Druid's Venom Immunity

[Arrowhawk]

While I'm not going to take a side in this discussion overall...

Let me quote myself from above:

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."

Now that that's out of the way....

I would like to clarify one point....

As a matter of fact, it is important to include that line, because of the change in the way diseases worked from 2e to 3e. What are considered to be "magical diseases" in 3.0 were considered to be "curses" in 2e. ***
The 3e paladin entry for divine health, then, specifically mentions those magical diseases so that players and DMs realize that paladins are now immune to them when previously they were not...

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 immunity. Now you're saying that when they intended to expand the Paladin immunity, they made sure to include supernatural and magical diseases?

Well, its stands to reason that WotC should have done the same for Druids, doesn't it? In fact, it would be even more necessary to clarify for Druids because there are no supernatural or magical poisons on any list of poisons. I''m even betting that nearly all, if not all, the poisonous attacks by creatures in the MM's are Extraordinary (non-magical) abilities (Black Dragons in Dragon Magic can convert spells to poison attacks, being one notable exception). So for the very reason you claim WotC clarified Paladins, WotC had cause to clarify Druids to include poison spells...if we call that magic poison. But they didn't.

I'm going to repeat myself again, for all those who don't have the maturity to ignore a thread if they think the matter is decided:

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."

 

[Arrowhawk]

The list is clearly not a list encompassing "all" poisons, even natural ones.

100% agree. There is no confusion about immunity covering any non-magical poison whether it's no list or not.

As mentioned, WotC isn't consistent.

100% agree.

You've also stated right there that you're ignoring how previous versions explicitly excluded magical poisons, which is potentially a key point in this.

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 they simply got rid of the notion of natural poison immunity because 3.5 wants the game to be more straight forward or they felt Druids needed to be immune to magical poisons. As you've already observed, WotC chose to explicitly clarify the issue with Cloudkill because one might not assume poison immunity covered it.

WotC has shown that it can and will limit the ability to non-magical poisons.

Not in 3.5 they haven't. I don't see that anything in 3.5 has "natural" poison immunity. Maybe a splat book has it?

For 3.5 they have instead gone with a simple "immunity to all poisons," so it's reasonable to think they want to druid to be immune to all poisons, period.

Which is the same argument you can use for diseases and Paladins. So all does not mean all. "Period."

Let's look at this objectively then. The line that modifies the immunity to oozes, plants, and certain outsiders does not refer to metabolism at all. Can it be argued that it means anything with a metabolism? Yes, as you've done so already. When viewing it objectively though, without bias in any form, what is the interpretation a strict reading will reveal?

As far as I can see, reading it strictly shows only that oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders can have poisons made to specifically affect them. It doesn't allow or disallow the possibility of other creatures normally immune to poison being affected by certain poisons made for them.

I emphasized the most important word in your response. Now I have to apologize for failing to make a dispositive observation earlier.

Druids are not creatures. Druid refers to any creature with Druid class levels. Many creatures can have class levels in Druid...but a "Druid" is not a creature. There is no creature subtype called a Druid. Ergo, it would be nonsensical to talk about classes in a section that is only dealing with creatures and their subtypes.

This means even my own statement that "druid's have metabolisms is inaccurate. Druid's don't have metabolisms, but the creature with the class levels might. So the argument that "Druids" aren't mentioned with Oozes is moot.

One argument is that the poison has to work against both sets of immunities. Another is it that it only has to get through one to work, for whatever reason. Both scenarios are equally plausible.

Well, considering that Humans start out susceptible to all poisons, it would stand to reason that the class granted immunity would trump a poison only targeted at Outsiders.

As I stated early on, this is an academic discussion. I also stated that given CK observing poison immunity, I would observe it for other spells, even though they do not specifically acknowledge it like CK. As we both have agreed, WotC is not consistent and in more than a few cases offers contradictory theories. They clarify somethings that should not need clarification and then fail to clarify things that are clearly ambiguous.

I definitely appreciate the back and forth with someone who can have a discussion like an adult.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I know it doesn't carry much weight at this point, but I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway:

"All poisons" seems to be about as clear as it can be. It means all poisons, period. Previous editions not withstanding, other entries on other immunities for other classes not withstanding, this one seems to be so plainly and clearly written that I really don't see any grounds for an argument.

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.

 

[Greenfield]

So, by emphasizing that "all" meant "all, they somehow implied that "all" didn't mean "all"?

To clarify, if the rules had said, "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, plus supernatural and magical diseases.", I'd agree with you. They'd be making a clear distinction, a statement that magical and supernatural diseases were distinct from "all" diseases.

What they said though was, "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases."

That form emphasizes that "all" includes "all", even those caused by magic or supernatural sources.

Hmm... Okay, I admit, I had more fun writing the first sentence than I did making sense with the rest of it. So sue me...

 

[Arrowhawk]

That form emphasizes that "all" includes "all", even those caused by magic or supernatural sources.

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" needs to be clarified, or it doesn't. Trying to argue both is to contradict oneself. Which is something WotC seems struggle with.

Hmm... Okay, I admit, I had more fun writing the first sentence than I did making sense with the rest of it. So sue me...

Are you judgment proof?

 

[Greenfield]

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.

If your boss said, "I want someone on this 24 hours a day, morning, noon and night", would that mean that "morning, noon and night" are somehow in addition to "24 hours a day"?

The "including" in the description isn't an addition to "all", it's emphasizing that "all" means "all".

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.

Except that "all" means "all" with regards to diseases as well. A Paladin is immune to all diseases, even magical or supernatural ones. Or, to use the exact phrasing "including".

Druids of the appropriate level are immune to all poisons. They might have included similar phrasing to emphasize that this included even magical or supernatural poisons, if there was such a thing.

But with or without the emphasis, "all" means "all".

Either "all" needs to be clarified, or it doesn't. Trying to argue both is to contradict oneself. Which is something WotC seems struggle with.

It didn't need to be clarified, and to my view they weren't clarifying it (i.e. explaining or defining), they were emphasizing. You know, for the hard-of-thinking types.

(No offense intended, but there are some really stupid people out there.)

 

[Arrowhawk]

If your boss said, "I want someone on this 24 hours a day, morning, noon and night", would that mean that "morning, noon and night" are somehow in addition to "24 hours a day"?

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 "morning, noon, and night."

As I said, a disanalogy.

The "including" in the description isn't an addition to "all", it's emphasizing that "all" means "all".

That's an opinion, not a fact.

Except that "all" means "all" with regards to diseases as well.

If all means all, you don't need to clarify it...period. End of story.

Druids of the appropriate level are immune to all poisons.

In 3.5, what's the functional difference between the following:

"immunity to poison"

"immunity to all poisons"

"immunity to poisons of all kinds"

They might have included similar phrasing to emphasize that this included even magical or supernatural poisons, if there was such a thing.

So you're agreeing that they are not referring to supernatural and magical poisons because they don't exist?

Some people in this thread claim magical poisons do exist. Your opinion?

But with or without the emphasis, "all" means "all".

If all means all, you don't need to emphasize it....unless all means all of a subset.

It didn't need to be clarified

Obviously WotC disagrees with you.

The most likely explanation is the one offered by Eldritch: magical diseases did not exist in previous versions so "all" diseases would have meant the non-magical diseases. Moving "curses" to a the disease category required that the game clarify that these "magical" diseases are now included.

This creates confusion for poisons because:

1) Previous Druid immunity did NOT include magical immunity.

2) 3.5 acknowledges that spell-like poisons are "possible" ???? This is confounding choice of words because not only are they "possible," but how else would you categorize Cloudkill, Poison, and Prismatic Spray to name a few.

3) Given that spell poisons exist, it would have been prudent to clarify that the Druid immunity which was previously limited to "natural" poisons now encompasses all magical/spell-like poisons. Gee...kind of what they did with Paladins...don't you think?

 

[Dandu]

 

[Empirate]

Indeed. Bow out of the thread already, ye who be of sane mind still. Remember you don't have to argue things to the death to be correct. Leave to others the right to feel right.

 

[Hexer]

So I've read the whole thread and everything I've read in here leads me to a single, simple conclusion:
The only way to be 100% sure would be to ask WotC because all of the "facts" stated here are based on assumptions what WotC meant or implied by stating things in the ways they did (or did not in other cases)

Is that about right?