Neutralise Poison

[Saeviomagy]

Before I go, a veteran Dm who is also a friend of mine, agrees with me on the spell in question. Bye!!

Then he's wrong too.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell...." only applies if you have been exposed to the poison earlier, and re-exposed to it again at a later time, providing the spell's duration has not expired. That is my interpretation of the spell.

While this question always sounds terrible, it's not intended that way. Is English your first language?

What you're describing would be written "During the duration of the spell, the creature is immune to any poison it has been exposed to." Or, better, "it has been previously exposed to".

"Expose" is an immediate sort of verb.

Compare, say, "The creature is immune to damage from any weapon it is struck with during the duration of the spell." If I hit the creature with a sword for the first time during the spell, it's immune to the damage, right? Whereas if I write "During the duration of the spell, the creature is immune to damage from any weapon it has been previously struck with," the creature will only be immune to the second hit. The first time, it's not a weapon he's been struck with.

But if I had hit him with a mace last week, and he casts the spell and I hit him again, he'll be immune immediately, since at the time he cast the spell, the mace is already a weaopn he's been struck with.

Can you see the difference between "is struck" and "has been struck"?

"expose" behaves in a similar fashion to "strike". "is exposed to" is an immediate description. "has been exposed to" refers to prior events.

Contrast, say, "The creature is immune to any poison it is familiar with." By its nature, even though we're using a present tense verb clause (it is familiar with), we're referring to prior events - the events by means of which the creature became familiar with the poison. But "expose" doesn't behave that way.

If you (mistakenly) understand 'be exposed to' to be more like 'be familiar with' that 'be struck by', your interpretation makes sense. But since it's based on a misconception, your result is wrong.

-Hyp.

 

[draco2005]

While American English is not my first language, I do understand what the spell states.
I just don't agree with the spell's description as is written. Oh, my veteran DM is not wrong or right, he merely disagrees with the way the spell is written. He does follow what the spell states, although he might change the name into something more appropriate for his own game. For future reference, please do not mock my laguage....for I speak other languages as well.

 

[Hypersmurf]

While American English is not my first language, I do understand what the spell states.

So... you agree now that the spell doesn't require prior exposure to a poison to grant you immunity, as written?

I just don't agree with the spell's description as is written.

Ah. Well, that's completely different. Your posts to the thread suggested that you felt the spell text could be interpreted to require prior exposure.

If you simply dislike the spell as written and want to change it, that's fine - it's just a house rule, and nobody will argue your right to do that in your own game.

It's the difference between A/ thinking that "The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell" doesn't protect someone from a poison they encounter for the first time after casting the spell, and B/ thinking it does, but you think it should be written so as to say something else.

For future reference, please do not mock my laguage....for I speak other languages as well.

Again - I wasn't mocking. Just checking if it was perhaps a language issue that resulted in the different interpretation.

Since it's apparently not, in fact, a different interpretation, but rather a dissatisfaction with what's written and a proposed house rule, that's all sorted out.

(I would never mock someone's laguage!)

For future reference, when you dislike a written rule and wish to discuss alternatives (rather than seeking clarification or intepretation of what's written), you might have better luck in the House Rules forum. Discussion of new, alternative, or homebrewed rules is what it's for.

-Hyp.