Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5741274" data-attributes="member: 6679551">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.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.  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.  Now you're trying to be sneaky and argue that any new poison is a Rule 0.  I'm not going to debate whether adding a "special" poison is a house rule.  It doesn't matter.  The rules say such things can exist so doing so is within the bounds of the rules.   What's relevant to this discussion and the OP's question is whether the Druid would be immune to this "special" poison that was magical or supernatural.  The  answer, based on the fact that all the known poisons are non-magical, is no.  Why?  Because as you have finally acknowledged, there is a list of poisons,these are "all" the poisons the game is referring to, and none of them is magical.BINGO!  Ergo, poison immunity does not automatically include magical poisons.  And we've already established that the "all" refers to the list of poisons of which this spell is not on it.   Could you argue that "all poisons" would have encompassed this?  Yes, but it's not clear.   Just as it's not clear that there is a difference between Construct immunity and Ooze immunity. 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.</blockquote>

Verification