Your logic is flawed in that you refuse to acknowledge that the section is only covering
creature immunity. Because it fails to mention any thing other than
creatures with immunity, you cannot apply the logic to character granted immunity. Your rationale for analyzing this section is self-contradictory. I'm going to quote the section once again and you show me where character immunity is mentioned:
Creatures with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. 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.
The section starts out talking about CREATURES and continues to talk about them throughout. Trying to cherry pick the last sentence and say that, "Oh, since Druids aren't mentioned, it clearly doesn't apply to them" fails to grasp the fact that the entire section isn't a statement for or against Druid immunity. In fact, because WotC makes a distinction based on the nature of the immunity i.e. metabolism versus none, Druids clearly fall in the "I have a metabolism" category and are thus more likely to fall under the "special" poison exception. That would be a logical reading.
I know darn well those specific lines refer to creatures in general. I am simply saying that if WotC wanted a druid's venom immunity to specifically be against "natural" poisons, they would have said something about it much like they did in previous editions.
Hallelujah! That's right. The list of poisons is what they mean when they say "all" poisons. The list you said didn't exist, does in fact exist which and none of them are magical and none Of them are supernatural or spell-like. Which is why "all" would not refer to magical or supernatural poisons.
Okay then, let's go with the possibility that the list is a definitive end-all be-all source for poisons. It is missing several entries, since there are other natural poisons such as a monstrous scorpion's. Oddly enough the entry "large scorpion venom" does Str damage, while actual monstrous scorpion poison does Con damage. The list is clearly not a list encompassing "all" poisons, even natural ones. If that list is what's referred to when speaking of immunity to all poisons, even natural ones, there are serious problems going on.
Praise be to god. This is the logic I am employing when I offer the interpretation that a Druid is not immune to magical poisons (ignoring that previous versions of D&D explicitly excluded magical poisons). D&D doesn't recognize any magical poisons on its list of poisons. Why it fails to address spell based poisons directly, and then adds specific text to Cloudkill is confusing.
As mentioned, WotC isn't consistent. 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. WotC has shown that it can and will limit the ability to non-magical poisons. 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.
Flawed reasoning, see above.
Once again, that doesn't follow. The section you keep referring to applies to creatures, not character immunity. It isn't trying to make a statement on character powers one way or the other. And any objective reader is going to reason that things with a "metabolism" are most likely susceptible to "special" poisons, which puts Druids clearly in that bucket.
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. We must now ask whether these rules are inclusive (meaning it's an example of what could be done and can include other creatures) or exclusive (meaning the entry is specific and cannot apply to anything else.) Given WotC's track record on such rulings, it is exclusive. Specific trumps general, and the rules specifically mention only "oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders." These rules cannot be applied to other creatures, of which a druid is likely.
This does bring up the case of an applicable outsider with 9 or more levels in druid. Would a poison specially crafted to work on this kind of outsider work on this one with druid levels too? We've already established a poison can be made to work on the outsider, but will such a poison work against a powerful druid? 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. I won't debate further on this topic though, since it looks like something for people to decide on their own when they cross that bridge.
