# Druid's Venom Immunity



## finnie (Nov 29, 2011)

First off, I would start by saying that I am sorry if this thread is in the wrong section. It seemed like the best place to ask this question. Second, I am sorry if this is something that had been discussed before, and that I am only bringing it back up.

Now, to explain my situation.

To start, I am playing a druid in my friends adventure which he is using 3.5 to run it with. I am about to become level 9, which is when druids get venom immunity. I got all excited saying that I was immune to all venoms. My friend running it, said that it only refers to natural poisons like in 3rd edition. While in the 3.5 is says all venoms. His reason for why it is only natural venoms is cause under the paladin section for immunity to disease, it says that they are immune to both magical and natural disease. 

My retort to this was sure it says that for paladin, but if you look under the monk class they also get immunity to all poisons, and I know for a fact that it is ALL poisons. It says nothing about natural or magical poisons. It just says all poisons.

Now, he is DM and if that is what he wants to run it as in his campaign then I cant really argue him, but instead grumble behind his back about it. I am mainly posting this so when I am running my own adventure that I am using the ability correctly and not nerfing it down to being almost a useless thing for druids to get.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Nov 29, 2011)

You are correct: in 3.5, it is immunity to ALL poisons.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 29, 2011)

Not much to say but agree with above.  It's immunity to all poisons.

Try pointing out that 2 levels later, a Cleric can just use Hero's Feast to give the entire party poison AND fear immunity and see if he lightens up about it?


----------



## Dandu (Nov 29, 2011)

Or that, as a class with a good fort save and presumably good Con, you could just make the save in the first place?


----------



## Empirate (Nov 29, 2011)

It doesn't get much clearer than "all poisons". Why your DM wouldn't count the "magical poisons" and "artificial poisons" sets as subsets of the "all poisons" set is beyond me.

Maybe point out to him that reading *3.5* rules in the light of his understanding of what the *3.0* rules said is a really, really bad idea? Otherwise you might want to use 3.0 Haste and Persist Spell on your next character...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

*Your DM is technically correct.*



finnie said:


> First off, I would start by saying that I am sorry if this thread is in the wrong section. It seemed like the best place to ask this question. Second, I am sorry if this is something that had been discussed before, and that I am only bringing it back up.
> 
> Now, to explain my situation.
> 
> ...




I hate to burst your bubble, but I believe your DM friend is correct.  Here's why..

1)  Poison are considered _extraordinary _abilities. Here is what the SRD says:

Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary.​
2)  Here's what the PHB says about Extraordinary abilities:

Indeed, extraordinary abilities *do not qualify as magical*, though they may break the laws of physics.​
3)  Ergo, you have immunity to non-magical poisons.  The name "Venom" in this case is probably chosen for accuracy as well as theme.

4)  The Monk Diamond Body offers immunity to "poisons of all kinds."   Technically this is the same immunity that the Druid has.  No where does it explicitly state the monk has immunity to non-magical poisons.  However, one could argue that "poisons of all kinds" is broader than "all kinds of poisons."  But that is not a compelling argument.  As a DM, if the Paladin ability specifically mentions magical, then the absence of those words would require I limit the Monk and Druid to Extraordinary poisons only.


----------



## Empirate (Nov 29, 2011)

I don't think your "argument" holds even a millilitre of water. What's so hard to get about "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons"? You're trying to prove something ex negativo, which simply will not work.

"Poison effects are *almost always* extraordinary" doesn't say anything about the nature of general poison immunity and the question whether that works vs. magical poisons. Extraordinary abilities being nonmagical has no bearing at all on the discussion at hand.

If some rule *is *stating that it applies to all cases, but is *not *stating that it does *not *encompass a specific case... then it still applies to all cases, including any given specific ones you may come to think of.

Also, to further discredit proof ex negativo:
Heroe's Feast states that "Every creature partaking of the feast ...becomes immune to poison for 12 hours".
Monk's Diamond Body class feature says: "At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poisons of all kinds".
Neutralize Poison says "The creature is immune to any poison it is exposed to during the duration of the spell".
The Periapt of Proof Against Poison description states "The wearer is immune to poisonhttp://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#poison, although poisons still active when the periapt is first donned still run their course".
Constructs gain "Immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, and necromancy effects".
Demons gain blanket "Immunity to electricity and poison".

Does anybody honestly think any of these bits of rules text should first differentiate between natural, manufactured, and magical poisons, before going on to say *they're all treated the same anyway*? Or does anybody believe that Constructs are vulnerable to magical poisons, since the rule doesn't explicitly state they are immune to that *as well as* to all other kinds of poison?


Bottom line: "all poisons" means friggin' *ALL *poisons. Period.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

Empirate said:


> Bottom line: "all poisons" means friggin' *ALL *poisons. Period.




Wrong.

Without being all dramatic about it like you, I'll  simply provide RAW from SRD.

1)  Under Oozes, its says "immunity to poison."  Under the definition of Poison, it states, and I quote:

Nonliving creatures (constructs and undead) and creatures without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, *although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.*​
An intelligent reading of this passage suggests:

a) Constructs and Plants are immune to poisons for different reasons.  

b) A special poison could affect an Ooze, plant, or Outsider even though it uses the same phrase for immunity as constructs and undead.   So this addresses your lumping them all in the same bucket.  Apparently that interpretation is incorrect.

Ergo, a Druid and a Monk have a metabolism and could be affected by a special magical or supernatural poison.  The SRD doesn't provide any, however.

2)  The Paladin Divine Health is an appropriate parallel.  The SRD states:

At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, *including supernatural and magical diseases.*​
But instead of the SRD simply saying "all  diseases"  it goes on to explicitly include supernatural and magical.   Why?  If "all kinds of poisons" includes magical and supernatural, then there would be no need to include supernatural and magical for immunity to "all disease."

If we assume the words are chosen with precision and purpose, the omission of "supernatural and magic" is meaingful precisely because those words are used in the parallel example of immunity to "all diseases."

3) "kinds of poisons" most likely refers to the "kinds" that are listed in the SRD:  ingested,  inhaled, injury, and contact.  

Now, maybe the PHB words things differently, so you might have a different argument if that were the case.


----------



## Empirate (Nov 29, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Ergo, a Druid and a Monk have a metabolism and could be affected by a special magical or supernatural poison.  The SRD doesn't provide any, however.




You're making my point for me. There could conceivably be specific exceptions to an otherwise general rule, as you point out. In the absence of specific, positively stated exceptions, though, the general rule is all-encompassing.




Arrowhawk said:


> 2)  The Paladin Divine Health is an appropriate parallel.  The SRD states:
> At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, *including supernatural and magical diseases.*​But instead of the SRD simply saying "all  diseases"  it goes on to explicitly include supernatural and magical.   Why?  If "all kinds of poisons" includes magical and supernatural, then there would be no need to include supernatural and magical for immunity to "all disease."
> 
> If we assume the words are chosen with precision and purpose, the omission of "supernatural and magic" is meaingful precisely because those words are used in the parallel example of immunity to "all diseases."
> ...




I repeat that a proof ex negativo doesn't prove anything. All poisons means all of them, until a specific poison is invented to harm Druids. I'd need a rules text quotation of a poison that says it can harm 9th+ level Druids before I'd concede that not all poisons are affected by the Venom Immunity class feature.

Was that nondramatic enough for you?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

Hmmm..double post..deleted.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

I didn't make your point for you at all.  You said:


> Originally Posted by Empirate
> 
> Bottom line: "all poisons" means friggin' ALL poisons. Period.




And that was wrong.  Trying to suddenly acknowledge that "there could conceivably be specific exceptions" is clearly back-peddling on your part after you went out of your way to claim my logic didn't hold a "milliliter of water."



> I repeat that a proof ex negativo doesn't prove anything.



It's not ex negativo.  It's construction.  The use of the language in one part of the document can give meaning to the use in another part of the document when the meaning is ambiguous.  "All diseases" does not include magical or supernatural diseases.  If it did, there would be no need to _explicitly_ include them.  Ergo, "all poisons" does not automatically include magical and supernatural poisons, and given that RAW says poisons are Extraordinary, it most likely does NOT include magical and supernatural.

Is that air-tight?  No, but it's logical.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 29, 2011)

Ok, someone pointed out Paladin's immunity to all diseases, even magic ones, before.

Equally important is quoting the disease immunity of the other class that gets it, monk:

"Purity of Body (Ex)
At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases except for supernatural and magical diseases."

You see where not only does Paladin specifically include magical disease, but also monk specifically EXCLUDES them?  In the rules, there is a concrete division between magical/Su disease, and..."mundane" disease, I guess you'd call it.


There is NO SUCH THING for poison.  ANYWHERE.  AT ALL.  Find a single ability.  A single ability, that gives immunity to poison, "but not magical poison," or gives immunity to poison "including/even magical and Su poisons."

You won't find such an item because it doesn't exist.  Because in 3E poison is poison is poison.  And without any exeptions listed or mentioned to the contrary, all means *all*!  Jeebus!


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Nov 29, 2011)

Now, I might not sound as fancy as you guys with your debate, but it seems to me that this comes down to a simple series of questions-

Player- "Is that thing a poison?"
DM- "yes, it is a magical poison."
Player- "so, it's a poison?"  
DM- "Yes, it's a poison."
Player- "and I have immunity to all poisons?"
DM- "Well..."
Player- "oh, wait, can you define the word "All" for me?"
DM-"..."

Yeah... Um, the word "All" I think is what needs to be debated instead of the word "Poison".  If the substance/spell/effect has the word "Poison" in the description, it's a poison.

Is there a case where "All" means something other than "All"?

To quote the 3.5 Players Guide Handbook, 
"Venom Immunity (Ex): At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons."

Now, if you wanted to debate BOED's Ravages, then you might have some wiggle room.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> You see where not only does Paladin specifically include magical disease, but also monk specifically EXCLUDES them?  In the rules, there is a concrete division between magical/Su disease, and..."mundane" disease, I guess you'd call it.



The problem with that logic is that you still don't need to include nonmagical and supernatural if "all disease" meant all disease.  You'd only need to exclude them with the Monk.  But what did they do?  They said "all diseases" and on top of that included supernatural and magical.



> There is NO SUCH THING for poison.  ANYWHERE.  AT ALL.  Find a single ability.  A single ability, that gives immunity to poison, "but not magical poison," or gives immunity to poison "including/even magical and Su poisons."



1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison.  There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity.

2)  The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons.  That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have.  However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous.

3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is "immune to poison" just like it is immune to sleep.  SRD also explicitly states that a "special" poison could exist that could harm it. "Special" doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a "special" sleep can exist.  So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not _automatically_.

The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist.  RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary.  It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons.  It's also possible that by saying "all kinds of poisons" they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't.  You can't just hand wave away that fact.

The bottom line is that this is largely academic.  By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it.  However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a "special poison" affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an "oil"


----------



## kitcik (Nov 29, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Trying to suddenly acknowledge that "there could conceivably be specific exceptions" is clearly back-peddling on your part after you went out of your way to claim my logic didn't hold a "milliliter of water."




It's not back-peddling. All means all, but specific can always trump general so there could always be a poison that specifically says "this poison effects druids of 9th level and above" or whatever. Don't be obtuse.




Arrowhawk said:


> It's not ex negativo. It's construction. The use of the language in one part of the document can give meaning to the use in another part of the document when the meaning is ambiguous. "All diseases" does not include magical or supernatural diseases. If it did, there would be no need to _explicitly_ include them. Ergo, "all poisons" does not automatically include magical and supernatural poisons, and given that RAW says poisons are Extraordinary, it most likely does NOT include magical and supernatural.
> 
> Is that air-tight? No, but it's logical.




It's nothing.

The logical interpretation is that "all means all." Anything else is being intentionally obtuse again. Are you seriously implying that Neutralize Poison (et al) does not work against magical poisons?

Warforged have "immunity to poison, sleep effects, paralysis, disease,
nausea, fatigue, exhaustion, effects that cause the sickened condition, and energy drain." I guess that only means non-magical sleep effects? They can go all night at Thanksgiving?​


----------



## Empirate (Nov 29, 2011)

Exactly. Obtuse indeed. But then, whenever I dare engage in a debate with Arrowhawk, we both seem to end up thinking that of each other, so maybe it's a mutual communications thing.

Then again, maybe it isn't. "All not being all" would need a pretty beefy bit of logic to back it up, and that has not been delivered so far.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 29, 2011)

Empirate said:


> Exactly. Obtuse indeed. But then, whenever I dare engage in a debate with Arrowhawk, we both seem to end up thinking that of each other, so maybe it's a mutual communications thing.
> 
> Then again, maybe it isn't. "All not being all" would need a pretty beefy bit of logic to back it up, and that has not been delivered so far.




Yes, your tone comes across as asinine from the get go.  I'm sure you think the same of me.

As far as all meaning all...

If all meant "all" then the SRD would not need to explicitly include supernatural and magical diseases.   All the hand waving, arm flapping, jumping jacks and break-dancing is not going to change that simple conundrum.  All of you simply ignore that fact.  Even SoS's argument fails for logic.  

"All diseases" clearly does not mean "all" diseases or there would be no need to qualify it.  "*Period."*

Here's something else to swallow.  If a Druid were immune to ingested magical poisons, then they would be immune to cursed magical potions.   What would be the difference?


----------



## kitcik (Nov 29, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Yes, your tone comes across as asinine from the get go. I'm sure you think the same of me.




Not at all, you are a pleasant conversationalist, as shown above where I am sure that "asinine" does not mean "asinine" at all, but rather something more like "affable."



Arrowhawk said:


> As far as all meaning all...
> 
> If all meant "all" then the SRD would not need to explicitly include supernatural and magical diseases. All the hand waving, arm flapping, jumping jacks and break-dancing is not going to change that simple conundrum. All of you simply ignore that fact. Even SoS's argument fails for logic.
> 
> "All diseases" clearly does not mean "all" diseases or there would be no need to qualify it. "*Period." *




Umm, where do the rules say "all diseases" and not mean "all diseases?" Oh, they don't. So nothing you are saying has any implication towards the meaning of "all poisons." One could therefore logically conclude that "all," when clearly stated as "all," means "all," unless one were intentionally being obtuse. And by obtuse, I mean, well, never mind.



Arrowhawk said:


> Here's something else to swallow. If a Druid were immune to ingested magical poisons, then they would be immune to cursed magical potions. What would be the difference?




I don't think the rules say that cursed magical potions are poisons, so, no, one could not say that. "...standard potions are simply spells in liquid form..." (DMG 229) Poison is not, by defiinition, a spell - although there is a spell named "Poison." Poisons are extraordinary, supernatural or spell-like, as defined (as you previoulsy mentioned).

On the other hand, I would say druids are immune to the _*effects of*_ a Potion of Poison (DMG 276), would you not? It uses the spell Poison in its creation. Are you saying druids are not immune to the _*effects of*_ the spell Poison? And that Neutralize Poison would not work against this potion and spell? The effect is that the subject is "...infect(ed)... with a horrible poison..." (PH 262).


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> The problem with that logic is that you still don't need to include nonmagical and supernatural if "all disease" meant all disease.  You'd only need to exclude them with the Monk.  But what did they do?  They said "all diseases" and on top of that included supernatural and magical.




You're right, saying even supernatural/magical diseases is not necessary, it's extra text they could have left out and the meaning would've been the same.  That doesn't mean that all ceases meaning all.  It's just extraneous information.  And again, they put up that magical/nonmagical divide for diseases.  There is no such thing for poisons.



Arrowhawk said:


> 1) The biggest hurdle for this rationale is that you have to prove that there is an analog to the Monk vs Paladin and disease for poison.  There is no way to know if the lack of existence is because they simply did not want to give anything that type of partial immunity or because you can't have that type of partial immunity.




I don't even know what you're saying here.



Arrowhawk said:


> 2)  The other explanation is that the SRD lists magical/supernatural diseases, but it does not list magical/supernatural poisons.  That is why there is no need to exclude something that the game doesn't have.  However, the game DOES contemplate it, which is why it is ambiguous.




The SRD does have magical poisons, though.  Even if you don't count creation spells that merely create poison which does not allow SR (Cloudkill, the Poison spell, etc...) and thus is not really "magical," there still is magical poison in the SRD.  The Prismatic spells' (spray, wall, sphere) green layer is a magical poison effect, it does allow SR.  If they wanted to divide magical and nonmagical poisons, they would have done so right in core, because core does in fact have magical poisons.



Arrowhawk said:


> 3) The SRD explicitly states that while an Ooze is "immune to poison" just like it is immune to sleep.  SRD also explicitly states that a "special" poison could exist that could harm it. "Special" doesn't even require that it be magical or supernatural. But the game does not say a "special" sleep can exist.  So while immune to sleep seems to cover all sleep effects, immune to poison does not _automatically_.




That's because it's still a living creature and the only reason listed poisons have no effect on it is due to its different biology, so hypothetically specially made poisons could be made to affect it.
But I don't even have to explain the hows or whys.  Ooze says poisons could be made to harm it, druid and monk do not say that. That's...all you really need to close that case.



Arrowhawk said:


> The SRD doesn't have any supernatural and magical poisons, but it fully acknowledges that they could exist.  RAW says they are not magical and not supernatural and to back that up, none of the poisons listed are anything but Extraordinary.  It stands to reason the immunity was meant to target Extraordinary poisons.  It's also possible that by saying "all kinds of poisons" they meant anything existing now or that could be introduced, but they could have used that language with Paladin's and they didn't.  You can't just hand wave away that fact.




See above.  There are magical poisons, and the rules use extraneous text all the time.  Being redundant doesn't make a rule contradict itself.



Arrowhawk said:


> The bottom line is that this is largely academic.  By SRD RAW, a Druid is not going to encounter a poison that will affect it.  However, it is wholly within the DM's power to Rule 0 a "special poison" affects anyone....even constructs...but with a Construct/Undead...I'd call it an "oil"




DM can choose to nerf any class feature if he wants.  And then the player can leave the game when he gets sick of dealing with the heavy handed bs.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Here's something else to swallow.  If a Druid were immune to ingested magical poisons, then they would be immune to cursed magical potions.   What would be the difference?




Mercury is poisonous, so druids must be immune to mercurial greatsword attacks.

Candy is poisonous for your health, so I guess druids are also immune to junk food.

And love poisons your mind to not think rationally, so clearly druids are immune to love.

[sblock]Or maybe we're both just being obtuse and stretching the meaning of "poison" way beyond what it means in game terms to make silly exxagerations.[/sblock]


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

First, let me at least give you credit for attempting to reason this out.



StreamOfTheSky said:


> You're right, saying even supernatural/magical diseases is not necessary, it's extra text they could have left out and the meaning would've been the same.  That doesn't mean that all ceases meaning all.  It's just extraneous information.




The  "oh, let's just call that extraneous"-because-it-contradicts-my-earlier-point argument isn't very compelling.  The authors do not routinely add redundant information.  They don't say, "all creatures, including supernatural and magical beasts."  When they mean all, they don't qualify it unless "all" refers to all of a subset.   Could it be an error or extraneous?  Technically, yes.  Likelihood...1%.




> And again, they put up that magical/nonmagical divide for diseases.  There is no such thing for poisons.



So here you're saying there are no magical poisons.  Hmmm...



> I don't even know what you're saying here.



 Then no need to worry your pretty little head.



> The SRD does have magical poisons, though.



So wait...now you're saying there ARE magical poisons?  Which is it?

Let me see if I can offer some enlightment.  Let's look at the DMG p. 296
Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, *poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary*.​
Saying spell-like poisons "are _possible_" doesn't seem consistent with the notion that Cloudkill and others are, in fact, magic poisons.  Failing to address the spells that create poisonous effects as a specific category leaves uncertainty.   One way to decipher this is noting that specificity of the the DMG when it says, "poisonous effects are almost always extraordinary."  In other words, even if the origin of the poison is magical, the effect is not magical.

This is clear as mud.  The section on Poisons doesn't openly acknowledge or address magical poisons...but it clearly suggests that nearly all poisonous effects are non-magical.   



> That's because it's still a living creature and the only reason listed poisons have no effect on it is due to its different biology, so hypothetically specially made poisons could be made to affect it.



 Last I checked, Druids and Monks are also living creatures, so the same logic applies.



> Ooze says poisons could be made to harm it, druid and monk do not say that.



 And by that very logic, "all poisons" didn't include magical and supernatural, like it doesn't with Paladin's and diseases. To use your own words, "That's all you really need to close that case."

Another relevant piece of data is that in previous versions, Druids were only immune to "natural" poisons.  Clearly the initial intent was *not *to provide Druids with immunity to magical poisons.   3.5 does not seem to have a "natural poison" category.  In fact, it doesn't have any poison categories other than describing them as Extraordinary.  So it's not clear if 3.5 meant simplify the immunity by just making every poison of the same class, or if it simply decided "natural poison" was no longer an appropriate or necessary category.  Are there any creature poisons or alchemic poisons that are considered magical or superntaural?  I don't know.



> See above.  There are magical poisons, and the rules use extraneous text all the time.  Being redundant doesn't make a rule contradict itself.



 Well then, provide me with a bunch of examples of redundant text used in reference to sets, and that might sway my opinion.



> DM can choose to nerf any class feature if he wants.  And then the player can leave the game when he gets sick of dealing with the heavy handed bs.



Likewise, the DM can say I'm tired of playing with people who can't read the rules objectively and leave the game when he gets sick of the juvenile whining.


----------



## Dandu (Nov 30, 2011)

Is something wrong on the internet again, Arrowhawk?


----------



## kitcik (Nov 30, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Umm, where do the rules say "all diseases" and not mean "all diseases?" Oh, they don't. So nothing you are saying has any implication towards the meaning of "all poisons." One could therefore logically conclude that "all," when clearly stated as "all," means "all," unless one were intentionally being obtuse. And by obtuse, I mean, well, never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Intentional double post.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Nov 30, 2011)

Wow, Arrowhawk...I've read a lot of bad arguments (this being the Internet and all), but the ones you've made in this thread are _impressively_ bad. You combine illogical reasoning with ignorance of the principles of statutory interpretation, and arrive at the exact opposite of the correct conclusion.


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 30, 2011)

I just...I can't even debate this anymore, smashing my head into a brick wall hurts.


And I never said there were no magical poisons.  I said the rules don't put up some sort of divide between magical and nonmagical poisons.  There is no save bonus or immunity to poisons that specifies magical or nonmagical only, the divide is for disease, there is no such divide for poison.  Just because there is no divide when it comes to "crap that makes you immune to poison" doesn't mean there are no magical poisons.  The two claims are completely different, and I never said the latter.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Nov 30, 2011)

On the extraneous bit, WotC does indeed add a lot of technically unnecessary information to its texts.  It's known as "fluff."  The fluff of this argument seems to hinge partially on the fact that there was text written stating that a poison could be made specifically for oozes.  Such text seems to be for the benefit of DMs as a reminder of "hey, you can make your own rules."  It is nothing more, and certainly not an example to set examples by.

WotC is also not consistent throughout its content, even within the same book.  Trying to make something consistent of it, while admirable, falls to house rules and is thus beyond the scope of discussing the meaning of what is actually published.  I would not recommend applying the disease examples to poison because of this.

The druid's venom immunity and an ooze's immunity to poison are technically different abilities with pretty much the same result.  Since we're talking about the semantics of words, note how the ooze trait description simply says "immunity to poison" and then adds a caveat later while the druid's venom immunity says "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons" and leaves it at that.  To quote another class, the Contemplative: "At 5th level, a contemplative becomes immune to poisons of all kinds."  

Both classes' abilities leave no room for interpretation.  They say "immunity to all poisons" and "immune to poisons of all kinds."  Immunity to all poisons means immunity to all poisons, and unless there is a published poison specifically stating it circumvents these abilities, it is quite clear that a 9th level druid is flat-out immune to all poisons.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> On the extraneous bit, WotC does indeed add a lot of technically unnecessary information to its texts.



While that may be your opinion, until you provide examples that are parallel to this situation, it remains your opinion and not a fact.



> It's known as "fluff."  The fluff of this argument seems to hinge partially on the fact that there was text written stating that a poison could be made specifically for oozes.



No.  The Ooze examples was merely to prove Empirate 100% wrong that the "immunity to poison" possessed by Constructs was not, in fact, the same as the "immunity to poison" possessed by Oozes, plants, and Outsiders.  So using the same exact phrase does not convey the same exact meaning.  The game does not contemplate "special" poisons with regard to Constructs.



> Such text seems to be for the benefit of DMs as a reminder of "hey, you can make your own rules."



Incorrect.  Such a text says that _within the rules_, such a thing can exist. 



> WotC is also not consistent throughout its content, even within the same book.



 True. But being inconsistent and being redundant are categorically different.  One does not prove the other.



> I would not recommend applying the disease examples to poison because of this.



And everyone is certainly entitled to that opinion.  Nevertheless, the existence of the "all diseases.  Including supernatural and magical" passage blows up the argument that "all means all."  Clearly WotC did not feel "all means all" and there is absolutely no debating this or ignoring it.  Whether one applies this to poisons is a matter of interpretation.



> The druid's venom immunity and an ooze's immunity to poison are technically different abilities with pretty much the same result.



And a Oozes immunity and a Constructs ability are technically the same ability with a different result.  But you wouldn't glean that different result based strictly on the text, would you?  A person might be tempted to say, "Immunity to poisons means immunity to poisons.  What part of immunity to poisons don't you understand?"




> "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons" and leaves it at that.  To quote another class, the Contemplative: "At 5th level, a contemplative becomes immune to poisons of all kinds."
> ***Both classes' abilities leave no room for interpretation.



 Clearly have to disagree with that on a number of levels.  First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons."  Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set.  A perfect example is when you tell kids in cafeteria to "throw all the trash" in the waste basket.  In that situation, you're only talking about trash in the cafeteria, not trash everywhere no matter where it exists.  The fact that "all" when used with diseases, drives home this point.  In WotC's mind, "all" ,may not have included all magical and supernatural diseases. The use of "all poisons" may refer to "all the poisons on this list of poisons."



> ...it is quite clear that a 9th level druid is flat-out immune to all poisons.



And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't.  Nothing you've stated gets around this.  You're only response is that it might be "fluff" and that because the book lacks consistency in some cases, we need to ignore this qualification.   Maybe...but at this point, it's simply opinion.


----------



## Dandu (Nov 30, 2011)

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I just...I can't even debate this anymore, smashing my head into a brick wall hurts.



Ditto.



> I said the rules don't put up some sort of divide between magical and nonmagical poisons.



The book unequivocally states that almost all poisonous effects are "extraordinary."  Extraordinary effects are by definition non-magical.  So there is clearly a magic/nonmagic line that is being drawn in the sand and "poisonous effects" are "almost always" on the non-magical side.   This is RAW.

Now, how one transitions from a magical poison to a non-magical poisonous effect isn't really explained.



> There is no save bonus or immunity to poisons that specifies magical or nonmagical only,



  That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.


----------



## Dandu (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.



Or does it?


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Ditto.




At least something we agree on.



Arrowhawk said:


> The book unequivocally states that almost all poisonous effects are "extraordinary."  Extraordinary effects are by definition non-magical.  So there is clearly a magic/nonmagic line that is being drawn in the sand and "poisonous effects" are "almost always" on the non-magical side.   This is RAW.
> 
> Now, how one transitions from a magical poison to a non-magical poisonous effect isn't really explained.




Do you not understand that "almost all" is not the same as "all"?  There are some magical poisons, hence why they didn't say "all."  And you're purposely ignoring what I said.  Obviously, magical and nonmagical poisons aren't the same -- the former won't work in an antimagic field, if nothing else.  Again, I said for game rule purposes, for abilities related to poison and its resistance/immunity, *there is no divide*.  The game doesn't care if it's magical or nonmagical poison.  Anything that protects a creature from poisons doesn't care if its magical or not.  Not a single thing in the rules ANYWHERE qualifies the protection as working against only one or the other, differentiates between the two, or cares about the difference in any meaningful way.
For the last time, it's not the same as disease.




Arrowhawk said:


> That's because the game does not have any "poisonous effects" that are considered magical.




Really?  Spells that allow SR and are poison effects like the green layer of a prismatic wall aren't magical?  Really?!


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> The game doesn't care if it's magical or nonmagical poison.




I'm going to quote SRD RAW:
Although supernatural and spell-like poisons are possible, *poisonous effects* are almost always extraordinary.​I think you are intentionally overlooking the difference between "poison" and "poisonous effect."  The RAW makes such a distinction...but it's not explained why it differentiates between the poison and the poisonous effect, though I have a theory.




> Really?  Spells that allow SR and are poison effects like the green layer of a prismatic wall aren't magical?  Really?!



So if you fail your primary Fort save against poison...and then someone casts a dispel magic on you...do you have to make a secondary save? 

 Cloudkill specifically states that "immunity to poison" protects you from the effects.  It doesn't even require immunity to "all" or "all kinds" of poison.  But straight up immunity.  You know that kind that both Constructs and Oozes have, but actually doesn't work the same?  Anyway, considering that CK doesn't affect those immune to poison, I'd wager none of the other spell that produce poison get around plain vanilla "immunity to poison."

While I would be interested to hear if WotC intended to expand Druid immunity beyond "natural poisons," even if they didn't, I don't see that it changes anything.  It's a non-issue and not worth debating.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> While that may be your opinion, until you provide examples that are parallel to this situation, it remains your opinion and not a fact.



Considering you haven't clearly defined what you believe this situation to be, I'll just state what I think is going on here.  I think this is a situation of people going over the semantics of published material when it should be rather obvious what the meaning is.  A parallel to that is some discussion I've seen on Power Attack.  Some have claimed that while using a two-handed weapon a character trades 2 hit for 1 damage, which is a definite misreading.



> No.  The Ooze examples was merely to prove Empirate 100% wrong that the "immunity to poison" possessed by Constructs was not, in fact, the same as the "immunity to poison" possessed by Oozes, plants, and Outsiders.  So using the same exact phrase does not convey the same exact meaning.  The game does not contemplate "special" poisons with regard to Constructs.



Using the exact same phrase in the exact same context conveys the exact same meaning, does it not?  The context here is directly tied to the phrase, or more accurately whether that phrase has other phrases that modify it.  As you said, the game does not contemplate "special" poisons for constructs.  It likewise does not contemplate "special" poisons for undead or elementals.  Finally, it doesn't contemplate "special" poisons for druids either.



> Incorrect.  Such a text says that _within the rules_, such a thing can exist.



The rules therein are incomplete in that case.  Nowhere in the SRD, DMG, MM, or PHB are there rules for creating poisons that would otherwise work on supposedly immune creatures or targets.  There is the Poison spell of course, which is definitely magical.


> True. But being inconsistent and being redundant are categorically different.  One does not prove the other.



WotC is not consistent, nor consistently redundant.  Therefore, it is prudent to treat separate mechanics as separate cases.  Diseases and poisons are separate cases and should be treated differently.



> And everyone is certainly entitled to that opinion.  Nevertheless, the existence of the "all diseases.  Including supernatural and magical" passage blows up the argument that "all means all."  Clearly WotC did not feel "all means all" and there is absolutely no debating this or ignoring it.  Whether one applies this to poisons is a matter of interpretation.



As I said above, it is prudent to treat separate things as separate cases.  Clearly WotC felt "all" was good enough for poisons but not for diseases.



> And a Oozes immunity and a Constructs ability are technically the same ability with a different result.  But you wouldn't glean that different result based strictly on the text, would you?  A person might be tempted to say, "Immunity to poisons means immunity to poisons.  What part of immunity to poisons don't you understand?"



If it was strictly based on the text, then the lines "Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" means that these creatures may not be immune to poisons crafted to work on them.  Druids, monks, elementals, undead, and many other creatures do not have such text to modify their immunity to poison.  Therefore, that ability is in full effect within the published rules no matter what.



> Clearly have to disagree with that on a number of levels.  First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons."  Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set.  A perfect example is when you tell kids in cafeteria to "throw all the trash" in the waste basket.  In that situation, you're only talking about trash in the cafeteria, not trash everywhere no matter where it exists.  The fact that "all" when used with diseases, drives home this point.  In WotC's mind, "all" ,may not have included all magical and supernatural diseases. The use of "all poisons" may refer to "all the poisons on this list of poisons."



IF it referred to "all the poisons on this list of poisons" then there would be a list.  There is none.

As to the cafeteria reference, context matters.  The implication is of throwing away trash in the cafeteria.  There is no implication on whether "immunity to all poisons" means anything different than what those words mean at face value.



> And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't.  Nothing you've stated gets around this.  You're only response is that it might be "fluff" and that because the book lacks consistency in some cases, we need to ignore this qualification.   Maybe...but at this point, it's simply opinion.



Once again I say that separate mechanics are separate cases.  It is opinion, but I feel it is a practical and reasonable opinion that separate things should be evaluated on their own merits first, regardless of whether a system is consistent.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

> It likewise does not contemplate "special" poisons for undead or elementals. Finally, it doesn't contemplate "special" poisons for druids either.



Using your logic, Druids do not have poison immunity because they aren't mentioned with Constructs, Undead, and elemental.   A more logical reading suggests the section was only covering "creatures" and was not meant to apply to character classes with granted poison immunity.



> IF it referred to "all the poisons on this list of poisons" then there would be a list. There is none.



Edit: Wait..what?  There is a list of poisons.  

Which is why when the game refers to martial weapons, it always states "weapons on this list of of martial weapons?"  Clearly not.  The game has a list of poisons.  It's quite reasonable to think the "all poisons" may refer to all the poisons on the list, not just some of them.  

As mentioned above, Cloudkill specifically states that immunity to poison applies.  Why would that be necessary if it were 100% unambiguous?  Does the game state that protection from fire applies to Fireball? Does it state that for ANY fire spell?  I think the answer is no.  But it does go out of its way to stated poison immunity applies to Cloudkill which means that WotC felt such a clarification was necessary.



> The rules therein are incomplete in that case. Nowhere in the SRD, DMG, MM, or PHB are there rules for creating poisons that would otherwise work on supposedly immune creatures or targets.



Now I have to submit that you are being obtuse.  No where did I say there were rules for _creating _poisons.  The rules say such a thing can exist which means it's allowed _within the rules_:  A poison can harm something that is otherwise "immune to poison."


----------



## Empirate (Nov 30, 2011)




----------



## Jackinthegreen (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Using your logic, Druids do not have poison immunity because they aren't mentioned with Constructs, Undead, and elemental.   A more logical reading suggests the section was only covering "creatures" and was not meant to apply to character classes with granted poison immunity.



My logic was that unless there are rules to modify the text of an ability such as Venom Immunity, then the rules are the rules.  The rule for druids is they are granted immunity to all poisons.  The rules for oozes are they're immune to poison, but it's possible to create poisons that affect them anyway.  My logic is that because the druid has no such modifying text, it is immune to all poisons no matter what. 



> Edit: Wait..what?  There is a list of poisons.
> 
> Which is why when the game refers to martial weapons, it always states "weapons on this list of of martial weapons?"  Clearly not.  The game has a list of poisons.  It's quite reasonable to think the "all poisons" may refer to all the poisons on the list, not just some of them.



The thing is, those poisons on the list are the only ones that have been given rules for in that book.  If something is immune to all poisons from that list, they're effectively immune to all poisons because those are the only poisons.  If one were to make up a new poison, then that falls squarely inside house rules because that's creating something that does not exist within the context of the official rules.



> As mentioned above, Cloudkill specifically states that immunity to poison applies.  Why would that be necessary if it were 100% unambiguous?  Does the game state that protection from fire applies to Fireball? Does it state that for ANY fire spell?  I think the answer is no.  But it does go out of its way to stated poison immunity applies to Cloudkill which means that WotC felt such a clarification was necessary.




Yes, such a clarification was necessary in this case.  Why? Because cloudkill is technically a spell, and rather unique one at that.  As it's definitely magical and not a standard poison, clarification would be needed to determine whether poison immunity would work on it.


> Now I have to submit that you are being obtuse.  No where did I say there were rules for _creating _poisons.  The rules say such a thing can exist which means it's allowed _within the rules_:  A poison can harm something that is otherwise "immune to poison."



The pertinent reference is " Oozes [...]http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#outsiderType are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them."  This is a specific exception to the immune to poisons rules.  If the rules of "special poisons" could be used for such things as constructs or undead, it would have been mentioned.  Could such rules be applied to other things?  If we're going strictly by the book, no, because those things aren't mentioned in this exception.  If we're going with house rules, anything is possible.

The catch is, there are no official rules for these "special poisons."  Everything beyond "conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" is left up to players to figure out for their own ends.  Because of this, by the book, druids (and everything else except maybe for oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders) are immune to all poisons.


----------



## kitcik (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> First, "poisons of all kinds" is technically broader than "all poisons." Second, "all" may refer to a specific set and may not, in fact, refer to examples outside that set.




Yes, Mr. President. There IS no arguing this point. 




Arrowhawk said:


> And it would have been quite clear if "all diseases" meant all diseases, but it didn't. Nothing you've stated gets around this.




Where in the rules does "all diseases" not mean "all diseases."




Dandu said:


> Or does it?




I've pointed this out 3 times and been ignored. The facts are meaningless in a discussion with @Arrowhawk , as are any opinions other than his own.


----------



## Hathradiah Fomorii (Nov 30, 2011)

Hey guys, it's that aforementioned DM here. 
I wasn't being an ass like it may sound. I'm running a grittier casmpaign so I was thinking about making a difference between natural poisons (Druids deal with the natural world mostly) and supernatural/magic poisons. There isn't any rules to back my idea, but hell, I'm a DM, we have creative liberty. Right now I'm probably going to leave it as is unless I introduce a special "effects all" poison or something like that.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Here's something else to swallow.  If a Druid were immune to ingested magical poisons, then they would be immune to cursed magical potions.   What would be the difference?



One is a poison.

The other is a curse, and therefore not a poison.

All means All.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> My logic was that unless there are rules to modify the text of an ability such as Venom Immunity, then the rules are the rules.  The rule for druids is they are granted immunity to all poisons.  The rules for oozes are they're immune to poison, but it's possible to create poisons that affect them anyway.  My logic is that because the druid has no such modifying text, it is immune to all poisons no matter what.



Your logic is flawed in that you refuse to acknowledge that the section is only covering _*creature *_immunity.  Because it fails to mention any thing other than *creatures *with immunity, you cannot apply the logic to character granted immunity.  Your rationale for analyzing this section is self-contradictory.  I'm going to quote the section once again and you show me where character immunity is mentioned:

*Creatures *with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. Nonliving *creatures *(constructs and undead) and *creatures *without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.​The section starts out talking about CREATURES and continues to talk about them throughout.  Trying to cherry pick the last sentence and say that, "Oh, since Druids aren't mentioned, it clearly doesn't apply to them" fails to grasp the fact that the entire section isn't a statement for or against Druid immunity.  In fact, because WotC makes a distinction based on the nature of the immunity i.e. metabolism versus none, Druids clearly fall in the "I have a metabolism" category and are thus more likely to fall under the "special" poison exception.  That would be a logical reading.



> The thing is, those poisons on the list are the only ones that have been given rules for in that book.



Hallelujah!  That's right.  The list of poisons is what they mean when they say "all" poisons.   The list you said didn't exist, does in fact exist which and none of them are magical and none Of them are supernatural or spell-like.  Which is why "all" would not refer to magical or supernatural poisons.



> If something is immune to all poisons from that list, they're effectively immune to all poisons because those are the only poisons.



  Praise be to god.  This is the logic I am employing when I offer the interpretation that a Druid is not immune to magical poisons (ignoring that previous versions of D&D explicitly excluded magical poisons).  D&D doesn't recognize any magical poisons on its list of poisons.   Why it fails to address spell based poisons directly, and then adds specific text to Cloudkill is confusing.



> If one were to make up a new poison, then that falls squarely inside house rules because that's creating something that does not exist within the context of the official rules.



  Now you're trying to be sneaky and argue that any new poison is a Rule 0.  I'm not going to debate whether adding a "special" poison is a house rule.  It doesn't matter.  The rules say such things can exist so doing so is within the bounds of the rules.   What's relevant to this discussion and the OP's question is whether the Druid would be immune to this "special" poison that was magical or supernatural.  The  answer, based on the fact that all the known poisons are non-magical, is no.  Why?  Because as you have finally acknowledged, there is a list of poisons,these are "all" the poisons the game is referring to, and none of them is magical.



> Yes, such a clarification was necessary in this case.  Why? Because cloudkill is technically a spell, and rather unique one at that.  As it's definitely magical and not a standard poison, clarification would be needed to determine whether poison immunity would work on it.



BINGO!  Ergo, poison immunity does not automatically include magical poisons.  And we've already established that the "all" refers to the list of poisons of which this spell is not on it.   Could you argue that "all poisons" would have encompassed this?  Yes, but it's not clear.   Just as it's not clear that there is a difference between Construct immunity and Ooze immunity.



> If we're going strictly by the book, no, because those things aren't mentioned in this exception.



 Flawed reasoning, see above.



> The catch is, there are no official rules for these "special poisons."  Everything beyond "conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them" is left up to players to figure out for their own ends.  Because of this, by the book, druids (and everything else except maybe for oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders) are immune to all poisons.



 Once again, that doesn't follow.  The section you keep referring to applies to creatures, not character immunity.  It isn't trying to make a statement on character powers one way or the other.  And any objective reader is going to reason that things with a "metabolism" are most likely susceptible to "special" poisons, which puts Druids clearly in that bucket.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> One is a poison.
> 
> The other is a curse, and therefore not a poison.



No, they are both liquids that cast a spell-like function on the drinker.  A magical poison and a potion are essentially the same thing.



> All means All.



I'm going to say this one last time for those of you who keep repeating this ad nauseum.   If "all means all" then under the Paladin's Divine Health ability, there would be no need to add the line, "including supernatural and magical diseases."

Do you understand that?  Even SoS acknowledged this.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Nov 30, 2011)

Hathradiah Fomorii said:


> Hey guys, it's that aforementioned DM here.
> I wasn't being an ass like it may sound. I'm running a grittier casmpaign so I was thinking about making a difference between natural poisons (Druids deal with the natural world mostly) and supernatural/magic poisons. There isn't any rules to back my idea, but hell, I'm a DM, we have creative liberty. Right now I'm probably going to leave it as is unless I introduce a special "effects all" poison or something like that.




Previous versions of D&D clearly limited Druids to non-magical poison immunity undoubtedly for the very reason you've observed "Druids deal with the natural world mostly)."  So limiting Druids to "natural" poisons would still be thematically correct.   But there are a couple of caveats as I see them:

1)  As a DM and a player, one thing I've observed is that players are always trying to seize as much territory as they can.  When I read these forums, the overwhelming majority of opinions are in favor of any interpretation that benefits players.   When you suggest one that doesn't, you get statements like SoS's where he threatens to quite the game because of "heavy handed bs."  Oh the drama.

2) What constitutes a "natural" poison in 3.5?  There is no explicit category.  A logical supposition is any animal or creature based poison, but what if a magical beast or Outsider has poison?  None of those occur in nature.  Or can you expend natural poison to mean poisons created from mundane materials?

3)  Did 3.5 mean to boost Druid immunity or just simplify the game?  There's no doubt 3.5 is meant to be less gritty and more streamlined than previous versions, but maybe this is some of both.  Tough to say.

4)  Whatever your decision, I would talk with the player and come to an agreement.  Players always want things that benefit them and have a heard time understanding that the more they get, the harder it is to make the game enjoyable for them. 

5)  Most of this debate for me is academic.  Simply an exercise exploring "semantics" as JackintheGreen calls it.  What is WotC saying?  What are they trying to say?  How do we determine it?  Obviously I don't care how anybody wants to treat "all poison."  Though it would be nice to find a FAQ on spell poisons and what immunities cover them.


----------



## kitcik (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is Monte Cook's take on it from the Book of Eldritch Might page 29:

"Creatures immune to poison are immune to the
spell-like effects of magic poisons as well."


----------



## Eldritch_Lord (Nov 30, 2011)

While I'm not going to take a side in this discussion overall, I would like to clarify one point:



Arrowhawk said:


> I'm going to say this one last time for those of you who keep repeating this ad nauseum.   If "all means all" then under the Paladin's Divine Health ability, there would be no need to add the line, "including supernatural and magical diseases."
> 
> Do you understand that?  Even SoS acknowledged this.




As a matter of fact, it _is_ important to include that line, because of the change in the way diseases worked from 2e to 3e.  What are considered to be "magical diseases" in 3.0 were considered to be "curses" in 2e.  The 2e paladin entry contains the following ability:


> *A paladin is immune to all forms of disease.* (Note that certain magical afflictions -- lycanthropy and mummy rot -- are curses and not diseases.)




The 3e paladin entry for divine health, then, specifically mentions those magical diseases so that players and DMs realize that paladins are now immune to them when previously they were not:


> *Divine Health (Ex):* At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases (such as mummy rot and lycanthropy).




The important point there is not the _including supernatural magical diseases_ part, which would be inserted if there were a doubt that "all means all," but rather the _such as mummy rot and lycanthropy_ part, which is inserted for the benefit of players switching over to a new system from AD&D.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Your logic is flawed in that you refuse to acknowledge that the section is only covering _*creature *_immunity.  Because it fails to mention any thing other than *creatures *with immunity, you cannot apply the logic to character granted immunity.  Your rationale for analyzing this section is self-contradictory.  I'm going to quote the section once again and you show me where character immunity is mentioned:
> *Creatures *with natural poison attacks are immune to their own poison. Nonliving *creatures *(constructs and undead) and *creatures *without metabolisms (such as elementals) are always immune to poison. Oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders are also immune to poison, although conceivably special poisons could be concocted specifically to harm them.​The section starts out talking about CREATURES and continues to talk about them throughout.  Trying to cherry pick the last sentence and say that, "Oh, since Druids aren't mentioned, it clearly doesn't apply to them" fails to grasp the fact that the entire section isn't a statement for or against Druid immunity.  In fact, because WotC makes a distinction based on the nature of the immunity i.e. metabolism versus none, Druids clearly fall in the "I have a metabolism" category and are thus more likely to fall under the "special" poison exception.  That would be a logical reading.



I know darn well those specific lines refer to creatures in general.  I am simply saying that if WotC wanted a druid's venom immunity to specifically be against "natural" poisons, they would have said something about it much like they did in previous editions.



> Hallelujah!  That's right.  The list of poisons is what they mean when they say "all" poisons.   The list you said didn't exist, does in fact exist which and none of them are magical and none Of them are supernatural or spell-like.  Which is why "all" would not refer to magical or supernatural poisons.



Okay then, let's go with the possibility that the list is a definitive end-all be-all source for poisons.  It is missing several entries, since there are other natural poisons such as a monstrous scorpion's.  Oddly enough the entry "large scorpion venom" does Str damage, while actual monstrous scorpion poison does Con damage.  The list is clearly not a list encompassing "all" poisons, even natural ones.  If that list is what's referred to when speaking of immunity to all poisons, even natural ones, there are serious problems going on.



> Praise be to god.  This is the logic I am employing when I offer the interpretation that a Druid is not immune to magical poisons (ignoring that previous versions of D&D explicitly excluded magical poisons).  D&D doesn't recognize any magical poisons on its list of poisons.   Why it fails to address spell based poisons directly, and then adds specific text to Cloudkill is confusing.



As mentioned, WotC isn't consistent.  You've also stated right there that you're ignoring how previous versions explicitly excluded magical poisons, which is potentially a key point in this.  WotC has shown that it can and will limit the ability to non-magical poisons.  For 3.5 they have instead gone with a simple "immunity to all poisons," so it's reasonable to think they want to druid to be immune to all poisons, period.



> Flawed reasoning, see above.
> 
> Once again, that doesn't follow.  The section you keep referring to applies to creatures, not character immunity.  It isn't trying to make a statement on character powers one way or the other.  And any objective reader is going to reason that things with a "metabolism" are most likely susceptible to "special" poisons, which puts Druids clearly in that bucket.



Let's look at this objectively then.  The line that modifies the immunity to oozes, plants, and certain outsiders does not refer to metabolism at all.  Can it be argued that it means anything with a metabolism?  Yes, as you've done so already.  When viewing it objectively though, without bias in any form, what is the interpretation a strict reading will reveal? 

As far as I can see, reading it strictly shows only that oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders can have poisons made to specifically affect them.  It doesn't allow or disallow the possibility of other creatures normally immune to poison being affected by certain poisons made for them.  We must now ask whether these rules are inclusive (meaning it's an example of what could be done and can include other creatures) or exclusive (meaning the entry is specific and cannot apply to anything else.)  Given WotC's track record on such rulings, it is exclusive.  Specific trumps general, and the rules specifically mention only "oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders."  These rules cannot be applied to other creatures, of which a druid is likely.

This does bring up the case of an applicable outsider with 9 or more levels in druid.  Would a poison specially crafted to work on this kind of outsider work on this one with druid levels too?  We've already established a poison can be made to work on the outsider, but will such a poison work against a powerful druid?  One argument is that the poison has to work against both sets of immunities.  Another is it that it only has to get through one to work, for whatever reason.  Both scenarios are equally plausible.  I won't debate further on this topic though, since it looks like something for people to decide on their own when they cross that bridge.


----------



## CL_meister (Nov 30, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> If "all means all" then under the Paladin's Divine Health ability, there would be no need to add the line, "including supernatural and magical diseases."




That is correct. There was no need to add "including supernatural and magical diseases." They did it anyway. Why? You'll have to ask the authors, but probably to emphasize the difference between the paladin's ability and the monks which specifically does not include magical diseases.


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 1, 2011)

I know it doesn't carry much weight at this point, but I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway:

"All poisons" seems to be about as clear as it can be.  It means all poisons, period.  Previous editions not withstanding, other entries on other immunities for other classes not withstanding, this one seems to be so plainly and clearly written that I really don't see any grounds for an argument.


----------



## Dandu (Dec 1, 2011)

Empirate said:


>




Objection!

Sir, I am offended by your offensive offense, and challenge you to a duel on the field of honor in order to rectify the situation. We shall settle this like men: with a children's card game. In America.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 1, 2011)

Wow... that's a whole lotta hoopla...

I'm just glad at our table 'immunity to poisons' means just that.  If it has 'poison' anywhere in it's descriptor, then the Druid is immune.  I don't see what's so complicated about that.

Unless there is an poison that specifically targets a druid, much like BoED's ravages and afflictions target undead who are normally immune, but I have yet to see one.


----------



## Empirate (Dec 1, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Objection!
> 
> Sir, I am offended by your offensive offense, and challenge you to a duel on the field of honor in order to rectify the situation. We shall settle this like men: with a children's card game. In America.




Are we in court here? Why would you be calling 'objection' on me then? Oh, I see, the high density of rules lawyering around here has misled you to believe this was a formal hearing. Unfortunately, good sir, this happens to just be the internet, where bad things happen every day and no 'objection' is going to help that. I must admit to being intrigued by your offer, though. What card game would you be referring to?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 1, 2011)

Eldritch_Lord said:


> While I'm not going to take a side in this discussion overall...



  Let me quote myself from above:



> Anyway, considering that CK doesn't affect those immune to poison, I'd wager none of the other spell that produce poison get around plain vanilla "immunity to poison."




Now that that's out of the way....



> I would like to clarify one point....
> 
> As a matter of fact, it _is_ important to include that line, because of the change in the way diseases worked from 2e to 3e.  What are considered to be "magical diseases" in 3.0 were considered to be "curses" in 2e.  ***
> The 3e paladin entry for divine health, then, specifically mentions those magical diseases so that players and DMs realize that paladins are now immune to them when previously they were not...




Very plausible explanation.  Unfortunately, if it's accurate, it only clouds the issue.  Let's look:

In previous versions, a Druid was only immune to "natural" poisons.  This list was more restrictive than the Paladin immunity.   Now you're saying that when they intended to expand the Paladin immunity, they made sure to include supernatural and magical diseases?  

Well, its stands to reason that WotC should have done the same for Druids, doesn't it?  In fact, it would be even more necessary to clarify for Druids because there are no supernatural or magical poisons on any list of poisons.  I''m even betting that nearly all, if not all, the poisonous attacks by creatures in the MM's are Extraordinary (non-magical) abilities (Black Dragons in Dragon Magic can convert spells to poison attacks, being one notable exception).  So for the very reason you claim WotC clarified Paladins, WotC had cause to clarify Druids to include poison spells...if we call that magic poison.  But they didn't.

I'm going to repeat myself again, for all those who don't have the maturity to ignore a thread if they think the matter is decided:



> Anyway, considering that CK doesn't affect those immune to poison, I'd wager none of the other spell that produce poison get around plain vanilla "immunity to poison."


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 1, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> The list is clearly not a list encompassing "all" poisons, even natural ones.



 100% agree.  There is no confusion about immunity covering any non-magical poison whether it's no list or not.



> As mentioned, WotC isn't consistent.



 100% agree. 



> You've also stated right there that you're ignoring how previous versions explicitly excluded magical poisons, which is potentially a key point in this.



 I'm not ignoring it at all.  Determining whether 3.5 meant to simplify or expand a Druid's acquired poison immunity is part of the discussion.    It's not clear whether they simply got rid of the notion of natural poison immunity because 3.5 wants the game to be more straight forward or they felt Druids needed to be immune to magical poisons.  As you've already observed, WotC chose to explicitly clarify the issue with Cloudkill because one might not assume poison immunity covered it.



> WotC has shown that it can and will limit the ability to non-magical poisons.



 Not in 3.5 they haven't.  I don't see that anything in 3.5 has "natural" poison immunity. Maybe a splat book has it?   



> For 3.5 they have instead gone with a simple "immunity to all poisons," so it's reasonable to think they want to druid to be immune to all poisons, period.



 Which is the same argument you can use for diseases and Paladins.  So all does not mean all.  "Period."



> Let's look at this objectively then.  The line that modifies the immunity to oozes, plants, and certain outsiders does not refer to metabolism at all.  Can it be argued that it means anything with a metabolism?  Yes, as you've done so already.  When viewing it objectively though, without bias in any form, what is the interpretation a strict reading will reveal?
> 
> As far as I can see, reading it strictly shows only that oozes, plants, and certain kinds of outsiders can have poisons made to specifically affect them.  It doesn't allow or disallow the possibility of other *creatures* normally immune to poison being affected by certain poisons made for them.



I emphasized the most important word in your response.  Now I have to apologize for failing to make a dispositive observation earlier.   

Druids are not creatures.  Druid refers to any creature with Druid _class_ levels.  Many creatures can have class levels in Druid...but a "Druid" is not a creature.  There is no creature subtype called a Druid.  Ergo, it would be nonsensical to talk about classes in a section that is only dealing with creatures and their subtypes.  

This means even my own statement that "druid's have metabolisms is inaccurate.  Druid's don't have metabolisms, but the creature with the class levels might.  So the argument that "Druids" aren't mentioned with Oozes is moot.



> One argument is that the poison has to work against both sets of immunities.  Another is it that it only has to get through one to work, for whatever reason.  Both scenarios are equally plausible.



  Well, considering that Humans start out susceptible to all poisons, it would stand to reason that the class granted immunity would trump a poison only targeted at Outsiders. 

As I stated early on, this is an academic discussion.  I also stated that given CK observing poison immunity, I would observe it for other spells, _even though they do not specifically acknowledge it like CK._  As we both have agreed, WotC is not consistent and in more than a few cases offers contradictory theories.  They clarify somethings that should not need clarification and then fail to clarify things that are clearly ambiguous.

I definitely appreciate the back and forth with someone who can have a discussion like an adult.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 1, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> I know it doesn't carry much weight at this point, but I'm going to add my 2 cents anyway:
> 
> "All poisons" seems to be about as clear as it can be.  It means all poisons, period.  Previous editions not withstanding, other entries on other immunities for other classes not withstanding, this one seems to be so plainly and clearly written that I really don't see any grounds for an argument.




At first blush, I would 100% agree. Except WotC did not subscribe to this opinion when they explicitly stated a paladin's immunity to "all diseases" also included supernatural and magical.  All clearly did not mean all.


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 1, 2011)

So, by emphasizing that "all" meant "all, they somehow implied that "all" didn't mean "all"?

To clarify, if the rules had said, "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, *plus* supernatural and magical diseases.", I'd agree with you.  They'd be making a clear distinction, a statement that magical and supernatural diseases were distinct from "all" diseases.

What they said though was, "Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, *including* supernatural and magical diseases."

That form emphasizes that "all" includes "all", even those caused by magic or supernatural sources.

Hmm...  Okay, I admit, I had more fun writing the first sentence than I did making sense with the rest of it.  So sue me...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 1, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> That form emphasizes that "all" includes "all", even those caused by magic or supernatural sources.



  If all means all, then you don't need to make that clarification.  This is exactly the point you've made with regards to poisons.  

I find it humorous that people say "all means all" with poisons...but fail to apply that same rhetoric to diseases where it would fail.

<shrug>

Either "all" needs to be clarified, or it doesn't.  Trying to argue both is to contradict oneself.   Which is something WotC seems struggle with.



> Hmm...  Okay, I admit, I had more fun writing the first sentence than I did making sense with the rest of it.  So sue me...



  Are you judgment proof?


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 2, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> If all means all, then you don't need to make that clarification.  This is exactly the point you've made with regards to poisons.



If your boss said, "I want someone on this 24 hours a day, morning, noon and night", would that mean that "morning, noon and night" are somehow in addition to "24 hours a day"?

The "including" in the description isn't an addition to "all", it's emphasizing that "all" means "all".



> I find it humorous that people say "all means all" with poisons...but fail to apply that same rhetoric to diseases where it would fail.



Except that "all" means "all" with regards to diseases as well.  A Paladin is immune to all diseases, even magical or supernatural ones.  Or, to use the exact phrasing "including".  

Druids of the appropriate level are immune to all poisons.  They might have included similar phrasing to emphasize that this included even magical or supernatural poisons, if there was such a thing. 

But with or without the emphasis, "all" means "all".



> Either "all" needs to be clarified, or it doesn't.  Trying to argue both is to contradict oneself.   Which is something WotC seems struggle with.



It didn't _need_ to be clarified, and to my view they weren't clarifying it (i.e. explaining or defining), they were emphasizing.  You know, for the hard-of-thinking types.

(No offense intended, but there are some really stupid people out there.)


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 2, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> If your boss said, "I want someone on this 24 hours a day, morning, noon and night", would that mean that "morning, noon and night" are somehow in addition to "24 hours a day"?



That's a disanalogy. In addition, people who advertise that they are open 24 hours a day, don't waste money by adding, "morning, noon, and night."  A boss saying that to me is conversational speech.  If he were writing instructions...you know like a rule book maybe...he wouldn't include "morning, noon, and night."

As I said, a disanalogy.




> The "including" in the description isn't an addition to "all", it's emphasizing that "all" means "all".



  That's an opinion, not a fact.



> Except that "all" means "all" with regards to diseases as well.



 If all means all, you don't need to clarify it...period.  End of story.



> Druids of the appropriate level are immune to all poisons.



In 3.5, what's the functional difference between the following:

"immunity to poison"

"immunity to all poisons"

"immunity to poisons of all kinds"




> They might have included similar phrasing to emphasize that this included even magical or supernatural poisons, if there was such a thing.



So you're agreeing that they are not referring to supernatural and magical poisons because they don't exist?   

Some people in this thread claim magical poisons do exist.  Your opinion?



> But with or without the emphasis, "all" means "all".



If all means all, you don't need to emphasize it....unless all means all of a subset.




> It didn't _need_ to be clarified



  Obviously WotC disagrees with you.

The most likely explanation is the one offered by Eldritch:  magical diseases did not exist in previous versions so "all" diseases would have meant the non-magical diseases.  Moving "curses" to a the disease category required that the game clarify that these "magical" diseases are now included.

This creates confusion for poisons because:

1) Previous Druid immunity did NOT include magical immunity.

2) 3.5 acknowledges that spell-like poisons are "possible"  ???? This is confounding choice of words because not only are they "possible," but how else would you categorize  Cloudkill, Poison, and Prismatic Spray to name a few.  

3) Given that spell poisons exist, it would have been prudent to clarify that the Druid immunity which was previously limited to "natural" poisons now encompasses all magical/spell-like poisons.  Gee...kind of what they did with Paladins...don't you think?


----------



## Dandu (Dec 2, 2011)




----------



## Empirate (Dec 2, 2011)

Indeed. Bow out of the thread already, ye who be of sane mind still. Remember you don't have to argue things to the death to be correct. Leave to others the right to feel right.


----------



## Hexer (Dec 2, 2011)

So I've read the whole thread and everything I've read in here leads me to a single, simple conclusion:
The only way to be 100% sure would be to ask WotC because all of the "facts" stated here are based on assumptions what WotC meant or implied by stating things in the ways they did (or did not in other cases)

Is that about right?


----------



## Empirate (Dec 2, 2011)

Hexer said:


> So I've read the whole thread and everything I've read in here leads me to a single, simple conclusion:
> The only way to be 100% sure would be to ask WotC because all of the "facts" stated here are based on assumptions what WotC meant or implied by stating things in the ways they did (or did not in other cases)
> 
> Is that about right?




No. No, absolutely not. You're wrong. Horribly, terribly wrong. Sorry.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 2, 2011)

Arrowhawk, now I don't know all the books and rules inside and out but I really don't understand why you're reading so hard into this when consensus, here at least, seems to be that they [Druids] are, or should be, immune to all poisons.  

I've brought this up with a couple of old D&D buddies from outside my current gaming group who made the 3.0-3.5 transition with me and from the way we all read and understand it, if 'poison' is in the descriptor than the Druid is immune to it (at 9th level and beyond of course).  It doesn't specify between 'natural' or 'magical' because it means 'all' - and WotC also didn't say "immune to all poisons except...", so again, all would mean all right?  

I see you refer to the 3.0 Druids having only natural poison immunity, well I say that is irrelevant.  Should we compare the hitdie of the 3.0 ranger vs. the 3.5 ranger? or the difference in their class abilities?  No, we shouldn't because it's pointless.  3.5 made changes that supersede 3.0, so by their decision to drop 'natural' from the Druids poison immunity description and add 'all', unless WotC chimes in on it, we can assume (and luckily my gaming group does) that 'all' indeed means all.  
[why the distinction for the Paladin's disease immunity then as you liken this to, unknown - maybe different authors wrote up the different classes and they didn't use the same lingo]

I guess, even no matter what WotC meant in their writing of that Druid ability, that the DM is the final say at the table - it's gotten hard to tell which way you are arguing for anymore; are you playing devil's advocate or are you seriously saying that 'all' poisons doesn't mean 'all' poisons... but if you're the latter, all I can say is I'm glad I don't play at your table  

I'm out.  No matter what else you say or think, in our group Druids are immune to all poisons once they have that ability and that's all that matters to us - I can't believe this thread is now 5 pages...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 2, 2011)

> I'm out. No matter what else you say or think, in our group Druids are immune to all poisons once they have that ability and that's all that matters to us




So why are you asking me then?


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 2, 2011)

Yeah, that's about right.  But be warned, even if you get an answer, some people will still choose to believe that the answer is just one person's opinion.

"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still", and all that.

So I'm out.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 3, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> So why are you asking me then?




lmao - I was simply saying that I've voiced my opinion and reasons for such here, for what's it's worth, and have no further need to debate it.  My circle of D&D friends doesn't read it how you are, so we will continue to allow Druids to be immune to all poisons.

I was genuinely curious and looking for an answer from you on what your actual position was on this as it's the first time I've actually seen anyone debate this class feature; so are you just being argumentative, are you playing devil's advocate until someone can pinpoint a definitive answer for you, or are you seriously convinced that Druids are not immune to 'all' poisons?

By your only quoting the very end of my post where I say "I'm out" (meaning of debating the issue) I'm going to take it that you are just being argumentative at this point.  

Which you know what? that's fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion - your table, your game, your rules...  my opinion though is hopefully if you're a DM your not just forcing rules down your players throats like this unless everyone at the table agrees...


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 3, 2011)

LiL KiNG said:


> I was genuinely curious and looking for an answer from you on what your actual position was....



Usually when I am seeking someone's opinion on something I don't end the post by saying

"I'm out and nothing you are going to say is going to change my mind."




> By your only quoting the very end of my post where I say "I'm out" (meaning of debating the issue) I'm going to take it that you are just being argumentative at this point..



Funny, that's exactly the impression you left me with.  You aren't interested in having a dialogue, you just wanted to state your opinion...and tell the other person, you're not going to listen to what they have to say in return.

I'm not sure what kind or response you're expecting with that approach?  If nothing I have to say on the matter has any influence on you...somehow I think I'll make it through the day.


----------



## kitcik (Dec 3, 2011)

.


----------



## Hassassin (Dec 3, 2011)

What's the difference between magical and non-magical poisons? Are all the poisons listed in the DMG non-magical? If you use the _poison_ spell the effect is magical? How about once someone fails the save - it's instantaneous so is it thereafter non-magical?

I don't think there's anything in the rules to make a distinction between the two. The poison entry just alludes to a difference between Ex. and Su. abilities, but that's probably for things like antimagic fields.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Dec 12, 2011)

Since we're nitpicking here, the is a distinct difference between a poison, and a venom. Venoms are produced naturally by animals. Other toxins such as poisons are produced by plants or other means. (A poison can be made from a venom)

Immunity to venom does NOT equal immunity to toxins.


----------



## kitcik (Dec 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> .






Niccodaemus said:


> Since we're nitpicking here, the is a distinct difference between a poison, and a venom. Venoms are produced naturally by animals. Other toxins such as poisons are produced by plants or other means. (A poison can be made from a venom)
> 
> Immunity to venom does NOT equal immunity to toxins.




*ven·om* (v
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







m) 
_n._ *1. *A poisonous secretion of an animal, such as a snake, spider, or scorpion, usually transmitted by a bite or sting.
*2. *A poison.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Dec 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> *ven·om* (v
> 
> 
> 
> ...




"In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. In medicine (particularly veterinary) and in zoology, a poison is often distinguished from a toxin and a venom. Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."

Wikipedia


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

In the context of D&D there is no distinction - the entry for the Scorpion for example states: "A monstrous scorpion has a poisonous sting.  The details vary by the scorpions size."
Spider and Vipers read the same; the creature has a 'poison' attack.

I see what you mean with the venom/toxic/poison assessment you've pointed out, and I agree with it.  Sometimes D&D doesn't take things like that into account and they have been known to be wrong.  The entry under Lycanthrope that talks about a cure calls belladonna 'wolfsbane', when belladonna is actually derived from a nightshade and wolfsbane was an entirely different plant...  

Oh, and Arrowhawk, I thought in my last post I explained myself and my position rather well.  You still insist however on nitpicking my wording and haven't addressed any of the points I made with valid counterpoints...  o'well lol.


----------



## kitcik (Dec 12, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> "In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. In medicine (particularly veterinary) and in zoology, a poison is often distinguished from a toxin and a venom. Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."
> 
> Wikipedia




Never base your argument on Wikipedia.

That said, in re-reading your original post, I think I agree with you. Venoms are a subset of poisons so while poison immunity includes venom immunity, venom immunity does not include immunity to all poisons.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Dec 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Never base your argument on Wikipedia.




Sometimes Wikipedia says it most succinctly.

in any case, my own ruling would be that the immunity applies to all naturally occurring toxins. Now, if you used those toxins to brew your own poison, that might be another matter. That is, if a Druid were poisoned, particularly by another Druid, I'm thinking that the poisoning Druid would be able to figure out a toxic combo that would knock his victim to his knees at the very least.

"I realize you have built up an immunity to every naturally occurring toxin in the Kingdom of Nalin. However, there is a rather curious lizard that makes its home in the deserts of Thrumblin..."

In the end, it is all about fun, not rules.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 12, 2011)

LiL KiNG said:


> Oh, and Arrowhawk, I thought in my last post I explained myself and my position rather well.  You still insist however on nitpicking my wording and haven't addressed any of the points I made with valid counterpoints...  o'well lol.




What is the question you are asking me?  It's hard to decipher amidst the insinuation and epeening.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> What is the question you are asking me?  It's hard to decipher amidst the insinuation and epeening.




LOL!  That was good, nearly had pepsi come out my nose!  Way to be a sly prick with your hip wordplay!  

lol epeening lol


----------



## kitcik (Dec 12, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> What is the question you are asking me? It's hard to decipher amidst the insinuation and epeening.




Decryption activated:
.
.
.
.
.
_Mod Edit: insult removed   ~Umbran_


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 12, 2011)

LiL KiNG said:


> LOL!  That was good, nearly had pepsi come out my nose!  Way to be a sly prick with your hip wordplay!
> 
> lol epeening lol



I see, so you don't like attitude when it's thrown back in your face?  If there's someone who's a prick here..it's you.  You come at me with some asinine post and then try and pretend you're trying to be civil. 

If you want a civil conversation, then be be civil.  If you're going to be an asshat, then at least have the integrity to own up to it.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Dec 12, 2011)

Niccodaemus said:


> "In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism. In medicine (particularly veterinary) and in zoology, a poison is often distinguished from a toxin and a venom. Toxins are poisons produced via some biological function in nature, and venoms are usually defined as toxins that are injected by a bite or sting to cause their effect, while other poisons are generally defined as substances which are absorbed through epithelial linings such as the skin or gut."
> 
> Wikipedia




The name of the ability is "Venom Immunity." The description is "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons."  Which one are you going to go with?

I'll admit, it's possible they knew of the distinction back in the days when Venom Immunity only applied to natural poisons.  In 3.5's case, they either know of it and are ignoring it or they don't know of it.  They're a game-making company after all, not a group of biologists.  This is reinforced by them listing various things as poisons when they're technically toxins or venom.

The intent of the ability seems pretty darn clear: immunity to all poisons.  If anyone really wants to find out the solid truth though, perhaps a message to WotC itself is in order?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 12, 2011)

> The intent of the ability seems pretty darn clear: immunity to all poisons. If anyone really wants to find out the solid truth though, perhaps a message to WotC itself is in order?




Last I checked, WotC won't answer any questions on 3.5.  If you have a problem with 3.5, they have a solution:  buy 4e.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> I see, so you don't like attitude when it's thrown back in your face?  If there's someone who's a prick here..it's you.  You come at me with some asinine post and then try and pretend you're trying to be civil.
> 
> If you want a civil conversation, then be be civil.  If you're going to be an asshat, then at least have the integrity to own up to it.




Asshat? To you sir? Most definitely, now.  It was you who starting the direct insults with your 'epeening' comment.  By the way I am not upset, I find your tap-dancing around providing any solid answers amusing at this point.  You ignored, and continue to still ignore any of the points of my argument for 'immunity to all poisons' meaning immunity to all poisons.  My humble attempt to be civil was my second post where I attempted to explain to you why your answer won't mean anything to my D&D group, but that I was still curious in your replies.  IF somehow you really took that much offensive to the ending of my first post; 1) apologies - tone is hard to interpret in text. 2) grow some thicker skin. 

But now, you are the one that continues to focus on this stupid word game, acting like an asshat yourself behind your twisting of my every word to make you look like you're the one under attack, which was never the case.  I submit and stand by my assessment that you're just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point as I've not seen you present any valid responses to any of the points I brought up as reasons why a Druids immunity to poison means 'all' poison, and that you've reverted to insults and name calling...  how old are you?  From your previous post, even if I didn't agree with your argument, I would have thought you were at least old enough to be an adult.


----------



## Niccodaemus (Dec 12, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> The name of the ability is "Venom Immunity." The description is "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons."  Which one are you going to go with?
> 
> I'll admit, it's possible they knew of the distinction back in the days when Venom Immunity only applied to natural poisons.  In 3.5's case, they either know of it and are ignoring it or they don't know of it.  They're a game-making company after all, not a group of biologists.  This is reinforced by them listing various things as poisons when they're technically toxins or venom.
> 
> The intent of the ability seems pretty darn clear: immunity to all poisons.  If anyone really wants to find out the solid truth though, perhaps a message to WotC itself is in order?





Well, as I mentioned earlier I would include all naturally occurring toxins, but I would certainly have exceptions to which the Druid was not immune. I would do this even if the description explicitly said "venom", as it makes more sense to me that Druids would also be immune to plant poisons. The solid truth is whatever you decide to run in your game. DM fiat and all that.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 12, 2011)

LiL KiNG said:


> Asshat? To you sir? Most definitely, now.  It was you who starting the direct insults with your 'epeening' comment.  By the way I am not upset, I find your tap-dancing around providing any solid answers amusing at this point.  You ignored, and continue to still ignore any of the points of my argument for 'immunity to all poisons' meaning immunity to all poisons.  My humble attempt to be civil was my second post where I attempted to explain to you why your answer won't mean anything to my D&D group, but that I was still curious in your replies.  IF somehow you really took that much offensive to the ending of my first post; 1) apologies - tone is hard to interpret in text. 2) grow some thicker skin.
> 
> But now, you are the one that continues to focus on this stupid word game, acting like an asshat yourself behind your twisting of my every word to make you look like you're the one under attack, which was never the case.  I submit and stand by my assessment that you're just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point as I've not seen you present any valid responses to any of the points I brought up as reasons why a Druids immunity to poison means 'all' poison, and that you've reverted to insults and name calling...  how old are you?  From your previous post, even if I didn't agree with your argument, I would have thought you were at least old enough to be an adult.



Let's review the exchange,

You...



> ...but if you're the latter, all I can say is I'm glad I don't play at your table




Kind of a **deleted** comment isn't it?  But of course the  let's you off the hook doesn't it?  Here, let me try:  I'd only post something like what you did if I was a **deleted** .  Emoticon means I get away scott free right?

But you're not done.



> I'm out. No matter what else you say or think, in our group Druids are immune to all poisons once they have that ability and that's all that matters to us - I can't believe this thread is now 5 pages...



This is 100% an asinine comment.  Are my feelings hurt?  lol, not one iota. But the fact that you need to tell me nothing I'm going to say changes your opinion is something I expect from someone in junior high and it lets me know what kind of person I'm dealing with.  In word or two:  grow up.

My response to you:



> So why are you asking me then?




That's it.  That's all I said.  No name calling no ass-hatery, no insinuation, nothing.  Just a question.   If nothing I says matters to you and your buddies, why are you even asking?  I've ignored your third grad pot shot insults and simply want to know why you are even asking.

Rather than apologize for your jack ass comments that serves no purpose other than to be insulting...here's what you said:



> lmao - I was simply saying that I've voiced my opinion and reasons for such here, for what's it's worth, and have no further need to debate it. My circle of D&D friends doesn't read it how you are, so we will continue to allow Druids to be immune to all poisons.




How is this relevant to my asking why you asked?  It's not.  Then you go on...



> I see you refer to the 3.0 Druids having only natural poison immunity, well I say that is irrelevant. Should we compare the hitdie of the 3.0 ranger vs. the 3.5 ranger? or the difference in their class abilities? No, we shouldn't because it's pointless. 3.5 made changes that supersede 3.0, so by their decision to drop 'natural' from the Druids poison immunity description and add 'all', unless WotC chimes in on it, we can assume (and luckily my gaming group does) that 'all' indeed means all.




Wait a minute, I thought you said you had no need to debate this?  Didn't you say you were out?

Let's continue with your response:



> By your only quoting the very end of my post where I say "I'm out" (meaning of debating the issue) I'm going to take it that you are just being argumentative at this point.




So once again, rather than assuming any accountability, your response is to try and shift the blame:  I'm being argumentative when I asked you, "Why are you asking me then?"  But you've been the paragon of civil discussion haven't you?  



> t was you who starting the direct insults with your 'epeening' comment.



Try again.



> You ignored, and continue to still ignore any of the points of *my argument* for 'immunity to all poisons' meaning immunity to all poisons.



 So wait a minute, I  thought you said you were "out"?  I thought you said you weren't here to debate the topic?  Yet now you're accusing me of ignoring the points of your argument...which means you're here to debate the topic.



> My humble attempt to be civil was my second post where I attempted to explain to you why your answer won't mean anything to my D&D group, but that I was still curious in your replies.




Your "humble attempt"?  You mean the one where you accused me of being argumentative when I merely asked why you were asking me?  And that came after the thinly veiled insults and asshat need to point out that nothing I say "or think" (because god knows what I might think be an issue) is going to change your opinion or that of your friends. 

If this is your attempt at being civil....well, I'm really in for it now aren't I?



> IF somehow you really took that much offensive to the ending of my first post; 1) apologies - tone is hard to interpret in text. 2) grow some thicker skin.



 So now ...you're apologizing.  But you can't even do that without being a **deleted**.  I tell you what, why don't you grow up and take ownership of your word choice instead of trying to tell others to get a thicker skin?  You clearly can't disagree with someone in a debate without resorting to veiled insults.   You want to apologize, then do it and shut up.

You can't hurt my feelings, trust me.  But if you want to come at my like a punk then I'll throw back in your face.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 12, 2011)

LiL KiNG said:


> I submit and stand by my assessment that you're just being argumentative for the sake of it at this point . . .



This observation has been noticed many times before yours, you are not unique. 

In the future., best to let it pass unremarked upon.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Dec 12, 2011)

Please, let's not fight. Think of the children.

Or roll up characters and duke it out PvP, like real men.  and Invite me, I wanna watch.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

All that effort in your post and you still never tried to debate the issue of the OP, you just started whining about the ending of my post and how much of a prick I am yadda yadda yadda - forget how I ended it, you still haven't put forth any challenges to my points.

 Quote:
    			 				 ...but if you're the latter, all I can say is I'm glad I don't play at your table  
 I stand by that.  If you would make ruling like this without group consent I AM glad I don't play with you.
As far as being a prick now, of course.  Why not after being called an asshat? lol.

"You can't hurt my feelings, trust me.  But if you want to come at my like a punk then I'll throw back in your face." - I, I can't even respond to this without laughing...  don't throw anything back at me, I might get sad!


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

Eric Anondson said:


> This observation has been noticed many times before yours, you are not unique.
> 
> In the future., best to let it pass unremarked upon.




Posted before I saw this, my bad.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 12, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> Please, let's not fight. Think of the children.
> 
> Or roll up characters and duke it out PvP, like real men.  and Invite me, I wanna watch.




Could be fun...  straight 3d6 rolls or 4d6/best 3 for stats?


----------



## kitcik (Dec 12, 2011)

kitcik said:


> Here is Monte Cook's take on it from the Book of Eldritch Might page 29:
> 
> "Creatures immune to poison are immune to the
> spell-like effects of magic poisons as well."







Arrowhawk said:


> Last I checked, WotC won't answer any questions on 3.5. If you have a problem with 3.5, they have a solution: buy 4e.




See above. That's the closest you'll get.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 13, 2011)

Good find Kitcik!  I don't think I would've ever thought of looking in the Book of Eldritch Might for something on poisons!


----------



## Dandu (Dec 13, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Last I checked, WotC won't answer any questions on 3.5.  If you have a problem with 3.5, they have a solution:  buy 4e.



You could also ask a reknowned optimizer for his opinion on the issue.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 13, 2011)

Hassassin said:


> What's the difference between magical and non-magical poisons? Are all the poisons listed in the DMG non-magical? If you use the _poison_ spell the effect is magical? How about once someone fails the save - it's instantaneous so is it thereafter non-magical?
> 
> I don't think there's anything in the rules to make a distinction between the two. The poison entry just alludes to a difference between Ex. and Su. abilities, but that's probably for things like antimagic fields.



Whether WotC considers that there are extant magical poisons is a big part of the question.  The list of diseases in 3.5 now includes magical diseases.  The list of poisons does not.   I've never seen a WotC splat book (not counting random d20 stuff) offer a magical poison that can be purchased (but I haven't read them all).   So that leaves us with determining whether any given spell qualifies as a magical poison.

Opinions in this very thread seem to differ as to whether there are magical poisons.  I think SoS says they exist:



> The SRD does have magical poisons, though.




and Greenfield says they don't.



> Druids of the appropriate level are immune to all poisons. They might have included similar phrasing to emphasize that this included even magical or supernatural poisons, if there was such a thing.




<shrug>

Which is it? The WotC doesn't help us figure it out because it says Spell and Spell-like poisons are "possible."  Talk about a nebulous statement in the context of a spell called "Poison."  I don't know how you could consider the poison created by the Poison spell, non-magical, but then maybe Create Food and Water is similar.  Do food and water created by the spell  work inside an AM field?  If the answer is yes, then one could certainly argue that poisons created by spells are themselves, non-magical at the time the person is required to save.  This would make any creature with simple "immunity to poison" immune to it, but not settle the ultimate question.



> How about once someone fails the save - it's instantaneous so is it thereafter non-magical?



I believe I asked this question to SoS earlier.  If you cast Dispel Magic after someone fails their saving throw, does that cancel the poison and the need to make a secondary save?  He did not respond.



> The poison entry just alludes to a difference between Ex. and Su. abilities, but that's probably for things like antimagic fields



  I believe that poisons listed as Ex are considered "poisonous effects," though I could be wrong.  While this distinction does affect anti-magic fields, I believe it's origin is rooted in the philosophy that the poisons are created naturally by the creature (with Black Dragons in Dragon Magic being able to convert arcane spells to poison attacks as the only exception I've seen).  This also comports with WotC's statement that "almost all" poisonous effects are Ex.  

The bottom line is that WotC does a heck of a job of dancing around the question of whether there really are magical poisons without ever stepping directly on it.

EDIT:
"poisonous effect" may also be an attempt to refer to the effect of the poison, like the ability loss or secondary save.  I'm not 100% clear as to what they are truly trying to distinguish when they use that term.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 13, 2011)

*I'll make this simple:  The insulting and name-calling stops now.  

Is that somehow unclear?  Then take it to e-mail or PM with the moderator of your choice.

Thanks for your time and attention, all*.


----------



## xigbar (Dec 14, 2011)

I love this thread!


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Dec 15, 2011)

......all means all......


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 15, 2011)

Oh no no no no no, you've got it all wrong.

By which I mean that you have it partially wrong, because of the way the term is used in different sections of previous editions of the books, pertaining to other topics that have nothing at all to do with what we're talking about.

By which I mean that they have something to do with what we're talking about, even if nobody can really explain why.

You see, it all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

By which I mean that it partially depends ...



Is all of that clear now?  (By which I mean to ask "Is any of that clear now?")


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 16, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> ......all means all, _including_......




I fixed that for you.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 16, 2011)

_All_ means _All_ works 60% of the time, every time!


----------



## xigbar (Dec 16, 2011)

Now 20% stronger than it's competitors!


----------



## Dandu (Dec 16, 2011)




----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Dec 16, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> ......all means all, including......






Arrowhawk said:


> I fixed that for you.




....Redundancy/Repetition for emphasis?


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Dec 16, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> ....Redundancy/Repetition for emphasis?



Nah, just showing a "1984"-like use of words. War is peace, love is hate, . . . _including_ is _excluding_ . . . 

Or maybe a fashionista-like use of words, "_including_ is the new _excluding_!"


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 16, 2011)

Look, to answer the original question:  Your Dm is right, simply because he's the DM.  It's called "Rule Zero".

Now, is his interpretation of "all" correct, in any non-rule-zero sense?

Hey, if I answer that question, we start the whole war over again.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 16, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> Look, to answer the original question:  Your Dm is right, simply because he's the DM.  It's called "Rule Zero".
> 
> Now, is his interpretation of "all" correct, in any non-rule-zero sense?
> 
> Hey, if I answer that question, we start the whole war over again.




How does that Al Pacino quote go?  

I try to leave but you keep sucking me back in!!!​


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> How does that Al Pacino quote go?
> I try to leave but you keep sucking me back in!!!​



So, by openly saying that I don't want to draw anyone back into the fight, you conclude that I'm somehow trying to draw you into the fight again?

Somehow, I'm not surprised.  I can't quite put my finger on _all_ the reasons why not, but I'm not surprised.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Dec 17, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> Somehow, I'm not surprised. I can't quite put my finger on _all_ the reasons why not, but I'm not surprised.



Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.


----------



## kitcik (Dec 17, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> So, by openly saying that I don't want to draw anyone back into the fight, you conclude that I'm somehow trying to draw you into the fight again?




I could answer the (implied) question, but I have too many mod points.


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 17, 2011)

To be clear, I made my position clear quite a while ago, and saw no point in repeating it ad nauseum.

At this point I'm not arguing any POV any more.  I'm just poking fun at the whole mess.  The whole thing is just too silly not to laugh at it.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 17, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> So, by openly saying that I don't want to draw anyone back into the fight, you conclude that I'm somehow trying to draw you into the fight again?
> 
> Somehow, I'm not surprised.  I can't quite put my finger on _all_ the reasons why not, but I'm not surprised.



OMG dude, it's a joke.  Get over yourself.


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 17, 2011)

kitcik said:


> I have too many mod points.




+1 lol


----------



## LiL KiNG (Dec 17, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> OMG dude, it's a joke.  Get over yourself.




Another example of how one can misunderstand the 'tone' or 'intent' of the written word.

...Never mind, it's too easy.  The similarities make me laugh though...


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 19, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> OMG dude, it's a joke.  Get over yourself.



And I was joking right back at you.  Lighten up.


----------



## Dandu (Dec 20, 2011)

Why so serious?


----------



## PureGoldx58 (Dec 20, 2011)

Dandu said:


> Why so serious?




Because D&D is not a game, it is a way of life!


----------



## Janaxstrus (Dec 28, 2011)

Came for the discussion, stayed for the trainwreck of "logic"

Would read it _all_ again.


----------



## the Jester (Dec 28, 2011)

Man, I only read the first few pages of this thread, but I am _astonished_ by the lack of logic of the argument that can be summarized as:



			
				Bad Logic said:
			
		

> "All" doesn't mean "all" in a case where it reads "all" because there may be other things elsewhere in the game that have exceptions.




Wow.

In the end, your dm has the right to make the call, and play how you want; but if your game treats "all" as "some" and then turns around and treats "potions" and "love" as "poisons", I don't think I'd enjoy or even comprehend your game. I prefer to know that when I have an ability that lets me "do" something, I can actually "do" it instead of "maybe not doing" it because someone else somewhere else can't do some thing that the dm views as parallel. The lack of consistency in the arguments here are amazing.

But like I said, play however you want. I wouldn't play in a game with definitions of basic English words that seemed to contradict their meanings, because I'd be at a loss for what I could "do".


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Dec 28, 2011)

To be fair, I made the connection between love and poison *as a joke* in regards to treating potions as a poison.  I really hope people reading that didn't think I was serious, like Arrowhawk was about potions being poisons...

Also, please...can this thread just die?  Please?


----------



## xigbar (Dec 29, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> To be fair, I made the connection between love and poison *as a joke* in regards to treating potions as a poison. I really hope people reading that didn't think I was serious, like Arrowhawk was about potions being poisons...
> 
> Also, please...can this thread just die? Please?




But why? I thought this was put here specifically for my amusement.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Dec 29, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> Also, please...can this thread just die?  Please?



Not as long as I still have Popcorn!
...All Means All.... hehehehe *run away*


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Dec 29, 2011)

RUMBLETiGER said:


> Not as long as I still have Popcorn!



I bet you have a drink with you too, and if you keep drinking eventually you'll have to leave to use the loo.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Dec 29, 2011)

StreamOfTheSky said:


> I really hope people reading that didn't think I was serious, like Arrowhawk was about potions being poisons...



 Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?



> Also, please...can this thread just die?  Please?



Seem you're the one who can't let it die.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Dec 29, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> I bet you have a drink with you too, and if you keep drinking eventually you'll have to leave to use the loo.



Laptops are portable.  Never need to leave!


----------



## xigbar (Dec 29, 2011)

Arrowhawk said:


> Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?
> 
> 
> Seem you're the one who can't let it die.




psssst....Hey. I think they're ignoring you.


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Dec 29, 2011)

xigbar said:


> psssst....Hey. I think they're ignoring you.




Who are you talking to?


----------



## xigbar (Dec 29, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> Who are you talking to?




No one in particular.


----------



## Greenfield (Dec 30, 2011)

Jackinthegreen said:


> Who are you talking to?



The guy who he's ignoring, of course.  But if he mentioned the name then he wouldn't be ignoring him, now would he?


----------



## xigbar (Dec 30, 2011)

Greenfield said:


> The guy who he's ignoring, of course. But if he mentioned the name then he wouldn't be ignoring him, now would he?




You've got to be* methodical, *people! *Methodical!*


----------



## Carbon (Jan 7, 2012)

Hmm I've been thinking, would a level 9 undead druid be immune to positoxins?

Because if so, that's awesome.


----------



## Vegepygmy (Jan 7, 2012)

Carbon said:


> Hmm I've been thinking, would a level 9 undead druid be immune to positoxins?





			
				Libris Mortis said:
			
		

> Treat positoxins as poisons for the purpose of spells and effects such as detect poison, delay poison, and neutralize poison.



So yes, it would.


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Jan 8, 2012)

oh... Warforged Druid?


----------



## JessGulbranson (Jan 9, 2012)

So, I didn't catch the ENTIRE thread, but it seems to me all the logical bantering back and forth ignores one possibility- that the mention of "including magical poisons" was not an intentional addition to the rules, but perhaps just a lazy/accidental use of_ enumeratio_?


----------



## TanithT (Jan 9, 2012)

Empirate said:


> It doesn't get much clearer than "all poisons". Why your DM wouldn't count the "magical poisons" and "artificial poisons" sets as subsets of the "all poisons" set is beyond me.




Depends on how much realism vs. magic you want to interject into your game.  The obvious/easy choice is to go with whatever the standard rules say, but in case you want to make some homebrew tweaks based on science, here's some boring real world background.  Warning: most of you will find this unspeakably nerdy and TL;DR.

Immunity to venom is something that can evolve in the organism as part of a natural "arms race" between predator and prey, which is why you see significant specific antibody activity in local mammal populations that are heavily predated by venomous snakes.  The snake population ends up semi-randomly turning on or turning off genes that express various components of their venom, and in some species this can actually be a dynamic/ontogenic process in the individual animal as its size and age moves it to a different prey niche.  

Immunity to a specific toxin or class of toxins doesn't carry over to any other class of toxins.  Take a mammal from a population with strong immunity to the venom of local rattlesnakes and expose it to a snake from a different geographical area, and it's just lunch.  This can even be true for snakes in the same species, as individual and locality expressions of venom components can be highly variable.  

Immunity to venom can also be acquired through gradual introduction and the buildup of antibodies, which is why a number of scientists who work directly with the live snakes or with venom or both practice SI, self-immunization.  A non fatal exposure leads to the production of antibodies, which can be maintained with regular small subcutaneous injections.  

Exposure via the mucosal route is much more likely to trigger the wrong cascade of immune response and lead to sensitivity/allergy rather than increased immunity, which is why folks who work with lyophilized product and herpetologists working with spitting cobras who deliver their annoyance in airborne form are well advised to either wear respirators or do the sub-Q shots.  You can avoid a bite, but you can't avoid mucosal exposure if you're in the same room with a spitter when it unloads.   Or after it unloads for that matter, if you clean the surfaces.   Bleach helps but doesn't eliminate the exposure issue.  A number of venom lab workers do the sub-Q shots as allergy shots rather than in quantity sufficient to stimulate significant antibody production.

Raising antibodies to most natural venoms, at least on the reptile end, is pretty straightforward and has only one major pitfall.  Neurotoxins and myotoxins are easy.  Cytotoxins are the toughie because of tissue death on self injection even of dilute amounts.  That's where you start wanting to think about doing protein fractions, which takes it out of the realm of a DIY project or a small venom lab project.  Electrophoresis columns are a lot more expensive than lyophilizers.  But, it can still be done, albeit not nearly as effectively.  In the case of venoms with a strong cytotoxic component that effectively  act as a pre-digestive, lysing and dissolving cells, immunization tends  to be less effective even when it can be accomplished without injury.  

Please note that even if you have good circulating levels of a venom-specific antibody in your system at the time of a bite, if that critter seriously unloads on you, the venom will almost certainly outpace the ability of your antibodies to stave it off.  What SI means on a practical level is that you will be able to shrug off minor envenomations with little or no ill effect, and for anything beyond that you will need less antivenom and less time in the hospital, on a respirator or on a drip to prevent rhabdo and kidney shutdown.  Not none, just less.  Fair warning: the term "immunity" is pretty misleading, because it really isn't.  At least not in the real world.  "Resistance" would probably be a better description of what can realistically be achieved either through evolution or self-immunization.

Raising antibodies and being sure of triggering the correct IgG vs IgE cascade is definitely do-able for snake venoms.  When you move to poisons that work in an entirely different way in the body, antibodies are no longer effective in combating them.  There is no antivenom, or effective natural antibodies, for something like heavy metal poisoning.  You can administer chelating agents that can bind to those molecules and speed their passage from the body, but I am not sure that there is any way of having a permanent natural circulating level of chelating agents already in the body, as there is with venom antibodies.

There is nothing that can be done to immunize vs corrosive poisons that act directly to cause damage to flesh.  You can reverse their continued action after the fact, but the agents you're using may be as damaging to the patient in the absence of any corrosive to neutralize as the corrosive itself.

My knowledge is minimal on the subject of poisons that aren't delivered by bite or sting, but I do know that they have some radically different mechanisms of action and are not affected by antibodies which can be produced by the body.  Immunity to injected biotoxins, even a wide range of them, would have no effect on the types of poisons that affect the body by different mechanisms and which are not mitigated by natural antibodies.  

Blanket immunity to "poisons" is not a concept that makes any sense medically or scientifically.  Which is not necessarily relevant when you're playing a fantasy game, if you simply use the deus ex machina of "it's MAAAGIC" to explain away the discrepancies.  In real life, people can't cast Fireball either.  So, it's certainly excusable.  But if you feel like being a bit devilish with your players and setting limits on anything defined as non magical poison immunity, these would be some reasonable starting points.

TL;DR, just say it's magic and forget about it.  Unless you're nerdly enough to care how poisons work in the real world and apply that to your campaign.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 9, 2012)

Jackinthegreen said:


> The name of the ability is "Venom Immunity." The description is "At 9th level, a druid gains immunity to all poisons."  Which one are you going to go with?
> 
> I'll admit, it's possible they knew of the distinction back in the days when Venom Immunity only applied to natural poisons.  In 3.5's case, they either know of it and are ignoring it or they don't know of it.  They're a game-making company after all, not a group of biologists.  This is reinforced by them listing various things as poisons when they're technically toxins or venom.
> 
> The intent of the ability seems pretty darn clear: immunity to all poisons.  If anyone really wants to find out the solid truth though, perhaps a message to WotC itself is in order?




The way I phrased it when educating folks about biotoxins was that poison is bad if you bite into it, and venom is bad if it bites into you.  

A bit of a crude approximation, but what is generally accepted in the biotox community is that venom is delivered via active mechanism (bite, sting or aerosolization) and poison is a passive mechanism that requires touch or inhestion, or inhalation minus the active aerosolization by the organism.

Medically, all drugs are poisons.  Sometimes it's just a question of which organisms they poison - to a bacteria or a parasite, the antibiotic or antihelminthic is definitely a poison.  Quantity tends to be the dividing line; there are almost no efficacious drugs that will not kill the patient when overdosed.   Sometimes the safety margin between life saving drug and fatal overdose is very, very tiny.  Sometimes the drug is always harmful or fatal in the absence of a specific condition it is intended to treat.

So the mechanism of how you would magically distinguish a harmful poison from a helpful drug when the dividing line is quantity rather than quality is really something of a complicated grey area.  I think we're pretty much stuck with the "it's MAAAAGIC" deus ex machina, because medically there just isn't that distinction.

The bio stuff is geeky and complicated enough that I definitely don't blame any GMs for throwing up their hands and just using the easiest interpretation of the rule book, even if it makes zero medical or scientific sense.  It's D&D, not a National Geographic documentary.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 9, 2012)

kitcik said:


> Venoms are a subset of poisons so while poison immunity includes venom immunity, venom immunity does not include immunity to all poisons.




Sort of.  I'd cheerfully make you a bar bet that rattlesnakes are not poisonous.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 9, 2012)

Niccodaemus said:


> n any case, my own ruling would be that the immunity applies to all naturally occurring toxins. Now, if you used those toxins to brew your own poison, that might be another matter. That is, if a Druid were poisoned, particularly by another Druid, I'm thinking that the poisoning Druid would be able to figure out a toxic combo that would knock his victim to his knees at the very least.




I would agree with that.  If you are postulating the partially or wholly non magical development of natural toxin resistance as part of druid training, this would  be an annoyingly easy project.  There is a freakishly wide spectrum of biotoxins expressed by various organisms, and sometimes a wide spread within a single species.  Resistance to the most commonly occurring toxins in one region is unlikely to be quite as helpful in another region, particularly if it is environmentally dissimilar. 

It can also be unhelpful if some evolutionary factor causes a local venomous organism to start expressing dormant genes for a venom component that wasn't previously optimal for the prey it used to feed on. 

Watch a snake population switch from being mammal eaters to reptile, fish or amphibian eaters, and you will see some seriously potent neurotoxins start showing up over time.  The opposite occurs in a population where the juveniles prey primarily on lizards and graduate to rodents as they increase in size.  Neurotoxins drop down, cytotoxins emerge, which are fabulous for rapid rodent immobilzation on an intracoelomic injection but don't do nearly as much in reptiles, and coincidentally not as much in larger animals like humans either.  You get significantly lowered (or raised) human toxicity as an accidental side effect of prey shift, and also when a prey population evolves too much venom specific resistance.   It's essentially an evolutionary arms race.

Obviously the genetics to express the different venom components have to be there to begin with.  But it can be a fairly dramatic effect, and it can take place in individual animals as well as being a general adaptive shift in a population over time. Ontogenic and evolutionary shifts in venom typing are invariably tied to preferred prey, not to defense.  The human LD-50 of venom is an utter accident, not a purposeful evolutionary path.  Not to say it couldn't happen otherwise, especially in a fantasy world, but the boring reality is that snakes envenomate to eat, and defense is a very minor factor for some very solid reasons I won't bore folks with here.

Ultimately the question hinges on how druids in your campaign develop venom immunity in the first place.  Is it magically bestowed, or are they injecting and ingesting minute quantities of assorted toxins on a regular enough basis to develop and maintain circulating antibodies?  Or perhaps some of both, where magic boosts the effect of their hard work from resistance (what you'd actually achieve by doing this in the real world) to true immunity?




> "I realize you have built up an immunity to every naturally occurring toxin in the Kingdom of Nalin. However, there is a rather curious lizard that makes its home in the deserts of Thrumblin..."



Herpetologist approves +1.  This scenario is medically and scientifically accurate. 

Thing is, if you kick magic into the equation and ignore realism, the evolution of different toxin components in geographically remote populations no longer matters as much as the "magic" element, which has a much less explainable mechanism of effect.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 10, 2012)

Please lock this thread


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 10, 2012)

TanithT said:


> Medically, all drugs are poisons.  Sometimes it's just a question of which organisms they poison - to a bacteria or a parasite, the antibiotic or antihelminthic is definitely a poison.  Quantity tends to be the dividing line; there are almost no efficacious drugs that will not kill the patient when overdosed.   Sometimes the safety margin between life saving drug and fatal overdose is very, very tiny.  Sometimes the drug is always harmful or fatal in the absence of a specific condition it is intended to treat.
> 
> So the mechanism of how you would magically distinguish a harmful poison from a helpful drug when the dividing line is quantity rather than quality is really something of a complicated grey area.  I think we're pretty much stuck with the "it's MAAAAGIC" deus ex machina, because medically there just isn't that distinction.




This also occurred to me during this discussion, but since D&D doesn't use a lot of straight up medicines, I never broached the topic.  

I did use this line of reasoning when I pointed out that a "magical" poison and a "magical" potion would be essentially the same thing i.e. a liquid you consume which then results in a magical effect or a substance which transmits a magical effect after contact.  

Essentially I came the conclusion during the thread that in D&D it makes the most sense if we consider that poisons could have a magical origin, but the poison itself, is meant to be non-magical in nature.  In other words, a magical poison don't exist, just magic that creates poisons.   Attempting to claim a poison is magical is like creating magical ice that transmitted heat.  It's not really "ice" if it transmits heat is it?  It's something else entirely.  But as you suggest, in a game, you can call it ice and try to treat it like ice no matter how inconsistent such an approach would be.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

kitcik said:


> Please lock this thread




There's lots of topics that aren't of personal interest to me.  I don't  go into those threads asking that they be closed.  I just don't bother  reading them. 

Venoms and biological toxins are a nifty, geeky, interesting topic that can make good background material or a useful plot hook for your campaign.  Why complain if folks who are actually interested choose to discuss?


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 10, 2012)

TanithT said:


> There's lots of topics that aren't of personal interest to me.  I don't  go into those threads asking that they be closed.  I just don't bother  reading them.




This is what I call the troll tax.  There's always a few people who patrol every thread and when people stop listening to them or they no longer want to talk about it, they think the thread should be stopped.  It's so juvenile I find it amusing.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

Arrowhawk said:


> This also occurred to me during this discussion, but since D&D doesn't use a lot of straight up medicines, I never broached the topic.




If memory serves, when medicines (or herbs with pharmacological effect) are discussed, the mechanics are handled similarly to magical effect.  I don't think they make a clear rules distinction.




> I did use this line of reasoning when I pointed out that a "magical" poison and a "magical" potion would be essentially the same thing i.e. a liquid you consume which then results in a magical effect or a substance which transmits a magical effect after contact.




I suppose that would depend on the individual substance.  We could postulate a magically created poison in which magic substitutes for science during the process of creation, concentrating an existing substance to a potency well beyond that which could be achieved with the current tech level of the campaign.  The end substance would be magically created, but might be functionally identical to a concentrated toxin that could be made in the real world with modern scientific technique and equipment.  Or, who knows, it could even be more potent than that, because "magic" amplified its effects.

Or you could postulate a magical poison which was basically a magical item that cast a spell of sorts, or that had a magical effect on contact.  In that case, sky's the limit for what you're imagining.  




> Essentially I came the conclusion during the thread that in D&D it makes the most sense if we consider that poisons could have a magical origin, but the poison itself, is meant to be non-magical in nature.  In other words, a magical poison don't exist, just magic that creates poisons.   Attempting to claim a poison is magical is like creating magical ice that transmitted heat.  It's not really "ice" if it transmits heat is it?  It's something else entirely.  But as you suggest, in a game, you can call it ice and try to treat it like ice no matter how inconsistent such an approach would be.




I don't see any reason you couldn't make "hot ice" an interesting alchemical plot hook, actually.  Or magical poison, for that matter.  IMO, it's DM's choice.

This said, I would personally tend to err on the side of magical poisons making more real world sense, eg, they were created and distilled using magical methods as a straight substitute for the scientific technique and equipment that doesn't exist at your assumed tech level.  

Not everyone is going to want to tackle the thorny question of what exactly IS your campaign's tech level, and how much the existence of magic has essentially substituted for scientific advancement by making it impractical to invest a lot of resources in.  When it's cheaper to hire a mage, and you don't have a high enough level of national unification to have a major budget to spend on non magical R&D, you won't necessarily have tech - but you probably have a lot of low level "commercial mages" who can make a very reliable living casting cantrips and first level spells to solve common industrial problems and produce useful goods.

Consider a "wood preservation" cantrip that slightly changed wood grain and structure to make it a bit more durable and resistant to marine and terrestrial parasites.  Not very highly powered in game terms, but oh so economically viable.  

I could see medicine and poison creation working similarly, with alchemical techniques getting a boost from relatively simple magic.   I can also see where total realism on this level would start impacting game mechanics, so it's not a line of thought that most DM's are likely to want to follow.


----------



## Arrowhawk (Jan 10, 2012)

TanithT said:


> If memory serves, when medicines (or herbs with pharmacological effect) are discussed, the mechanics are handled similarly to magical effect.  I don't think they make a clear rules distinction.



  The  distinction occurs when you talk about things like Anti-Magic fields.  So in this case it makes a big difference whether the effect is magical or not. 



> We could postulate a magically created poison in which magic substitutes for science during the process of creation



 I don't think the creation of the substance is material to the questions raised in this thread.  I think the issue is the substance itself.  Is it and the effect it has, magical or is it non-magical.  

Here's another way to think about it. What happens when Dispel Magic is cast on the poison?  Is it dispelled or does it persist?  For example let's  compare the spell _Poison_ to _Create Water_.  When someone drinks the water from CW, do the suddenly get thirsty if they walk into an anti-magic field or have Dispel Magic cast on them? 



> Or you could postulate a magical poison which was basically a magical item that cast a spell of sorts, or that had a magical effect on contact.  In that case, sky's the limit for what you're imagining.



 But is it really a poison at this point?  What if the substance magically made you strong for six hours and then made you sick?  Is that a poison?  What if we reverse the process...sick first...then strong?  



> I don't see any reason you couldn't make "hot ice" an interesting alchemical plot hook, actually.



 The point is whether it's accurate to call what you made "ice."  There is no such thing as "hot ice."  You've created an entirely new object that is chemically and functionally different than ice.  Putting the word "ice" in its name doesn't make it ice...it just allows you to say things immune to ice are not affected by it.  But that's just a contrivance isn't it?

A poison substance works chemically.  A substance that works magically isn't really a "poison."  It could mimic a poison, just like a flashlight could mimic burning torch, but the flashlight isn't a burning torch.



> This said, I would personally tend to err on the side of magical poisons making more real world sense, eg, they were created and distilled using magical methods as a straight substitute for the scientific technique and equipment that doesn't exist at your assumed tech level.



  Sure, you're talking about _creating_ the poison.  There's no reason why poisons couldn't be created magically.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

Arrowhawk said:


> What happens when Dispel Magic is cast on the poison?  Is it dispelled or does it persist?  For example let's  compare the spell _Poison_ to _Create Water_.  When someone drinks the water from CW, do the suddenly get thirsty if they walk into an anti-magic field or have Dispel Magic cast on them?




Excellent point of distinction.  And obviously relevant to game mechanics.  The DM would need to decide what effect such spells would have, hopefully in a reasonably logical manner.  If your character got socked with a chemical poison created with magical techniques that substituted for scientific ones (flame cantrip for heat, spells to concentrate or denature or purify the chemical, etc), I would rule that you're SOL if all you have to combat it is Dispel Magic.





> The point is whether it's accurate to call what you made "ice."  There is no such thing as "hot ice."  You've created an entirely new object that is chemically and functionally different than ice.




Well, if the average low-tech culture encounters a solid substance that is white and semi-translucent and hot, and melts slowly to give off liquid, I'm guessing the moniker that gets tagged onto it will be "hot ice".  




> Putting the word "ice" in its name doesn't make it ice...it just allows you to say things immune to ice are not affected by it.




I agree, it doesn't.  If I did this as an alchemical plot hook, I would not make such a ruling.  What something looks like and how it functions can be very different things.  Dolphins look like fish, but they are vertebrate mammals. 




> A poison substance works chemically.  A substance that works magically isn't really a "poison."  It could mimic a poison, just like a flashlight could mimic burning torch, but the flashlight isn't a burning torch.




Good point, but having generally separate game mechanics for magical effects that mimic poison and actual poison would probably be a bit messy for most folks to want to deal with.

I could see being ambitious enough to go there myself, but most people aren't going to care enough about the fiddly points of toxicology to want to mod the rules that far.  Declaring "Poisons work this way" is probably going to be enough for your average player.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 10, 2012)

Arrowhawk said:


> This is what I call the troll tax.  There's always a few people who patrol every thread and when people stop listening to them or they no longer want to talk about it, they think the thread should be stopped.  It's so juvenile I find it amusing.




This is why I said to close the thread.

Topic has been done to death.

All that's left is Arrowhawk hurling personal insults around while trying to adjust his halo.


----------



## kitcik (Jan 10, 2012)

kitcik said:


> .



...


----------



## PureGoldx58 (Jan 10, 2012)

All of this discussion has brought up some interesting points but really all we get from it is that people can't be happy with "all meaning all, unless the poison says it ignores immunity". Which as a precedent within the game itself occurs far more than once or twice. 

In the current game structure there are no "magical" poisons and the distinction between them would not apply towards Venom Immunity, because magical is still under all. Now if you created "magical" poisons they would be able to, as mentioned, be affected by Dispel and AMF which weakens them, because they would still be subject to the other poison suppression/removal spells in addition to these other spells.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

kitcik said:


> This is why I said to close the thread.
> 
> Topic has been done to death.
> 
> All that's left is Arrowhawk hurling personal insults around while trying to adjust his halo.




Odd, it looks to me like a constructive discussion of how to optionally incorporate toxicology and chemistry into your game mechanics.  The only non constructive input I am seeing here is yours. 

Obviously biotoxicology is a field of significant interest to me, and I've borrowed some fairly nifty plot hooks from it to flesh out characters and world background in my campaign.  I think the information is worth sharing.  I'm enjoying the conversation and see nothing negative or insulting about it.  If you are not enjoying the conversation, please feel free to visit one of the many other threads on this forum and enjoy one of them instead.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

PureGoldx58 said:


> All of this discussion has brought up some interesting points but really all we get from it is that people can't be happy with "all meaning all, unless the poison says it ignores immunity". Which as a precedent within the game itself occurs far more than once or twice.




In the real world, there are two mechanisms by which a venom or a poison can effectively ignore prior immunization.  One, it can be delivered in sufficient quantity to bind circulating antibodies and still have plenty left to do its dirty work.  Two, it can change or adapt sufficiently that the prior immunization won't actually be cross-reactive to its current form.  

This assumes the real world definition of "immunity", which technically should be called "resistance".  If you assume a magical definition of immunity that works by an unknown magical mechanism, all bets are off and you can ignore the science completely.  But if your world background calls for a physical immunization process as opposed to a magical one, it might make reasonable sense to give a nod to the science.  Or not, as the individual DM chooses.




> In the current game structure there are no "magical" poisons and the distinction between them would not apply towards Venom Immunity, because magical is still under all. Now if you created "magical" poisons they would be able to, as mentioned, be affected by Dispel and AMF which weakens them, because they would still be subject to the other poison suppression/removal spells in addition to these other spells.




Which simplifies the rules and game mechanics considerably, as most DM's would probably prefer.  It's not quite real-world accurate, but neither are fire breathing dragons.


----------



## Empirate (Jan 10, 2012)

If you really want to bring the real world into a discussion that used to be entirely about the rules cosmos, think about this:

 "_The dose makes_ _the __poison_." -- Paracelsus


Did you know oxygen caused cancer? Or sawdust? Did you know that carbon dioxide is quite, quite poisonous to most animal life in sufficient quantity, even though plants thrive on it? Pure water, ingested in great enough doses, will kill you by inducing osmotic imbalance in your intestines. So is a Druid immune to those? What does immunity mean in that case? Can't a Druid breathe, because inhaling oxygen might be bad for his health? Can't a Druid drink too much water?

And don't get me started on drug abuse and the question which drugs are socially unacceptable, thus "bad", thus "poison", and which drugs are socially acceptable. Alcohol is the usual example given (or marijuana in some nations), but let's think out of the box: did you know people can become addicted to _sugar_? A lot of Inuit have a huge sweets habit, which WILL kill them or at least make them sick if they can't kick it.


See, a poison is quite clearly defined in D&D rules texts, but in the real world, there usually isn't such a thing as a clear definition, even though scientists like to carry themselves as if everything were clear-cut. So please don't bring in your real-life categories. They have no bearing on the question which substances a Druid is immune to in D&D.


Also, kitcik is right about the "done to death" part. Leave well (or bad) enough alone already...


----------



## RUMBLETiGER (Jan 10, 2012)

I personally am enjoying new, additional information brought to the OP topic, which honestly is rare after a thread has degenerated as far as this one did a few pages back.  Usually someone asks a question, gets a page or two of response to the orginal question, than comments to some of the answers occurs, diviating from the orginal post, and then dissagreements on those tangent comments occurs.

Someone coming back to the OP after 9 pages is refreshing.  I can read it without needing popcorn.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 10, 2012)

Empirate said:


> If you really want to bring the real world into a discussion that used to be entirely about the rules cosmos, think about this:
> 
> "_The dose makes_ _the __poison_." -- Paracelsus




As we've been discussing, that's actually quite an interesting game mechanics point.  Almost all good drugs have a harmful or fatal overdose.  Some drugs have a pretty narrow margin between helpful and fatal.  If you postulate a magical mechanism that differentiates between "medicine" and "poison", you have to assume some degree of circumstantial judgment and/or precognition, since both are likely to be true for a given substance.  Essentially the magic would have to work intelligently, which could open up all sorts of interesting potential plot doors.





> Did you know oxygen caused cancer? Or sawdust? Did you know that carbon dioxide is quite, quite poisonous to most animal life in sufficient quantity, even though plants thrive on it? Pure water, ingested in great enough doses, will kill you by inducing osmotic imbalance in your intestines.



.... I don't think you have a very clear understanding of neoplastic processes.  This is D&D Legacy, not Bio 101, so let's just never mind.  





> So is a Druid immune to those? What does immunity mean in that case? Can't a Druid breathe, because inhaling oxygen might be bad for his health? Can't a Druid drink too much water?



Again we're back to the definition of "immunity" - is it MAAAAGIC and working by an unknown, godlike mechanism, or has the DM chosen to flesh out their world background with a bit of poison lore creatively mined from our world's science?  Either way is fine, really - it's a game, and ultimately that creative control belongs to the individual DM.  If you are tweaking the basic rules recipe with a tasty scoop of real-world poison lore, then you may want to deal with the "medicine is poison" question a little more realistically.

In the real world, "immunity" should probably be written as "resistance".  It's not magic, it's antibodies.  Whatever quantity of antibodies a given organism has in circulation will bind to an equivalent quantity of foreign bodies in the bloodstream and neutralize them.  If there's more antibodies than venom, you're good.  If there's more venom than antibodies, that's bad, and you will see some envenomation effects occurring at least until those antibodies can be replenished.  The damage already done won't be reversed, but the new antibodies going into circulation can continue their neutralization work.

We could decide that a magical ritual or monk-like body control discipline taught to druids can speed up antibody production or boost its circulating levels, or maintain them in the absence of biweekly injections.   That's pretty consistent with both science and the fantasy world background we're playing in.  Whether you care enough to bother with this level of detail in fleshing out your druid character background is entirely up to you.  

If you do go this route, you might also want to think about whether your druids would be immune to poisons that are not affected by antibodies, or against which they would not reasonably be able to raise antibodies.  Again, potentially fun plot hooks here.  An order of Druids that went to great lengths to instill strong resistances vs natural toxins in their members might be awfully surprised by a rival sect of assassins using a non-local type of venom that they hadn't had a chance to develop immunity against.  

Or they might get caught with their britches down by a poison type that ignored antibodies.  That lead glaze recently invented by the local monastery is really lovely, and trade in it has benefited their economy greatly.  How odd that people are dying mysteriously, including a Druid of the local Order, who of course couldn't possibly have died from poison, given the potent immunities conferred by his mystical practices.  Shall we investigate?  

Plot hooks.  Fun stuff.  This is pretty much what I play D&D for.  Your mileage may vary, of course.




> And don't get me started on drug abuse and the question which drugs are socially unacceptable, thus "bad", thus "poison", and which drugs are socially acceptable. Alcohol is the usual example given (or marijuana in some nations), but let's think out of the box: did you know people can become addicted to _sugar_? A lot of Inuit have a huge sweets habit, which WILL kill them or at least make them sick if they can't kick it.



And there's another great plot hook.  If some well meaning druid created a magical poison immunity talent/item/potion/spell/etc that operated on morals, and had something of an imperfect "drug vs poison" filter on its judgment calls, can you imagine how little fun your characters would have in a tavern?  Or a kitchen for that matter.  And, no medicine for you!  Ever.  Maybe no food either.  Certainly no herbs or spices or salt.  My, that could be fun.  For the DM, anyhow.  Muahahaha.  (insert evil DM laugh here)




> See, a poison is quite clearly defined in D&D rules texts, but in the real world, there usually isn't such a thing as a clear definition, even though scientists like to carry themselves as if everything were clear-cut. So please don't bring in your real-life categories. They have no bearing on the question which substances a Druid is immune to in D&D.



Quite a lot is known to science, if not necessarily to you personally.  While no one needs a D&D game to be a National Geographic documentary, there are all kinds of interesting places a DM can go looking for nifty bits of lore, plot hooks and background information to flesh out their world and character background.  It's strictly optional, and you can always go with the simple standard rules on poison if you have neither the time nor the inclination to do otherwise.  Nothing wrong with that; it's a game, and the object is to have fun, not to tie yourself in knots pondering things that don't interest you.  

But, for folks who really are interested and see some potential for creative worldbuilding by fleshing out house rules with a bit of realism, this kind of stuff is good geeky fun and good background material.

That is all.  Have I mentioned that this stuff is optional?  If you think it's nifty and want to use it as world background or a plot hook, great.  If it's not relevant to your interests or your campaign, don't use it.  But please don't begrudge others the right to use it or brainstorm about it if it does look like good campaign material to them.


----------



## Greenfield (Jan 10, 2012)

Cutting through the Bio-101, consider it this way:

The Druid isn't prevented from drinking poison any more than he's prevented from drinking water.  He's simply immune to any toxic effects it might have on him.

Medicine might be mildly poisonous to him, hopefully more toxic to whatever disease or parasite it's intended to treat.  But he can't be harmed by that toxic effect.  The microbe or parasite, however, is certainly susceptible (Unless, of course, it happens to have 9 or more Druid levels.  )

Simpler?


----------



## Jackinthegreen (Jan 11, 2012)

Guess I might as well add a bit more discussion on this.

A Druid's Venom Immunity is Extraordinary, so it's not a continuous magical effect.  Whether a magical effect caused the extraordinary condition of being immune to poisons, the rules don't say.

Compare to a Contemplative's Divine Body, which is a Supernatural effect.  It's pretty well implied that this ability is the result of the character's spiritual connection to a deity or some such.


----------



## TanithT (Jan 11, 2012)

Jackinthegreen said:


> A Druid's Venom Immunity is Extraordinary, so it's not a continuous magical effect.  Whether a magical effect caused the extraordinary condition of being immune to poisons, the rules don't say.
> 
> Compare to a Contemplative's Divine Body, which is a Supernatural effect.  It's pretty well implied that this ability is the result of the character's spiritual connection to a deity or some such.




I think it actually makes a lot of in-game sense to decide that druid immunity to poison is at least partly the physical result of their working directly with the natural world.  Working with venomous and poisonous plants and animals to do interesting things with their toxins sounds about right for how a Druid order might keep itself busy, and it makes for nice juicy world background material.  It also makes self-immunization practices quite sensible if you're a Druid.  Now it becomes quite believable that such immunization would be a mandatory requirement of the class.  

It's not always necessary for everything in your campaign to make real world logical sense - it's a fantasy world after all, and "it's MAAAGIC" grants a fair bit of creative license.  But it can help the player's suspension of disbelief and their ability to immerse themselves in the storyline if there is logical consistency in the plot, and the rules make realistic sense instead of being an artificial construct that mainly exists to support game play mechanics.

But still, all of this stuff is far from mandatory.  Optional background material is optional.  I like it, but it won't suit everyone's play style.


----------

