Changelings & Salt or Alcohol?

[torjones]

So in essence there is a disagreement on what is 'poison'. One side argues it is any substance that induces negative consequences via biologic processes. The other side feels that only substances that have the potential to directly cause death or grave injury through biologic processes.
One problem here is its looking like both sides are arguing that the ludicrous extension of the others position is untenable.

My take on it is rather simple.
1: If it is chemical in nature, then it is a toxin/poison. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
2: If it is bacterial/viral in nature, then it is an illness/disease. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective. (Viruses aren't treated this way by the book, I just include them here because there isn't anything in the books that I'm aware of that deals with them, and I prefer to keep things simple whenever possible.)
3: If it is magical in nature, it is a curse. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
4: If it is psionic in nature, then it's likely caused by bio-manipulation. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
5: If it is combat damage, then you need a healing type spell/psionic ability used on you or you can visit a medical clinic.
Just because you have a weakness against something doesn't mean that the magic or psionic ability that counters that particular category is going to stop working.

[arouetta]

So in essence there is a disagreement on what is 'poison'. One side argues it is any substance that induces negative consequences via biologic processes. The other side feels that only substances that have the potential to directly cause death or grave injury through biologic processes.
One problem here is its looking like both sides are arguing that the ludicrous extension of the others position is untenable.

My take on it is rather simple.
1: If it is chemical in nature, then it is a toxin/poison. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
2: If it is bacterial/viral in nature, then it is an illness/disease. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective. (Viruses aren't treated this way by the book, I just include them here because there isn't anything in the books that I'm aware of that deals with them, and I prefer to keep things simple whenever possible.)
3: If it is magical in nature, it is a curse. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
4: If it is psionic in nature, then it's likely caused by bio-manipulation. The magic/psionics that deal with such will be effective.
5: If it is combat damage, then you need a healing type spell/psionic ability used on you or you can visit a medical clinic.
Just because you have a weakness against something doesn't mean that the magic or psionic ability that counters that particular category is going to stop working.

Simple and effective. I can't think of anything that doesn't fall in those categories, except maybe parasites?

[kiralon]

Aroutta
In regards to palladium fantasy yes I would think it would remove it, but I ask myself, if they put cyanide in the book as something to buy where would it be, in the food section or the poison section.
Where's salt in the book, the food section
where's hemlock, it doesn't say how much a dose is so you can give them 1ppm could do 4d6+10 damage, so no to me a normal dose of hemlock, cyanide or nightshade would be about a teaspoon for, anything less would be an abnormal amount and wouldn't count, but since a normal dose kills it would still be cleaned.
What's the normal dose of salt, a sprinkle to a spoonful. that doesn't kill.

Do you really think there is no difference between cyanide and salt and that they both deserve the skull and crossbones poison sticker.

Sir Tor Jones just curious, where does allergic reactions to say peanuts come into that, where its your own body doing the damage, and where does the deadly come into that for the psionic version of Impervious to toxins, otherwise its house rules. It very specifically states it.

[Nightmask]

very true, I think a poison is a poison in normal doses, and if it takes an abnormal amount of something to kill it not a poison because then everything is a poison because an abnormal amount of anything will kill you. I'm just saying that the psionic negate toxins mentions having to know the deadly properties of the substance before you can use it, would you in the normal course of a day think salt is deadly, because it has to be taken to abnormal lengths to kill.
I must say if salt was in the poison/drugs section of the book rather then the food section I would class it as poison, and if it said that it killed changelings rather then make them sick I would class it as deadly.

Very flawed reasoning there, you're twisting and completely ignoring the accepted definitions of various words to redefine things to get the result you want because the result you get using the accepted definitions is one you don't want. Everything has a 'safe at this level' point and a 'not safe at this point' dose, some things are acknowledged to be more toxic are much smaller amounts relative to other things but it all ends up toxic at some point, including oxygen.

Using your fallacious reasoning then nothing is really poisonous because it all has a point at which it's safe to be exposed to it, or a 'safe dosage' level. Since everything has a 'normally safe dosage' then nothing is poisonous because only when you consume an unsafe (abnormal) dosage does it become poisonous. Since this is a patently absurd argument then clearly what's poisonous doesn't follow how you try and redefine the term, which is why for Changelings salt and alcohol are clearly poisons (as at least one edition of the book made clear) and why powers that protect against being poisoned protect changelings from them.

In regards to thinking Mind Melters get 'too much' at 1st level, this isn't AD&D where every character is designed to scale up and grow in power as they level so that they're barely able to handle bandits at 1st level and armies by 6th but Palladium where characters generally get much of their power right from the start because it's an entirely different system and design concept.

[arouetta]

Aroutta
In regards to palladium fantasy yes I would think it would remove it, but I ask myself, if they put cyanide in the book as something to buy where would it be, in the food section or the poison section.
Where's salt in the book, the food section

Where it is in the book has no bearing. Changelings aren't going to be buying salt for food, they are going to be buying it to hurt the 3rd cousin they've vowed to ruin.

Real life example again - there are a whole assortment of herbs that a medieval midwife or healer would have on hand to be brewed as teas for unfortunate women, such as a combination of brewer's yeast and pennyroyal. But pennyroyal killed a Colorado woman in 1978 and many of those other herbs are also toxic in higher concentration. They would not be found in the poison section of the book, if there was a healing section that's where you would find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

[Nightmask]

Aroutta
In regards to palladium fantasy yes I would think it would remove it, but I ask myself, if they put cyanide in the book as something to buy where would it be, in the food section or the poison section.
Where's salt in the book, the food section
where's hemlock, it doesn't say how much a dose is so you can give them 1ppm could do 4d6+10 damage, so no to me a normal dose of hemlock, cyanide or nightshade would be about a teaspoon for, anything less would be an abnormal amount and wouldn't count, but since a normal dose kills it would still be cleaned.
What's the normal dose of salt, a sprinkle to a spoonful. that doesn't kill.

Do you really think there is no difference between cyanide and salt and that they both deserve the skull and crossbones poison sticker.

For a changeling they do both rate a poison sticker, since once again just because it's not considered poisonous to humans doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as a poison to someone else. Aspirin is a great thing for humans, we take quite a bit of it, there's a variety of snake that it's a highly effective poison towards. Do you really think that because it doesn't rate being called poison by us that the snake doesn't get to call it a poison either? To changelings salt and alcohol are poisons, even if they aren't considered to be by humans and should be protected against accordingly by powers that protect one against poisons and toxins.

[kiralon]

Salt also doesn't apply to a changeling as a deadly poison, show me where it says salt kills them rather then makes them nauseous in normal eating amounts, it says they get sick, not dead.
So i'm not talking the its dangerous to have to much of warning label, im talking about the ones you see on poisons. Syrup of ipecac makes me sick, the bottles I get don't have skull and crossbones, they have a warning.
Ratsack will kill, it has a skull and crossbones, but you can eat a very small amount of ratsack and not die, that doesn't make it any less deadly. It has to be a deadly substance, the power description says so. It probably shouldn't and im glad it does, but its there

So why would changelings class salt as deadly, it does not kill them

[kiralon]

and for the herbs that are in the healing section you would need a medical roll. The fact that you get recognise poison as part of the power would make me mostly limit it to what recognise poison would let you find, and I haven't seen it mentioned as a poison in anygame I played, and other then you guys I don't know anyone else who would classify a substance that makes them sick as deadly unless you have too much.

[kiralon]

And if salt was deadly to changelings it would say in the changeling description that salt kills them, not make them sick. Unlike humans the book says it makes them sick, if you can show me where it says salt is deadly to changelings I would agree with you, but they have specific descriptions, one says sick, the other says deadly, they don't match up and that's what' written in the book. I'm not going for house rule interpretation, I was going for what's written in the book, and to type it for the umpteenth time, one says they get sick, the other says needs to be deadly, that is enough difference for me for it not to work as a canon rule rather then a house rule.

[Nightmask]

And if salt was deadly to changelings it would say in the changeling description that salt kills them, not make them sick. Unlike humans the book says it makes them sick, if you can show me where it says salt is deadly to changelings I would agree with you, but they have specific descriptions, one says sick, the other says deadly, they don't match up and that's what' written in the book. I'm not going for house rule interpretation, I was going for what's written in the book, and to type it for the umpteenth time, one says they get sick, the other says needs to be deadly, that is enough difference for me for it not to work as a canon rule rather then a house rule.

That's because you keep insisting that it has to be deadly to qualify as a poison, and that if it just makes you sick that it isn't, which isn't the case. All it has to do is cause you to get sick at a certain level to be a poison, with death at a higher level. Changelings are fortunate (if one can call it that) that they get sick early enough to have a chance to not consume enough to kill them, and you're house-ruling a hole in the powers that would protect them from these poisons because you don't want to allow them any means of concealment or protection from their toxic vulnerability to salt and alcohol. That's quite obvious because you complain about it being possible for them at 1st level with the relevant psionics and you don't want them being able to do so, so you house rule it that they can't protect themselves from something so obviously harmful to them so they remain easily at risk of discovery by a common method of detecting changelings. You want them vulnerable so deny them those things that would let them not be vulnerable but try and spin it that it's in the rules that way when it isn't.

[kiralon]

Nightmask can you go to your 2nd ed book and go to where the psionic, not magic is and see if impervious to poison mentions the word deadly and repeat the sentence if it does. My version might be different. Who knows

[kiralon]

So its clear mine says
Impervious to poison/toxin
Range: Self
Durations: 2 minutes (8 Melees)
I.S.P.: 4
The character can negate the full effects of poisons and toxic chemicals which he has ingested (eaten or drunk) or introduced to his bloodstream, as long as he/she has advance knowledge of its deadly properties. A poison, toxin or drug which has been unknowingly inflicted (and starting to take effect) can be negated too, but will do half damage or effect before it can be completely negated. Bonuses: Identify Poisons: 30%+4% per level of experience; +2 to save vs poisons and drugs.

That's what it says in my copies. The bolded bit is the bit you say doesn't exist. AS LONG AS HE/SHE HAS ADVANCE KNOWLEDGE OF ITS DEADLY PROPERTIES
that says to me that you can't do it unless you know its deadly properties. I think you could go for half effect for salt as it doesn't have deadly properties modifier, I think it's implied but it doesn't say it directly so you could get away with half nausea/half drunk.
I think what you are saying is spinning the rules.
If it said as long as he/she has advance knowledge of its nauseating/sickness causing properties would you think that it would work on changelings then, I do, and if it didn't say deadly, I think it would as well. IT says deadly, so deadly it must be.

I must say I cant understand why you think it doesn't say deadly, other then you having a different edition (mine are all the same) or you were reading the magical negate poison/toxin, or weren't looking at it and was just going by memory.

Where it is in the book has no bearing. Changelings aren't going to be buying salt for food, they are going to be buying it to hurt the 3rd cousin they've vowed to ruin.

I disagree, if salt was with hemlock and the other poisons I wouldn't be arguing with you.

[torjones]

Sir Tor Jones just curious, where does allergic reactions to say peanuts come into that, where its your own body doing the damage, and where does the deadly come into that for the psionic version of Impervious to toxins, otherwise its house rules. It very specifically states it.

Well, I'd say that it would fall under 1: chemical. It's not a virus or a bacteria. It's not magical in nature. It's not psionic in nature. It's not combat damage.

The important thing to my thinking is that the chemical, in this case peanuts or salt, causes a reaction that is undesirable or winds up doing damage. Thinking about the actual allergic reaction, the body isn't really doing damage to itself directly, the damage is a side effect or by-product of the allergic reaction. Usually, it's things like lungs filling with fluid in an attempt to protect against something, or the swelling of the airway which leads to choking.

If you can't decide if something should be allowed or not, abstract it and then think about it. If someone puts *Frack* into this character's bowl of chili, and that would cause *something undesirable* to occur, that character should either get a saving throw against it or have an opportunity to activate any special abilities they may have to avoid having that *something undesirable* occur.

As for "Deadly" the only deadly I could find in the description was in reference to "advanced knowledge of its deadly properties," meaning that the character has to know how it's going to effect him, so that it can be negated, not that the substance had to be capable of killing you. Let's be honest, if some of the modern nerve agents were in the game, even the really lethal ones like VX, a lot of characters would be capable of surviving exposure to it.

Not all Toxins kill, even in really large quantities, they just make you wish you were dead. Some cause extreme amounts of pain, but are completely survivable, even when left untreated.

Also, from everything published by Palladium over the years, Poisons and toxins are used pretty interchangeably. According to the dictionary, the difference is a toxin is a poison produced by a plant or critter of some kind.

Simple and effective. I can't think of anything that doesn't fall in those categories, except maybe parasites?

I'd say that would likely either fall into the virus/bacteria category or the combat category, depending on the situation and the parasite. If it's a Raithenor, it's not going to be a bacteria...

[kiralon]

Erm doesnt having to know its deadly(I.e. something with deadly properties has to be deadly, otherwise it wouldnt have deadly properties. Cant have one without the other)
And that line reads to me as if you know its deadly properties you can negate it. Im saying salt doesnt have deadly properties.it doesnt say negate the non deadly properties.just the deadly ones. The line doesnt sound optional

[torjones]

Erm doesn't having to know its deadly(I.e. something with deadly properties has to be deadly, otherwise it wouldn't have deadly properties. Can't have one without the other)
And that line reads to me as if you know its deadly properties you can negate it. I'm saying salt doesn't have deadly properties. It doesn't say negate the non deadly properties, just the deadly ones. The line doesn't sound optional

And few of the poisons or toxins listed in the poison section are likely to kill any particular character. So it would appear that by your reasoning, Impervious to Poison/Toxin doesn't work on them either. Heck, if that was true, the only ones that I'd say have a good chance of killing most characters are Hemlock, Nightshade, and Dragon's Venom, so those would be the only three substances that a character would get protection from by using the Impervious to Poison/Toxin psionic ability.

Sorry, I don't buy that. It would be bad game design, and while Palladium is occasionally guilty of foibles in that general direction, such a large and widespread error? No.

Also, Alcohol is poisonous to humans. Every time I've seen it classified medically or chemically, it's always been classified as "Poison (GRAS)" (or a variant thereof).

I've played with a lot of GMs in my time as a gamer, and I've never had one say that the Impervious to Poison power didn't work on Alcohol. Given that rather lengthly tradition, unwritten though it may be, I'm inclined to apply the same line of reasoning to Salt when it comes to Changelings. Also, given the examples in the FAQs and the things in The Rifters (though I don't remember this being one of the questions asked), I would say that the rulings tend to err on the side of permissibility rather than denial, but that's just my opinion. I will look through the Rifters though, and see if I can find something one way or another, though it may take me a while.

[kiralon]

And few of the poisons or toxins listed in the poison section are likely to kill any particular character. So it would appear that by your reasoning, Impervious to Poison/Toxin doesn't work on them either. Heck, if that was true, the only ones that I'd say have a good chance of killing most characters are Hemlock, Nightshade, and Dragon's Venom, so those would be the only three substances that a character would get protection from by using the Impervious to Poison/Toxin psionic ability.

Sorry, I don't buy that. It would be bad game design, and while Palladium is occasionally guilty of foibles in that general direction, such a large and widespread error? No.

Also, Alcohol is poisonous to humans. Every time I've seen it classified medically or chemically, it's always been classified as "Poison (GRAS)" (or a variant thereof).

I've played with a lot of GMs in my time as a gamer, and I've never had one say that the Impervious to Poison power didn't work on Alcohol. Given that rather lengthly tradition, unwritten though it may be, I'm inclined to apply the same line of reasoning to Salt when it comes to Changelings. Also, given the examples in the FAQs and the things in The Rifters (though I don't remember this being one of the questions asked), I would say that the rulings tend to err on the side of permissibility rather than denial, but that's just my opinion. I will look through the Rifters though, and see if I can find something one way or another, though it may take me a while.

Even though the book says the word deadly and the sentence would have been fine without it, and if you read a few hundred posts ago I said I allowed it to work on most toxins, including alcohol but not salt. I'm just saying that's not what the power actually says.

[J_cobbers]

If it causes internal damage or adverse reactions in your body by way of chemical interactions from a non-living substance, then I would rule that it would work (though I'd probably follow Kevin's example for gray areas and let a dice roll decide if it came to a debate). Allergens, chemical weapons, chemical imbalances, acids, andns would all be negated. Infection, disease, and direct, physical trauma would not be affected (though it could possibly slow down or stop some of the effects of sepsis, jaundice, and kidney failure). Salt and Alchohol would certainly qualify, and they make sense as a way for a changeling character to survive in a very hostile world.

To me, a more interesting question would be, how would this power affect acid?

I would argue that acids are not strictly toxic as they are acidic. For example weak acids like citric acid is actually good for you, stomach acid is essential for digestion. Strong acids dont cause allegic reactions, they straight up cause damage directly to your tissues as they burn through them. Toxins cause your body to react or interrupt or corrupt the body's functions. So the power wouldn't negate them IMO.

[torjones]

And few of the poisons or toxins listed in the poison section are likely to kill any particular character. So it would appear that by your reasoning, Impervious to Poison/Toxin doesn't work on them either. Heck, if that was true, the only ones that I'd say have a good chance of killing most characters are Hemlock, Nightshade, and Dragon's Venom, so those would be the only three substances that a character would get protection from by using the Impervious to Poison/Toxin psionic ability.

Sorry, I don't buy that. It would be bad game design, and while Palladium is occasionally guilty of foibles in that general direction, such a large and widespread error? No.

Also, Alcohol is poisonous to humans. Every time I've seen it classified medically or chemically, it's always been classified as "Poison (GRAS)" (or a variant thereof).

I've played with a lot of GMs in my time as a gamer, and I've never had one say that the Impervious to Poison power didn't work on Alcohol. Given that rather lengthly tradition, unwritten though it may be, I'm inclined to apply the same line of reasoning to Salt when it comes to Changelings. Also, given the examples in the FAQs and the things in The Rifters (though I don't remember this being one of the questions asked), I would say that the rulings tend to err on the side of permissibility rather than denial, but that's just my opinion. I will look through the Rifters though, and see if I can find something one way or another, though it may take me a while.

Even though the book says the word deadly and the sentence would have been fine without it, and if you read a few hundred posts ago I said I allowed it to work on most toxins, including alcohol but not salt. I'm just saying that's not what the power actually says.

If it works on alcohol, then it should work on salt in changelings. Salt is no less toxic to a changeling than alcohol is to humans. Just because the reaction it produces is slightly different doesn't make it less toxic.

Again, so very few of the poisons listed in the book are actually deadly, so if you insist on using that as the defining characteristic, then the power has little effect in game.

I choose to err on the side of permissibility. YMMV.

[Grug]

I would say yes...

It says it can negate a drug, so you could smoke a joint and be fine. So why not alcohol too? Yes I know its not the same, but jeez if you can do a line of cocaine and be fine. Letting it negate salt and alcohol isn't going to break the game.

As far as I know, an allergic reaction caused by food is your body saying 'Hey this is bad for me, kill it like they killed the tusker last week!'. Your body overreacts to something that is typical fine for everyone else. But you could potentially die from it. (but I am neither a doctor or scientist, and truly do not know what is happening.)

But from what I do know it's good enough for me to say yes, a changeling could use it for salt and alcohol.

[kiralon]

And few of the poisons or toxins listed in the poison section are likely to kill any particular character. So it would appear that by your reasoning, Impervious to Poison/Toxin doesn't work on them either. Heck, if that was true, the only ones that I'd say have a good chance of killing most characters are Hemlock, Nightshade, and Dragon's Venom, so those would be the only three substances that a character would get protection from by using the Impervious to Poison/Toxin psionic ability.

Sorry, I don't buy that. It would be bad game design, and while Palladium is occasionally guilty of foibles in that general direction, such a large and widespread error? No.

Also, Alcohol is poisonous to humans. Every time I've seen it classified medically or chemically, it's always been classified as "Poison (GRAS)" (or a variant thereof).

I've played with a lot of GMs in my time as a gamer, and I've never had one say that the Impervious to Poison power didn't work on Alcohol. Given that rather lengthly tradition, unwritten though it may be, I'm inclined to apply the same line of reasoning to Salt when it comes to Changelings. Also, given the examples in the FAQs and the things in The Rifters (though I don't remember this being one of the questions asked), I would say that the rulings tend to err on the side of permissibility rather than denial, but that's just my opinion. I will look through the Rifters though, and see if I can find something one way or another, though it may take me a while.

Even though the book says the word deadly and the sentence would have been fine without it, and if you read a few hundred posts ago I said I allowed it to work on most toxins, including alcohol but not salt. I'm just saying that's not what the power actually says.

If it works on alcohol, then it should work on salt in changelings. Salt is no less toxic to a changeling than alcohol is to humans. Just because the reaction it produces is slightly different doesn't make it less toxic.

Again, so very few of the poisons listed in the book are actually deadly, so if you insist on using that as the defining characteristic, then the power has little effect in game.

I choose to err on the side of permissibility. YMMV.

It does say it can negate toxins and chemicals if you know their deadly effects beforehand, its one sentence

Torjones You are very correct about the deadliness of palladium poisons, on the whole they aren't because of the ability to save and have no effect %30 of the time, so if %20 survive a dose its already below half. I also think that the word deadly shouldn't be there because it caused unintended effects by the writer. But while the word deadly is there the first part of the power which is the full negate won't work on things that aren't deadly, the secondary half effect would. Having salt being deadly in large amounts is a real life rule, salt does not do damage in the game, and I have seen nowhere where it says it does damage, and it specifically says in the changeling description that they only get sick. sick does not equal deadly, well not where I come from anyway. Deadly here means its more likely to kill you then not, which means more of the changelings would have to die on average then not when taking salt, and I have never seen a changeling die by salt. The other negate poisons would work because they don't use the word deadly, and on the whole TorJones is right, I don't think many palladium poisons are deadly, but that is maybe an error, maybe balancing, but the power specifically says you have to know a substances deadly properties first. From what I understand of canon for this forum for it to be canon you would have to include the word deadly, which just happens to support one side of the way I play psionic impervious to toxins. I have seen plenty of stuff for house rules and as mentioned I use probably more then most. I am just saying that this power is probably used wrong if people are playing straight palladium out of the book.
I read in someone's sig here something along the lines of word conveys ideas, using the wrong words conveys the wrong ideas. I guess this is just another time that the wrong words have been used, but until someone changes it with some errata or another book or something it has the deadly condition in the use of its power for it to be canon, and I haven't seen an argument for canon that changes that, changeling says sick, power says deadly, its right there in the book, in know, I have copied it out many many times. They aren't the same word.

[torjones]

If it works on alcohol, then it should work on salt in changelings. Salt is no less toxic to a changeling than alcohol is to humans. Just because the reaction it produces is slightly different doesn't make it less toxic.

Again, so very few of the poisons listed in the book are actually deadly, so if you insist on using that as the defining characteristic, then the power has little effect in game.

I choose to err on the side of permissibility. YMMV.

It does say it can negate toxins and chemicals if you know their deadly effects beforehand, its one sentence

Torjones You are very correct about the deadliness of palladium poisons, on the whole they aren't because of the ability to save and have no effect %30 of the time, so if %20 survive a dose its already below half. I also think that the word deadly shouldn't be there because it caused unintended effects by the writer. But while the word deadly is there the first part of the power which is the full negate won't work on things that aren't deadly, the secondary half effect would. Having salt being deadly in large amounts is a real life rule, salt does not do damage in the game, and I have seen nowhere where it says it does damage, and it specifically says in the changeling description that they only get sick. sick does not equal deadly, well not where I come from anyway. Deadly here means its more likely to kill you then not, which means more of the changelings would have to die on average then not when taking salt, and I have never seen a changeling die by salt. The other negate poisons would work because they don't use the word deadly, and on the whole TorJones is right, I don't think many palladium poisons are deadly, but that is maybe an error, maybe balancing, but the power specifically says you have to know a substances deadly properties first. From what I understand of canon for this forum for it to be canon you would have to include the word deadly, which just happens to support one side of the way I play psionic impervious to toxins. I have seen plenty of stuff for house rules and as mentioned I use probably more then most. I am just saying that this power is probably used wrong if people are playing straight palladium out of the book.
I read in someone's sig here something along the lines of word conveys ideas, using the wrong words conveys the wrong ideas. I guess this is just another time that the wrong words have been used, but until someone changes it with some errata or another book or something it has the deadly condition in the use of its power for it to be canon, and I haven't seen an argument for canon that changes that, changeling says sick, power says deadly, its right there in the book, in know, I have copied it out many many times. They aren't the same word.

If the substance has to have deadly properties to work, and few of the poisons listed in the book HAVE deadly properties, then the power can not work on poisons that do not have deadly properties, eliminating it from working on the majority of the poisons it is supposed to work on. As such, it also will not work on alcohol or salt in a changeling.
Again, I have to disagree with this.
You say it works on all those poisons. You say it works on alcohol. But for some reason, because the one sentence that comments on the effect salt has on changelings is merely illness, making it well within the realm of poisonous substances for changelings, it amazingly no longer works. It is a double standard, and as such, shouldn't be allowed in the game.

Something else I would like to point out, that one of the alternate, yet legitimate, meanings of deadly is "completely" as in deadly dull. If one uses that definition, it clearly does not mean lethally dull, the meaning of the sentence in question changes slightly and becomes much more permissive, and falls well within the scope of how the power is used by most players and GMs, and means that all of those poisons that aren't really lethal, are affected by Impervious to Poisons, and it can be used on alcohol. This would also mean that Changlings could use it to protect themselves against salt.

On yet another point, I take the meaning of the description as a whole. The first sentence is about if you know you're being poisoned and with what, say a certain scene from a certain movie that involves Iocane powder, you can completely negate the effects. If you don't know that you're about to be poisoned, then you can still protect yourself, but not completely.

Lastly, we know so terribly little about changelings, I hardly think its fair to assume extensive knowledge about salt reactions in their species based upon 7 words. Maybe if we knew more about the species, we would have reason to agree with your belief that Impervious to Poison shouldn't work for the changelings when they consume salt. Maybe someone will write a Rifter article explaining why it's permissible.

It says it can negate a drug, so you could smoke a joint and be fine. So why not alcohol too? Yes I know its not the same, but jeez if you can do a line of cocaine and be fine. Letting it negate salt and alcohol isn't going to break the game.

As far as I know, an allergic reaction caused by food is your body saying 'Hey this is bad for me, kill it like they killed the tusker last week!'. Your body overreacts to something that is typical fine for everyone else. But you could potentially die from it. (but I am neither a doctor or scientist, and truly do not know what is happening.)

But from what I do know it's good enough for me to say yes, a changeling could use it for salt and alcohol.

I tend to agree with that whole "Break the Game" thing you mentioned. The problem is, he's arguing that Alcohol IS something that the power affects, but salt is not. He's arguing for a double standard, and I'm arguing againt it. If you're going to allow it for one, you should allow it for both. If you want to deny the ability to work on salt (in changelings), you should also deny it's effectiveness on alcohol in humans. I agree that it should work on alcohol in humans, so I also agree that it should work on Salt (in changelings). There are enough double standards in life, why would anyone want to annoy their players with one in a recreational game?

In any case, the general consensus from this thread appears to be "Yes, Impervious to Poison can be used by changlings to prevent them from getting sick if they eat too much salt."

[azazel1024]

Well Ill have to use negate toxins the next time someone stabs me because swords are toxic to the body, and I'll have to negate toxins the next time I drink lava because its toxic to the body as well. Everything is toxic to the body in large enough amounts. Would you let negate toxins save someone who had drunk too much water (dilutional hyponatremia). I wouldn't as water isn't a toxin.

But no, in my games negate toxins wouldn't save you from allergic reactions to peanuts either.

You're resorting to absurdity comparisons there to try and imply that there's no difference between being stabbed and having an allergic reaction when there's absolutely nothing about them that relates. Same goes with with water comparison. Swords aren't toxins, hot lava isn't a toxin (generally), they don't kill due to toxic reactions they kill by breaking or burning things and again it's quite ridiculous to try and claim that they are even remotely in the same category as an allergen or other poison.

Peanuts are toxic to some people, insisting that because it's an allergic reaction it isn't really toxic to them is ridiculous. It doesn't matter that the toxic response from the allergen isn't quite the same as the toxic response to arsenic because the toxic response to arsenic isn't going to be the same as mercury poisoning or Strychnine poisoning, but they're all toxins and therefor should all be covered. Because 'oh no that's not a toxin' when the follow-up is 'then why am I dead?' you simply aren't going to come up with an argument how something that killed them like any other toxin wasn't a toxin that anyone will believe.

They were supposed to be ridiculous, everything is toxic if you have enough, salt makes humans sick as well but I don't make all the salt in someone's body disappear when they negate toxins and bacterial infections are toxic but show me a dm that will let you get rid of the effects of the red plague with negate toxins, and its only the toxins from the bacteria that are hurting/killing you. I will class anything that comes under poisons as a toxin, and that's it, otherwise it effects way to many things. The day negate toxins works on salt is the day salt gets classed as a poison, and everyone dies when they eat it. Sunlight is very toxic to vampires, can they negate toxins so they can walk in the sun, same with holy water, its toxic, there is a very vigorous allergic reaction when it touches their skin.

kiralon,
I think I understand where you are coming from. However, I might offer this as an argument about allergies:
Someone with a bad allergy to peanuts will have a reaction where their airway closes, anaphylactic shock, etc. (possible death) due to a reaction from the allergen.....
Someone with a bad allergy to nerve agent will have a reaction where their airway closes, anaphylactic shock, etc. (possible death) due to a reaction from the allergen.....
Most people would not consider nerve agent to be an allergen, but instead a toxin. Just because many people are immune to peanuts as a toxin/allergen does not mean it's any less lethal to some.
Allergy = Toxin. Just depends if you have an immunity to it. Therefore, I believe Impervious to Poison/Toxin should work on allergies.

Wouldn't that be great for hay fever season?

Not really true. An allergic reaction acts through the histamine pathways, a nerve agent does not.

It just depends on how you look at "toxin". "chemical that does bad stuff to the body" is how I'd generally define it. Of course then you could look at acids and bases as chemicals that do bad things to the body, but I wouldn't consider that a poison or toxin.

That said, in general I'd consider something that causes an allergic reaction a toxin to that individual.

[flatline]

It seems reasonable to me to choose powers and skills that help characters overcome their disadvantages.

I do not see this as abusive and would not only allow it, but I might even suggest such obvious choices to players during character generation.

--flatline

[kiralon]

Again, so very few of the poisons listed in the book are actually deadly, so if you insist on using that as the defining characteristic, then the power has little effect in game.

I didn't put that defining characteristic there, and you obviously recognise that it's a defining characteristic, yet you choose to ignore it because you think the spirit of the power is different. I'm saying that's a house ruling. I'm not even really arguing about salt effecting changelings either. I am arguing about the logic of calling salt a deadly toxin. The deadly characteristic definition is already there. The only definition of what salt does to a changeling is there too, everything else is conjecture. Those 2 words do not match. one says deadly, the other says sick.
The only thing put forth by everybody is they agree the deadly part shouldn't be there. I agree, it shouldn't, but IT IS.
So because of bad wording yes the power shouldn't have much effect in the game, there should be errata written up about it, PFRG has errors like these through it, I just think they are worse in second ed, and if I DM'd second ed I wouldn't allow it to work on salt because I think its unbalanced, and as most changelings are mind mages how do you come to the conclusion that salt and alcohol effect changelings badly if on the whole they are immune to it. They would mostly pass all the tests.

Luckily I still play first ed, and as the power in first ed takes more then half your ppe on average for a starting character, and takes an hour to do it has never come up for a salt test, because it just takes too long. So I let them be able to make an anti nausea compound (Iron Gullet is better) with holistic medicine. I'm not against them being able to negate it. I'm against them being able to negate it with impunity from level 1 like they would with impervious to poison in second ed, and the bad wording of the power supports my double standards, and you saying I have double standards is like a politician calling another politician a liar. Everyone has standards for different things. Technically I think the power should only work on the list of poisons, drugs and acids that are listed in the book under the poison section, but under the wording only a couple would make it. Its not my fault that the books weren't edited better, but people do shoot the messenger.

What would you say if I said here's a power called negate flame
it lets you put out all fire but before you can use it you need to know the flammable properties of the fuel that is burning.
Would that mean you need to know about the incendiary properties of a substance, or just know about the substance.
Obviously I say you need to know about the flammable properties. flammable is a condition word, so is deadly.

When you take the word deadly out you aren't using the power that's in the book.

Do you think that you have to make an identify poison check before you can use the power, i.e. the skill that taking the power gives you.
and if I said make a list of deadly substances would salt be on it.
and if so then show me where it says salt is deadly to changelings.

The only answer to this is the 2nd ed Book has an error that needs fixing. ( )

[Nightmask]

Again, so very few of the poisons listed in the book are actually deadly, so if you insist on using that as the defining characteristic, then the power has little effect in game.

I didn't put that defining characteristic there, and you obviously recognise that it's a defining characteristic, yet you choose to ignore it because you think the spirit of the power is different. I'm saying that's a house ruling. I'm not even really arguing about salt effecting changelings either. I am arguing about the logic of calling salt a deadly toxin. The deadly characteristic definition is already there. The only definition of what salt does to a changeling is there too, everything else is conjecture. Those 2 words do not match. one says deadly, the other says sick.
The only thing put forth by everybody is they agree the deadly part shouldn't be there. I agree, it shouldn't, but IT IS.
So because of bad wording yes the power shouldn't have much effect in the game, there should be errata written up about it, PFRG has errors like these through it, I just think they are worse in second ed, and if I DM'd second ed I wouldn't allow it to work on salt because I think its unbalanced, and as most changelings are mind mages how do you come to the conclusion that salt and alcohol effect changelings badly if on the whole they are immune to it. They would mostly pass all the tests.

You've still failed to justify an argument that it's unbalanced that because Changelings have a few extra things poisonous to them compared to humans that therefor they shouldn't get the same broad-ranging protection from a power that protects against being poisoned as the human. It's giving the same broad-ranging poison protection to anyone who has it, so either the power itself is unbalancing because it renders everyone immune to poisons who has it or it's not unbalancing at all because being a broad protection power when activated it should cover EVERYTHING poisonous to someone based on their species NOT based on what's just poisonous to humans. So you're going to need a lot better than 'well I think they should still be vulnerable to poisons because I want to make things more difficult for the guy playing a Changeling and I think I can't if he can protect himself from what poisons him like humans can protect against what poisons them' to even remotely manage to justify the idea that it's unbalanced if they can shield against the extra things that poison them but don't poison humans (of which alcohol is still poisonous to humans but it's hardly the only thing poisonous to them that humans consume because they get off on the side-effects if they just kill part of themselves keeping the exposure low so it doesn't quite ensure death).

You also keep using that flawed argument that having it means that changelings are immune to salt and alcohol when they aren't, they aren't in whole or in part immune to salt or alcohol they're still poisoned by them. Do I have to repeat myself in pointing out that they can't run it all the time, so have to be careful and where possible resort to non-psionic means of protection?

Luckily I still play first ed, and as the power in first ed takes more then half your ppe on average for a starting character, and takes an hour to do it has never come up for a salt test, because it just takes too long. So I let them be able to make an anti nausea compound (Iron Gullet is better) with holistic medicine. I'm not against them being able to negate it. I'm against them being able to negate it with impunity from level 1 like they would with impervious to poison in second ed, and the bad wording of the power supports my double standards, and you saying I have double standards is like a politician calling another politician a liar. Everyone has standards for different things. Technically I think the power should only work on the list of poisons, drugs and acids that are listed in the book under the poison section, but under the wording only a couple would make it. Its not my fault that the books weren't edited better, but people do shoot the messenger.

So a mage can render himself immune to fire with a simple spell he can learn at level 1 (because even if it wasn't in the starting lists Palladium mages don't have to be equal to the level of a spell in order to learn it and can learn anything from level 1 on up starting at level 1), but you think it wrong for the Changeling to get to include salt and alcohol as poisons and somehow unbalanced? Really you aren't actually arguing that it's unbalanced because it isn't, you're calling it unbalanced because that sounds better than stating that you don't want Changeling players to be able to protect against their extra poison vulnerabilities because then you can't as easily poison them and out them when they're trying to conceal themselves if they make careful use of the power. If you have that much issue with Changelings that you feel you just have to make sure they can't protect themselves from those extra poisons so you can use them against them right from the start you should just ban them entirely instead of nerfing an existing power by inserting holes into it that only affect Changelings. THAT'S what's actually unbalanced.

It would also be ridiculous for it to only work on poisons listed in the book because it's not 'limited protection against poisons/toxins' power or 'only good for what random poisons the GM wants it to work against but not those he wants to use to drive the plot his way' power.

[kiralon]

You've still failed to justify an argument that it's unbalanced that because Changelings have a few extra things poisonous to them.

No I didn't because I'm not arguing about balance, I'm saying that's why I'd do it.
I'm arguing that the book says it doesn't work on them.

Do I have to repeat myself in pointing out that they can't run it all the time,

I know, but enough to pass the tests you get. I haven't had a test last longer then 10 minutes, (except the one where you have to run from a tiger, inner strength is good for that )and that they do easily.

So a mage can render himself immune to fire with a simple spell he can learn at level 1 (because even if it wasn't in the starting lists Palladium mages don't have to be equal to the level of a spell in order to learn it and can learn anything from level 1 on up starting at level 1).

Not even close to being the same, one you do start with it from the beginning (tell me a changeling wouldn't take it just to get the +2 save vs poison)

The other is the wizard can learn it if the dm lets him learn it, and he wouldn't get it as a starting character unless it was plot involved. Definitely not the same.

It would also be ridiculous for it to only work on poisons listed in the book because it's not 'limited protection against poisons/toxins' power or 'only good for what random poisons the GM wants it to work against but not those he wants to use to drive the plot his way' power

It follows that the DM should also only use the poisons and drugs in the book. Salt is in the book and under the food section, and the bit that talks about salt and changelings says it sickens them, not kill them, so not deadly, which the power specifically mentions. Unless you make a house rule and change what it effects. I did, technically I house ruled for poison to work, but I know I house ruled. You guys seem to be denying that you are making house rules for what it effects, so I'm arguing that it does. If you say I have changed it this way for gameplay reasons I have no issue, but saying the book doesn't say deadly poisons are what's required I do have issue with, because the way I was taught to understand English tells me that deadly toxins have to be involved.

[Goliath Strongarm]

Even though the book says the word deadly and the sentence would have been fine without it, and if you read a few hundred posts ago I said I allowed it to work on most toxins, including alcohol but not salt. I'm just saying that's not what the power actually says.

The illness it causes is the "initial stage", basically their body warning them to stop. If they don't stop, excessive vomiting is going to lead to death (just as it would in humans). Salt is potentially lethal for changelings.

OR, to be a real smart alec... The reaction to salt is going to give them away as a changeling. Which is going to cause them to get killed. Therefore, salt is lethal to changelings.

Either way works, really. It honestly sounds like your entire judgement is based around "a changeling that can prevent the salt from affecting him is too powerful for me to control" argument.

[kiralon]

Even though the book says the word deadly and the sentence would have been fine without it, and if you read a few hundred posts ago I said I allowed it to work on most toxins, including alcohol but not salt. I'm just saying that's not what the power actually says.

The illness it causes is the "initial stage", basically their body warning them to stop. If they don't stop, excessive vomiting is going to lead to death (just as it would in humans). Salt is potentially lethal for changelings.

OR, to be a real smart alec... The reaction to salt is going to give them away as a changeling. Which is going to cause them to get killed. Therefore, salt is lethal to changelings.

Either way works, really. It honestly sounds like your entire judgement is based around "a changeling that can prevent the salt from affecting him is too powerful for me to control" argument.

If it was deadly I think they would have said it, the rest is conjecture until some is never released clearing it up. Also its not too powerful to control, rather then the negatives being role played around, its I'm immune from level one without effort.

Do you guys make the Identify poisons roll the power gives you before you use it or does it just work.

Ignoring the racial negatives from level one is what all power hungry characters like to do. I prefer them to work their way to it.

[torjones]

So because of bad wording yes the power shouldn't have much effect in the game, there should be errata written up about it, PFRG has errors like these through it, I just think they are worse in second ed, and if I DM'd second ed I wouldn't allow it to work on salt because I think its unbalanced, and as most changelings are mind mages how do you come to the conclusion that salt and alcohol effect changelings badly if on the whole they are immune to it. They would mostly pass all the tests.

I'm not against them being able to negate it. I'm against them being able to negate it with impunity from level 1 like they would with impervious to poison in second ed, and the bad wording of the power supports my double standards, and you saying I have double standards is like a politician calling another politician a liar. Everyone has standards for different things. Technically I think the power should only work on the list of poisons, drugs and acids that are listed in the book under the poison section, but under the wording only a couple would make it. Its not my fault that the books weren't edited better, but people do shoot the messenger.

Since no other character would be limited in negating such things "with impunity" from level one, I see no reason to do so to a player who receives permission to play a changeling/Mind Mage. That is unjustly penalizing the player for making a smart choice in his power selection. There are powers that are restricted from selection at first level because they represent more power than a level 1 or 2 character should have. They are listed under the O.C.C.. The Changeling R.C.C. does not limit them further, and for good reason. Since any community that exposes a changeling is going to kill that changeling on the spot, I don't have a problem with it. That's a REALLY BIG penalty for most players. If you can negate it with proper power selection, why wouldn't you? There are plenty of other examples, though none come to mind at the moment, it's late and I'm tired, of other R.C.C.s in Palladium Books publications that wind up in similar situations, that they have a major penalty that is easily negated with proper O.C.C./skill/power selection. It's not that big of a deal.

Further, I don't think it's really bad wording. I wouldn't have worded it that way, but I'm aware that a rules lawyer would try to twist things to mean what they want them to mean with any wiggle room you leave them. It's simple common sense. If one definition of a word makes the power do something it doesn't appear to be intended, and another definition of a word makes the power appear reasonable, use the definition of that word that yields a reasonable meaning.

When you take the word deadly out you aren't using the power that's in the book.

Do you think that you have to make an identify poison check before you can use the power, i.e. the skill that taking the power gives you.
and if I said make a list of deadly substances would salt be on it.
and if so then show me where it says salt is deadly to changelings.

I'm not taking the word from the sentence. I'm using a definition of the word that makes the ability work in a reasonable way. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the word. It doesn't mean I'm removing the word from the sentence. I'm using common sense to make sense of something that otherwise doesn't make sense.

As for the skill check, *goes to read the power in the book again* I would say that if it's a poison you are aware of, then no, there is no need for a skill check. I would also say that if you're not aware that you're about to be poisoned, and you eat something (for example), and perceive that something is off with the food (like the broccoli tastes of almonds) (yes, I know perception isn't in PFRPG, but I use it in games I run anyway) I would allow a skill check to become aware of the poison, activate the power, and negate it fully. Also, I would allow the skill check anytime someone runs across an unknown vial of something, and they want to make sure it ISN'T a poison.

If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to humans, salt would not be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to snails, salt would be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisonous substances for changelings, salt would certainly be on the list as well. Salt to a changeling is certainly an impairment to their health.

Poison
Noun
a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.

*I* never said salt was lethal to changelings. I do however call it poisonous, using the appropriate definition of the term 'poison', to them.

*I* am not the one who has a problem with smart players making smart choices for their characters.

*I* read the power as written, and use simple logic to deduce that the most common definition of deadly is clearly not what is intended in that situation, but another is certainly valid, and use the definition of the word that makes most sense in this instance. Use common sense, as is stated in nearly every book PB publishes, as the Rifters strongly suggest, and the people on the forums suggest as well.

Peace, Long Life, and Happy Solstice.

[kiralon]

Further, I don't think it's really bad wording. I wouldn't have worded it that way, but I'm aware that a rules lawyer would try to twist things to mean what they want them to mean with any wiggle room you leave them. It's simple common sense. If one definition of a word makes the power do something it doesn't appear to be intended, and another definition of a word makes the power appear reasonable, use the definition of that word that yields a reasonable meaning

The problem is your definition doesn't make sense and doesn't fit to the words, so to make another part of the paragraph make sense, you will make this one not.

deadly dull
completely dull - makes sense
deadly serious
completely serious - makes sense
deadly substance
completely substance - doesn't make sense, lets try the other meaning of deadly
fatal properties
lethal properties
killing properties - note how they make sense in the sentence.

Do you still really think it means completely
but lets examine that
deadly dull - death by boredom
deadly serious - I'm so serious, that it will be death if you don't believe me.

when you pick another meaning, you can put that word in its place and the sentence will make sense, so you are going for a meaning that is obviously wrong.

I'm not taking the word from the sentence. I'm using a definition of the word that makes the ability work in a reasonable way. That doesn't mean I'm ignoring the word. It doesn't mean I'm removing the word from the sentence. I'm using common sense to make sense of something that otherwise doesn't make sense.

By making the sentence make no sense still.
as long as he/she has advance knowledge of its completely properties.
doesn't parse properly

If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to humans, salt would not be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to snails, salt would be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisonous substances for changelings, salt would certainly be on the list as well. Salt to a changeling is certainly an impairment to their health.

Notice how you put deadly in front of the top 2 but didn't put deadly in front of the bottom one.
That's what I'm talking about when im saying people are ignoring deadly. You are trying to make it something its not, because in the English language when you swap words of different meaning they will make sense. Go talk to an English teacher about it, they will be able to explain it better then I can, but the English language does have exceptions to the rule, but if you asked anyone who wasn't clutching at straws, that is definitely the fatal side of the meaning, because completely or fully can't precede properties in a sentence.

but as you said, it's an impairment to their health, so its not deadly.

That's why I say I'm arguing about the word deadly rather then whether changelings have an issue with salt.
Everyone is ignoring the word deadly because its make the power make more sense by what it is named, but that's not how its written. People store a lot by canon here, yet still change the power from what it says which isn't canon, but imply it is.

Canon - salt has to be deadly -> Bad wording that should have been caught at editing table.
House rules - salt can be whatever you like.
this is what I'm arguing, I tried by logic, have you ever thought that salt is deadly because I would assume its as deadly to changelings as it is to humans so not very deadly at all, I eat it every day. Which isn't deadly, then explained it was by a reasonable amount because otherwise it is deadly just like everything else in the world.
Then I explained why I did it (balance reasons, racial negatives shouldn't be easily ignored, which it would be because of the way the tests are mostly done, to actually catch the players I would have to suspect they are changelings to make the eating salt and drinking alcohol last longer then an hour. The test is 5-10 minutes tops, changelings would always pass, thus it wouldn't be known on the whole that they have a weakness). Now I'm arguing that deadly means deadly. Everyone wants it to include salt (except me of course) so they ignore deadly.

[eliakon]

then this is a usless power as there is nothing in game canon that is automatically fatal (ie deadly) so...why have the power at all?

[kiralon]

that's why I said it's broken and needs errata, but not fully useless.
The secondary power could work, though I'd say that deadly is implied, I actually mentioned that.
But I think the deadly is supposed to mean poisons and toxins like what's on the poisons page, and what's on the drugs page.
One of the reasons I don't think it would work on salt is changelings have salt in their body and the power negates all the toxin, and suddenly having no salt would be just as deadly as having too much, so the power shouldn't work on anything that is in the body naturally.
Thus not work on allergic reactions for the same reason

[arouetta]

that's why I said it's broken and needs errata, but not fully useless.
The secondary power could work, though I'd say that deadly is implied, I actually mentioned that.
But I think the deadly is supposed to mean poisons and toxins like what's on the poisons page, and what's on the drugs page.
One of the reasons I don't think it would work on salt is changelings have salt in their body and the power negates all the toxin, and suddenly having no salt would be just as deadly as having too much, so the power shouldn't work on anything that is in the body naturally.
Thus not work on allergic reactions for the same reason

Who says changelings have sodium chloride in their body? Name one canon source that says changelings require sodium chloride. Instead we have a canon source that says "cannot eat salt". Not "cannot eat too much salt". No salt, none. Maybe they need copper sulfate instead. Or potassium chloride. Considering just how old the changeling race is, there's been plenty of time to evolve a need for sodium chloride after their magical creation.

And while we're into detail about reading comprehension, please reread Impervious to Poison/Toxin. If a character knows about the "deadly properties" ahead of time, then s/he can negate fully. But the next sentence says that a poison/toxin that is starting to take effect can be negated at half effect, without the modifier of deadly. So even by your determination to take that first sentence and ride roughshod over your players, the second sentence still stands. A changeling will have a bit of a belly ache, but will be able to negate it enough to control the symptoms, displaying a collected demeanor, able to pass a test at level 1.

[kiralon]

I think I answered this one earlier. I think its more of an assumption not to. As they eat like humans do. Drink like humans do as there are no specialty foods just for changelings and their blood has to be red as they cant change its colour and if its a different colour they would be much easier caught. And red blood neans iron for oxygen transport so they are likely carbon based thus use salt as a conductor for nerves.
But it is an assumption that I would go with because i dont canon
And like I also said. I think it implied deadly but it doesnt say it. But I can live with a half stomach ache. But would depend on the player.

[torjones]

Oh boy are you going to feel silly after that request.
Ok, I'll go ask an English teacher. *goes to ask the grandmother who spent 40+ years of her life teaching grade school and high school English**goes to ask her sister who taught English and French at the University of Quebec at Montreal for 20+ years**goes to ask her OTHER sister who taught at Florida State University Shakesperean Literature for 40+ years* Oh, wait, maybe I'll ask my mother, who worked for the FBI before becoming a paralegal (15 years and counting) who's first reading primer was a dictionary (so was mine by the way). *goes to ask mom* Let's see, shall I ask the aunt who's a Shakespearean actress for 35+ years? *goes and asks* Then there's the cousin who teaches theater at Brown University. *goes to ask* Me, I'm more into computer languages than human ones (I know C, C++, C#, Basic, Visual Basic, Java, Javascript, Fortran, Cobol, tkl/tk, Python, and several game engine dependent scripting languages, and have been published several times in trade journals on the subject of computer science), but I do know my way around the dictionary and the thesaurus, and I do speak English as my native language and Japanese rather well, and I'm working on Mandarin and Hindi. I figure next I'll likely learn Spanish as that would complete my goal to be capable of speaking to 1/3 of the people on this planet. *goes to ask a question of the cousin who taught Logic at Florida State University for 20+ years* Yeah, I'll get to this in a bit. I've also got an Aunt who teaches architecture and civil engineering at the college level, and four of us who own our own businesses. I've got cousins who were involved in the DARPA research projects that built the first computers as electrical engineers. I've got one cousin who is currently working Con-Edison in R&D. I've got 3 cousins who currently work for DOW Chemical, again, doing research and product development. For some reason, we don't have any medical doctors in the family, but I did get my EMT certificate when I was 16, and we do have family friends who are in the medical field currently. Kinda helpful when you're trying to write the code for a device to win the Tricorder X-Prize. One of my friend's father recently retired from the chair-force as a stealth physicist, won't talk about anything classified, but will still answer mechanical engineering questions. I have a friend in Florida who is a naval architect, and with his two teen aged kids, built their own 4-man submarine that has completed at least 10 dives so far. They take it out every other month or so, and I'd love to go down in it myself if I ever get to visit again.
I think that should establish that The Family knows language, especially English, and Logic. When I needed help understanding a science subject in college, there was always a family member I could call. When I needed to understand English in high school, there were plenty of family members I could call. Now, when I have a question, if I can't find the answer within 15 minutes research, I have lots of different family members I can call and get those answers very quickly. We are a highly and diversely educated clan, and I believe that it should fit any conceivable definition of "Expert" you wish to come up with on almost any subject you wish to question us on. If we somehow don't know the answer, we know where to look it up to get you your answer.

Yes, we ARE *THAT* Jones clan. Do try to keep up...

Further, I don't think it's really bad wording. I wouldn't have worded it that way, but I'm aware that a rules lawyer would try to twist things to mean what they want them to mean with any wiggle room you leave them. It's simple common sense. If one definition of a word makes the power do something it doesn't appear to be intended, and another definition of a word makes the power appear reasonable, use the definition of that word that yields a reasonable meaning

The problem is your definition doesn't make sense and doesn't fit to the words, so to make another part of the paragraph make sense, you will make this one not.

deadly dull
completely dull - makes sense
deadly serious
completely serious - makes sense
deadly substance
completely substance - doesn't make sense, lets try the other meaning of deadly
fatal properties
lethal properties
killing properties - note how they make sense in the sentence.

Actually, it does if you don't deliberately use the wrong words in order to discredit the point. The phrase in question actually is "advanced knowledge of its deadly properties", not "advanced knowledge of its deadly substance", so yes, 'advanced knowledge of its complete properties" does make sense. You can not change the wording to make my argument look wrong. The cousin who teaches Logic agrees. Yes, different forms of the same word are allowed. I checked with the Family to make sure.

If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to humans, salt would not be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisons deadly to snails, salt would be on the list.
If you asked me to make a list of poisonous substances for changelings, salt would certainly be on the list as well. Salt to a changeling is certainly an impairment to their health.

Notice how you put deadly in front of the top 2 but didn't put deadly in front of the bottom one.
That's what I'm talking about when I'm saying people are ignoring deadly. You are trying to make it something its not, because in the English language when you swap words of different meaning they will make sense. Go talk to an English teacher about it, they will be able to explain it better then I can, but the English language does have exceptions to the rule, but if you asked anyone who wasn't clutching at straws, that is definitely the fatal side of the meaning, because completely or fully can't precede properties in a sentence.

but as you said, it's an impairment to their health, so its not deadly.

You are absolutely correct, I did change that. Didn't try to hide it either. Why? Because I was making a deliberate point. I have never claimed that salt being deadly to a changeling was a requirement, so why would I include that requirement in my response to your question? I would only, logically enough, agree that it was poisonous, which has been my contention all along. I do not agree that the power requires the poisonous substance to be lethal, only that they know it's complete properties before they can negate them, as, if you aren't aware of what you're negating, how can you do so? Now, you could argue, just how complete does one need to be, and I'd agree that that would be a house ruling on just how complete is complete for the purposes of the power, but I for one would certainly take into account the technology level of the setting in question.

I agree, and have not disputed the lethality of salt to the changeling. If you still don't understand my position on salts lethality, let me spell it out for you. Salt is not lethal to changelings but is still a poison to them. The power clearly does not require lethality to be effective against a given poison, which I shall prove yet again shortly, unless you are deliberately trying to ignore common sense and make the words fit the way you want them to fit so that you can punish smart players for making smart choices for their characters. The Family agrees.

That's why I say I'm arguing about the word deadly rather then whether changelings have an issue with salt.
Everyone is ignoring the word deadly because its make the power make more sense by what it is named, but that's not how its written. People store a lot by canon here, yet still change the power from what it says which isn't canon, but imply it is.

Canon - salt has to be deadly -> Bad wording that should have been caught at editing table.
House rules - salt can be whatever you like.
This is what I'm arguing, I tried by logic, have you ever thought that salt is deadly because I would assume its as deadly to changelings as it is to humans so not very deadly at all, I eat it every day. Which isn't deadly, then explained it was by a reasonable amount because otherwise it is deadly just like everything else in the world.
Then I explained why I did it (balance reasons, racial negatives shouldn't be easily ignored, which it would be because of the way the tests are mostly done, to actually catch the players I would have to suspect they are changelings to make the eating salt and drinking alcohol last longer then an hour. The test is 5-10 minutes tops, changelings would always pass, thus it wouldn't be known on the whole that they have a weakness). Now I'm arguing that deadly means deadly. Everyone wants it to include salt (except me of course) so they ignore deadly.

Now that's just silly, of course deadly means deadly, but there are 8 different definitions of deadly according to one dictionary, 7 in another, 9 in yet another. They are ALL meanings of deadly. Usage is important.
So, CANON -> USE COMMON SENSE - If one definition of a word makes the power/ability/skill make reasonable sense, use that definition. If another definition of that word makes the power/ability/skill NOT make reasonable sense, DON'T use that definition.
The key there is reasonable.
CANON -> "advanced knowledge of its deadly properties" is the phrase in question.
"advanced knowledge of its lethal properties" means that the power is effective against 3-6 substances in game, depending on just how lethal is to be considered lethal. That doesn't really seem to fit what the authors were going for.
"Advanced knowledge of its complete properties" means that it is usable against everything listed under Poisons. Huh. That seems to fit with what the authors appear to have been going for.
Which meaning is more reasonable? Clearly the second, not the first. BY CANON we should use the second meaning. No house rule needed. The substance does NOT have to be lethal to be effected by this power.

I think at this point we can all see who is using canon and who is insisting on claiming their house rule as canon. (Hint: it's the person who punishes smart players for making smart choices for their characters, by his own admission.)

Those who have been responsible for knowing the English language for over two centuries of experience combined, agree. That includes the English teacher you requested, two English Professors, The Paralegal, The Shakespearean Actress, the Shakespearean Professor, the Theater Professor, and the Polyglot. Logic has been check by a professor of said subject. It has passed the "Common Sense" test. It is in keeping with the principles of good game design as I was taught in college, and have practiced for over a decade myself.

[kiralon]

I'm sorry, I'm not American, all that top paragraph says to me is that you didn't ask your grandmother, and that you don't teach English.
and I'm using the wrong words to discredit the line?
It would be interesting to see what your grandmother says but I think our problem is more cultural
Where I come from you stay away from things with deadly properties because they kill you, So if anyone in Australia tells you to stay away from the deadly white stuff, don't touch it, it will kill you, we don't mean its complete.

I play (dm) with an engineer, a lab tech, a nurse, an ex navy guy and 2 students. I have to get my science right or I get grief, I have to get my engineering/physics right or I get grief, I have to get my medical statements right or I get laughed at, or argue for hours on end. None of them think that complete is the meaning there, and they get the benefit. This might have been a leftover from playing first ed as the power in first ed is useless for anything but after battle poison removal.

Also I know you think emetics and allergies should be effected by the power, I don't as I think it overstates the powers main idea to work on the things people use to try and kill you with, so even all the non deadly poisons. To me the rest is power creep, or fatal to the player.

So as we speak 2 different kinds of logic I think I might leave off arguing with you, I can't convince you on deadly, you can't convince me on complete.
So this conversation will end up degenerating into name calling and veiled insults.

But I would still be interested to see what your grandmother has to say.

and punishing smart players for smart choices lol, I don't get the its a smart choice either, Its a standard choice for changelings. Its like saying it was a smart choice for my fighter to take a weapon proficiency. You are silly if you don't for the +2 vs poison, + a free skill(unless you have a plot/story idea in mind), Lets just say I'm yet to meet a second ed changeling who didn't.

[Nightmask]

I'm sorry, I'm not American, all that top paragraph says to me is that you didn't ask your grandmother, and that you don't teach English.
and I'm using the wrong words to discredit the line?
It would be interesting to see what your grandmother says but I think our problem is more cultural
Where I come from you stay away from things with deadly properties because they kill you, So if anyone in Australia tells you to stay away from the deadly white stuff, don't touch it, it will kill you, we don't mean its complete.

I play (dm) with an engineer, a lab tech, a nurse, an ex navy guy and 2 students. I have to get my science right or I get grief, I have to get my engineering/physics right or I get grief, I have to get my medical statements right or I get laughed at, or argue for hours on end. None of them think that complete is the meaning there, and they get the benefit. This might have been a leftover from playing first ed as the power in first ed is useless for anything but after battle poison removal.

Also I know you think emetics and allergies should be effected by the power, I don't as I think it overstates the powers main idea to work on the things people use to try and kill you with, so even all the non deadly poisons. To me the rest is power creep, or fatal to the player.

So as we speak 2 different kinds of logic I think I might leave off arguing with you, I can't convince you on deadly, you can't convince me on complete.
So this conversation will end up degenerating into name calling and veiled insults.

But I would still be interested to see what your grandmother has to say.

and punishing smart players for smart choices lol, I don't get the its a smart choice either, Its a standard choice for changelings. Its like saying it was a smart choice for my fighter to take a weapon proficiency. You are silly if you don't for the +2 vs poison, + a free skill(unless you have a plot/story idea in mind), Lets just say I'm yet to meet a second ed changeling who didn't.

Smart choices tend to end up being the standard choice since you'd be stupid taking the not-smart choice, like playing a fighter who had no weapon proficiencies or unarmed combat skills (or marginal). I'd also have to question the believability of a the nurse thinking salt wasn't poison to changelings, or the rest for that matter since 'I'm going to not-poison that guy with salt to see if he's a changeling' makes zero sense since if you're using the salt to force a possible changeling to get sick you're poisoning him (and the law would certainly charge you with poisoning someone if you fed them salt and they reacted to it by getting sick). 'Gee I'm glad the GM only not-poisoned my Changeling with salt so he got sick instead of poisoning him so he got sick' is in the same kind of 'you're kidding about trying to keep insisting salt isn't a poison to Changeling' category as the rest.

[kiralon]

Must try harder not to type when bored
Another non deadly believer
It gives a free skill to a skill starved class. If people see that and not take it they are silly. It mostly came down to whether they read the descriptions. Saying its clever to take impervious toxins for a race with low ppe is as smart as taking a shield because you cant parry with a sword. Its un(common) sense. Finding a combination that does something different is clever. A fire giant taking impervious to cold is not clever. Its obvious

[torjones]

I'm sorry, I'm not American, all that top paragraph says to me is that you didn't ask your grandmother, and that you don't teach English.
and I'm using the wrong words to discredit the line?
It would be interesting to see what your grandmother says but I think our problem is more cultural
Where I come from you stay away from things with deadly properties because they kill you, So if anyone in Australia tells you to stay away from the deadly white stuff, don't touch it, it will kill you, we don't mean its complete.

I play (dm) with an engineer, a lab tech, a nurse, an ex navy guy and 2 students. I have to get my science right or I get grief, I have to get my engineering/physics right or I get grief, I have to get my medical statements right or I get laughed at, or argue for hours on end. None of them think that complete is the meaning there, and they get the benefit. This might have been a leftover from playing first ed as the power in first ed is useless for anything but after battle poison removal.

Also I know you think emetics and allergies should be effected by the power, I don't as I think it overstates the powers main idea to work on the things people use to try and kill you with, so even all the non deadly poisons. To me the rest is power creep, or fatal to the player.

So as we speak 2 different kinds of logic I think I might leave off arguing with you, I can't convince you on deadly, you can't convince me on complete.
So this conversation will end up degenerating into name calling and veiled insults.

But I would still be interested to see what your grandmother has to say.

and punishing smart players for smart choices lol, I don't get the its a smart choice either, Its a standard choice for changelings. Its like saying it was a smart choice for my fighter to take a weapon proficiency. You are silly if you don't for the +2 vs poison, + a free skill(unless you have a plot/story idea in mind), Lets just say I'm yet to meet a second ed changeling who didn't.

Ok, so apparently, you've chosen to read a few words and absolutely ignore everything else because you can't refute it.

English is my primary language. It's the one I use every day. I find that I have very little difficulty conversing with either the British or the Australians, so I don't think I'm speaking American just yet... I never claimed to be an English teacher, I claimed that I'm a computer geek, programmer with a penchant for languages and making computers do things that others say should be impossible.

Asking family members for their opinions on grammar and meaning is easy this time of year as we gather together for the Christmas Celebrations (even though, I'm more of a Solstice kinda person). As stated SEVERAL TIMES in my previous reply, I *HAVE* asked those who know the language better than I, and THOSE WHO HAVE STUDIED THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE FOR OVER 200 YEARS COMBINED EXPERIENCE AGREE THAT I AM USING THE LANGUAGE CORRECTLY AND YOU ARE NOT.

Before you tell me that I don't know what the meaning of the word is, go to dictionary.com, type in 'Deadly' and tell me how many meanings you get for the word. Each of those definitions is correct, depending on usage. If you tell me not to touch the deadly white power, I'm going to assume that it's likely lethal and not touch it. If you tell me that the office party was deadly boring, I'm not going to assume that people died at the party! (though, they may wish otherwise) Depending on the usage of the word is going to indicate which meaning of the word is correct in a given context.

The family all agrees that Lethal is a valid meaning for the word deadly. I am not disputing that, it has never been in dispute, and I will never dispute that. What I am trying to explain, apparently very poorly, is that it is the wrong meaning of the word that you are insisting upon using, where an alternative meaning of the same word which is just as correct, yields a better meaning to the sentence as a whole. You are using the wrong meaning of the word for that sentence in that context. SO SAY THE EXPERTS YOU INSISTED I CHECK WITH.

Now, since you say that the experts that I have check with are wrong, what are your credentials to back up what you're saying? How many years teaching English do YOU have backing up what you're insisting on? I'm guessing the answer is going to be none.

[kiralon]

Sigh you got me, I have asked and yes it does have multiple meaning, but the alternate meanings aren't used when describing poison. One of the possible meanings is our languages are bit different, and you are telling me the people who have studied the English language for that long can think that the meaning of a sentence about poison means complete rather then deadly. I did look it up, and what's at the top, lethal, which is the meaning for this sentence. for you think otherwise means your language is different to mine. When we describe something dangerous (like poison) we will use deadly. I have heard people use deadly serious once or twice, and deadly dull comes to me in an English accent so likely a movie. We don't describe innocuous things with deadly. No I cant refute your uncle was something or your grandma was something or that you are something, I have no idea who you are, I still don't, I don't know who they are, so why would I comment on them. You say that establishes your credentials, it establishes theirs if I believe you.
Basically all it proves to me is that Americans use deadly in a weird (to me) way. To describe a descriptive word describing poison as complete rather then lethal is odd. If I saw movies that had deadly dulls in them or deadly serious compared to deadly, oops sorry, complete weapons I'd be more inclined to believe you. The sentence structure provides the information for what the word is. you interpret differently. Did you ask your whomever you asked, does deadly have multiple meanings and is complete one of them, or did you give them the sentence and ask for their interpretation. I just said read this

[Nightmask]

Must try harder not to type when bored
Another non deadly believer
It gives a free skill to a skill starved class. If people see that and not take it they are silly. It mostly came down to whether they read the descriptions. Saying its clever to take impervious toxins for a race with low ppe is as smart as taking a shield because you cant parry with a sword. Its un(common) sense. Finding a combination that does something different is clever. A fire giant taking impervious to cold is not clever. Its obvious

You're also typing dismissively, equating someone considering a poison to be poison without it having to be lethal with some kind of delusional religious fanatic by that 'another non deadly believer' remark.

It's also smart no matter how you slice it to take something that helps protect you from something dangerous to you even if you can't use it often because protection some of the time is better than no protection all of the time. Also unless they changed things radically while I wasn't looking Mind Melters run on ISP for those psi-powers not PPE and they have a lot of ISP just like Wizards have a lot of PPE, it's what they worked hard to develop. Something being obvious also doesn't make it any less smart, just because a fire giant happened to be in the position to take Impervious to Cold doesn't mean he would, he may find the risk acceptable compared to something else he found more appealing or useful.

[Nightmask]

English still also tends to follow the same rules in all English speaking countries, people aren't likely to hear 'that's poisonous' and not think that means it can make you sick or kill you depending on how you're exposed and other factors. Someone saying that a knife is lethal or can kill you ought to understand that a knife isn't an 'unharmed or dead' kind of thing, you can cut someone without killing them but still clearly hurting them. The knife hasn't stopped being considered deadly simply because you can just hurt them a little, nor does salt not qualify as a poison for changelings just because it isn't as harmful as arsenic to humans.

[torjones]

Sigh you got me, I have asked and yes it does have multiple meaning, but the alternate meanings aren't used when describing poison. One of the possible meanings is our languages are bit different, and you are telling me the people who have studied the English language for that long can think that the meaning of a sentence about poison means complete rather then deadly. I did look it up, and what's at the top, lethal, which is the meaning for this sentence. for you think otherwise means your language is different to mine. When we describe something dangerous (like poison) we will use deadly. I have heard people use deadly serious once or twice, and deadly dull comes to me in an English accent so likely a movie. We don't describe innocuous things with deadly. No I cant refute your uncle was something or your grandma was something or that you are something, I have no idea who you are, I still don't, I don't know who they are, so why would I comment on them. You say that establishes your credentials, it establishes theirs if I believe you.
Basically all it proves to me is that Americans use deadly in a weird (to me) way. To describe a descriptive word describing poison as complete rather then lethal is odd. If I saw movies that had deadly dulls in them or deadly serious compared to deadly, oops sorry, complete weapons I'd be more inclined to believe you. The sentence structure provides the information for what the word is. you interpret differently. Did you ask your whomever you asked, does deadly have multiple meanings and is complete one of them, or did you give them the sentence and ask for their interpretation. I just said read this

I apologize that it took so long to get back to you, but we were having an argument about Elves in literature.

In the statement in question the word 'Deadly' is not describing a poison, not directly anyway, it's describing the properties of the poison. According to the structure of that sentence, you must know the properties, completely, in their entirety, wholly, before you can counter act them.

When you look up a word, the definition at the top is not *ALWAYS* the right one. You have to read and understand all the possible meanings of the word. Once you have done that, you can put each meaning into the sentence, and find out which one fits best. Now, if it was ONLY that sentence, the meaning 'Lethal' would be more likely to be correct. HOWEVER, as that sentence does not stand alone, the context in which that sentence exists should be taken into account. Without context, there is no meaning, it's all just random letters strung together.

If you were to design a game, you would not design a power that had such drastically limited application. It would not be worth it. No player would waste their limited power selections on something that they would be very unlikely to ever have the opportunity to use. If that is true then according to the books, if there is an alternative meaning that can be used that makes more sense, USE THE ALTERNATIVE MEANING.

Now, you asked how I asked my various experts for the meaning of the sentence. I didn't just give them the book and ask for the meaning of the sentence. I know better, it would have taken hours longer to get to an answer. I collected a tray of known preferred variants of Christmas Cheer, and sat everyone down, before explaining the dispute. You see, the Jones Clan LOVES a good debate and enjoys immensely the roll of devil's advocate. I explained that in the game world, there are many races of beings. Elves, Dwarves, Humans, Orcs, what have you. As all of us have at least read Tolkien, Asimov, Clark, or Heinlein, this is not an entirely foreign concept to us. I explained the line about changlings and their response to salt. I explained that in this game world there are both magic users and psychic users. I explained that the psychic users have a psychic power, and showed them the power, in its entirety. Before great aunt hazel, the English Professor of 40 years, had even finished reading the whole thing, she asked "Deadly properties? What on Earth is that supposed to mean? This is Earth we're talking about, right?" I explained that, no, it was actually a world called Palladium that we were talking about. I then explained that in the context of the game system, a character's health is described by hit points, how many points of damage of varying types can be taken before the character dies and the player needs to create a new character to play with. They asked for an average number of hit points a character would have, and it was explained that an average peasant would have few, maybe a dozen to several dozen depending on lifestyle and activity level, much like how a modern person who sits on a couch isn't going to have much fitness, while someone who spends 2 hours a day in the Gym is going to be very fit. Depending on the type of character, say like a soldier type character with much experience, they may have a great many hit points, sometimes well into the hundreds. I even showed them several character sheets from characters long past and even some of my NPCs. Once I was reasonably sure everyone was still following along with the explanations, I went back to Great Aunt Hazel's question. I explained that 'deadly properties' was the very nature of the dispute, and we all got down to hashing out the meaning of the phrase. Devil's advocate was nominated and accepted, and granny sent me for the dictionaries. We all agreed that it would have been better to have left the word deadly out of the sentence as it obfuscated the meaning of the sentence in the context of the game system. Given that it was there however, it could not be ignored. It was agreed that 'deadly properties' could in fact have two different and valid meanings, by the dictionary, those being 'lethal properties' and 'complete properties.' It was asked, given the context of THE GAME, the nature of the poisons (which were requested to be shown), and the nature of player characters to have many hit points, which was more likely to be the correct. Everyone, almost immediately, stated that the second was more likely the correct meaning. There was no dissent.

Now, I can't give a transcript, nor a recording of the discussion, as none was made. All told, it took about an hour for me to get these Experts to come to a conclusion and another hour to reply to your message. I did after all type quite a bit. You have no more reason to believe any of this than anything else you read on the Internet, just as I have no more reason to believe what you say your gamers have said. I choose to believe you, as I doubt that you have reason to lie, preferring to arrive at TRUTH, and trust that you will do likewise, as without that trust, there is no reason for you to have suggested that I go ask an expert anyway, as you would not trust that expert's opinion.

I still want to know what your education and experience is that you're telling me that my experts are wrong.

Finally, I will point out that, while I am an American, so are the authors of the Palladium gaming system books.

I was under the impression that Australians used the 'Oxford English Dictionary' as the penultimate source for 'correctness?' If that is incorrect, may I ask what the preferred dictionary down under actually is, as I will wish to acquire one?

[arouetta]

English still also tends to follow the same rules in all English speaking countries, people aren't likely to hear 'that's poisonous' and not think that means it can make you sick or kill you depending on how you're exposed and other factors. Someone saying that a knife is lethal or can kill you ought to understand that a knife isn't an 'unharmed or dead' kind of thing, you can cut someone without killing them but still clearly hurting them. The knife hasn't stopped being considered deadly simply because you can just hurt them a little, nor does salt not qualify as a poison for changelings just because it isn't as harmful as arsenic to humans.

Exactly. Salt can be lethal under the right conditions. And the reason why it's in the food section rather than the poison section is the book is human-centric. After all, it's the same book that has you roll human stats at the beginning under character creation, and then at the end of the book, you have to start all over again if you want a different race.

[Nightmask]

English still also tends to follow the same rules in all English speaking countries, people aren't likely to hear 'that's poisonous' and not think that means it can make you sick or kill you depending on how you're exposed and other factors. Someone saying that a knife is lethal or can kill you ought to understand that a knife isn't an 'unharmed or dead' kind of thing, you can cut someone without killing them but still clearly hurting them. The knife hasn't stopped being considered deadly simply because you can just hurt them a little, nor does salt not qualify as a poison for changelings just because it isn't as harmful as arsenic to humans.

Exactly. Salt can be lethal under the right conditions. And the reason why it's in the food section rather than the poison section is the book is human-centric. After all, it's the same book that has you roll human stats at the beginning under character creation, and then at the end of the book, you have to start all over again if you want a different race.

Unfortunately many ignore that human-centric aspect of things to see the context of how things are laid out or what their intent is. Chocolate is harmful to dogs for another example, enough will kill them, yet it's in the food not poison section since it's food to the species generally expected to be played (humans, dwarves, elves). If the book was written around Changelings you'd see salt in the poison section and the humans with a 'humans are unharmed by salt which is poisonous to Changelings' entry.

You just can't go 'well it's in the food entry so it can't be poisonous to anything because it's food', that's a completely unrealistic thing to claim. Plus 'well they shouldn't be able to protect themselves because then I can't use it against them' is a bad position however you slice it, poison doesn't stop being poison because you think the character shouldn't be able to protect against it, it's still a poison.

[zyanitevp]

Play nice folks- bottom line is that it is the GM's call.

[kiralon]

First off MERRY CHRISTMAS
Then apologies for my sarcasm, was just trying to show a point, in a bad way. But the way you are using deadly is like you're telling me the sky is yellow, and you have this great bunch of people agreeing with you that its yellow, and I look out the window and look for myself, and ask just to make sure but its blue. Nobody I have asked now even remotely think that it means the full or complete version. In fact the English teacher I talked to thought the sentence was put together badly enough that the power could only have an effect while its active, as the wording targets the side effects rather then the toxin itself, would still kill you after the 2 minutes is up. I will try to talk to the head of the English departments university here, maybe he will be able to describe it in a way that you will understand, but they are currently on holiday.
The alternative meaning doesn't make more sense to use, as it's talking about harmful properties its one hell of a leap to jump to full or complete properties and ignore the lethal aspect of it, and if someone needed complete knowledge of the substance wouldn't you get skills like chemistry and biology with the skill, to know its complete properties. You only get ID Poisons, so that points to dangerous properties.
Dangerous is quite a lot closer to deadly then complete. And having to make chemistry and biology and ID poisons checks, plus maybe a magic lore check to know its magic properties seems a lot more convoluted then a Poison check.

I have never read anywhere that salt has killed a changeling, only makes them sick. Which means not lethal. So comparing salt to a knife is wrong. Knives have killed people, so lethal, and Salt under the right conditions kills humans, just like it would changelings. Its just not normal conditions so not lethal.


Happy New Year everyone

[Library Ogre]

Changelings are no more likely to be psychic than any other Standard Psychic race. They're good at it, so they may have a slightly higher proportion of psychics through PCCs, but they're just as psychic as elves, dwarves, humans, and goblins.

Now, I have always read it as Minor Psychics (about 15% of the population) are essentially random in their powers... they haven't spent a lot of time or effort developing their abilities, so they have a couple powers that are useful, maybe, but don't have much control over what they are.

Major Psychics (10% of the population) tend to have a bit more control, but have "talents"... they developed their skill, but still, only about a third of them will have physical powers (i.e. Impervious to Poisons).

Master psychics, when around (less than 1% of the population, IMO), will seek out those powers because psychic powers are their skill and they know how to reduce their weaknesses. Not all will have it (some, like sensitives or Psi-mystics, won't have enough physical slots to learn them), but they're a lot more likely to, much like a fighter-type is more likely to be proficient in the weapon they need than a wizard-type.

Personally, I dislike how psychic powers are handled; I'd rather they cost skill selections for any level, rather than be a freebie.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. I've followed thsi thread for a bit, but didn't post until now. Firsts things first, the power ...

1: "... as long as he/she has advance knowledge of its deadly properties."
- Well, yeah, this does make it sound like it needs to be deadly, doesn't it? Mind you, reading it, I'm fairly sure this is intended as flavor text, to make add that sense of drama to the write-up and such. But that is just opinion.

2: "A poison, toxin, or drug ... [snip] ... can be negated too, but will do half damage or effect before it can be completely negated."
- This is the very next sentence. Here we see that the substance is being negated, not just the effects. So whichever English teacher says it only works on effects should reread the passage (unless you only showed him a single line). Furthermore, it can't negate only effects the passage says "damage or effect" (so already listed damage as a separate entity). Also, there's no mention of "deadly" here. It's possible that the power works different if you use it before you're poisoned or after, but it would seem strange (I'd dare even say nonsensical) that it works better if you use it after rather than before.

Note: One could try to argue that "damage or effect" is intended to be written as the same thing ("damage (i.e. effect)"), but that doesn't seem likely from how it's written, especially since earlier the author uses "he/she" for that same type of thing. Reading some of the drug descriptions we can see that some do damage, some have other effects, and some have damage as well as other effects. So a more interesting question would be if it can neutralize both, or only one? Probably intended as both, but not how it's written.

3: "Bonuses."
- Last part of the power. Now I really find this one the most interesting! I'm not sure if those are intended as bonuses provided just for having the power (though that would make this a unique power, as I don't believe any other psionics provide such a bonus), or the bonuses it provides while the power is active. Just from reading it (and knowing the system), I'd have to wager the latter (bonuses only while the power is active). So the character might recognize a poison almost instantly from taste/smell/sight/etc. (i.e. realizing something is salty before ingesting it), but if ingested anyways ... only provides a +2 to the saving throw. If there's no saving throw then game mechanically you're out of luck (or the G.M. can make one up, or decide it's an auto-resist). Especially in Palladium, flavor text and game mechanics often differ. In this case, we have game mechanics (the bonuses) telling us how it works.

Note: I have never noticed this part before (of course, don't think I've ever known anyone to select the power before either). Not sure if that's how I'd play it, but that does seem how it's written (in my opinion).

4: With all that out of the way, I'll offer my opinion personal thoughts on the matter ...
- I'd probably allow it to work for Changelings and Salt (more than likely, though depending on how it came up I might stick to rules as written as well). I don't believe the power is meant to be so limited, though admittedly names in Palladium can be very misleading (not "Impervious" so much as resistant to).
- Even though I may allow it, I don't think it's in the spirit of the intent ... nor do I come close to calling it clever (actually, not even the first time I've heard this debate, which I usually ignore, though kiralon's arguing made me look into it more this time than the others). Actually, I just think it's cheap and boring. Why? Because I believe vulnerabilities are meant to be vulnerabilities, not something that's just to be ignored. Oh, I know, people will argue that it can still play a part. That's true. But it's also bull. The entire point of the selection is to make it so you can ignore the vulnerabilities.

I'll go into a personal story (involving role-playing). Someone wanted to play a homebrewed race. They gave this race a vulnerability to fire (double damage) to offset the race's power ... ... ... and then proceeded to make sure that basically every member of that race had easy access to powers/abilities that made them immune/impervious to fire. Now, the race wasn't really that powerful in the first place and didn't really need the limitation. I even allowed the race as is. However, I called total B.S. for trying to say it's a weakness. We ended up have a lengthy discussion on it, but they eventually agreed it wasn't really a vulnerability if they're so easily immune to it. The weakness ends up being a very hollow gesture.

In my personal opinion, I'd even call it bad role-playing. A vulnerability is meant to be that, a vulnerability. While I don't think Changelings are super powerful and need that as a weakness, it really comes off (to me) as someone wanting the cool abilities without any of the drawbacks. If you want to play a race ... play the race, don't just aim for the upsides and try your best to dodge the downsides. That's something that bugs me personally. Mind you, as I said above, I'd probably allow it for the Changeling (after a bit of a speech, like the first few sentences of this paragraph) and I allowed it with that homebrew race. I've stated my opinion, but I don't try to force it on others either.

Anyways, I just wanted to state my thoughts, along with a few book passages. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Library Ogre]

Another thought: Would you let a human use Impervious to Poisons to avoid getting drunk? The essential problem changelings have is that they're perpetual lightweights.