Hi everyone.
I was looking at poison for an upcoming game and I had a question. Here is the poison:
Source Prey for Death pg. 103
Price 200 gp
Usage held in 1 hand; Bulk L
Activate [one-action] (manipulate)
To prevent one of their victims from being brought back to life, Red Mantis assassins often poison targets with the breath of the mantis god. After a creature is poisoned by this concoction, internal hemorrhaging frequently results in blood issuing from the creature's mouth—a condition referred to by the assassins as having “the breath of the mantis god.” While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing. If a creature dies from the poison's effects, the toxin lingers tenaciously in the creature's flesh for 1 year. During this time, if an attempt is made to bring such a slain creature back to life that doesn't create a new body for the deceased (such as with a 7th-rank resurrect ritual), the lingering effects of breath of the mantis god attempts to counteract the resurrection (counteract modifier +17, counteract rank 5). A spell like extract poison can be used to decontaminate a corpse for easier resurrection, but simpler magic such as cleanse cuisine cannot. A 5th-rank or higher cleanse affliction can also attempt to counteract lingering breath of the mantis god.Saving Throw DC 29 Fortitude; Maximum Duration 6 minutes; Stage 1 3d6 persistent bleed and drained 1 (1 minute); Stage 2 3d8 persistent bleed and drained 1 (1 minute); Stage 3 3d10 persistent bleed and drained 2 (1 minute)
So the part that I'm asking about is the bold sentence I highlighted: "While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing."
My initial reading was: If an enemy makes their flat check to end the bleed it would come back the following round since the poison is still ongoing. That would mean that there is no real point to rolling those flat-checks since they wouldn't really do anything until the Poison itself is cured.
However I can also see that it could mean the bleed returns the next time you progress to a new stage of the poison . The duration of each stage is 1 minute, so if this interpretation is correct then an enemy who makes their save on round 1 of the poison has 9 rounds without bleed, but it will return again if they fail their next save against the poison at the 1 minute mark.
Is there a clarification for this somewhere? Or if not, a general consensus?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My interpretation here is that because the poison has a total duration independent of individual stages, your initial reading would be correct, and the persistent bleed damage would return while the poison is ongoing at any stage. Thus, trying to remove this persistent bleed damage would be useless.
However, I'm detecting a potential point of ambiguity between RAI and RAW here: given the description, it sounds like the RAI was that the persistent bleed can be removed, and would only come back on the next round while the poison is ongoing, so that you could at least try to prevent yourself from taking damage from the poison each round. However, this doesn't work RAW, because the moment you'd remove the persistent bleed damage, it'd come back due to the poison's ongoing duration. Unfortunately, mechanics written specifically for APs tend to have these kinds of problems with their rules text, so if you want to just stick to RAW I'd go with your initial interpretation. If that makes the poison too deadly, however, consider reapplying the persistent bleed only on the next round after it's removed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since the poison doesn't tell you WHEN the persistent bleed damage returns, its more likely a reminder of the standard behavior that the bleed damage returns once the stage's duration runs out if you arent cured of it.
This isn't correct:
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
"If the poison's duration is ongoing" is the check to make: if it is ongoing, the persistent bleed damage returns. The rules you describe only apply to the initial application of effects at each stage and their default duration; they do not describe the unique behavior of this poison and the returning bleed damage.
NortKnekten is correct according to how Pathfinder writes its rules. The poison says the bleed will return. True. Nothing says when the bleed will return, so it defaults to normal poison behavior. When the next stage triggers, if the poison is not resisted and cleared, bleed is applied. Thus, the addition of the sentence with bleed returning is meaningless and unnecessary.
If the sentence said the bleed returns in one round, that would be a different story, but it does not. This is already a virulent poison. No need to make it any worse.
Nothing says when the bleed will return, so it defaults to normal poison behavior.
That is the very thing I've pointed out to be false: it states that the bleed will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing. That is the condition for its reapplication. As soon as you remove the bleed, you must check if the poison's duration is still ongoing, and because it is, the poison returns. If the persistent damage were reapplied simply because the poison was still ongoing, that would just be the regular rules and there would be no need to state this specifically, as you yourself point out.
This is already a virulent poison. No need to make it any worse.
While I agree that this is a compelling reason to house rule a weaker version of this poison, it is not a valid reason to adjudicate its RAW functionality a certain way.
More specifically, its following already established game conventions and core principles.
It doesn't, the text is specifically a special rule that overrides the general rule for how affliction effects are applied or reapplied, and the entire point of the section you quoted is that specific beats general. When rules elements refer to general rules, they normally state so, as with the Monk's Flurry of Blows:
Make two unarmed Strikes. If both hit the same creature, combine their damage for the purpose of resistances and weaknesses. Apply your multiple attack penalty to the Strikes normally. As a flourish ability, you can use Flurry of Blows only once per turn.
Emphasis added in bold. The fact that this is very much not how this is phrased in the poison's text I think lends credence to the fact that the reapplication is in fact instant.
Hi all, thanks for the input. NortKnekten is correct, the thing that I was missing was the base fules for Afflictions:
SAVING THROW
When you're first exposed to the affliction, you must attempt a saving throw against it. This first attempt to stave off the affliction is called the initial save. An affliction usually requires a Fortitude save, but the exact save and its DC are listed after the name and type of affliction. Spells that can cause an affliction typically use the caster's spell DC.
On a successful initial saving throw, you are unaffected by that exposure to the affliction. You don't need to attempt further saving throws against it unless you are exposed to the affliction again.
If you fail the initial saving throw, you advance to stage 1 of the affliction and are subjected to the listed effect. On a critical failure, after its onset period (if applicable), you advance to stage 2 of the affliction and are subjected to that effect instead.
STAGES
An affliction typically has multiple stages, each of which lists an effect followed by an interval in parentheses. When you reach a given stage of an affliction, you are subjected to the effects listed for that stage.
At the end of a stage's listed interval, you must attempt a new saving throw. On a success, you reduce the stage by 1; on a critical success, you reduce the stage by 2. You are then subjected to the effects of the new stage. If the affliction's stage is ever reduced below stage 1, the affliction ends and you don't need to attempt further saves unless you're exposed to the affliction again.
On a failure, the stage increases by 1; on a critical failure, the stage increases by 2. You are then subjected to the effects listed for the new stage. If a failure or critical failure would increase the stage beyond the highest listed stage, the affliction instead repeats the effects of the highest stage.
Poisons don't necessarily affect you every turn, they affect you when you reach a new stage. That's the piece of the puzzle I was missing. The effect of this poison is that the subject is takes persistent bleed damage, so that happens at the beginning of each stage. If this poison had a stage-duration of 2 rounds it would mean the new stage would appear every 2 rounds, and you would then re-apply the persistent bleed damage every 2 rounds , whether the bleed had been suppressed or not.
Thanks for the clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... it sounds like the RAI was that the persistent bleed can be removed, and would only come back on the next round while the poison is ongoing, so that you could at least try to prevent yourself from taking damage from the poison each round.
I think this might be the source of confusion. Persistent damage is taken at the end of your round BEFORE the Flat Check. So if it were applied the very next round then the flat check would be literally useless.
Round 1, you take persistent bleed, then roll a Nat-20 and recover from the Persistent bleed.
Round 2, the persistent bleed comes back, you take the persistent bleed, then roll a Nat-20 and recover from the persistent bleed.
Round 3, repeat.
That clearly wasn't intended. It would be WAY out of line with regular power scaling, a single failed save gives you a guaranteed 30d6 of bleed damage over 1 minute? Likely at least 60d6 over 20 rounds as the poison is virulent too. So no, the intention is fairly clear, and the text was a clarification that the new stage will apply the bleed again even if the person has cured the previous bleed.
This kind of extra clarification is also completely in line with Paizo's writing style, they often write redundant clarifications so that you don't have to look something up to use the spell/poison/whatever .
Now if you want to argue what RAW is, there are 2 perfectly valid applications of RAW in my opening post. Neither one is necessarily more true than the other, but one conforms to the general rules of the game, while the other does not. Given any such ambiguity, thinking on intentions is the best way to resolve rules discrepancies like this.
Nothing says when the bleed will return, so it defaults to normal poison behavior.That is the very thing I've pointed out to be false: it states that the bleed will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing. That is the condition for its reapplication. As soon as you remove the bleed, you must check if the poison's duration is still ongoing, and because it is, the poison returns.
That is not an override of the general rules. It does not state when the bleed condition returns.
As mentioned earlier already,
A condition that automatically changes its value or ends under certain circumstances, like frightened, still does so.
Bleed has its own rules for how it ends automatically. It still does so under its own rules by virtue of the general rules for Afflictions. The poison does not override those rules.
In order for the poison to override the rules for ending bleed damage, it would have to actually say that the bleed condition returns immediately. Not just that it "will return". When all it says is that it 'will return' it can easily be interpreted to mean that it returns at the next Affliction stage increment. That interpretation still follows the letter of the rules.
Alternatively, if the poison wanted to override the general rules for Afflictions causing conditions that end under their own circumstances, it could simply say that "the bleed condition cannot be successfully removed while the poison is still afflicting the target". Similar to how Evil Eye is written.
That sentence in this poison is reminder and clarification text for the general rules, not an override.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While that is an accurate depiction of the base rules for affliction effects, without the rules text mentioned, the bit of rules text highlighted in the OP complicates this: the bleed damage returning is not an application of the effects upon reaching a new stage, but a conditional return based whether the poison's duration is still ongoing, which it still is. That the bleeding returns while the poison is ongoing is part of the effects, which do not cease after removing the persistent bleed damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually on Yellowpete, Teridax, etc's side here with a 99.9% confidence rating. The bleed re-occurs every round while there's duration left in the affliction.
.
My reading of the poison is that a victim can spend actions to possibly skip the persistent bleed damage of that turn.
Either after that skipped bleed at their turn's end, or at the start of the next one, the creature is bleeding again while the duration is ongoing.
.
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
would be worded veeeery differently if the bleed was only intended to re-occur on affliction stage change.
To keep it brief, if that was the intent, then that text would not be there at all. Because that would be the exact normal & default function of any poison with bleeding in its afflictions.
If you have a poison that causes bleed on stage 2 & 3, it'll only apply that bleed upon changing stages.
Recovering from that stage 2 bleed, then getting it again when dropping to stage 3, is just the normal affliction rules.
So that text in the BotMG poison would be *literally* doing nothing in that reading. Which is kinda the exact "oh" a reader needs to flag that something else has to be going on, lol.
Hemming and hawing about the text needing to specify "immediately" or some such is, well, kinda goal-moving nonsense.
Yes, it would be nice if it was explicit on the exact timing, but it's a rule-gap. You fill those, you don't disqualify and delete the function of the mechanic that has a gap.
.
Meaning, the "recovery check only skips one round of bleed, and the bleed reoccurs every round" is imo the most nerfed reading of the poison that makes any sense.
There is ambiguity on exactly when the bleed re-appears, but it's not a deal-breaker.
Either at the super-end of the victim's turn after recovery checks, or right at the start of the next one. It technically does make a difference in the edge case where allies may help out with the bleed.
(and to be clear, this is the most victim-nice reading. Another totally RaW reading is that every time the victim's bleed is ended, the very next thing that happens is the bleeding begins again. Meaning, there's no way to skip bleed rounds, you just gotta heal through it / get bleed resist)
That is not an override of the general rules. It does not state when the bleed condition returns.
It does; it states the condition returns if the duration is still ongoing. Once you remove the bleed damage, the duration is still ongoing, so it returns immediately. The rules for conditions ending as normal do not cover this portion, only the bit about how the bleeding can be ended as normal, as already indicated in that bit of text. The fact that the rule specifies that the bleeding can be ended as normal, but still states specifically that the bleed returns while the duration is ongoing, itself shows that this is a specific rule for having the bleed return while the poison applies, not just at specific stages.
I mean, you can always argue that the thing was mis-written in a way that the RaW does not match the RaI.
That is genuinely possible.
In my opinion, that would kinda make the poison useless, as that 1 min stage timer means it's not going to be a threat to any creature's life.
.
And I do disagree with once-per-stage being the RaI because of the way the text is a constructed:
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
"While a creature can attempt to recover normally ..., [BUT] ... the bleed damage will return..."
It's written in a way that (imo) is signalling that the normal rules are being overwritten, not reinforced.
It's a very "while you can try the normal, it results in a different outcome" construction.
.
While Paizo has published a whole lot of "this is useless!.meme" items, including inhaled poisons, it seems they have finally gotten comfortable with giving players poisons that have real value.
If you think BotMG is overpowered, then here's the new-ish Primal Pollen, a Level 5 common.
This bad boy has slowed 1 & fascinated 1 for its stage 1.
And it only gets better from there, swapping that fascinated for confused at stage 2.
If you get a miracle to hit stage 4, the foe is unconscious, no incap, lol.
.
(You want to hear a joke? While this is completely real and no-restrictions common, there is oooone trait missing. This inhaled poison is not alchemical. Meaning, while everyone can buy and have this great tool at an affordable 25 gp a pop, they can do so with identical performance to a dedicated Toxicologist, rofl.)
Except that there is no evidence, written or circumstantial, for it being a conditional return akin to "While you are under the effect of this poison, you are bleeding".
No evidence... except for the line that spawned this very discussion, you mean? Because that sounds like pretty convincing evidence to me.
Also, Mercy, invigorating soap, and tireless worker don't feature any such rules text that restate general rules, whereas soothing spring highlights its own restatement with an "as normal" introduction, as with the above for the portion about ending the persistent bleed damage, but not the part about the bleed returning. This phrasing is thus very much atypical.
For those of you arguing that this poison makes you bleed every round automatically:
This poison is L10. It is virulent.
An affected person will have to make two consecutive successful saves to reduce the affliction by 1. Saves are done at the end of a stage, so every minute.
In the typical case when someone is afflicted by this poison, they will automatically endure two Stage 1 effects: 3d6 bleed (and Drained 1 making it harder to make the poison's fort save)
Average dmg/round: 10.5
Number of rounds/minute: 10
Average dmg/stage1: 105 x 2 for virulent = 205
You're arguing that this poison does 205 points of damage and cannot be mitigated. For 200gp (pocket change at L10), this would be the greatest damaging effect in the game gold piece for gold piece.
No way.
L11 Blightburn Resin is 225gp
Saving Throw DC 30 Fortitude; Onset 1 minute; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 6d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 2 7d6 poison damage (1 round); Stage 3 9d6 poison damage (1 round)
It is not Virulent, so let's compare properly to the above example by requiring 1 successful save:
Average dmg/round: 21
Number of rounds/round: 1
Average dmg/stage1: 21
Even if you double that, it's only 20% as much damage as the lower level poison.
Don't get hung up on phrasing even when it's rules text. BotMG doesn't do anything differently from any other poison, despite that weird sentence. It doesn't say when to re-apply Bleed, so it clearly happens like any other poison - at stage time. The math supports that for its level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those of you arguing that this poison makes you bleed every round automatically:
This poison is L10. It is virulent.
Right, I'm going to stop you right there, and preface with the following: I empathize with you that if this poison were to automatically reapply its bleed as soon as it got removed, that would make it extremely strong for its level. From a balance perspective, you're right that RAI, it probably should only reapply every time a stage is applied, and that line of rules text should never have been added.
However, that is not what this discussion is about. This is trying to interpret how the poison works RAW, and specifically what that bit of problematic rules text entails. Reading that line, it says the bleed returns if the poison's duration is ongoing, so as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. That is the RAW reading of that line.
From there, we can argue that this is probably not how it should work, effectively agree to pretend that that line doesn't exist, and maybe even advocate for errata to remove or clarify that bit of rules text so it doesn't make the poison quite so deadly. All of those are valid ways to broach the discussion, and separate how the thing works versus how it should work. What isn't logically sound, however, is to argue: "that's not RAW because it would be unbalanced if it were RAW". Rules elements can be unbalanced and still be RAW, so one does not preclude the other. This would also not be the first instance of a mechanic being wildly out of tune due to a mistake, especially not in an AP-specific book.
A too good to be true argument is fine, and it's appreciated that you make that distinct from a RaW reading ruling.
For more context on why this poison isn't as good as it seems, I can vouch that I've had 2 Chirs over level 10 for a loooong time with this poison in their books, and despite popping it in 3 or 4 encounters, I've never gotten a single Fort fail, lol.
Even at the levels where that damage was still relatively higher, it was just never that good of an option.
Additional context and weird rules may also be relevant to gauging this poison's power.
There's an "example guideline" (not a rule I guess?) that
Automatically end the condition due to the type of help, such as healing that restores you to your maximum HP to end persistent bleed damage, or submerging yourself in a lake to end persistent fire damage.
Which could mean a GM ruling that the full HP trumps the poison to block the bleed.
Additionally, there's level 7 rare Sloughing Toxin that every Alch in Abm Vlts will get access to.
This one is an hour long, and does damage every time the victim does an attk, move, or manip* action. If they ever hit stage 3, they are locked into that stage with 0 ability to recover naturally. Considering this damage can possibly proc multiple times per turn, that one can napkin-math into some crazy damage for L7.
.
It's important to highlight that the damage you are napkin-mathing from BotMG is really only a factor outside of combat.
If you can get a foe to fail an inhaled poison, 10.5 per round for the rest of the fight is genuinely not a disproportionate reward.
Especially for a type of damage that many foes are immune to.
The real "power issue" for a "every round reapplying" bleed is from that non-combat use, where NPCs might get dosed outside of combat and bleed out.
But, there's a whole lot of nasty shenanigans PCs can do outside of combat if poisons are on the table.
The remade Crossbow Infiltrator is a common archetype with a common feat to gain access to a DC scaling, uncommon, Stupor Poison.
Not a damaging poison, but a 6hr no onset poison that starts with slow, and can put foes to sleep within the time frame of combat, is pretty scary.
Same goes for Slumber Wine, a L12 common that has a 1hr onset, but the affliction just instantly starts at unconscious for 1 day, lol.
However, that is not what this discussion is about. This is trying to interpret how the poison works RAW, and specifically what that bit of problematic rules text entails. Reading that line, it says the bleed returns if the poison's duration is ongoing, so as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. That is the RAW reading of that line.
You are 100% correct in what you have just said except for the portion in bold. However, you are hung up on a logic flaw in your conclusion that the poison must return immediately.
Nowhere in the poison does it say when it must return. It does not in fact say as soon as you remove the bleed, it comes back. You incorrectly believe that it must be the next round or immediately. The poison text says, "the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing."
Here's your logic error: The return statement holds true if the bleed damage returns at the next stage. It does not become false if the bleed does not return in 1 round.
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
Would you agree that this is constructed in a way that explains something running counter to the norm?
~"While you can attempt to [do the normal recovery], [this specific bleed is different and] will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing."
I really just can not read that text as a
"While you can attempt to [do the normal recovery], [this bleed will reapply as normal per affliction rules]"
That 2nd version just does not compute to me.
I'll repeat myself, but having a rules gap on when the persistent reapplies does not mean we get to delete the mechanic. We are instead tasked with finding the most reasonable place and time to put it. And as mentioned above, the one place I *cannot* put it because of that text is at the stage change.
Trip, even when logic shows the RAW reading of the rule, you're not accepting it, because you believe the re-statement of the normal rules means something different must be happening. That's the definition of an RAI argument. You insist that it must mean something more, even when the math shows that it's completely not intended to do that much damage.
The existence of a line that can be read like it just repeats normal rules is not evidence that it is more than just normal rules.
This. Over and over.
My reading of the poison is that a victim can spend actions to possibly skip the persistent bleed damage of that turn.
Either after that skipped bleed at their turn's end, or at the start of the next one, the creature is bleeding again while the duration is ongoing.
Except that's not how persistent damage works, you've misremembered the order of operations.
You are taking damage from an ongoing effect, such as from being lit on fire. This appears as “X persistent [type] damage,” where “X” is the amount of damage dealt and “[type]” is the damage type. Like normal damage, it can be doubled or halved based on the results of an attack roll or saving throw. Instead of taking persistent damage immediately, you take it at the end of each of your turns as long as you have the condition, rolling any damage dice anew each time. you take persistent damage, roll a DC 15 flat check to see if you recover from the persistent damage. If you succeed, the condition ends.
There is no "skipped bleed at their turn's end" because the flat check doesn't happen until after the victim has taken the bleed damage. As I said above, this would make the recovery check literally pointless ...
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.would be worded veeeery differently if the bleed was only intended to re-occur on affliction stage change.
If we apply that logic the other way, the text would be worded veeeery differently if the bleed were to return every round. For example:
While a creature canYou cannot attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damagewill return ifcontinues as long as the poison's duration is still ongoing.
The wording we got was ambiguous. The wording we would have had if the intent was that recovery checks were useless would not have been. There would have been no need to clarify that you can attempt recovery checks, nor that the damage "returns".
Players who began their Paizo journey with 2E might not be as familiar with this since 2E tried to do away with these extra clarifications, but this kind of redundant text was extremely common in PF1E. The intent is that you do not have to go flipping through the book to find 5 different rules just to know what something does. Instead everything is there on the page.
Now I want to clarify that I'm not attacking you here , what I'm doing is attacking your arguments.
Your first argument was that the text was clarifying that the flat-checks were there simply to allow you to avoid damage each turn. That argument stemmed from a misunderstanding of the Persistent Damage rules.
Your second argument was that the wording would have been different if Interpretation 2 was the correct one. I posit that this argument peoves nothing, if anything the difference would be more pronounced if Interpretation 1 was the correct one.
You may well have arguments to justify your position, but these arguments don't.
I also want to clarify that saying "This is the Rules As Written (RAW) in the descritpion of the poison" is not in itself a valid argument from either perspective. The reason I say that is ... well, my original post. Both interpretations are "RAW" as far as the english language is concerned, if the only text we read is the description in the poison. The ambiguity is exactly why this thread exists.
Now it's all very good for me to attack your arguments, but if I don't make arguments of my own then I'm not proving anything either.
My first argument is that we should first look at other rules to see what the base rules are. If the base rules of the game can be applied to alleviate any confusion then that is the first port of call. If we do so, we see that the base rules do cover this, and from that perspective we can see how this wording could be misinterpreted to mean something else.
My second argument is to look at how Paizo has written other materials. The idea that "this text wouldn't have been included if it weren't adding something new" is a misunderstanding of Paizo's history of writing rules. They actually do this all the time.
Now of course no argument is 100% ironclad. The existence of this thread is proof that there are 2 interpretations of the rule. But one interpretation seems like it aligns with the base rules far more closely, seems like it adheres to the base mathematics of the game much more closely, and also seems to leave more room for an ambiguous writing . When you look at this from the perspective of writing a game rather than playing one, Interpretation 2 seems the more likely answer on every level.
The existance of a line that can be read like it just repeats normal rules is not evidence that it is more than just normal rules.
It doesn't, though, that's the point. The bit of rules text even mentions a normal application of a rule to then contrast it with the bit about the bleed damage returning if the duration is ongoing. I don't think there's really a sensible reading of this where the rules element is intended to be read as just a normal application of the rules the whole way through. Paizo does include rules text that states a rule that exists already, but as mentioned above, those instances are phrased differently, and the idea that there is no duration specified for the bleed returning is false given that the condition for its return is stated explicitly. In all cases, that line could be written a lot more clearly, but given how it's currently formulated, RAW the bleed does come back when the condition is met, which is immediately.
Here's your logic error: The return statement holds true if the bleed damage returns at the next stage. It does not become false if the bleed does not return in 1 round.
This is incorrect. Let's suppose you spend one action to end the bleed damage: at the moment you do, the poison's duration is still ongoing, so the bleed will return. Let's suppose you delay the return to the next round. If you were to then end the poison on that same turn with cleanse affliction, you find yourself in a paradox: the bleed damage was supposed to return while the duration was ongoing, but the poison is no longer there, and the bleed did not return. Thus, the rule was not obeyed. In fact, any interpretation that delays the return of the bleed by any amount results in this same inconsistency, so the rules element only makes complete sense if the bleed's return is instant.
It really isn't phrased different though. The only thing missing is the "as usual" or "As normal".
Putting aside how you are yourself highlighting a difference in phrasing here, it is. Let's bring it back up again:
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
Notice how the first part differs from the part highlighted in bold: the persistent bleed damage can be recovered from normally, but returns if the poison's duration is still ongoing. That is a difference, and isn't a normal component to the poison, which doesn't apply the same bleed damage, but simply applies some other instance of bleed damage upon reaching a certain stage. This bit of rules text does not cohere with the standard rules for affliction effects and when they're applied. It is its own rule, one that specifies that the bleed damage comes back while the poison is ongoing regardless of stage. This also carries other implications, like suffering a higher amount of bleed damage even if the poison is reduced to a lower stage.
It's not just different phrasing, the meaning of the sentence is different, and as mentioned above, it presents a condition that can't be consistently satisfied unless the bleed returns immediately. As for comparing this wording to other bits of wording, I leave it to you to provide the evidence for your claim, NorrKnekten, as I haven't seen elements of rules text like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am utterly baffled by the length of this thread.
While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god, the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing.
"While a creature can attempt to recover normally from the persistent bleed damage caused by breath of the mantis god"
That means you can recover from it as normal.
"the persistent bleed damage will return if the poison's duration is still ongoing"
That means it comes back if the poison is ongoing (aka: still in effect). Exactly when that happens is a GM call, but nothing there suggests it's a long wait (or a wait of any kind, it may come back immediately).
It's a weird poison, for sure. But what it says it does isn't contradictaory, so it does that. People really need to stop trying to parse PF2 rules as if they're a technical manual when they're intended to be red in plain English. Especially something in AP backmatter, where they use inconsistent terminology all the time because it's different authors and they don't rigorously enforce the same terminology.
Like, my 12 year old plays PF2 with us. If I read that sentence to him and ask him what it does, he's not going to try to wordsmith a really complicated answer for why it doesn't do what it says. He's going to say "the bleed comes back next turn and you should remove the poison."
Very well, but again, I do not see that as a text that is equivalent to "while you have this effect, you have this condition". Like that of Overwhelming Presence. And I don't think you have given any sort of evidence other than to point at the very text itself to show that it is more than just a warning that the bleed will return as usual.
I'm not sure what overwhelming presence really has to do with this, and the evidence I'm presenting is in the line itself. I have also pointed out that the only way to interpret this rules text in a consistent manner is to reapply the bleed right away. Meanwhile, the examples you cite either explicitly reference when something is occuring as normal, or explicitly reference that the condition returns in a way that is specified by the rules element itself; that too lends credence to the fact that this atypical line refers to an atypical application. As Tridus points out, the natural language interpretation of the line lends itself to what I and OP initially pointed out, so I don't think this is really a disagreement on fundamental grammar that favors what you're saying either.
But, I am saying exactly what Tridus is saying.
No, you're not, you're saying the exact opposite. In fact, you're the one interpreting this rules text like a technical manual in the exact way Tridus is criticizing, instead of reading it in natural language as they are recommending. Read what they are saying, as they do not agree with you:
That means it comes back if the poison is ongoing (aka: still in effect). Exactly when that happens is a GM call, but nothing there suggests it's a long wait (or a wait of any kind, it may come back immediately).
Please explain how this is your interpretation and not mine, NorrKnekten. At this stage it feels like you're trying a lot harder to be right in this discussion than to work towards a common understanding of this rules element.
Neither of us make any statement of when the poison itself tells us to reapply the bleed. Just that it at some point will.
Again, this is simply not true. Here is what Tridus had to say:
Like, my 12 year old plays PF2 with us. If I read that sentence to him and ask him what it does, he's not going to try to wordsmith a really complicated answer for why it doesn't do what it says. He's going to say "the bleed comes back next turn and you should remove the poison."
Really, it's not that complicated, NorrKnekten, and it genuinely boggles my mind that you're trying to take a person's quote that not only takes the polar opposite of your stance, but outright criticizes the casuistic approach you've taken, and twist it out of shape to claim that it supports you. The reading I, Tridus, and the thread's original comment have taken of the feat is based in plain English, and if you disagree on the basic meaning of words, feel free to do so, but I really don't see how that's anyone's problem but yours.
...the bleed returns immediately.
...bleed damage will return...
The argument for bleed returning immediately is only supported by your insertion of the word "immediately" or "next round" into the rule. It's not in the poison description, but inexplicably you keep adding it.
I get that you think this line must mean something more, so here's a way to think about why it might be in the description other than author error or poor writing:
Most effects that apply persistent bleed follow bleed's rule that once you heal to full, the bleed is removed. This poison is saying that doesn't end the poison.
Agree with NorrKnekten, the poison obeys the general rule of applying effects on stage interval. If this poison were intended to break with that, it would state an alternative time interval to re-apply bleed. It does not. You keep adding it yourself.
I don't think this thread will progress past this difference in interpretation unless both sides understand the grammar tenses being used and what events truly fulfill them.
The argument for bleed returning immediately is only supported by your insertion of the word "immediately" or "next round" into the rule.
This is incorrect; I have made the case for the bleed returning immediately in my prior response to you. It appears you might have missed it, so here it is again:
Let's suppose you spend one action to end the bleed damage: at the moment you do, the poison's duration is still ongoing, so the bleed will return. Let's suppose you delay the return to the next round. If you were to then end the poison on that same turn with cleanse affliction, you find yourself in a paradox: the bleed damage was supposed to return while the duration was ongoing, but the poison is no longer there, and the bleed did not return. Thus, the rule was not obeyed. In fact, any interpretation that delays the return of the bleed by any amount results in this same inconsistency, so the rules element only makes complete sense if the bleed's return is instant.
With the way the rules text is written, it only makes consistent sense if the bleed returns immediately.
Most effects that apply persistent bleed follow bleed's rule that once you heal to full, the bleed is removed. This poison is saying that doesn't end the poison.
There is no reason why ending the bleed would remove the poison in the first place, as the bleed is a component of the poison, not the reverse. This isn't an interpretation that makes much sense.
I don't think this thread will progress past this difference in interpretation unless both sides understand the grammar tenses being used and what events truly fulfill them.
I think the understanding of grammar is fine across the board, the issue seems to be that one particular side of the conversation is insisting on trying to muddy the meaning of simple natural language and ignore both the rules text and the arguments given to show why the rules text matter, as with the above. When I present an argument to you and you refuse to even acknowledge its existence, that will make it difficult for conversation to progress, because I now find myself in a position to have to present that argument to you again when we could instead have discussed it or engaged with something new.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think this thread will progress past this difference in interpretation unless both sides understand the grammar tenses being used and what events truly fulfill them.
I feel like the thread has run its course, yeah. The positions have been laid out in detail. The interaction in question isn't clear enough in the rules that there is a definitive answer, so folks who are entrenched in their positions aren't going to convince each other.
Someone who needs to know how this works can read the arguments and then make a ruling. There's plenty of info here to help do that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, the addition of the sentence with bleed returning is meaningless and unnecessary.
Isn't that kind of a weird way to go about it though?
Like we've identified this unique block of text that describes a specific behavior that doesn't exist in other, similar abilities, but rather than try to reconcile that text with the ability in question you just declare the whole section meaningless?
Not that Paizo doesn't have a habit of sometimes including redundant text, but this isn't explicitly redundant: you're making a few assumptions to reach that point.
If we're trying to interpret an ambiguous rules element, doesn't it make much more sense to start from the premise that rules are supposed to do something, rather than just deciding offhand that the thing you don't like is definitely just gibberish?
Hi all.
I think it is worded somewhat ambiguously, so I understand why people have differing opinions here . For what it's worth, the question has been answered to my satisfaction.
I also think that if you want to play it differently at your table that's fine. It'll make this poison more or less dangerous, but that's ok as long as everyone at the table is on the same page. I would check with a GM what their interpretation is before using this though.
Anyway, if people want to keep going they can, but it seems like everyone's said their peace. We all have the information, we're just interpreting it differenly.
Thanks for your input everyone =)