Search results

The "odds" are he will face a melee attack at higher level? Really? So high level Wizards are more afraid of some Fighter/Ranger/Monk/Barbarian and more prepared to deal with them than some Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric/Warmage/Outsider/Diety/Demigod/Erudite/Beguiler/Dragon/Efreet/...well you get...

Correct me if I am wrong, but that would work...once. After the first combat, the GoI and the Contingency spell are used up..and that would be a substantial portion of your 6th level spells for any given day.

Unlike Visigani, these threads amuse me because they always dissolve into the same format: A: I do this.. B: Well, I have a spell trick that counters that. This is typical of any discussion involving a Wizard/Sorc when someone suggests a way to beat them. What's overlooked by B is that...

Conceptually, the Ranger has a home a turf. A stretch of wilderness that she grew up in, patrols and has come familiar with. The monsters in the area should be her de facto Favored Enemies. In play, this is often untenable because the DM will have you travel far and wide. Add to the fact...

That's a disanalogy. In addition, people who advertise that they are open 24 hours a day, don't waste money by adding, "morning, noon, and night." A boss saying that to me is conversational speech. If he were writing instructions...you know like a rule book maybe...he wouldn't include...

If all means all, then you don't need to make that clarification. This is exactly the point you've made with regards to poisons. I find it humorous that people say "all means all" with poisons...but fail to apply that same rhetoric to diseases where it would fail. <shrug> Either "all"...

At first blush, I would 100% agree. Except WotC did not subscribe to this opinion when they explicitly stated a paladin's immunity to "all diseases" also included supernatural and magical. All clearly did not mean all.

100% agree. There is no confusion about immunity covering any non-magical poison whether it's no list or not. 100% agree. I'm not ignoring it at all. Determining whether 3.5 meant to simplify or expand a Druid's acquired poison immunity is part of the discussion. It's not clear whether...

Let me quote myself from above: Now that that's out of the way.... Very plausible explanation. Unfortunately, if it's accurate, it only clouds the issue. Let's look: In previous versions, a Druid was only immune to "natural" poisons. This list was more restrictive than the Paladin...

Previous versions of D&D clearly limited Druids to non-magical poison immunity undoubtedly for the very reason you've observed "Druids deal with the natural world mostly)." So limiting Druids to "natural" poisons would still be thematically correct. But there are a couple of caveats as I see...

No, they are both liquids that cast a spell-like function on the drinker. A magical poison and a potion are essentially the same thing. I'm going to say this one last time for those of you who keep repeating this ad nauseum. If "all means all" then under the Paladin's Divine Health ability...

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...

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. Edit...

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...

Ditto. 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...

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

First, let me at least give you credit for attempting to reason this out. The "oh, let's just call that extraneous"-because-it-contradicts-my-earlier-point argument isn't very compelling. The authors do not routinely add redundant information. They don't say, "all creatures, including...

Yes, your tone comes across as asinine from the get go. I'm sure you think the same of me. As far as all meaning all... If all meant "all" then the SRD would not need to explicitly include supernatural and magical diseases. All the hand waving, arm flapping, jumping jacks and break-dancing...

The problem with that logic is that you still don't need to include nonmagical and supernatural if "all disease" meant all disease. You'd only need to exclude them with the Monk. But what did they do? They said "all diseases" and on top of that included supernatural and magical. 1) The...

I didn't make your point for you at all. You said: And that was wrong. Trying to suddenly acknowledge that "there could conceivably be specific exceptions" is clearly back-peddling on your part after you went out of your way to claim my logic didn't hold a "milliliter of water." It's not ex...