Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5740802" data-attributes="member: 6679551">The problem with that logic is that you still don't need to include nonmagical and supernatural if &quot;all disease&quot; meant all disease.&nbsp; You'd only need to exclude them with the Monk.&nbsp; But what did they do?&nbsp; They said &quot;all diseases&quot; and on top of that included supernatural and magical.1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison.&nbsp; There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity.&nbsp;2)&nbsp; The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons.&nbsp; That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have.&nbsp; However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous.3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is &quot;immune to poison&quot; just like it is immune to sleep.&nbsp; SRD also explicitly states that a &quot;special&quot; poison could exist that could harm it. &quot;Special&quot; doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a &quot;special&quot; sleep can exist.&nbsp; So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not automatically.The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist.&nbsp; RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary.&nbsp; It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons.&nbsp; It's also possible that by saying &quot;all kinds of poisons&quot; they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't.&nbsp; You can't just hand wave away that fact.The bottom line is that this is largely academic.&nbsp; By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it.&nbsp; However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a &quot;special poison&quot; affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an &quot;oil&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5740802, member: 6679551"] The problem with that logic is that you still don't need to include nonmagical and supernatural if "all disease" meant all disease. You'd only need to exclude them with the Monk. But what did they do? They said "all diseases" and on top of that included supernatural and magical. 1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison. There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity. 2) The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons. That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have. However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous. 3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is "immune to poison" just like it is immune to sleep. SRD also explicitly states that a "special" poison could exist that could harm it. "Special" doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a "special" sleep can exist. So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not [I]automatically[/I]. The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist. RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary. It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons. It's also possible that by saying "all kinds of poisons" they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't. You can't just hand wave away that fact. The bottom line is that this is largely academic. By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it. However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a "special poison" affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an "oil" :) [/QUOTE]

Verification