Hello.
I'm currently playing as an alchemist in PFS, and am looking at alchemical items Grand Bazaar provides.
I'm hesitant about buying the source material, because of two reasons:
Almost all items there are uncommon, without any regional requirement. It feels like it could be changed to Absalom regional requirement, or some items might be lowered in rarity.
Some obvious food related items, like Brewer's Regret, Dragon's Blood Pudding, Fire and Iceberg, Impossible Cake ect. are considered alchemical tools rather then alchemical food RAW. That excludes synergy with some feats that allow additives for alchemical foods.
Should we expect a remaster, or at least get an errata about foods being foods?
I'm currently playing as an alchemist in PFS, and am looking at alchemical items Grand Bazaar provides.
I'm hesitant about buying the source material, because of two reasons:
Almost all items there are uncommon, without any regional requirement. It feels like it could be changed to Absalom regional requirement, or some items might be lowered in rarity.
Some obvious food related items, like Brewer's Regret, Dragon's Blood Pudding, Fire and Iceberg, Impossible Cake ect. are considered alchemical tools rather then alchemical food RAW. That excludes synergy with some feats that allow additives for alchemical foods.
Should we expect a remaster, or at least get an errata about foods being foods?
I'm unsure why you're saying those items are considered alchemical tools rather than food. There IS no "food" trait, so all items have to be judged "food or not food" by their descriptions. Is the person telling you this misreading "tapas" to mean tools?
Quote:
ta·pas
/ˈtapəs/
noun
small Spanish savory dishes, typically served with drinks at a bar.
Tapas are food, and the shop that sells all of those items you mentioned, The Mask and Moon, is clearly introduced as a restaurant, and its owner is clearly introduced as a chef. Nobody should be getting any traction trying to argue its items aren't food
As for the boon to gain access to them
Quote:
Frequent Shopper (The Mask and Moon) Your PC gains access to a curated list of uncommon items from The Mask and Moon (Lost Omens: The Grand Bazaar).
30.00
Achievement Points - PFS(2ed)
So that's quite cheap. And you gain access to ALL of the items in the shop. To see for yourself what is included in any boon of this kind before buying it, check here:
Urban Garden Jewelers: brooch of inspiration, crown of the fire eater, fleshgem, lady’s knife, magnifying glass of elucidation, mirror of sleeping vigil, staff of the dreamlands
As for items in other books, the sections in LO:TXCG that cover Cooking, pgs.100-105 are clearly labeled "Alchemical Cooking", "Alchemical Foods", and "Magical Morsels" so there's no room for argument that those aren't foods. And the Treasure Vault chapter on the topic is titled "Alchemical Foods" so again, quite clear
I've brought this up before, but it is completely correct to say that Paizo does not have proper categorization for "alchemical foods," despite this being required for some Alchemist feats, and an entire archetype.
Starting with the Treasure Vault (I think?), Paizo started listing many items in text blocks with food-adjacent category names, so even without a trait, you have many that are "confirmed foods" in that way.
But all the "food?" items before that book have 0 Paizo guidance, not even a proper categorical description as to "what is a food?".
And to be clear, many "for sure" alch foods are "alchemical tools," that is the catch-all category for things not bomb, elixir, or poison. Each of these categories contain subgroups, like how all drugs are also alch poisons, and all alch ammo are alch tools.
Alch foods also have the unique issue of being split between the other categories, which afaik is the only sub group that works like that. All others are child groups completely contained within their parent group. Meanwhile, you have drug foods like beer/alcohol, elixir foods like teas, and tool foods like popcorn, and possibly even a bomb, if you count the blinding bomb of pepper powder.
.
The biggest split / argument right now that has been created by Paizo's lack of word, is on which unlabeled alch items get to count as food.
And within that discussion, some will argue that all alch items eaten / ~"activated by mouth" count as food. Others do not like that this would give all elixirs inclusion into the group.
While being on the "not all elixirs" side of the discussion, the Archives of Nexus does a pretty good job of adding most of the forgotten items into it's own page of "alchemical food."
Without claiming it's perfect, it's super easy to say it's "good enough" to point to as your first list of foods, as it errs on the safe/conservative side.
After that, the gm/player might borderline items individually, or might rule that all elixirs get inclusion, etc.
Thank you all for the clarification.
@Nelzy has a valid point, and I, personally, use Archives of Nethys as a "touchstone", and there items from TV and TXCG are categoried under "Alchemical Foods", and items from Bazaar are under "Alchemical tools", that's where it originated from.
I hope that Errata can clarify this issue without too much effort.
@Baarogue @Trip.H At least now I can refer to this thread when discussing the matter with PFS GMs, thanks.
@Nelzy has a valid point, and I, personally, use Archives of Nethys as a "touchstone", and there items from TV and TXCG are categoried under "Alchemical Foods", and items from Bazaar are under "Alchemical tools", that's where it originated from.
I hope that Errata can clarify this issue without too much effort.
@Baarogue @Trip.H At least now I can refer to this thread when discussing the matter with PFS GMs, thanks.
Yeah, Archives of Nethys probably sorted them into "tools" at the time because alchemical food was a new concept and they didn't fit in any other category. But in the Grand Bazaar book they're under "alchemical tapas" (and tapas are food) and the word "tool" does not appear
AoN isn't the RAW arbiter of what is a food or not. They do their best but can only go by what's in the books, and since "food" isn't a trait we have to judge every item by its description if it isn't in a clearly named chapter like in Treasure Vault. For instance, I would rule Bravo's Brew food because it's described as beer, but it's sorted as an elixir because that's the category it's in in the book
I'm not sure any Lost Omens book has gotten a remaster, as they just don't tend to sell as well as the "rulebooks" do. So I wouldn't get my hopes up for that.
Grand Bazaar is a really fun book, but it's definitely not PFS friendly with how much of it is uncommon.
There are 4 "special categories" for alch items. All items belong to 1 and only 1 of these 4, as that's how they are defined.
If an alch item is not a bomb, elixir, or poison, then it is left in the catch-all group of tools.
Items can and are both a tool and a food, tapa, or whatever.
While the 4 special categories are mutually exclusive from one another, many items also belong to child groups while still retaining their big 4 classification.
A unit of alch ammo does not loose it's nature as an alch tool, it's both an alch tool and an alch ammo.
Same for an alch drug. It's still an alch poison at the same time, thanks to the method of exposure trait.
And so it is for the alch food. They are simultaneously a food, and an elixir, tool, poison, drug, etc.
It could have been the post-session brain-drain, but I interpreted your post to be implying that food and tool were mutually exclusive categories, and unable to overlap.
There are 4 "special categories" for alch items. All items belong to 1 and only 1 of these 4, as that's how they are defined.
there's no such rule.
an item can be both an elixir and a bomb, and etc.
The ONE rule is that Tools are NOT elixirs nor bombs nor poisons.
lists are used for convenience, but the only thing actually defining the item category per RAW is their Traits (and due to Food not being a category by itself, their description).
To be exact, those are the rules about the categories:
Quote:
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.
and then each entry has stuff like:
bombs:
Quote:
Bombs have the bomb trait.
elixirs:
Quote:
They have the elixir trait.
---
so, if they print an item with Elixir and Bomb traits, it's both an Elixir and a Bomb. If they print an item with both Bomb and Poison trait, it's both a poison and a bomb.
But if an item doesn't have ANY of those 3 traits but still has the Consumable Trait, then it's a Tool.
Tools:
Quote:
Alchemical tools are consumable items you don’t drink.
You are technically correct in that only Tools is defined by the exclusion of the other 3 categories. If looking at the RaW alone, it seems possible for an item to belong to multiple at once.
That said, what I claimed to be a "rule" on the "only belongs to 1/4 categories" is an observation / emergent detail that is not specifically enshrined as a written rule.
Even without a written "exclusivity" rule, there is not a single item in 2 of the special categories simultaneously. When you check, there is 0 overlap. No elixir has a poison exposure trait, nor the bomb trait, etc.
It is true to say that these 4 categories *are* mutually exclusive, but false to say there is RaW text enforcing their mutual exclusivity.
This "only one special category" rule pattern is rigid to the game's own detriment, and creates some confusion / arbitrary choices. These types of edge cases are the flags that allow me to notice unwritten ~rules like this to begin with.
.
For example:
There are now two different coffee items. Both are willingly drunk for their alchemical benefits. But Insight Coffee is an elixir, while Bloodeye Coffee is denied the elixir trait. Instead, Bloodeye is put into the poison category.
So the elixir trait was denied for it to instead *exclusively* belong to the alch poison group.
There seems no "legit" gameplay reason these two coffees to vary in which elixir/poison abilities are compatible, and it seems that the dev desire for Bloodeye to invoke the addiction & affliction mechanic is why it both was given the poison grouping, and why it was denied the elixir grouping.
That kind of observation is why I called the categories mutually exclusive. To be clear, they very much *are* exclusive, but it's technically true to say there is no hard rule enforcing it.
Previously, there was actually one edge case opposing this pattern; the old version of Healing Bomb. It explicitly granted the bomb trait to the altered Elixir of Life.
The remaster went out of its way to remove that. It now says "...throw the elixir as though it were an alchemical bomb."
Soooo yea. The 4 special categories are mutually exclusive, for now, and it is only because Paizo has spent effort to keep it that way.
It could have been the post-session brain-drain, but I interpreted your post to be implying that food and tool were mutually exclusive categories, and unable to overlap.
No, I was claiming precisely the opposite. My point in this thread HAS ALWAYS been that since "food" isn't a trait we have to determine what are foods in the other categories by their description; that foods aren't only in the tools category, such as all of the "alchemical tapas" in Grand Bazaar being "tools" and Bravo's Brew being an elixir; and finally, that Archives of Nethys does its best to categorize them but most likely chose every item's category at its release by its listed category or "tools" for the tapas and has not revisited those categorizations to see if any new items could also fit into the relatively new and untraited "food" one
Aside from that, your "four categories" ruleobservation is from the outdated GM Core description of alchemical items. In PC2 it was changed from
GM Core Alchemy p.244 wrote:
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 and are described further on page 248.
to
Player Core 2 Alchemy, p.281 emphasis mine to highlight the difference wrote:
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, mutagen, 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 and are described further on page 295.
adding "mutagen" as its own category along with the other four. Yes, all current mutagens are also elixirs, reinforced further by Mutagens on PC2 p.289 beginning with "Mutagens are a special type of elixir...", but it is incorrect to claim there are only four categories and that the categories are mutually exclusive. Only that no current items aside from mutagens possess traits from multiple categories
Part of me thinks it would be useful for them to add a "food" trait and list the items that should gain it in an errata or FAQ but another part of me suspects that in the current state of their QA they would leave out many items that are obviously food or drink and I would rather it remain in this case-by-case judgement state instead
Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.
For foods, I think they stuck with the original rule of "Tools are consumables that you don't drink" and that's why you see them both in Elixir section (liquid stuff like teas, coctails, and such) and non-drinkable stuff like puddings being Tools.
That's the problem. AoN don't appear to put a lot of thought into categorizing alchemical items. Most alchemical foods do fall into the tools category, because they're "Alchemical items without any of these traits..." But only a FEW alchemical foods are on AoN's Alchemical Tools category page. The issue I've been trying to highlight with using AoN's category pages as the RAW lists of alchemical items is that they DON'T consistently sort alchemical items into the multiple categories they fit into
For instance, Iron Wine is right there at the top of the Alchemical Food category page. It has the elixir trait, making it an elixir according to the rule. But because it appears in its book in a chapter clearly titled "Alchemical Food" that's where it got put on AoN. It would be okay and expected to also find it elsewhere though, right?
But can you find it on the Alchemical Elixirs category page? I couldn't. Know what IS on the elixirs list but not the food one? Lastwall Soup. "Crimson Reclaimers make this rich, hearty soup using herbs that baffle the senses of the undead. A bowl of Lastwall soup is as nourishing as a full meal. In addition, for 1 hour after consuming a bowl of Lastwall soup, you gain a +2 item bonus to Stealth checks and DCs against undead." But there are GMs who will claim this soup isn't food
Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.
I can muddle this even more: there are at least two elixirs with a Poison trait which I most definitely will still count as elixirs (with a poison trait) because they just give you poisonous qualities. Those are Viperous Elixir and Frogskin Tincture.
Plus, we already have an item that's simultaneously a Bomb and a Poison.
I can muddle this even more: there are at least two elixirs with a Poison trait which I most definitely will still count as elixirs (with a poison trait) because they just give you poisonous qualities. Those are Viperous Elixir and Frogskin Tincture.
but it doesn't muddle thing.
as the RAW says, as long as the Trait exists, it's part of that category.
There's no problem for an item to belong to more than 1 category, it just gives access to more fields/archetypes to produce it.
Poison trait does not define "alchemical poisons."
Poison is different because it's not a ID-style trait, poison is also a damage/effect type.
Quote:
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
Alch poisons as an item category are defined by a method of exposure trait: injury, contact, inhaled, and ingested. Every item in the list of "alchemical poisons" has one of these exposure traits.
Any item that deals w/ poison damage, or needs to allow a poison immune foe to ignore it, needs the poison tag. Therefore, it cannot be used as an ID trait like bomb, elixir, etc. Those traits exist as identifier (which means the only reason they can show up on an item is 100% clear).
.
I think the bomb shroudb is talking about is the Vexing Vapor, which I did completely forget about. It is a genuine exception to what I previously stated.
It is a bomb, that honestly may have gotten the inhaled trait as a dev error, but it does have it.
I have no idea how GMs is supposed to run the bomb RaI, because inhaled is a mechanical trait that creates a 2x2 cloud to expose creatures to an affliction. The bomb doesn't carry an affliction.
My best guess is that the cloud imposes the on-hit debuff to creatures inside, but that is so off the page and unwritten it's definitionally homebrew.
.
It sucks that's alchemy is in such a messy state at the moment, but we have to work with what we've got.
Poison is different because it's not a ID-style trait, poison is also a damage/effect type.
Quote:
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
Alch poisons as an item category are defined by a method of exposure trait, injury, contact, inhaled, and ingested.
Any item that deals w/ poison damage, or needs to allow a poison immune foe to ignore it, needs the poison tag. Therefore, it cannot be used as an ID trait like bomb, elixir, etc. Those traits exist as identifier (which means the only reason they can show up on an item is 100% clear).
.
I think the bomb shroudb is talking about is the Vexing Vapor, which I did completely forget about. It is a genuine exception to what I previously stated.
It is a bomb, that honestly may have gotten the inhaled trait as a dev error, but it does have it.
I have no idea how GMs is supposed to run the bomb RaI, because inhaled is a mechanical trait that creates a 2x2 cloud to expose creatures to an affliction. The bomb doesn't carry an affliction.
My best guess is that the cloud imposes the on-hit debuff to creatures inside, but that is so off the page and unwritten it's definitionally homebrew.
.
It sucks that's alchemy is in such a messy state at the moment, but we have to work with what we've got.
Sorry, you're wrong:
Quote:
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, mutagen, 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 and are described further on page 295.
What you are quoting is PART of the paragraph detailign specifically the Usage entry of Poisons. Elixir and Bomb poisons lack those, so it doesn't apply to them, but that doesn't make them any less of a Poison.
Furthermore, the Exposure method, which is from where you are quoting, does say that:
Quote:
using poisons in other ways functions differently.
which means it's not all-inclusive.
---
As far as RAW is Concerned: having the Trait= Belongs to a Category.
You are changing the meaning by quoting only half the paragraph.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3185 wrote:
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.
This is clearly allowing a GM to enable a player to use an alch poison in an off-book manner, such as rigging an inhaled poison to pop it's cloud as a trap. Or managing to slather an injury poison even when they only have one arm, etc.
.
They very text you quote also directs the reader to the specific sections for each item category, and should not be treated as a complete definition.
Quote:
The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages.
"Indicate" does not equal "defines."
"Point in the direction of" is a very appropriate definition to use there.
You are changing the meaning by quoting only half the paragraph.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3185 wrote:
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.
This is clearly allowing a GM to enable a player to use an alch poison in an off-book manner, such as rigging an inhaled poison to pop it's cloud as a trap or something.
.
They very text you quote also directs the reader to the specific sections for each item category, and should not be treated as a complete definition.
Quote:
The bomb, elixir, mutagen, and poison traits indicate special categories of alchemical items, each of which is described on the following pages.
The RAW is very clear on what DEFINES a category, and that is the item's TRAIT.
again:
Quote:
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, mutagen, 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 and are described further on page 295.
If Poisons were NOT defined by their Trait, then there wouldn't be in the list that SPECIFICALLY calls them out as such.
---
You can't simply remove parts of teh RAW because you don't like poisons for some reason.
---
The lists were made for convenience, for those of us that use books, but the general rule was made and worded in a way that would be inclusive to items that would come out in future books.
That's why it's so simple.
Quoting the Usage method of a Poison, tht covers 99% of them, doesn't mean that the General rule that covers 100% of them doesn't apply for some reason.
---
p.s. the item that i was talking about is Skunk bomb actually, which is both a Poison and a Bomb, as it has both traits.
You are correct, the RaW is clear, but you seem hell bent on reading words that do not exist.
Again, "indicate" is not "define"
And in the appropriate section on alchemical poisons, we do get a 100% reliable trait based way to ID alch poisons. It's the method of exposure traits.
Skunk Bomb deals poison damage, and therefore must have the poison trait.
Same reason that Alchemist's Fire bombs have the fire trait.
That issue with the poison tag being ambiguous is why the text stakes a flag saying that every alch poison has a method of exposure trait.
The RAW is very clear on what DEFINES a category, and that is the item's TRAIT.
again:
Quote:
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, mutagen, 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 and are described further on page 295.
If Poisons were NOT defined by their Trait, then there wouldn't be in the list that SPECIFICALLY calls them out as such.
---
You can't simply remove parts of teh RAW because you don't like poisons for some reason.
---
p.s. the item that i was talking about is Skunk bomb actually, which is both a Poison and a Bomb, as it has both traits.
You are correct, the RaW is clear, but you seem hell bent on reading words that do not exist.
Again, "indicate" is not "define"
And in the appropriate section on alchemical poisons, we do get a 100% reliable trait based way to ID alch poisons. It's the method of exposure traits.
indicate definition: to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show
fr bruh?
---
You are the one who's hellbent of using a method of explosure, that details the items listed following that passage as something defining ALL Poisons, when the paragraph on Alchemical items SPECIFICALLY goes out of its way to say that TRAITS indicate the Category
---
we know you don't like poisons, but that doesn't allow you to change RaW.
---
Absolutely NOTHING is ambiguous of the sentence:
"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, mutagen, 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 and are described further on page 295."
It even has clarifications on what items do NOT belong into the categories.
indicate definition: to be a sign of; betoken; evidence; show
Lol, that 100% supports my claim dude.
Yes, the poison tag is a very good sign that an item might be an alch poison.
But, not a single one of those indicate definitions approaches "defines."
They are all specifically non-committal, non-definitional indicators.
Because that text is RaW not defining those alch item categories.
It is telling the player to go read each section to get the real / complete definition*.
(* besides Tools, which are defined there as the catch-all remainder and don't get their own page like the others)
You do realize that at best your reading has 2 conflicting RaW texts, yes?
How you do handle the method of exposure text saying that all alch poisons have a method of exposure trait?
Even if you misread the RaW to say the poison trait defines the category, you now have a direct conflict with the other text.
What reason do you use to overrule the more specific text inside the actual alch poisons page, to instead have the general alch text trump it?
don't insert words into RAW: it never mentions anywhere in that passage that an alchemical poison is defined, or even indicated by the Usage entry.
It simply explains how to read the entries that follow, which ALL of them have Usage.
Which is a pretty simple explaination why it's there.
---
But the General rule, that future-proofs every item that they might print in any book thereafter is simple: Category is indicated by Trait.
For all we know, they might in a later book print a Poison that is contacted via Telepathy for all we know, or another crazy way that they might think, like, as an easy example "a poison that seeps off your skin" (which they actually did print)
so the General Rule of what is and isn't poison is meant to capture all things that might come out in the future, which is why it's there in the section that tells you how to find what category each item it is.
An alchemical bomb combines volatile components that explode when the bomb hits a creature or object. Most alchemical bombs deal damage, though some produce other effects. Bombs have the bomb trait.
Quote:
Elixirs are alchemical liquids that are used by drinking them. They have the elixir trait. These potent concoctions grant the drinker some alchemical benefits.
Quote:
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.
Hmm... something is missing from this one.
Oh, there it is,
Quote:
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
Nowhere in the entire alch poisons text does it mention the poison trait.
I hate to be so blunt, but I will respond to combat misinfo when I see it.
It's very, very clear that the single sentence in the general alch items is not definitional.
Meanwhile, each item section does include definitional language.
An alchemical bomb combines volatile components that explode when the bomb hits a creature or object. Most alchemical bombs deal damage, though some produce other effects. Bombs have the bomb trait.
Quote:
Elixirs are alchemical liquids that are used by drinking them. They have the elixir trait. These potent concoctions grant the drinker some alchemical benefits.
Quote:
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.
Hmm... something is missing from this one.
Oh, there it is,
Quote:
Each alchemical poison has one of the following traits, which define how a creature can be exposed to that poison.
I hate to be so blunt, but I will respond to combat misinfo when I see it.
It's very, very clear that the single sentence in the general alch items is not definitional.
Meanwhile, each item section does include definitional language.
Try as you want, you're the only one spreading misinformation.
Again, the General Rule is very clear and you have gone out of your way to nver mention it once or even try to refute.
I'm still waiting why the sentence that SPECIFICALLY says "Poison Trait indicates Poison Category" doesn't apply.
---
Btw, for more evidence that you are flat out wrong, we can look at the Toxicologist entry:
Quote:
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).
I wonder... Versatile Vials do not have a Usage Entry, and your Field Benefit only applies to "Infused Alchemical Poisons" why is it that it applies to *gasp* somethng that has the Infused, Alchemical, Poison, Traits but lacks the Usage entry!
Blashmemy!
p.s. I bolded the "still" word to indicate that it's not an alteration to a Rule.
Formulas | Two common 1st-level alchemical poisons.
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.
Field Vials |
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. Add the versatile vial’s initial damage to the first successful Strike with that weapon or ammunition. The substance becomes inert at the end of your current turn.
Well, looks like you are lying by selective quoting again.
The (your field benefit still applies) is talking about the poison to acid conversion, because it just changed all your VVs into poison damage. And because your VVs are not alch poisons, it needs to call out that you can use your F Benefit for them when thrown as bombs.
Formulas | Two common 1st-level alchemical poisons.
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.
Field Vials |
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. Add the versatile vial’s initial damage to the first successful Strike with that weapon or ammunition. The substance becomes inert at the end of your current turn.
Well, looks like your lying by selective quoting again.
The (your field benefit still applies) is talking about the poison to acid conversion.
Even if you toss your vials as bombs, you still get to convert them to acid when that would be more effective.
The text after that is what grants the vials the special ability to be used as an injury poison. That concept of using the VVs as an injury poison does not exist before that line of text.
You know that you are just repeating my words, prooving me right, right?
Yes, what I am saying is that the Poison to Acid Conversion still applies to a Poison that DOESN'T have a Usage Entry, proving that it is STILL an Alchemical Poison.
Since, you know, that Conversion ONLY applies to Alhemical Poisons.
But now we have a Versatile Vial, with no frequency, no onset, no Stages, and the book straight up tells us that it's STILL is an Alchemical Poison.
---
Which is the whole point of debate, that the Usage entry is NOT what makes something an Alchemical Poison, its Traits are.
Dude, a Tox's VVs are bombs that can be used as injury poisons, because that's what the text says so.
That's why it needs to explain that, even when you throw them as bombs, "(though your field benefit still applies)"
If it did not say that RaW, then you would be left with poison bombs and no textual way to invoke your poison-acid conversion, because that only works for infused alch poisons. (and VVs are bombs)
This literally supports my claim. The dev realized they made an edge case where poison damage VVs wouldn't trigger their own ability when thrown as bombs, so they added () text to change it.
Dude, a Tox's VVs are bombs that can be used as injury poisons, because that's what the text says so.
That's why it needs to explain that, even when you throw them as bombs, "(though your field benefit still applies)"
If it did not say that RaW, then you would be left with poison bombs and no textual way to invoke your poison-acid conversion, because that only works for infused alch poisons. (and VVs are bombs)
This literally supports my claim. The dev realized they made an edge case where poison damage VVs wouldn't trigger their own ability when thrown as bombs, so they added () text to change it.
You apply them as you would apply an Injury poison. Which tell us how to apply them to a weapon and nothing else, but they still do not have any of the Usage that you hold sanctimonious.
They have nothing from the whole paragraph that you keep mentioning, no Frequency, no Onset, no Save, no Stages, no nothing.
Yet, they are STILL Alchemical Poisons.... because they have the Poison Trait.
---
So, we have Raw telling us that Traits indicate the category.
And direct example of a Poison that doesn't have anything detailed in the passage you keep quoting but the book reminds us that it is STILL a Poison.
---
Or is your stance that only a part of the section you are using is mandatory and the rest is optional (because it doesn't fit your narrative)?
---
p.s. what is more funny ofc, is that you still, even after 10 posts, have failed to explain why the unambiguous sentence of "Poison Trait indicate Poison category" doesn't apply.
p.s. what is more funny ofc, is that you still, even after 10 posts, have failed to explain why the unambiguous sentence of "Poison Trait indicate Poison category" doesn't apply.
Quote:
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.
"indicate" does not equal "defines" and you refuse to accept this. That sentence tells the reader to look at each section for the proper definition.
This is why the bomb & elixir sections directly define themselves with "Bombs have the bomb trait." Because that hard definition is needed. Alch poisons meanwhile, never once mentions the poison trait, because the trait does not define the category.
How do you explain bomb & elixir clearly defining themselves via trait, while alch poisons defines itself w/ the exposure traits, and never mentions the poison trait?
.
shroudb wrote:
You apply them as you would apply an Injury poison. Which tell us how to apply them to a weapon and nothing else, but they still do not have any of the Usage that you hold sanctimonious.
They have nothing from the whole paragraph that you keep mentioning, no Frequency, no Onset, no Save, no Stages, no nothing.
Yet, they are STILL Alchemical Poisons.... because they have the Poison Trait.
Tox VVs are used as injury poisons because the Tox text says they can be used in that way. Yes, all one's abilities for injury poisons are compatible, that's a "no shit" observation.
This is like Healing Bomb allowing you to benefit from Far Lobber. You do not need Healing Bomb to stat out a new bomb, and I've got no idea why you are hung up on that detail.
A specific override ability like Healing Bomb or Tox's VVs are not license to redefine an entire categorization like that.
Tox Field Vial text: wrote:
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).
The () phrase using "though" is a "but" or "although" style conjunction. It is telling the reader that the phrase is contrary to what came before, not in agreement with it. Meaning that by default your field benefit should *not* apply to your thrown VVs, but this () phrase allows it.
If the Tox VVs were already alch poisons, that text would not exist. It does exist because VVs are bombs, and require such a custom "(though)" exception.
Which, again, can only be the case because VVs are bombs all the time, and have a contextual ability to sometimes be used as alch injury poisons.
.
shroudb wrote:
Or is your stance that only a part of the section you are using is mandatory and the rest is optional (because it doesn't fit your narrative)?
You are the one overriding the text inside "Alchemical Poisons" to get the outcome you want...
The moment you accept that the wording of that sentence in "Alchemy" is non-definitional, and is instead a brief primer and pointer toward the actual category texts, there is 0 selective cherry picking in the case I present.
I understand there are some strong opinions here, which everyone is entitled to, but let's keep this on topic for OP and stick to discussing alchemical food! If you'd like to continue your additional discussion about poison damage in general, please make another thread for it!
Community & Social Media Specialist
