D&D 5E Does Poison Immunity make you immune to the poisoned condition?

[Oofta]

So a druid that's immune to poison ("you are immune to poison and disease") could still be poisoned by a carrion crawler's poisoned condition ("DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned")?

Huh, I hadn't ever noticed that, it's never come up in any of my games.

I could see a DM ruling the other way though, that the carrion crawler's tentacles are applying a poison causing the poison condition.

 

[jaelis]

I could see a DM ruling the other way though, that the carrion crawler's tentacles are applying a poison causing the poison condition.

Yes, that's what I would argue is correct.

I'd say that, by definition, both poison damage and the poisoned condition always come from poison, one way or the other. So if you're "immune to poison" you ought to be immune to both.

 

[Thurmas]

They seem to always to mentioned together. The Periapt of Proof Against Poison, for example, says: "While you wear it, poisons have no effect on you. You are immune to the poisoned condition and have immunity to poison damage." I guess if something only mentions one of the two you would have to assume that you can still be affected by the other.

 

[Oofta]

They seem to always to mentioned together. The Periapt of Proof Against Poison, for example, says: "While you wear it, poisons have no effect on you. You are immune to the poisoned condition and have immunity to poison damage." I guess if something only mentions one of the two you would have to assume that you can still be affected by the other.

An exception I found was the 10th level druid Nature's Ward for Circle of the Land feature, monks also have the Purity of Body feature which also states you are immune to poison, but make no mention of the poisoned condition. That's different from the MM where it explicitly states both.

The more I think about it the more I would probably rule that if you are affected by a poison giving you a poisoned condition you would be immune even if it doesn't explicitly state it.

So higher level monks and circle of land druids can have carrion crawlers as pets. Hmmm ... I see interesting NPC villain options there.

 

[Thurmas]

An exception I found was the 10th level druid Nature's Ward for Circle of the Land feature, monks also have the Purity of Body feature which also states you are immune to poison, but make no mention of the poisoned condition. That's different from the MM where it explicitly states both.

The more I think about it the more I would probably rule that if you are affected by a poison giving you a poisoned condition you would be immune even if it doesn't explicitly state it.

So higher level monks and circle of land druids can have carrion crawlers as pets. Hmmm ... I see interesting NPC villain options there.

I think that the way the Druid section mentions it, for example, would mean you are immune to both. It says Immune to Poison, which I would consider to immunity to both damage and the condition. If it said instead "You are immune to Poison damage" then it would not mean immune to the poisoned condition. Same the other way. If it only says immune to the poisoned condition, it wouldn't cover poison damage. Since it says Poison in general, it should cover both.

 

[Oofta]

I think that the way the Druid section mentions it, for example, would mean you are immune to both. It says Immune to Poison, which I would consider to immunity to both damage and the condition. If it said instead "You are immune to Poison damage" then it would not mean immune to the poisoned condition. Same the other way. If it only says immune to the poisoned condition, it wouldn't cover poison damage. Since it says Poison in general, it should cover both.

The reason I initially questioned it was because monsters always have it as two separate things; damage immunities and condition immunities. Character classes simply aren't written with that kind of technical verbiage.

 

[Hriston]

The yuan Ti state "You are immune to poison damage and the poisoned condition". If one implied the other, it would be unnecessary to state both.

For example, the axe of Dwarven Lords provides immunity to poison damage. So you could still be affected by the poisoned condition.

This is a good example of immunity to poison damage without either blanket immunity to poison or immunity to the poisoned condition. You have to be a dwarf, so you would already have advantage on saves against poison, but any effect that imposes the poisoned condition could still affect you.

 

[cbwjm]

You can be immune to poison damage.
You can be immune to the poisoned condition.
You can be immune to poison.

In NPC stat blocks, they list damage and condition immunities separately. I'd say that if there is an ability which just says, you are immune to poison that you are immune to both damage and condition.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

There are situations where the poisoned conditioned is not from poison, but they are very rare. For example, a gas spore's disease.

More generally, damage and conditions are separate, so I don't think immunity to either one should imply immunity to the other.

If something just says "immune to poison" or "poison doesn't affect you" then I think it's fair to give immunity to both "poison damage" and 'the poisoned condition".
an
The carrion crawler might paralyse the dwarf with the axe but it definitely will not paralyze the druid.

 

[Henry]

I'd love to see the "official" answer, but in my home games, I rule "immune to poison" means "both" because otherwise would feel stupid, or be the candidate for biggest misnomer in the game.