D&D 5E RAW: Using Purify Food and Drink to cure a party member?

[Nikosandros]

Spell effects are not statements of physical law. They're ordinary language descriptions of paradigmatic magical effects, often with a clear game play logic in mind. Purify food and drink has been a part of most editions since the game's inception.

Exactly. As I explained to some players a long time ago, when considering D&D magic, think about effects, not causes.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But everyone is looking at this from the perspective of a human person, and with their own cultural preferences.

People are looking at the rules from the perspective of a human person because the 5e D&D rules are written by and for human people.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Okay, so I laughed...but then I thought about it. RAW, the player might have a valid argument. Here is the very short description of purify food and drink: "All nonmagical food and drink within a 5-foot-radius sphere centered on a point of your choice within range is purified and rendered free of poison and disease."

RAW, it doesn’t work. The spell doesn’t remove the poisoned condition, so they are still poisoned.

You can eat them without becoming sick though.

 

[Oofta]

I find this to be very helpful-

Source: Existential Comics. Author: Corey Mohler.

The definition of "food" is not what the Yuan-Ti believes it to be, but what the player believes it to be- the rules are written for the player, not the character. So, since players don't believe other player characters, while alive, are "food," then since language is use, it follows that Purify Food and Water does not work to cure poison within other player characters.

(You could also do a more advanced reasoning that the more specific rule covers this, and apply canons of construction that would mean that Purify Food and Water would not, but this should suffice. Plus, Wittgenstein!)

So if a player has cannibalistic tendencies it would work?

 

[Oofta]

RAW, it doesn’t work. The spell doesn’t remove the poisoned condition, so they are still poisoned.

You can eat them without becoming sick though.

I was just going to say the same thing. It makes the food safe for consumption; a vampire could cast the purify spell on their next victim and drink the blood just fine. Nothing says the target doesn't stay poisoned.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So if a player has cannibalistic tendencies it would work?

No. Because you aren't looking for specific and idiosyncratic cases. If a person suffers from pica, that doesn't mean metal is food, and therefore Purify Food and Drink will remove impurities from metal.

Instead, you are looking at what is generally understood. Since the PHB wasn't written by and for a society of cannibals, this doesn't apply.

More generally, this is why Rules Lawyers (or Barracks Lawyers) are not, in fact, very helpful when it comes to rules. Rules are not designed to hide elephants in mouseholes. And purify food and drink is not designed to actually be protection from poison.

 

[the Jester]

I would argue that food is an object; therefore, you have to kill a creature before it qualifies for purposes of the spell. So, kill your party members, cure their poison, eat them. Seems legit to me.

 

[tomBitonti]

Not even - unless the description of the Yuan-Ti says that they only eat their pray alive, uncooked.

If the cow is still walking around, it isn't food yet.

A lot of plant food (plants as food, not food for plants) is alive when eaten. Poisonous berries, anyone?
Also, a fertilized but undeveloped chicken egg.
TomB

 

[Umbran]

A lot of plant food (plants as food, not food for plants) is alive when eaten. Poisonous berries, anyone?

A great thought for all those PCs who are, in fact, berries, I suppose. And never mind that berries that are naturally poisonous are usually in the "not food" column.

Overall, 5e is intentionally written in natural language, and is not really meant to be parsed in details of definition. Seeking definition-based corner cases and loopholes is not really in the spirit of the thing.

This seems like a solidly "rulings over rules" situation.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When someone asks about stretching a spell or class feature like this, the very first test I apply is to ask "Is there an already existing ability that does that?" This is an important test for two reasons. One is that it shows what tier or spell level the desired effect is intended to have. The other is that it lets you check for niche protection and expected buy-in. I know first hand how galling it is to invest in feats or class levels to do something special, and then someone else gets to do it just because of Rule Of Cool.

Noq with this case, we've got two spells that already do that, Lesser Restoration and Protection from Poison. So, no. You don't get to leverage a 1st level spell to have a 2nd level spell effect just because you play with the definitions a bit.

100% this. If a person wants to cast Lesser Restoration, they should prepare that spell instead. The Rule of Cool is not a reason to get two spells for the price of one, or a second level spell out of a first level spell.