Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 2664166" data-attributes="member: 1656">So... you agree now that the spell doesn't require prior exposure to a poison to grant you immunity, as 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.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.</blockquote>