Immunity to poison vs. poisons that don't do poison damage or poisoned condition

[Greywander]

Typically, a creature that is immune to poison simply gets immunity to poison damage and the poisoned condition (though I think there may be a few places where it actually does simply say "immune to poison"). But what about poisons that don't do either of these? What about a knockout poison that puts you to sleep? Or a paralyzing poison? Maybe a teargas that causes blindness? Or a drug that causes hallucinations or madness? You could even have a poison that deals, say, necrotic damage instead of poison damage (necrotic poison/venom is a real thing).

It seems like all of these would still be effective against a creature supposedly immune to poison. Is this a bug or a feature?

I kind of feel like there should be different poisons and very few creatures have blanket immunity to all poison. A creature might be immune to one type of poison, but susceptible to another type. This could work nicely for a monster slayer type of character, where you can do research to find out what type of poison a monster might be susceptible to and use it to get an edge against that creature. As it stands now, poison either works or doesn't work, and the best poison against one type of creature is generally the best poison against all creatures that aren't immune. Though maybe you could just take advantage of the above "bug" and, say, make a poison that deals radiant damage for use against undead and fiends.

[JNAProductions]

Generally, when a poison does something more than just "Poisoned", it includes that as an additional thing to be afflicted by while poisoned by it.


This poison is typically made only by the drow, and only in a place far removed from sunlight. A creature subjected to this poison must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw or be poisoned for 1 hour. If the saving throw fails by 5 or more, the creature is also unconscious while poisoned in this way. The creature wakes up if it takes damage or if another creature takes an action to shake it awake.

That's right from D&D Beyond.

[DarknessEternal]

Are you certain there are poisons in the game that you think exist which don't apply the poisoned condition or do poison damage? Can you name and cite them?

It would be more useful to lead with that information in the OP so that we'd actually have something to talk about.

[elyktsorb]

Due to my unhealthy obsession with the Poison mechanics of 5e, aside from possible obscure poisons used by specific creatures, I am intimately aware of all the regular poisons you can apply. As such, there is only one poison that effects a creature without doing poison damage, or applying the poisoned condition. It is Ivana's Whisper from Van Richton's Guide to Ravenloft which seems to be specific to a single character.


So to the OP, there aren't any actual poisons that don't do poison damage, or apply conditions that aren't dependent on the target being afflicted with the poisoned condition, aside from the one mentioned above.

I too share your concern about poisons, but the fact of the matter is poisons are mostly a tool for the DM to give to enemeis and npc's and not really fleshed out enough for characters to use flexibly. Or fleshed out in general.

[Greywander]

Hmm, yes, it seems I may have been mistaken. The potential for poisons that bypass "poison immunity" exists, but except for that one specific VRGR poison, all existing poisons either do poison damage or apply the poisoned condition, with any other effects being attached as riders to the poisoned condition.

So I guess technically it's a glitch with no known use case. In theory, if this, that, or the other existed, then the glitch could be used to do something. But none of those currently exist. This could become an issue later on, though, if new poisons are added to the game that don't follow the same conventions.

[Angelalex242]

Eh. Well, let's take Ivana.

She hits a level 10 monk with that.

Does the Monk care?

[Chronos]

The monk wouldn't care, because the monk ability just says "immune to poison", without reference to damage or condition. Likewise, assuming that that poison offers a save, dwarves would have advantage on it. But it probably would still be able to work against a wraith, because their immunity is to the damage and to the condition, not to poisons in general, and a paladin's Lay On Hands or the Lesser Restoration spell probably wouldn't be able to fix it.

(I say "probably" in both cases there because I don't know the exact wording of Ivana's Whisper, and so it might have its own rules to cover those cases).

[stoutstien]

Poisons are pretty cut n dry but diseases are more of a grey area due to not always declaring that's exactly what they are. See burrowing worms on spawn of kyuss and such.

[Samayu]

As mentioned, the monk ability says "immune to poison", without reference to damage or condition, but the wraith doesn't have that phrase - it only has a stat block where their immunity is listed as being to the damage and to the condition. As a GM, I would infer that since a wraith is non-corporeal and it has those immunities, poison cannot affect it, and that this was merely an oversight based on the way stat blocks are presented.

In other words, apply some common sense.

[Unoriginal]

Poisons are pretty cut n dry but diseases are more of a grey area due to not always declaring that's exactly what they are. See burrowing worms on spawn of kyuss and such.

Spawn of Kyuss can affects beings who are immune to disease, it is just vulnerable to effects that cure diseases or curses.

[Angelalex242]

There are far too many diseases that bypass disease immunity.

"Screw you, Paladins and Monks!"

[SharkForce]

There are far too many diseases that bypass disease immunity.

"Screw you, Paladins and Monks!"

indeed.

"you can be immune to diseases, except for the ones that you really want to be immune to most".

[Unoriginal]

There are far too many diseases that bypass disease immunity.

Never noticed that. Do you have a few examples?

[stoutstien]

Never noticed that. Do you have a few examples?

It's actually the other way around where poison immunity is practically disease immunity due to the later not having its own category. If i recall correctly the only diseases that aren't directly tied to the poisoned condition from NPC blocks are the giant rat variant, Zuggtmoys's two spores, and i think the lower CR sladds.

[Warder]

I dunno, I often err on the side of inclusiveness when it comes to immunities re: poison and disease in 5e. Ever since JC confirmed that Divine Health makes paladins immune to the Harm spell, really.

[Angelalex242]

Mummy Rot and Lycanthropy are two of the most classic examples of things Paladins (And 10th level monks) should never have to worry about.

I also recall that there are some modules written where the writer goes out of his way to say, "And Paladins aren't immune to this disease!"

[Dr.Samurai]

If the intent is that a character is supposed to be immune to poisons, but some poison doesn't impose the actual condition or deal damage, I think I would still honor the immunity.

[Unoriginal]

Mummy Rot and Lycanthropy are two of the most classic examples of things Paladins (And 10th level monks) should never have to worry about.


The Rotting Fist effect and lycanthropy are curses, though. Not diseases.



I also recall that there are some modules written where the writer goes out of his way to say, "And Paladins aren't immune to this disease!"

This one is pretty ridiculous, and scream of the writer going "nah nah nah you're not breaking my scenario" rather than using it as an opportunity to make some characters shine if they have the right situational ability.

[Angelalex242]

The Rotting Fist effect and lycanthropy are curses, though. Not diseases.



This one is pretty ridiculous, and scream of the writer going "nah nah nah you're not breaking my scenario" rather than using it as an opportunity to make some characters shine if they have the right situational ability.

Mummy Rot/Lycanthropy were diseases in older editions. They were transformed into curses later so Paladins weren't immune to them anymore. As such, they should be proper diseases like they used to be. Seriously, grab an old 1E or 2E book.

In those same older editions, there were also those Paladin hating DMs who loved nothing better than making Paladins fall. Those same people made it into 5E, and with a hearty 'screw you paladins' made diseases that get by immunity.

[Amnestic]

I don't think there's a problem with Baron von DiseasePlague, Demonlord of Infectious Pathogens and Master of Viral Loads having an ability that says "this bypasses immunity to disease" but it certainly shouldn't be commonplace. Divine Health is "only" a 3rd level class feature after all.

[Angelalex242]

I don't think there's a problem with Baron von DiseasePlague, Demonlord of Infectious Pathogens and Master of Viral Loads having an ability that says "this bypasses immunity to disease" but it certainly shouldn't be commonplace. Divine Health is "only" a 3rd level class feature after all.

See, I'd disagree with this. Respect the player's abilities. Let Paladins (and monks!) stand tall against Baron Von Diseaseplague, knowing his primary powers are useless against them. After all, the Baron can certainly inflict the rest of the party with his DC 22 disease, and he can also inflict that disease on entire countries. Similarly, the Monk should equally be standing tall against Count Von Toxin, knowing his DC 22 poisons are entirely useless.

[Slipjig]

This one is pretty ridiculous, and scream of the writer going "nah nah nah you're not breaking my scenario" rather than using it as an opportunity to make some characters shine if they have the right situational ability.
My thought on that is that if your story calls for the party to be diseased, rule that the Monk or Paladin is an asymptomatic carrier who suffers no ill effects themselves, but will still pass it to people around them if they don't get it cured. They still get the benefit of their class feature without derailing the plot.

[meandean]

Lycanthropy is classically described as a "curse"... that one certainly makes sense to me.

[Amnestic]

See, I'd disagree with this. Respect the player's abilities. Let Paladins (and monks!) stand tall against Baron Von Diseaseplague, knowing his primary powers are useless against them. After all, the Baron can certainly inflict the rest of the party with his DC 22 disease, and he can also inflict that disease on entire countries. Similarly, the Monk should equally be standing tall against Count Von Toxin, knowing his DC 22 poisons are entirely useless.

Different strokes for different folks. I'd give the paladin advantage on the save or something similar, but super big bosses who break the "standard" rules of the game are really neat to me.

[Greywander]

If the creature/disease in question was known for being able to afflict entities normally immune, such as gods or powerful spirits, then it could be a neat plot point. If it's just because "paladins OP plz nerf", then I think it's kind of a **** move on the developer's/DM's part.

[Angelalex242]

Even in the case of those high end entities...well, Paladins in particular are designed to go toe to toe with demons of every sort. Fiends (and undead) are their wheelhouse. Devotion Paladins even come with permanent pro evil by the time they're fighting Baron von Diseaseplague. Likewise, his monk friend has achieved enlightenment. Besides, it's more fun to make the 20(24!!) con barbarian sick, because he didn't have divine protection (or enlightenment). He's just a VERY big oaf!

[Chronos]

IIRC, in 3rd edition, mummy rot was an explicitly magical disease. Monks got immunity to nonmagical diseases (and hence were still subject to mummy rot), but paladins were immune to all diseases, including magical ones, because their immunity came from direct divine power.

[Amnestic]

Even in the case of those high end entities...well, Paladins in particular are designed to go toe to toe with demons of every sort. Fiends (and undead) are their wheelhouse.

Which, and I know this is a digression, doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the 5e Oathbound stuff.

Why does swearing to conquer the world let me detect celestials and fiends? Why does swearing vengeance on a dragon that torched my town give me immunity to diseases? For some oaths this sorta thing makes sense. For others, not so much.

I love 5e paladins in their design and I really like the I Oath approach to their fluff, but they have inherited a few older edition weirdnesses in the process. Alternate Subclass Features might fix it but that's probably a level of complexity they didn't want to mess with.

[Angelalex242]

Every class has legacy powers, and a lot of the paladin's stuff goes all the way back to 1E and 2E. Which is cool. It's a 'link with the ancestors' as it were.