Druid's Venom Immunity

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ditto.

At least something we agree on.

The book unequivocally states that almost all poisonous effects are "extraordinary." Extraordinary effects are by definition non-magical. So there is clearly a magic/nonmagic line that is being drawn in the sand and "poisonous effects" are "almost always" on the non-magical side. This is RAW.

Now, how one transitions from a magical poison to a non-magical poisonous effect isn't really explained.

Do you not understand that "almost all" is not the same as "all"? There are some magical poisons, hence why they didn't say "all." And you're purposely ignoring what I said. Obviously, magical and nonmagical poisons aren't the same -- the former won't work in an antimagic field, if nothing else. Again, I said for game rule purposes, for abilities related to poison and its resistance/immunity, there is no divide. The game doesn't care if it's magical or nonmagical poison. Anything that protects a creature from poisons doesn't care if its magical or not. Not a single thing in the rules ANYWHERE qualifies the protection as working against only one or the other, differentiates between the two, or cares about the difference in any meaningful way.
For the last time, it's not the same as disease.

That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.

Really? Spells that allow SR and are poison effects like the green layer of a prismatic wall aren't magical? Really?!

 

[Arrowhawk]

The game doesn't care if it's magical or nonmagical poison.

I'm going to quote SRD RAW:

Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary.​

I think you are intentionally overlooking the difference between "poison" and "poisonous effect." The RAW makes such a distinction...but it's not explained why it differentiates between the poison and the poisonous effect, though I have a theory.

Really? Spells that allow SR and are poison effects like the green layer of a prismatic wall aren't magical? Really?!

So if you fail your primary Fort save against poison...and then someone casts a dispel magic on you...do you have to make a secondary save?

Cloudkill specifically states that "immunity to poison" protects you from the effects. It doesn't even require immunity to "all" or "all kinds" of poison. But straight up immunity. You know that kind that both Constructs and Oozes have, but actually doesn't work the same? Anyway, considering that CK doesn't affect those immune to poison, I'd wager none of the other spell that produce poison get around plain vanilla "immunity to poison."

While I would be interested to hear if WotC intended to expand Druid immunity beyond "natural poisons," even if they didn't, I don't see that it changes anything. It's a non-issue and not worth debating.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

While that may be your opinion, until you provide examples that are parallel to this situation, it remains your opinion and not a fact.

Considering you haven't clearly defined what you believe this situation to be, I'll just state what I think is going on here. I think this is a situation of people going over the semantics of published material when it should be rather obvious what the meaning is. A parallel to that is some discussion I've seen on Power Attack. Some have claimed that while using a two-handed weapon a character trades 2 hit for 1 damage, which is a definite misreading.

No. The Ooze examples was merely to prove Empirate 100% wrong that the "immunity to poison" possessed by Constructs was not, in fact, the same as the "immunity to poison" possessed by Oozes, plants, and Outsiders. So using the same exact phrase does not convey the same exact meaning. The game does not contemplate "special" poisons with regard to Constructs.

Using the exact same phrase in the exact same context conveys the exact same meaning, does it not? The context here is directly tied to the phrase, or more accurately whether that phrase has other phrases that modify it. As you said, the game does not contemplate "special" poisons for constructs. It likewise does not contemplate "special" poisons for undead or elementals. Finally, it doesn't contemplate "special" poisons for druids either.

Incorrect. Such a text says that within the rules, such a thing can exist.

The rules therein are incomplete in that case. Nowhere in the SRD, DMG, MM, or PHB are there rules for creating poisons that would otherwise work on supposedly immune creatures or targets. There is the Poison spell of course, which is definitely magical.

True. But being inconsistent and being redundant are categorically different. One does not prove the other.

WotC is not consistent, nor consistently redundant. Therefore, it is prudent to treat separate mechanics as separate cases. Diseases and poisons are separate cases and should be treated differently.

And everyone is certainly entitled to that opinion. Nevertheless, the existence of the "all diseases. Including supernatural and magical" passage blows up the argument that "all means all." Clearly WotC did not feel "all means all" and there is absolutely no debating this or ignoring it. Whether one applies this to poisons is a matter of interpretation.

As I said above, it is prudent to treat separate things as separate cases. Clearly WotC felt "all" was good enough for poisons but not for diseases.

And a Oozes immunity and a Constructs ability are technically the same ability with a different result. But you wouldn't glean that different result based strictly on the text, would you? A person might be tempted to say, "Immunity to poisons means immunity to poisons. What part of immunity to poisons don't you understand?"

If it was strictly based on the text, then the lines "Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" means that these creatures may not be immune to poisons crafted to work on them. Druids, monks, elementals, undead, and many other creatures do not have such text to modify their immunity to poison. Therefore, that ability is in full effect within the published rules no matter what.

Clearly have to disagree with that on a number of levels. First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons." Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set. A perfect example is when you tell kids in cafeteria to "throw all the trash" in the waste basket. In that situation, you're only talking about trash in the cafeteria, not trash everywhere no matter where it exists. The fact that "all" when used with diseases, drives home this point. In WotC's mind, "all" ,may not have included all magical and supernatural diseases. The use of "all poisons" may refer to "all the poisons on this list of poisons."

IF it referred to "all the poisons on this list of poisons" then there would be a list. There is none.

As to the cafeteria reference, context matters. The implication is of throwing away trash in the cafeteria. There is no implication on whether "immunity to all poisons" means anything different than what those words mean at face value.

And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't. Nothing you've stated gets around this. You're only response is that it might be "fluff" and that because the book lacks consistency in some cases, we need to ignore this qualification. Maybe...but at this point, it's simply opinion.

Once again I say that separate mechanics are separate cases. It is opinion, but I feel it is a practical and reasonable opinion that separate things should be evaluated on their own merits first, regardless of whether a system is consistent.

 

[Arrowhawk]

It likewise does not contemplate "special" poisons for undead or elementals. Finally, it doesn't contemplate "special" poisons for druids either.

Using your logic, Druids do not have poison immunity because they aren't mentioned with Constructs, Undead, and elemental. A more logical reading suggests the section was only covering "creatures" and was not meant to apply to character classes with granted poison immunity.

IF it referred to "all the poisons on this list of poisons" then there would be a list. There is none.

Edit: Wait..what? There is a list of poisons.

Which is why when the game refers to martial weapons, it always states "weapons on this list of of martial weapons?" Clearly not. The game has a list of poisons. It's quite reasonable to think the "all poisons" may refer to all the poisons on the list, not just some of them.

As mentioned above, Cloudkill specifically states that immunity to poison applies. Why would that be necessary if it were 100% unambiguous? Does the game state that protection from fire applies to Fireball? Does it state that for ANY fire spell? I think the answer is no. But it does go out of its way to stated poison immunity applies to Cloudkill which means that WotC felt such a clarification was necessary.

The rules therein are incomplete in that case. Nowhere in the SRD, DMG, MM, or PHB are there rules for creating poisons that would otherwise work on supposedly immune creatures or targets.

Now I have to submit that you are being obtuse. No where did I say there were rules for creating poisons. The rules say such a thing can exist which means it's allowed within the rules: A poison can harm something that is otherwise "immune to poison."

 

[Empirate]

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Using your logic, Druids do not have poison immunity because they aren't mentioned with Constructs, Undead, and elemental. A more logical reading suggests the section was only covering "creatures" and was not meant to apply to character classes with granted poison immunity.

My logic was that unless there are rules to modify the text of an ability such as Venom Immunity, then the rules are the rules. The rule for druids is they are granted immunity to all poisons. The rules for oozes are they're immune to poison, but it's possible to create poisons that affect them anyway. My logic is that because the druid has no such modifying text, it is immune to all poisons no matter what.

Edit: Wait..what? There is a list of poisons.

Which is why when the game refers to martial weapons, it always states "weapons on this list of of martial weapons?" Clearly not. The game has a list of poisons. It's quite reasonable to think the "all poisons" may refer to all the poisons on the list, not just some of them.

The thing is, those poisons on the list are the only ones that have been given rules for in that book. If something is immune to all poisons from that list, they're effectively immune to all poisons because those are the only poisons. If one were to make up a new poison, then that falls squarely inside house rules because that's creating something that does not exist within the context of the official rules.

As mentioned above, Cloudkill specifically states that immunity to poison applies. Why would that be necessary if it were 100% unambiguous? Does the game state that protection from fire applies to Fireball? Does it state that for ANY fire spell? I think the answer is no. But it does go out of its way to stated poison immunity applies to Cloudkill which means that WotC felt such a clarification was necessary.

Yes, such a clarification was necessary in this case. Why? Because cloudkill is technically a spell, and rather unique one at that. As it's definitely magical and not a standard poison, clarification would be needed to determine whether poison immunity would work on it.

Now I have to submit that you are being obtuse. No where did I say there were rules for creating poisons. The rules say such a thing can exist which means it's allowed within the rules: A poison can harm something that is otherwise "immune to poison."

The pertinent reference is " Oozes [...]http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them." This is a specific exception to the immune to poisons rules. If the rules of "special poisons" could be used for such things as constructs or undead, it would have been mentioned. Could such rules be applied to other things? If we're going strictly by the book, no, because those things aren't mentioned in this exception. If we're going with house rules, anything is possible.

The catch is, there are no official rules for these "special poisons." Everything beyond "conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" is left up to players to figure out for their own ends. Because of this, by the book, druids (and everything else except maybe for oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders) are immune to all poisons.

 

[kitcik]

First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons." Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set.

Yes, Mr. President. There IS no arguing this point.

And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't. Nothing you've stated gets around this.

Where in the rules does "all diseases" not mean "all diseases."

Or does it?

I've pointed this out 3 times and been ignored. The facts are meaningless in a discussion with @Arrowhawk , as are any opinions other than his own.

 

[Hathradiah Fomorii]

Hey guys, it's that aforementioned DM here.
I wasn't being an ass like it may sound. I'm running a grittier casmpaign so I was thinking about making a difference between natural poisons (Druids deal with the natural world mostly) and supernatural/magic poisons. There isn't any rules to back my idea, but hell, I'm a DM, we have creative liberty. Right now I'm probably going to leave it as is unless I introduce a special "effects all" poison or something like that.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Here's something else to swallow. If a Druid were immune to ingested magical poisons, then they would be immune to cursed magical potions. What would be the difference?

One is a poison.

The other is a curse, and therefore not a poison.

All means All.

 

[Arrowhawk]

My logic was that unless there are rules to modify the text of an ability such as Venom Immunity, then the rules are the rules. The rule for druids is they are granted immunity to all poisons. The rules for oozes are they're immune to poison, but it's possible to create poisons that affect them anyway. My logic is that because the druid has no such modifying text, it is immune to all poisons no matter what.

Your logic is flawed in that you refuse to acknowledge that the section is only covering creature immunity. Because it fails to mention any thing other than creatures with immunity, you cannot apply the logic to character granted immunity. Your rationale for analyzing this section is self-contradictory. I'm going to quote the section once again and you show me where character immunity is mentioned:

Creatures with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. Nonliving creatures (constructs and undead) and creatures without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.​

The section starts out talking about CREATURES and continues to talk about them throughout. Trying to cherry pick the last sentence and say that, "Oh, since Druids aren't mentioned, it clearly doesn't apply to them" fails to grasp the fact that the entire section isn't a statement for or against Druid immunity. In fact, because WotC makes a distinction based on the nature of the immunity i.e. metabolism versus none, Druids clearly fall in the "I have a metabolism" category and are thus more likely to fall under the "special" poison exception. That would be a logical reading.

The thing is, those poisons on the list are the only ones that have been given rules for in that book.

Hallelujah! That's right. The list of poisons is what they mean when they say "all" poisons. The list you said didn't exist, does in fact exist which and none of them are magical and none Of them are supernatural or spell-like. Which is why "all" would not refer to magical or supernatural poisons.

If something is immune to all poisons from that list, they're effectively immune to all poisons because those are the only poisons.

Praise be to god. This is the logic I am employing when I offer the interpretation that a Druid is not immune to magical poisons (ignoring that previous versions of D&D explicitly excluded magical poisons). D&D doesn't recognize any magical poisons on its list of poisons. Why it fails to address spell based poisons directly, and then adds specific text to Cloudkill is confusing.

If one were to make up a new poison, then that falls squarely inside house rules because that's creating something that does not exist within the context of the official rules.

Now you're trying to be sneaky and argue that any new poison is a Rule 0. I'm not going to debate whether adding a "special" poison is a house rule. It doesn't matter. The rules say such things can exist so doing so is within the bounds of the rules. What's relevant to this discussion and the OP's question is whether the Druid would be immune to this "special" poison that was magical or supernatural. The answer, based on the fact that all the known poisons are non-magical, is no. Why? Because as you have finally acknowledged, there is a list of poisons,these are "all" the poisons the game is referring to, and none of them is magical.

Yes, such a clarification was necessary in this case. Why? Because cloudkill is technically a spell, and rather unique one at that. As it's definitely magical and not a standard poison, clarification would be needed to determine whether poison immunity would work on it.

BINGO! Ergo, poison immunity does not automatically include magical poisons. And we've already established that the "all" refers to the list of poisons of which this spell is not on it. Could you argue that "all poisons" would have encompassed this? Yes, but it's not clear. Just as it's not clear that there is a difference between Construct immunity and Ooze immunity.

If we're going strictly by the book, no, because those things aren't mentioned in this exception.

Flawed reasoning, see above.

The catch is, there are no official rules for these "special poisons." Everything beyond "conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" is left up to players to figure out for their own ends. Because of this, by the book, druids (and everything else except maybe for oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders) are immune to all poisons.

Once again, that doesn't follow. The section you keep referring to applies to creatures, not character immunity. It isn't trying to make a statement on character powers one way or the other. And any objective reader is going to reason that things with a "metabolism" are most likely susceptible to "special" poisons, which puts Druids clearly in that bucket.