Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5741297" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Previous versions of D&amp;D clearly limited Druids to non-magical poison immunity undoubtedly for the very reason you've observed &quot;Druids deal with the natural world mostly).&quot;&nbsp; So limiting Druids to &quot;natural&quot; poisons would still be thematically correct.&nbsp;&nbsp; But there are a couple of caveats as I see them:1)&nbsp; As a DM and a player, one thing I've observed is that players are always trying to seize as much territory as they can.&nbsp; When I read these forums, the overwhelming majority of opinions are in favor of any interpretation that benefits players.&nbsp;&nbsp; When you suggest one that doesn't, you get statements like SoS's where he threatens to quite the game because of &quot;heavy handed bs.&quot;&nbsp; Oh the drama.2) What constitutes a &quot;natural&quot; poison in 3.5?&nbsp; There is no explicit category.&nbsp; A logical supposition is any animal or creature based poison, but what if a magical beast or Outsider has poison?&nbsp; None of those occur in nature.&nbsp; Or can you expend natural poison to mean poisons created from mundane materials?3)&nbsp; Did 3.5 mean to boost Druid immunity or just simplify the game?&nbsp; There's no doubt 3.5 is meant to be less gritty and more streamlined than previous versions, but maybe this is some of both.&nbsp; Tough to say.4)&nbsp; Whatever your decision, I would talk with the player and come to an agreement.&nbsp; Players always want things that benefit them and have a heard time understanding that the more they get, the harder it is to make the game enjoyable for them. 5)&nbsp; Most of this debate for me is academic.&nbsp; Simply an exercise exploring &quot;semantics&quot; as JackintheGreen calls it.&nbsp; What is WotC saying?&nbsp; What are they trying to say?&nbsp; How do we determine it?&nbsp; Obviously I don't care how anybody wants to treat &quot;all poison.&quot;&nbsp; Though it would be nice to find a FAQ on spell poisons and what immunities cover them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5741297, member: 6679551"] Previous versions of D&D clearly limited Druids to non-magical poison immunity undoubtedly for the very reason you've observed "Druids deal with the natural world mostly)." So limiting Druids to "natural" poisons would still be thematically correct. But there are a couple of caveats as I see them: 1) As a DM and a player, one thing I've observed is that players are always trying to seize as much territory as they can. When I read these forums, the overwhelming majority of opinions are in favor of any interpretation that benefits players. When you suggest one that doesn't, you get statements like SoS's where he threatens to quite the game because of "heavy handed bs." Oh the drama. 2) What constitutes a "natural" poison in 3.5? There is no explicit category. A logical supposition is any animal or creature based poison, but what if a magical beast or Outsider has poison? None of those occur in nature. Or can you expend natural poison to mean poisons created from mundane materials? 3) Did 3.5 mean to boost Druid immunity or just simplify the game? There's no doubt 3.5 is meant to be less gritty and more streamlined than previous versions, but maybe this is some of both. Tough to say. 4) Whatever your decision, I would talk with the player and come to an agreement. Players always want things that benefit them and have a heard time understanding that the more they get, the harder it is to make the game enjoyable for them. 5) Most of this debate for me is academic. Simply an exercise exploring "semantics" as JackintheGreen calls it. What is WotC saying? What are they trying to say? How do we determine it? Obviously I don't care how anybody wants to treat "all poison." Though it would be nice to find a FAQ on spell poisons and what immunities cover them. [/QUOTE]

Verification