main "evidence" is the crit hit time of 1 min matches cloud linger time.)Vexing Vapor does appear to be a misprint. While it has the Inhaled trait it does not have the affliction mechanics characteristic of alchemical poisons. It does not have a saving throw, maximum duration, and stages entries of alchemical poisons.
Yeah, I suspect the writer thought "inhaled" worked like "olfactory" where it just indicates a property of the item itself, not the exposure method.