Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5740968" data-attributes="member: 6679551">First, let me at least give you credit for attempting to reason this out.The&nbsp; &quot;oh, let's just call that extraneous&quot;-because-it-contradicts-my-earlier-point argument isn't very compelling.&nbsp; The authors do not routinely add redundant information.&nbsp; They don't say, &quot;all creatures, including supernatural and magical beasts.&quot;&nbsp; When they mean all, they don't qualify it unless &quot;all&quot; refers to all of a subset.&nbsp;&nbsp; Could it be an error or extraneous?&nbsp; Technically, yes.&nbsp; Likelihood...1%.&nbsp;So here you're saying there are no magical poisons.&nbsp; Hmmm...&nbsp;Then no need to worry your pretty little head.&nbsp;So wait...now you're saying there ARE magical poisons?&nbsp; Which is it?Let me see if I can offer some enlightment.&nbsp; Let's look at the DMG p. 296Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary.Saying spell-like poisons &quot;are possible&quot; doesn't seem consistent with the notion that Cloudkill and others are, in fact, magic poisons.&nbsp; Failing to address the spells that create poisonous effects as a specific category leaves uncertainty.&nbsp;&nbsp; One way to decipher this is noting that specificity of the the DMG when it says, &quot;poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary.&quot;&nbsp; In other words, even if the origin of the poison is magical, the effect is not magical.This is clear as mud.&nbsp; The section on Poisons doesn't openly acknowledge or address magical poisons...but it clearly suggests that nearly all poisonous effects are non-magical.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Last I checked, Druids and Monks are also living creatures, so the same logic applies.&nbsp;And by that very logic, &quot;all poisons&quot; didn't include magical and supernatural, like it doesn't with Paladin's and diseases. To use your own words, &quot;That's all you really need to close that case.&quot;Another relevant piece of data is that in previous versions, Druids were only immune to &quot;natural&quot; poisons.&nbsp; Clearly the initial intent was not to provide Druids with immunity to magical poisons.&nbsp;&nbsp; 3.5 does not seem to have a &quot;natural poison&quot; category.&nbsp; In fact, it doesn't have any poison categories other than describing them as Extraordinary.&nbsp; 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 &quot;natural poison&quot; was no longer an appropriate or necessary category.&nbsp; Are there any creature poisons or alchemic poisons that are considered magical or superntaural?&nbsp; I don't know.&nbsp;Well then, provide me with a bunch of examples of redundant text used in reference to sets, and that might sway my opinion.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5740968, member: 6679551"] First, let me at least give you credit for attempting to reason this out. 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%. So here you're saying there are no magical poisons. Hmmm... Then no need to worry your pretty little head. 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 [INDENT]Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, [B]poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary[/B].[/INDENT] Saying spell-like poisons "are [I]possible[/I]" 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. Last I checked, Druids and Monks are also living creatures, so the same logic applies. 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 [B]not [/B]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. Well then, provide me with a bunch of examples of redundant text used in reference to sets, and that might sway my opinion. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification