QUESTION: Achaierai Black Cloud - Poison or not?

I agree that all poisons are toxic substances, thought not all toxic substances are poisons. Radiation is the obvious counterexample.

Oxford claims otherwise, if we want to argue words and not spirit.
Oxford "Toxic" said:
Noun: poisonous substances.

Interestingly, in the context of biology, Oxford states "poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale".

Since this toxic cloud is certainly causing disturbance by chemical reaction, we can conclude that it is indeed a poison.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


There are so many cases of bizarre rules violating verisimilitude that I'm not bothered by intuiting that a "toxic" cloud provoking a Fort save is a poison effect. Just another case of D&D being D&D. Not worth creating yet another "yah, but" situational exception. Not like it will ruin the balance of an encounter on the merits of this effect.

Meh, they'll all be immune to it as soon as heroes feast is given out every morning.
 

Basically, you are stating that when the writers of the MM put down "toxic" they meant "poisonous".

Basically what I'm saying is that when the writers of the Player's Handbook put down "Magic Missile" they meant "Seeking Force Bullet".

It's absolutely fine to use synonyms when writing fantasy literature and games, it makes things more interesting - but to argue that "toxic gas" is not "poison gas" is like arguing that "H20" is not "water" and that "astonishment" is not "surprise".
 

That would mean that if I said I admired your ruddy countenance, which I do, I would be saying that I liked your bloody cheek, which I don't.
 

Except "countenance" is not to "cheek" as "toxin" is to "poison".
Nor is "ruddy" to "blood" as "toxin" to "poison".
Countenance does not mean cheek, it is the entire face. Ruddy is a healthy red, whereas blood is a substance - not a colour.

All toxins are poisons, but not all poisons are toxins, not the other way around. Radioactivity, as you suggested earlier, is a poison to the human body, but it is not a toxin.

Amusingly, Oxford says of toxins "An antigenic poison or venom of plant or animal origin", which only further establishes ground for the toxic Acheirai gas to be classified a poison.

Prior to (and after, now) my military service, I was a scholar of the English language. If you want to argue meanings and hard definitions, I can do that with you all day.
However, what this is really about is the -spirit- of the rule (since no hard definition can be found in the D&D universe), and it's hard to argue that the Druid of sufficient level should not be immune to a naturally secreted toxin from an animal, regardless of it's planar origin.
Of course, I am not the DM of that game, and if the DM says "Roll a fortitude save to resist the toxic gas," I roll a fortitude save and talk to him about it after the game.
 



What if it releases phencyclidine?

While I am not a chemist, from my understand phencyclidine is a synthetic drug - that means that it is not a toxin.
It is still a harmful chemical introduced to the body, which (under the most strict definition) would constitute a sythetic poison.

Most things humans ingest for "fun" can be constituted as poisonous. That goes from pain killers to depressants to stimulants to hallucinogens.

As far as D&D goes, I would -not- consider it a poison under the terms of the Druid's immunity to poison. It would absolutely be a house ruling, and it is arguable, but I believe it goes against the spirit of the rule.
 

Naturally occurring psychoactive drugs exist, the most obvious examples being LSD and atropine. Would you be open to the suggestion that the evil winged bird whose name I cannot spell sends people on a bad trip?
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top