Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5741978" data-attributes="member: 6679551">100% agree.&nbsp; There is no confusion about immunity covering any non-magical poison whether it's no list or not.&nbsp;&nbsp;100% agree. &nbsp;I'm not ignoring it at all.&nbsp; Determining whether 3.5 meant to simplify or expand a Druid's acquired poison immunity is part of the discussion.&nbsp; &nbsp; It's not clear whether they simply got rid of the notion of natural poison immunity because 3.5 wants the game to be more straight forward or they felt Druids needed to be immune to magical poisons.&nbsp; As you've already observed, WotC chose to explicitly clarify the issue with Cloudkill because one might not assume poison immunity covered it.&nbsp;Not in 3.5 they haven't.&nbsp; I don't see that anything in 3.5 has &quot;natural&quot; poison immunity. Maybe a splat book has it?&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Which is the same argument you can use for diseases and Paladins.&nbsp; So all does not mean all.&nbsp; &quot;Period.&quot;I emphasized the most important word in your response.&nbsp; Now I have to apologize for failing to make a dispositive observation earlier.&nbsp;&nbsp; Druids are not creatures.&nbsp; Druid refers to any creature with Druid class levels.&nbsp; Many creatures can have class levels in Druid...but a &quot;Druid&quot; is not a creature.&nbsp; There is no creature subtype called a Druid.&nbsp; Ergo, it would be nonsensical to talk about classes in a section that is only dealing with creatures and their subtypes.&nbsp; This means even my own statement that &quot;druid's have metabolisms is inaccurate.&nbsp; Druid's don't have metabolisms, but the creature with the class levels might.&nbsp; So the argument that &quot;Druids&quot; aren't mentioned with Oozes is moot.&nbsp; Well, considering that Humans start out susceptible to all poisons, it would stand to reason that the class granted immunity would trump a poison only targeted at Outsiders. As I stated early on, this is an academic discussion.&nbsp; I also stated that given CK observing poison immunity, I would observe it for other spells, even though they do not specifically acknowledge it like CK.&nbsp; As we both have agreed, WotC is not consistent and in more than a few cases offers contradictory theories.&nbsp; They clarify somethings that should not need clarification and then fail to clarify things that are clearly ambiguous.I definitely appreciate the back and forth with someone who can have a discussion like an adult.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5741978, member: 6679551"] 100% agree. There is no confusion about immunity covering any non-magical poison whether it's no list or not. 100% agree. I'm not ignoring it at all. Determining whether 3.5 meant to simplify or expand a Druid's acquired poison immunity is part of the discussion. It's not clear whether they simply got rid of the notion of natural poison immunity because 3.5 wants the game to be more straight forward or they felt Druids needed to be immune to magical poisons. As you've already observed, WotC chose to explicitly clarify the issue with Cloudkill because one might not assume poison immunity covered it. Not in 3.5 they haven't. I don't see that anything in 3.5 has "natural" poison immunity. Maybe a splat book has it? Which is the same argument you can use for diseases and Paladins. So all does not mean all. "Period." I emphasized the most important word in your response. Now I have to apologize for failing to make a dispositive observation earlier. Druids are not creatures. Druid refers to any creature with Druid [I]class[/I] levels. Many creatures can have class levels in Druid...but a "Druid" is not a creature. There is no creature subtype called a Druid. Ergo, it would be nonsensical to talk about classes in a section that is only dealing with creatures and their subtypes. This means even my own statement that "druid's have metabolisms is inaccurate. Druid's don't have metabolisms, but the creature with the class levels might. So the argument that "Druids" aren't mentioned with Oozes is moot. Well, considering that Humans start out susceptible to all poisons, it would stand to reason that the class granted immunity would trump a poison only targeted at Outsiders. As I stated early on, this is an academic discussion. I also stated that given CK observing poison immunity, I would observe it for other spells, [I]even though they do not specifically acknowledge it like CK.[/I] As we both have agreed, WotC is not consistent and in more than a few cases offers contradictory theories. They clarify somethings that should not need clarification and then fail to clarify things that are clearly ambiguous. I definitely appreciate the back and forth with someone who can have a discussion like an adult. [/QUOTE]

Verification