Druid's Venom Immunity

[Empirate]

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?

No. No, absolutely not. You're wrong. Horribly, terribly wrong. Sorry.

 

[LiL KiNG]

Arrowhawk, now I don't know all the books and rules inside and out but I really don't understand why you're reading so hard into this when consensus, here at least, seems to be that they [Druids] are, or should be, immune to all poisons.

I've brought this up with a couple of old D&D buddies from outside my current gaming group who made the 3.0-3.5 transition with me and from the way we all read and understand it, if 'poison' is in the descriptor than the Druid is immune to it (at 9th level and beyond of course). It doesn't specify between 'natural' or 'magical' because it means 'all' - and WotC also didn't say "immune to all poisons except...", so again, all would mean all right?

I see you refer to the 3.0 Druids having only natural poison immunity, well I say that is irrelevant. Should we compare the hitdie of the 3.0 ranger vs. the 3.5 ranger? or the difference in their class abilities? No, we shouldn't because it's pointless. 3.5 made changes that supersede 3.0, so by their decision to drop 'natural' from the Druids poison immunity description and add 'all', unless WotC chimes in on it, we can assume (and luckily my gaming group does) that 'all' indeed means all.
[why the distinction for the Paladin's disease immunity then as you liken this to, unknown - maybe different authors wrote up the different classes and they didn't use the same lingo]

I guess, even no matter what WotC meant in their writing of that Druid ability, that the DM is the final say at the table - it's gotten hard to tell which way you are arguing for anymore; are you playing devil's advocate or are you seriously saying that 'all' poisons doesn't mean 'all' poisons... but if you're the latter, all I can say is I'm glad I don't play at your table

I'm out. No matter what else you say or think, in our group Druids are immune to all poisons once they have that ability and that's all that matters to us - I can't believe this thread is now 5 pages...

 

[Arrowhawk]

I'm out. No matter what else you say or think, in our group Druids are immune to all poisons once they have that ability and that's all that matters to us

So why are you asking me then?

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah, that's about right. But be warned, even if you get an answer, some people will still choose to believe that the answer is just one person's opinion.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and all that.

So I'm out.

 

[LiL KiNG]

So why are you asking me then?

lmao - I was simply saying that I've voiced my opinion and reasons for such here, for what's it's worth, and have no further need to debate it. My circle of D&D friends doesn't read it how you are, so we will continue to allow Druids to be immune to all poisons.

I was genuinely curious and looking for an answer from you on what your actual position was on this as it's the first time I've actually seen anyone debate this class feature; so are you just being argumentative, are you playing devil's advocate until someone can pinpoint a definitive answer for you, or are you seriously convinced that Druids are not immune to 'all' poisons?

By your only quoting the very end of my post where I say "I'm out" (meaning of debating the issue) I'm going to take it that you are just being argumentative at this point.

Which you know what? that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - your table, your game, your rules... my opinion though is hopefully if you're a DM your not just forcing rules down your players throats like this unless everyone at the table agrees...

 

[Arrowhawk]

I was genuinely curious and looking for an answer from you on what your actual position was....

Usually when I am seeking someone's opinion on something I don't end the post by saying

"I'm out and nothing you are going to say is going to change my mind."

By your only quoting the very end of my post where I say "I'm out" (meaning of debating the issue) I'm going to take it that you are just being argumentative at this point..

Funny, that's exactly the impression you left me with. You aren't interested in having a dialogue, you just wanted to state your opinion...and tell the other person, you're not going to listen to what they have to say in return.

I'm not sure what kind or response you're expecting with that approach? If nothing I have to say on the matter has any influence on you...somehow I think I'll make it through the day.

 

[kitcik]

.

 

[Hassassin]

What's the difference between magical and non-magical poisons? Are all the poisons listed in the DMG non-magical? If you use the poison spell the effect is magical? How about once someone fails the save - it's instantaneous so is it thereafter non-magical?

I don't think there's anything in the rules to make a distinction between the two. The poison entry just alludes to a difference between Ex. and Su. abilities, but that's probably for things like antimagic fields.

 

[Niccodaemus]

Since we're nitpicking here, the is a distinct difference between a poison, and a venom. Venoms are produced naturally by animals. Other toxins such as poisons are produced by plants or other means. (A poison can be made from a venom)

Immunity to venom does NOT equal immunity to toxins.

 

[kitcik]

.

Since we're nitpicking here, the is a distinct difference between a poison, and a venom. Venoms are produced naturally by animals. Other toxins such as poisons are produced by plants or other means. (A poison can be made from a venom)

Immunity to venom does NOT equal immunity to toxins.

ven·om (v

n

m)
n. 1. A poisonous secretion of an animal, such as a snake, spider, or scorpion, usually transmitted by a bite or sting.
2. A poison.