Druid's Venom Immunity

[finnie]

First off, I would start by saying that I am sorry if this thread is in the wrong section. It seemed like the best place to ask this question. Second, I am sorry if this is something that had been discussed before, and that I am only bringing it back up.

Now, to explain my situation.

To start, I am playing a druid in my friends adventure which he is using 3.5 to run it with. I am about to become level 9, which is when druids get venom immunity. I got all excited saying that I was immune to all venoms. My friend running it, said that it only refers to natural poisons like in 3rd edition. While in the 3.5 is says all venoms. His reason for why it is only natural venoms is cause under the paladin section for immunity to disease, it says that they are immune to both magical and natural disease.

My retort to this was sure it says that for paladin, but if you look under the monk class they also get immunity to all poisons, and I know for a fact that it is ALL poisons. It says nothing about natural or magical poisons. It just says all poisons.

Now, he is DM and if that is what he wants to run it as in his campaign then I cant really argue him, but instead grumble behind his back about it. I am mainly posting this so when I am running my own adventure that I am using the ability correctly and not nerfing it down to being almost a useless thing for druids to get.

 

[Vegepygmy]

You are correct: in 3.5, it is immunity to ALL poisons.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Not much to say but agree with above. It's immunity to all poisons.

Try pointing out that 2 levels later, a Cleric can just use Hero's Feast to give the entire party poison AND fear immunity and see if he lightens up about it?

 

[Dandu]

Or that, as a class with a good fort save and presumably good Con, you could just make the save in the first place?

 

[Empirate]

It doesn't get much clearer than "all poisons". Why your DM wouldn't count the "magical poisons" and "artificial poisons" sets as subsets of the "all poisons" set is beyond me.

Maybe point out to him that reading 3.5 rules in the light of his understanding of what the 3.0 rules said is a really, really bad idea? Otherwise you might want to use 3.0 Haste and Persist Spell on your next character...

 

[Arrowhawk]

Your DM is technically correct.

First off, I would start by saying that I am sorry if this thread is in the wrong section. It seemed like the best place to ask this question. Second, I am sorry if this is something that had been discussed before, and that I am only bringing it back up.

Now, to explain my situation.

To start, I am playing a druid in my friends adventure which he is using 3.5 to run it with. I am about to become level 9, which is when druids get venom immunity. I got all excited saying that I was immune to all venoms. My friend running it, said that it only refers to natural poisons like in 3rd edition. While in the 3.5 is says all venoms. His reason for why it is only natural venoms is cause under the paladin section for immunity to disease, it says that they are immune to both magical and natural disease.

My retort to this was sure it says that for paladin, but if you look under the monk class they also get immunity to all poisons, and I know for a fact that it is ALL poisons. It says nothing about natural or magical poisons. It just says all poisons.

Now, he is DM and if that is what he wants to run it as in his campaign then I cant really argue him, but instead grumble behind his back about it. I am mainly posting this so when I am running my own adventure that I am using the ability correctly and not nerfing it down to being almost a useless thing for druids to get.

I hate to burst your bubble, but I believe your DM friend is correct. Here's why..

1) Poison are considered extraordinary abilities. Here is what the SRD says:

Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary.​

2) Here's what the PHB says about Extraordinary abilities:

Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics.​

3) Ergo, you have immunity to non-magical poisons. The name "Venom" in this case is probably chosen for accuracy as well as theme.

4) The Monk Diamond Body offers immunity to "poisons of all kinds." Technically this is the same immunity that the Druid has. No where does it explicitly state the monk has immunity to non-magical poisons. However, one could argue that "poisons of all kinds" is broader than "all kinds of poisons." But that is not a compelling argument. As a DM, if the Paladin ability specifically mentions magical, then the absence of those words would require I limit the Monk and Druid to Extraordinary poisons only.

 

[Empirate]

I don't think your "argument" holds even a millilitre of water. What's so hard to get about "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons"? You're trying to prove something ex negativo, which simply will not work.

"Poison effects are almost always extraordinary" doesn't say anything about the nature of general poison immunity and the question whether that works vs. magical poisons. Extraordinary abilities being nonmagical has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand.

If some rule is stating that it applies to all cases, but is not stating that it does not encompass a specific case... then it still applies to all cases, including any given specific ones you may come to think of.

Also, to further discredit proof ex negativo:
Heroe's Feast states that "Every creature partaking of the feast ...becomes immune to poison for 12 hours".
Monk's Diamond Body class feature says: "At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poisons of all kinds".
Neutralize Poison says "The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell".
The Periapt of Proof Against Poison description states "The wearer is immune to poisonhttp://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison, although poisons still active when the periapt is first donned still run their course".
Constructs gain "Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects".
Demons gain blanket "Immunity to electricity and poison".

Does anybody honestly think any of these bits of rules text should first differentiate between natural, manufactured, and magical poisons, before going on to say they're all treated the same anyway? Or does anybody believe that Constructs are vulnerable to magical poisons, since the rule doesn't explicitly state they are immune to that as well as to all other kinds of poison?


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

 

[Arrowhawk]

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

Wrong.

Without being all dramatic about it like you, I'll simply provide RAW from SRD.

1) Under Oozes, its says "immunity to poison." Under the definition of Poison, it states, and I quote:

Nonliving creatures (constructs and undead) and creatures without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.​

An intelligent reading of this passage suggests:

a) Constructs and Plants are immune to poisons for different reasons.

b) A special poison could affect an Ooze, plant, or Outsider even though it uses the same phrase for immunity as constructs and undead. So this addresses your lumping them all in the same bucket. Apparently that interpretation is incorrect.

Ergo, a Druid and a Monk have a metabolism and could be affected by a special magical or supernatural poison. The SRD doesn't provide any, however.

2) The Paladin Divine Health is an appropriate parallel. The SRD states:

At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.​

But instead of the SRD simply saying "all diseases" it goes on to explicitly include supernatural and magical. Why? If "all kinds of poisons" includes magical and supernatural, then there would be no need to include supernatural and magical for immunity to "all disease."

If we assume the words are chosen with precision and purpose, the omission of "supernatural and magic" is meaingful precisely because those words are used in the parallel example of immunity to "all diseases."

3) "kinds of poisons" most likely refers to the "kinds" that are listed in the SRD: ingested, inhaled, injury, and contact.

Now, maybe the PHB words things differently, so you might have a different argument if that were the case.

 

[Empirate]

Ergo, a Druid and a Monk have a metabolism and could be affected by a special magical or supernatural poison. The SRD doesn't provide any, however.

You're making my point for me. There could conceivably be specific exceptions to an otherwise general rule, as you point out. In the absence of specific, positively stated exceptions, though, the general rule is all-encompassing.

2) The Paladin Divine Health is an appropriate parallel. The SRD states:

At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.​

But instead of the SRD simply saying "all diseases" it goes on to explicitly include supernatural and magical. Why? If "all kinds of poisons" includes magical and supernatural, then there would be no need to include supernatural and magical for immunity to "all disease."

If we assume the words are chosen with precision and purpose, the omission of "supernatural and magic" is meaingful precisely because those words are used in the parallel example of immunity to "all diseases."

3) "kinds of poisons" most likely refers to the "kinds" that are listed in the SRD: ingested, inhaled, injury, and contact.

Now, maybe the PHB words things differently, so you might have a different argument if that were the case.

I repeat that a proof ex negativo doesn't prove anything. All poisons means all of them, until a specific poison is invented to harm Druids. I'd need a rules text quotation of a poison that says it can harm 9th+ level Druids before I'd concede that not all poisons are affected by the Venom Immunity class feature.

Was that nondramatic enough for you?

 

[Arrowhawk]

Hmmm..double post..deleted.