Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5740718" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Wrong.Without being all dramatic about it like you, I'll&nbsp; simply provide RAW from SRD.1)&nbsp; Under Oozes, its says &quot;immunity to poison.&quot;&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; b) A special poison could affect an Ooze, plant, or Outsider even though it uses the same phrase for immunity as constructs and undead.&nbsp;&nbsp; So this addresses your lumping them all in the same bucket.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The SRD doesn't provide any, however.2)&nbsp; The Paladin Divine Health is an appropriate parallel.&nbsp; 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 &quot;all&nbsp; diseases&quot;&nbsp; it goes on to explicitly include supernatural and magical.&nbsp;&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; If &quot;all kinds of poisons&quot; includes magical and supernatural, then there would be no need to include supernatural and magical for immunity to &quot;all disease.&quot;If we assume the words are chosen with precision and purpose, the omission of &quot;supernatural and magic&quot; is meaingful precisely because those words are used in the parallel example of immunity to &quot;all diseases.&quot;3) &quot;kinds of poisons&quot; most likely refers to the &quot;kinds&quot; that are listed in the SRD:&nbsp; ingested,&nbsp; inhaled, injury, and contact.&nbsp; Now, maybe the PHB words things differently, so you might have a different argument if that were the case.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5740718, member: 6679551"] 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: [INDENT]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, [B]although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.[/B][/INDENT] 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: [INDENT]At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, [B]including supernatural and magical diseases.[/B][/INDENT] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification