Druid's Venom Immunity

[Arrowhawk]

I didn't make your point for you at all. You said:

Originally Posted by Empirate

Bottom line: "all poisons" means friggin' ALL poisons. Period.

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."

I repeat that a proof ex negativo doesn't prove anything.

It's not ex negativo. It's construction. The use of the language in one part of the document can give meaning to the use in another part of the document when the meaning is ambiguous. "All diseases" does not include magical or supernatural diseases. If it did, there would be no need to explicitly include them. Ergo, "all poisons" does not automatically include magical and supernatural poisons, and given that RAW says poisons are Extraordinary, it most likely does NOT include magical and supernatural.

Is that air-tight? No, but it's logical.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ok, someone pointed out Paladin's immunity to all diseases, even magic ones, before.

Equally important is quoting the disease immunity of the other class that gets it, monk:

"Purity of Body (Ex)
At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases except for supernatural and magical diseases."

You see where not only does Paladin specifically include magical disease, but also monk specifically EXCLUDES them? In the rules, there is a concrete division between magical/Su disease, and..."mundane" disease, I guess you'd call it.


There is NO SUCH THING for poison. ANYWHERE. AT ALL. Find a single ability. A single ability, that gives immunity to poison, "but not magical poison," or gives immunity to poison "including/even magical and Su poisons."

You won't find such an item because it doesn't exist. Because in 3E poison is poison is poison. And without any exeptions listed or mentioned to the contrary, all means all! Jeebus!

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Now, I might not sound as fancy as you guys with your debate, but it seems to me that this comes down to a simple series of questions-

Player- "Is that thing a poison?"
DM- "yes, it is a magical poison."
Player- "so, it's a poison?"
DM- "Yes, it's a poison."
Player- "and I have immunity to all poisons?"
DM- "Well..."
Player- "oh, wait, can you define the word "All" for me?"
DM-"..."

Yeah... Um, the word "All" I think is what needs to be debated instead of the word "Poison". If the substance/spell/effect has the word "Poison" in the description, it's a poison.

Is there a case where "All" means something other than "All"?

To quote the 3.5 Players Guide Handbook,
"Venom Immunity (Ex): At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons."

Now, if you wanted to debate BOED's Ravages, then you might have some wiggle room.

 

[Arrowhawk]

You see where not only does Paladin specifically include magical disease, but also monk specifically EXCLUDES them? In the rules, there is a concrete division between magical/Su disease, and..."mundane" disease, I guess you'd call it.

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.

There is NO SUCH THING for poison. ANYWHERE. AT ALL. Find a single ability. A single ability, that gives immunity to poison, "but not magical poison," or gives immunity to poison "including/even magical and Su poisons."

1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison. There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity.

2) The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons. That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have. However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous.

3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is "immune to poison" just like it is immune to sleep. SRD also explicitly states that a "special" poison could exist that could harm it. "Special" doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a "special" sleep can exist. So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not automatically.

The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist. RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary. It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons. It's also possible that by saying "all kinds of poisons" they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't. You can't just hand wave away that fact.

The bottom line is that this is largely academic. By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it. However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a "special poison" affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an "oil"

 

[kitcik]

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 back-peddling. All means all, but specific can always trump general so there could always be a poison that specifically says "this poison effects druids of 9th level and above" or whatever. Don't be obtuse.

It's not ex negativo. It's construction. The use of the language in one part of the document can give meaning to the use in another part of the document when the meaning is ambiguous. "All diseases" does not include magical or supernatural diseases. If it did, there would be no need to explicitly include them. Ergo, "all poisons" does not automatically include magical and supernatural poisons, and given that RAW says poisons are Extraordinary, it most likely does NOT include magical and supernatural.

Is that air-tight? No, but it's logical.

It's nothing.

The logical interpretation is that "all means all." Anything else is being intentionally obtuse again. Are you seriously implying that Neutralize Poison (et al) does not work against magical poisons?

Warforged have "immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease,

nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, effects that cause the sickened condition, and energy drain." I guess that only means non-magical sleep effects? They can go all night at Thanksgiving?​

 

[Empirate]

Exactly. Obtuse indeed. But then, whenever I dare engage in a debate with Arrowhawk, we both seem to end up thinking that of each other, so maybe it's a mutual communications thing.

Then again, maybe it isn't. "All not being all" would need a pretty beefy bit of logic to back it up, and that has not been delivered so far.

 

[Arrowhawk]

Exactly. Obtuse indeed. But then, whenever I dare engage in a debate with Arrowhawk, we both seem to end up thinking that of each other, so maybe it's a mutual communications thing.

Then again, maybe it isn't. "All not being all" would need a pretty beefy bit of logic to back it up, and that has not been delivered so far.

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 is not going to change that simple conundrum. All of you simply ignore that fact. Even SoS's argument fails for logic.

"All diseases" clearly does not mean "all" diseases or there would be no need to qualify it. "Period."

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?

 

[kitcik]

Yes, your tone comes across as asinine from the get go. I'm sure you think the same of me.

Not at all, you are a pleasant conversationalist, as shown above where I am sure that "asinine" does not mean "asinine" at all, but rather something more like "affable."

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 is not going to change that simple conundrum. All of you simply ignore that fact. Even SoS's argument fails for logic.

"All diseases" clearly does not mean "all" diseases or there would be no need to qualify it. "Period."

Umm, where do the rules say "all diseases" and not mean "all diseases?" Oh, they don't. So nothing you are saying has any implication towards the meaning of "all poisons." One could therefore logically conclude that "all," when clearly stated as "all," means "all," unless one were intentionally being obtuse. And by obtuse, I mean, well, never mind.

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?

I don't think the rules say that cursed magical potions are poisons, so, no, one could not say that. "...standard potions are simply spells in liquid form..." (DMG 229) Poison is not, by defiinition, a spell - although there is a spell named "Poison." Poisons are extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like, as defined (as you previoulsy mentioned).

On the other hand, I would say druids are immune to the effects of a Potion of Poison (DMG 276), would you not? It uses the spell Poison in its creation. Are you saying druids are not immune to the effects of the spell Poison? And that Neutralize Poison would not work against this potion and spell? The effect is that the subject is "...infect(ed)... with a horrible poison..." (PH 262).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

You're right, saying even supernatural/magical diseases is not necessary, it's extra text they could have left out and the meaning would've been the same. That doesn't mean that all ceases meaning all. It's just extraneous information. And again, they put up that magical/nonmagical divide for diseases. There is no such thing for poisons.

1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison. There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity.

I don't even know what you're saying here.

2) The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons. That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have. However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous.

The SRD does have magical poisons, though. Even if you don't count creation spells that merely create poison which does not allow SR (Cloudkill, the Poison spell, etc...) and thus is not really "magical," there still is magical poison in the SRD. The Prismatic spells' (spray, wall, sphere) green layer is a magical poison effect, it does allow SR. If they wanted to divide magical and nonmagical poisons, they would have done so right in core, because core does in fact have magical poisons.

3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is "immune to poison" just like it is immune to sleep. SRD also explicitly states that a "special" poison could exist that could harm it. "Special" doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a "special" sleep can exist. So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not automatically.

That's because it's still a living creature and the only reason listed poisons have no effect on it is due to its different biology, so hypothetically specially made poisons could be made to affect it.
But I don't even have to explain the hows or whys. Ooze says poisons could be made to harm it, druid and monk do not say that. That's...all you really need to close that case.

The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist. RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary. It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons. It's also possible that by saying "all kinds of poisons" they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't. You can't just hand wave away that fact.

See above. There are magical poisons, and the rules use extraneous text all the time. Being redundant doesn't make a rule contradict itself.

The bottom line is that this is largely academic. By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it. However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a "special poison" affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an "oil"

DM can choose to nerf any class feature if he wants. And then the player can leave the game when he gets sick of dealing with the heavy handed bs.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

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?

Mercury is poisonous, so druids must be immune to mercurial greatsword attacks.

Candy is poisonous for your health, so I guess druids are also immune to junk food.

And love poisons your mind to not think rationally, so clearly druids are immune to love.

[sblock]Or maybe we're both just being obtuse and stretching the meaning of "poison" way beyond what it means in game terms to make silly exxagerations.[/sblock]