D&D General "Poison", and spells that change it: Spirit of the rules v letter?

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I do have to wonder what the quantity of salt would need to be to ruin the quenching tank.
I'm googling a bit and people are talking about using a 10% brine solution so like... 5lbs of salt to 5 gallons of water (Salt (Brine) Quench)

Now, of course, maybe he's using an infernal salt of some sort - which is still a really cool idea and very 'trademark' and not easily copied - but if we're talking straight salt... we're back into GM call territory again. But again, kudos on the idea!

 

[Greenfield]

I have to start with "Mea Culpa". Several people have pointed out that conventional salt doesn't "poison" a weld. Well, it does, when dealing with certain copper alloys, but generally not with ferrous blends. So I called it wrong.

Still I'm going to stick to my guns, in that I'm not going to walk back something that happened in game. Apparently the Assassin knows his poisons better than I do, and must have chosen a "salt" that bonds to iron and screws with the weld. Epsom salt perhaps? Any time you mix a caustic metal with something acidic, you get a salt, so there are a lot of salts.

Anyway the question remains.

Now Vodam did my favorite thing: Quoted the actual rules. I'm very much a rules guy. The RAW might not always seem to apply, and there can be any number of arguments with them in any given situation. But right or wrong, they're inarguable: Everyone has equal access to them, and so there's no excuse for not knowing them.

On that subject, there's an oddity in there: As written it neutralizes "venom". So ingested poisons, poison gas, contact poisons etc aren't affected, if we play it exactly as written. Nasty rules hole there, eh?

But the question was supposed to be revision independent. Regardless whether it's a grey area or not, how would you rule?

Consider that chocolate is a poison, when eaten by a dog, but not for people. So is the spell specific to people-toxins, or to any chemical that acts as a poison as it was used? And would that apply to unconventional definitions of "poison", such as the one in my initial example?

 

[Tonguez]

I have to start with "Mea Culpa". Several people have pointed out that conventional salt doesn't "poison" a weld. Well, it does, when dealing with certain copper alloys, but generally not with ferrous blends. So I called it wrong.

Still I'm going to stick to my guns, in that I'm not going to walk back something that happened in game. Apparently the Assassin knows his poisons better than I do, and must have chosen a "salt" that bonds to iron and screws with the weld. Epsom salt perhaps? Any time you mix a caustic metal with something acidic, you get a salt, so there are a lot of salts.

Anyway the question remains.

Now Vodam did my favorite thing: Quoted the actual rules. I'm very much a rules guy. The RAW might not always seem to apply, and there can be any number of arguments with them in any given situation. But right or wrong, they're inarguable: Everyone has equal access to them, and so there's no excuse for not knowing them.

On that subject, there's an oddity in there: As written it neutralizes "venom". So ingested poisons, poison gas, contact poisons etc aren't affected, if we play it exactly as written. Nasty rules hole there, eh?

But the question was supposed to be revision independent. Regardless whether it's a grey area or not, how would you rule?

Consider that chocolate is a poison, when eaten by a dog, but not for people. So is the spell specific to people-toxins, or to any chemical that acts as a poison as it was used? And would that apply to unconventional definitions of "poison", such as the one in my initial example?

Not Epsom Salts as small quantities of magnesium are added to white cast iron to improve the strength and malleability of the iron.

afaik most salts in iron smelting (calcium silicates and phosphorus salts) become the slag layer which is skimmed from the surface of the iron.

but yes stick to your guns and declare that in your world Natreen Salt poisons iron and as per Voadams rules quote, objects can be treated for poison too

 

[Voadam]

On that subject, there's an oddity in there: As written it neutralizes "venom". So ingested poisons, poison gas, contact poisons etc aren't affected, if we play it exactly as written. Nasty rules hole there, eh?

Yeah, I noticed the venom wording too. Normally venom is a technical term for poisons that animals inject so things like snake bites and insect stings are venomous but the poisons on frogs or toads to protect them from being eaten are not and poisons from plants and such are generally not considered venom.

However venom also has some secondary definitions such as malice and spite (Jack was feeling bitter and full of venom) but also poison in general.

In any case the bolded part at the bottom is an alternate use specifically for poisonous creatures and objects.

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah, D&D uses the term far more broadly than common usage would suggest. In 3.5 Druids get a class ability, at a certain level, called "Venom Immunity". It's described as immunity to all forms of poison.

In general, there are more than a few rules that reek of "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!". If played/exploited as written they just wouldn't work. I mean, how many times have we discussed the absolute brokenness of the economy, or how undead spawn rates make them the equivalent of nuclear chain reactions.

Sometimes you have to "go with the spirit, not the letter", otherwise the rule books would read like the Encyclopedia Britannica, and still have holes.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Now Vodam did my favorite thing: Quoted the actual rules. I'm very much a rules guy. The RAW might not always seem to apply, and there can be any number of arguments with them in any given situation. But right or wrong, they're inarguable: Everyone has equal access to them, and so there's no excuse for not knowing them.

Being a rules guy who appreciates the actual rules being quoted, the 3.5 SRD seems pretty specific on what is a poison. There are four poison types: contact, inhaled, injested, and injury. The specific examples do not track with 'poisoning the weld'.

I love the scenario and the idea, definitely, and I think it's a perfect example that no matter how detailed and specific the rules get (I loved 3.X for that), there will always be cool situations that require a reach past what's written to find what's 'true' to your world or table.

Poisons :: 5e.d20srd.org

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Personally, my answer would be "no". You don't get to treat something as poison just because somebody's used the word in a colloquial phrase. If a person breaks up with their lover because a third party was whispering falsehoods and "poisoning him against her", would Neutralise Poison heal their relationship?

There's a word for misusing language in this way, in fact. It's called "Equivocation".

 

[Edwidget]

D&D doesn't really embrace "sympathetic magic"- which is kind of how one would come to the idea that salt is a poison in this instance. I would rule it doesn't work, unless I was willing to go to pretty big lengths to make sure other spells were allowed to follow the same conceit. There's really not a "wrong" answer, especially since we don't know your table. Consistency is a good thing so you may be forced to consider this question in a more difficult circumstance later if you allow it. Creative players could make this a "rock and a hard place" situation.

"Revision independent" part aside, 3.5 is very technical sometimes and my players embraced that. Playing fast and loose with wording would usually bite me in the backside. Putting the smackdown on that helped rein in any rules lawyer shenanigans.

Player: "Well, it could mean..."
Me: "Shut up Karl, it means exactly what it says."
Only you know how to handle your players.

I know I'm late to this, but it was a suggested thread so maybe others will find it helpful.

 

[el-remmen]

I'd come up with a new spell like "Purify Metal and Minerals" or something.

 

[Mythos Enthusiast]

Similar question: Would Neutralize Poison work to detoxify poisoned food or drink?

I probably wouldn't but it's such an edge case that I would try and find for an interpretation of a similar spell that would allow it. To me, this use of the word 'poison' is significantly more metaphorical than what I take the spell neutralize poison to be concerned with.

If this was allowed, would you allow neutralize poison to negate dishonest debating tactics during a trial that had 'poisoned the well'?

I think it also bares to say that it seems like the intention/idea behind what a 'poison' is is that it effects a living thing. So, this is why chocolate can poison a dog, but not a human and why salt can't poison metal in the same sense.

tl;dr: what counts as poisoning is specific and it doesn't apply to every metaphorical/allegorical mode of "poisoning" something. Which is just to say "poisoning the weld" is just a turn of phrase, it does not mean that you are literally poisoning the weld in the same sense that you would poison an animal.