Druid's Venom Immunity

[Arrowhawk]

First, let me at least give you credit for attempting to reason this out.

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.

The "oh, let's just call that extraneous"-because-it-contradicts-my-earlier-point argument isn't very compelling. The authors do not routinely add redundant information. They don't say, "all creatures, including supernatural and magical beasts." When they mean all, they don't qualify it unless "all" refers to all of a subset. Could it be an error or extraneous? Technically, yes. Likelihood...1%.

And again, they put up that magical/nonmagical divide for diseases. There is no such thing for poisons.

So here you're saying there are no magical poisons. Hmmm...

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

Then no need to worry your pretty little head.

The SRD does have magical poisons, though.

So wait...now you're saying there ARE magical poisons? Which is it?

Let me see if I can offer some enlightment. Let's look at the DMG p. 296

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

Saying spell-like poisons "are possible" doesn't seem consistent with the notion that Cloudkill and others are, in fact, magic poisons. Failing to address the spells that create poisonous effects as a specific category leaves uncertainty. One way to decipher this is noting that specificity of the the DMG when it says, "poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary." In other words, even if the origin of the poison is magical, the effect is not magical.

This is clear as mud. The section on Poisons doesn't openly acknowledge or address magical poisons...but it clearly suggests that nearly all poisonous effects are non-magical.

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.

Last I checked, Druids and Monks are also living creatures, so the same logic applies.

Ooze says poisons could be made to harm it, druid and monk do not say that.

And by that very logic, "all poisons" didn't include magical and supernatural, like it doesn't with Paladin's and diseases. To use your own words, "That's all you really need to close that case."

Another relevant piece of data is that in previous versions, Druids were only immune to "natural" poisons. Clearly the initial intent was not to provide Druids with immunity to magical poisons. 3.5 does not seem to have a "natural poison" category. In fact, it doesn't have any poison categories other than describing them as Extraordinary. So it's not clear if 3.5 meant simplify the immunity by just making every poison of the same class, or if it simply decided "natural poison" was no longer an appropriate or necessary category. Are there any creature poisons or alchemic poisons that are considered magical or superntaural? I don't know.

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

Well then, provide me with a bunch of examples of redundant text used in reference to sets, and that might sway my opinion.

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.

Likewise, the DM can say I'm tired of playing with people who can't read the rules objectively and leave the game when he gets sick of the juvenile whining.

 

[Dandu]

Is something wrong on the internet again, Arrowhawk?

 

[kitcik]

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.



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).

Intentional double post.

 

[Vegepygmy]

Wow, Arrowhawk...I've read a lot of bad arguments (this being the Internet and all), but the ones you've made in this thread are impressively bad. You combine illogical reasoning with ignorance of the principles of statutory interpretation, and arrive at the exact opposite of the correct conclusion.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I just...I can't even debate this anymore, smashing my head into a brick wall hurts.


And I never said there were no magical poisons. I said the rules don't put up some sort of divide between magical and nonmagical poisons. There is no save bonus or immunity to poisons that specifies magical or nonmagical only, the divide is for disease, there is no such divide for poison. Just because there is no divide when it comes to "crap that makes you immune to poison" doesn't mean there are no magical poisons. The two claims are completely different, and I never said the latter.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

On the extraneous bit, WotC does indeed add a lot of technically unnecessary information to its texts. It's known as "fluff." The fluff of this argument seems to hinge partially on the fact that there was text written stating that a poison could be made specifically for oozes. Such text seems to be for the benefit of DMs as a reminder of "hey, you can make your own rules." It is nothing more, and certainly not an example to set examples by.

WotC is also not consistent throughout its content, even within the same book. Trying to make something consistent of it, while admirable, falls to house rules and is thus beyond the scope of discussing the meaning of what is actually published. I would not recommend applying the disease examples to poison because of this.

The druid's venom immunity and an ooze's immunity to poison are technically different abilities with pretty much the same result. Since we're talking about the semantics of words, note how the ooze trait description simply says "immunity to poison" and then adds a caveat later while the druid's venom immunity says "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons" and leaves it at that. To quote another class, the Contemplative: "At 5th level, a contemplative becomes immune to poisons of all kinds."

Both classes' abilities leave no room for interpretation. They say "immunity to all poisons" and "immune to poisons of all kinds." Immunity to all poisons means immunity to all poisons, and unless there is a published poison specifically stating it circumvents these abilities, it is quite clear that a 9th level druid is flat-out immune to all poisons.

 

[Arrowhawk]

On the extraneous bit, WotC does indeed add a lot of technically unnecessary information to its texts.

While that may be your opinion, until you provide examples that are parallel to this situation, it remains your opinion and not a fact.

It's known as "fluff." The fluff of this argument seems to hinge partially on the fact that there was text written stating that a poison could be made specifically for oozes.

No. The Ooze examples was merely to prove Empirate 100% wrong that the "immunity to poison" possessed by Constructs was not, in fact, the same as the "immunity to poison" possessed by Oozes, plants, and Outsiders. So using the same exact phrase does not convey the same exact meaning. The game does not contemplate "special" poisons with regard to Constructs.

Such text seems to be for the benefit of DMs as a reminder of "hey, you can make your own rules."

Incorrect. Such a text says that within the rules, such a thing can exist.

WotC is also not consistent throughout its content, even within the same book.

True. But being inconsistent and being redundant are categorically different. One does not prove the other.

I would not recommend applying the disease examples to poison because of this.

And everyone is certainly entitled to that opinion. Nevertheless, the existence of the "all diseases. Including supernatural and magical" passage blows up the argument that "all means all." Clearly WotC did not feel "all means all" and there is absolutely no debating this or ignoring it. Whether one applies this to poisons is a matter of interpretation.

The druid's venom immunity and an ooze's immunity to poison are technically different abilities with pretty much the same result.

And a Oozes immunity and a Constructs ability are technically the same ability with a different result. But you wouldn't glean that different result based strictly on the text, would you? A person might be tempted to say, "Immunity to poisons means immunity to poisons. What part of immunity to poisons don't you understand?"

"At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons" and leaves it at that. To quote another class, the Contemplative: "At 5th level, a contemplative becomes immune to poisons of all kinds."
***Both classes' abilities leave no room for interpretation.

Clearly have to disagree with that on a number of levels. First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons." Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set. A perfect example is when you tell kids in cafeteria to "throw all the trash" in the waste basket. In that situation, you're only talking about trash in the cafeteria, not trash everywhere no matter where it exists. The fact that "all" when used with diseases, drives home this point. In WotC's mind, "all" ,may not have included all magical and supernatural diseases. The use of "all poisons" may refer to "all the poisons on this list of poisons."

...it is quite clear that a 9th level druid is flat-out immune to all poisons.

And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't. Nothing you've stated gets around this. You're only response is that it might be "fluff" and that because the book lacks consistency in some cases, we need to ignore this qualification. Maybe...but at this point, it's simply opinion.

 

[Dandu]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

[Arrowhawk]

I just...I can't even debate this anymore, smashing my head into a brick wall hurts.

Ditto.

I said the rules don't put up some sort of divide between magical and nonmagical poisons.

The book unequivocally states that almost all poisonous effects are "extraordinary." Extraordinary effects are by definition non-magical. So there is clearly a magic/nonmagic line that is being drawn in the sand and "poisonous effects" are "almost always" on the non-magical side. This is RAW.

Now, how one transitions from a magical poison to a non-magical poisonous effect isn't really explained.

There is no save bonus or immunity to poisons that specifies magical or nonmagical only,

That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.

 

[Dandu]

That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.

Or does it?