So I tried to search for this, but I'm having trouble finding anything useful. (And as an aside, if anyone can tell me how to make sure my search terms are all in the same post instead of all in the same thread, I'll love them forever.)

Ingested or Injected Compound, on page 81 of Arsenal. The Effect entry includes "Damage." Is this S or P damage?

"The gamemaster determines the exact vector, effects, and other details, as appropriate to the compound." - Last sentence of that sidebar. It's up to GM discretion.

That's referring to the household chemicals; the others have printed stats in the entry above..

Given that the box just says "Damage" under Effect instead of specifying "Stun Damage" or "Physical Damage," I would leave it up to GM arbitration. Most cases, I would tend towards Physical Damage. As a rule of thumb, if eating it kills you--Physical. If it just makes you really sick--Stun.

Lysol type cleaners--stun damage, because the effects are long term or based on high dosage.
Drano--Physical damage because of the instant effects in the body.

Also, don't forget the Nausea, Disorientation, and other such secondary effects.

To accurately represent things like this would require a catalog all it's own. Our group tends to define it by the chemical compound as well. Anarchist cookbook and the like can give household ideas; as long as you don't get in trouble for reading them.

In my opinion, this type of flexibility makes chemistry one of the most powerful skills in shadowrun.

Not to mention the potential to make over a quarter of a million nuyen per day from a factory, or the ability to refine explosives, or...

PLEASE let's not go there again.

So I shouldn't assume one type of damage? In other words, there's no rule that says something like, "Unless it says otherwise, all damage is P/S?"

Exactly correct. In fact, the rule is (as stated above) that the GM determines the specifics, including type of damage, amount of damage, vector, and secondary effects.

I've already told you why that's wrong. Anyone else want to weigh in?

It is not, in fact, although I can see your confusion. If the period between those two sentences were a comma or semi-colon instead you would be correct. Since it is a period, however, you are wrong - the stand-alone sentence "The gamemaster determines the exact vector, effects, and other details, as appropriate to the compound," is a separate and distinct concept added into the sidebar, all talking about Ingested or Injected Compounds.

...Tell you what. Since I think you're wrong, and I'm probably not the only one, let's just go ahead and assume you're wrong because that's the only way the discussion will continue and the question will get answered.

So, assuming Neraph's wrong, there's no general rule to cover this. That's what I'm hearing?

... Tell you what. Since you don't seem to comprehend basic English grammatical laws, and since the fourth post on this thread agreed with me, I'll just go ahead and assume that the correct answer isn't good enough for you and you're looking for something else. Good day, sir.

What's going on here? Initial question answered? Fine. Now move on.

Re-opened the thread after several requests came in. Play nice.

Just as the book clearly says, it's up to GM to decide in case by case basis.

Here is how I would divide the list. (This is purely on Physical or Stun damage and I didn't take time to assign secondary effects like nausea)

Compound (Physical Damage)
Acid
Adhesive
Alkali
Blister Pack
Carcerands
Chemical Heater
Flash Paper
Freeze Foam
Jackstop
Molotov Cocktail

Compound (Stun Damage)
Alkahest
Adhesive Solvent
Body Paint
CleenTac
C-Squared
Dry Lubricant
Fingerprint Dust
Luminol
Olfactory Camouflage
Stain

Compound (No Damage)
Antivenin
Artificial Skin
DMSO

As a medical student, i am sure that Alkahest , Adhesive Solvent and C-squared should move to the Physical damage section, and carcerands to no damage - they are meant to be injected into someone.

NiL--Sure. My guess was that it came down to dosage levels. Lysol (generic cleaning agent) will deliver chronic tissue damage and eventual death in small doses. High doses, it becomes toxic on a short term scale. (Which could be stun overflow into physical, if we tried to explain it with SR mechanics instead of biology.)

That said, I think the different interpretations is why the book says it is up to the GM to determine Vector and Damage code. We could even get really complicated and say that Inhalation deals one type of damage and Injection does another. Taking a whiff of H2SO4 fumes is going to be very different than an IV of it.

Which leads me to wonder how convert Potassium Sulfate, Digoxin, or most chemo-meds...

So here is an interesting thing. There's actually another drug that just says "Damage" in its Effect line: Seven-7, from SR4A. This is interesting because the description mentions that it does Physical damage, and it's the only toxin in the book that does--meaning that an alternate interpretation could be that all compounds do Physical damage.

Tsuyo--That is a possible interpretation. In reading the thread, it appears that you have an expectation of an answer and the answer that Neraph and others provided isn't what you want to hear/see. Are you trying to get a consensus that all of the compounds from Arsenal p 80-81 do Physical Damage? Is there something else at stake that isn't apparent?

Several interpretations have been offered, and it feels like you are scrambling for an answer that no one is giving you. What's up?

You know what else has that effect on humans? Everything.

I know you really want that to be true, but thats not in anyway a valid interpretation, as all other toxins that do physical damage say in the effect line "physical damage".
Seven-7 just happens to miss that one word, but as it's in the description there's no need to waste wordcount by adding it to the effect line.

Here is the question I am trying to ask: "Let's assume that the last sentence of the sidebar only applies to the household chemicals mentioned just before it. Is there any general rule or guiding principle in the books that tells me what the Damage effect might be for the other listed compounds, which (under this assumption, mind) wouldn't be regulated by that sentence?"

Here is the answer Neraph (and some others) keep giving me: "Well, the last sentence applies to all the compounds, so obviously it's GM discretion."

I mean, I'm assuming I'm not absolutely crazy to be reading the book that way; if all of the compounds were totally up to GM discretion, why even bother with the entry in the sidebar? Regardless, though, the answer is indeed obvious if my question's assumption is NOT true. I'm still kind of hazy on what happens if it IS, though, and since this is for an actual game, that answer actually matters to me.

Does this help explain my perspective?

EDIT:


I don't "really want that to be true." I'm totally ambivalent (well, not quite; there are three options) as to whether it's true. There are advantages to P, there are advantages to S, there are advantages to some being one and some being the other. Again, I'm just looking for a guideline beyond the last sentence, which I don't think applies.

Then there's nothing we can give you, as you refuse to use the rules given in the book.

Okay, that does clear things up a bit. There is no general rule, to my knowledge, that covers the effects of industrial chemicals other than the sidebar. (The sidebar on p. 80 in fact says that "it's impossible to cover all of the possible uses" and tells the GM to wing it.) My interpretation of the original sidebar you mentioned is that the effects of chemicals are left up to the GM, and the listing is meant to serve as a good baseline to move up or down from.

The line about household chemicals suggests another option--instead of poisoning someone, they are trying to get intoxicated. This can be seen in kids who drink hand sanitizer because it is highly concentrated ethanol.

With that, I'd suggest listing out a few of the compounds that apply directly to your purpose and the various chemists, nurses, and doctors can weigh in on their effects in the body and try to convert that to a game mechanic. If you're the GM, it gives you a feel for how everyone else is playing. If you're the player, it gives you something to take to the GM and springboard the discussion.

The ones I'm most concerned about are probably freeze foam, because it's so damn useful on its own, and adhesive/solvent, since they're so cheap and legal. Since they're Rating-based, it seems pretty clear how they work according to the rules: Inject/Ingest, Immediate, Power 6, Penetration 6, Damage and Nausea. But what kind of damage?

I would class those particular compounds as Physical Damage, in my opinion. *shrug*

I can see adhesive/solvent as Stun, not Physical. Eating paste, anyone?

Depends on the adhesive again--paste versus super glue. Also was it injected into the person or ingested.

Exactly...
Paste is generally considered non-toxic (ingestion), SuperGlue not so much.

Exactly - GM discretion, as I stated waaay earlier.

Keep it civil.

Excuse me for using his own phraseology to respond to him. I will attempt to be more civil in the future.

Take this as a reminder (all of you).