Poison, Acid whatever. If the effect is ruled to be magic, its magic. Just like fire comes in magical and non-magical varieties (and has different damage effects based on which it is) I have no problem with putting poison, acid or ham sandwiches in magical and non-magical varieties. And I see nothing in the spell description that states which it is.
But the bottom line is an attitude towards a DM I wouldn't tolerate. I also don't abide rules lawyers, when I DM its my judgement. And "giving a DM an earful" is grounds for ejection from the game. I've done that a couple times too in my 30 years of DMing.
Hey, you're just a player here, like me. So relax. :P
It doesn't matter if the effect is magical or non-magical. Cavaliers are immune to both. There are not any exceptions in the kit description. They can't use bows, which is a major inconvenience. Poison immunity is a perk that makes up for that. Furthermore this is an ability, it can't be dispelled or bypassed by magic.
We have established that the spell cloudkill is a poison. And we have established that cavaliers are immune to poisons.
@Lateralus I see you're probably not going to budge too far on your opinion (as you've been highly resistant to most arguments here), but there's a problem with lumping everything poisonous into 'poison.'
1. Poisons are injested, not injected. This means, due to the current wording of the Cavalier kit, both pnp and BG:EE, the Paladin would not be immune to anything that caused poison damage unless it was lodged directly into his throat and he was forced to swallow.
2. The 'poisons' inflicted by creatures of natural or unnatural nature in BG:EE are actually venoms. Unfortunately, many venoms have differing effects. Some invade the circulatory system, many can remain localized and become myopathic/osteopathic.
3. We have no understanding of the mechanics behind a Cavalier's poison immunity. Are they immune because such-and-such good aligned deity said so? Are they immune because they injested dead poison strains / live viral/fungal strains for a natural immunity? Are they immune because their fortitude is so great their body simply beats off any infection?
4. Cloudkill is a toxic vapour, which means it behaves differently than an injested poison or an injected venom. It's porous absorption, which means any natural immunity to poison through fortitude or shock therapy is gone (because the vapour can bypass filtering organs and achieve 100% bioavailability). This leaves room only for magical protection and protection through divine intervention.
5. Is the Cavalier protected as long as he can pray? If yes, and Cloudkill attacks the CNS, then the Cavalier will fail to save and die (makes perfect sense since they can no longer divine their protection). If no, and he is protected all the time, I declare Deus Ex Machina, what deity has nothing better to do than to watch a single Cavalier?
6. Does the Cavalier have a magical protection? If he was born with a magical protection, immunity should confer at a certain level. If he has achieved it through gear/spells, then he's immune in pnp and BG:EE appropriately, and this argument cannot go any farther.
7. Natural creatures cannot poison with their bites, no argument here.
8. How can we assume that unnatural creatures (Dragons, Demons) are administering a magical venom with their bites/scratches? Perhaps their toxins are actually lethal doses of asbestos or a demon's claws are crawling with nematocysts? On that topic, how can we be sure ghasts aren't poisoning your body with a paralytic? Should Cavaliers be immune to the bites/scratches of ghasts as well?
So, the real issue here is a pragmatic one. The game uses two ways to inflict poison.
One way is directly via the poison mechanism, used by things like the Assassin's poison weapon ability, various spiders, Asp's Nest darts, and so on. This is generally used to touch a target once and then inflict X damage over Y time (i.e. you get hit by a poisoned weapon and suffer damage over the next couple of rounds). Cavaliers are immune to this.
The second way is through the generic damage mechanism with a damage type of poison. This is the method used by Cloudkill as well as Prismatic Spray, Flail of Ages, poison mists, etc. This is a one-time effect (i.e. Flail of Ages does poison damage on hit, but won't affect you next round). Cavaliers are not immune to poison damage, as noted by the OP.
The problem is that providing immunity to poison damage effectively makes the target also immune to disease, since disease inflicts poison damage.
Cavaliers are said to be trained to fight "classical" monsters like dragons and demons. The opperative word being "trained", which implies a built up immunity to toxins. Another key word in the kit description is immunity. No exceptions are listed (inhaled, ingested, injected, absorbed, or whatever), so if the chemical is a poison or venom, then that is in fact what they are immune to. You can overcomplicate it by including duseases but I see it as a couple of simple rules that just aren't prgrammed to react to each other even though they should. Cloudkill is a poison, cavaliers have devited their lives to building immunity against the deadliest of poisons (especially gases like from dragons breath), so finding them immune to the effects of cloudkill shouldn't be a surprise.
I'm not budging nor do i want to side track the discussion by elaborating on ireelivances, let's just agree to disagree. I hope the dev might see it my way but if not, what's one more dead cavalier gonna matter?
Consider this... not all chemicals (and cloudkill seems more like the CHLORINE GAS (chemical) of a green dragon than a poison) are considered poisons but many can be toxic if consumed, inhaled or otherwise introduced into our bodies.
If I pour chlorine down your throat I don't think immunity to poison will save you.
If I lock you in an air tight room filled with trichloroethylene fumes (a remnant of the previous generation of microchip manufacturing), your immunity to poison is not going to keep you from dying.
I see Cloudkill the same way. Being toxic does not necessarily mean being a "poison" for purposes of a Cavalier's immunity. It's a DM call and a logical one to make that the vapor from Cloudkill is outside of the bounds of immunity if for no other reason than it is magically conjured and doesn't have to follow the rules because the DM says so. The DM in this case being the game devs.
First of all, I wont or would never allow you to do any of the nasty things that you described to me. Secondly, if it were a chlorine gas...they would call it...a chlorine gas. It's described as a cloud of toxic vapor and requires a save vs. poison. If that doesn't fall under a poison, then they need to change the spell description. If it is a poison, then they should make cavs immune to it.
First of all, I wont or would never allow you to do any of the nasty things that you described to me. Secondly, if it were a chlorine gas...they would call it...a chlorine gas. It's described as a cloud of toxic vapor and requires a save vs. poison. If that doesn't fall under a poison, then they need to change the spell description. If it is a poison, then they should make cavs immune to it.
Your completely missing the point of my examples.
First and foremost I did not say Cloudkill WAS Chlorine Gas. I specifically said it is "LIKE" Chlorine Gas. And by that I meant it is like a toxic vapor... which is how the spell is described. It is not described AS a poison. It is described as a "toxic vapor" that requires a save VS. poison.
If you have any familiarity with AD&D 2nd edition you'll know that saving throws are used for all sorts of things that may not necessarily be specifically related to their name. For example, some traps might require a save vs. rod/staff/wand even though no actual magical rod/staff/wand is involved in the trap.
The spell description is correct. It is your interpretation of that description which is in error. In effect, just because the spell calls for a save vs. poison does not mean that the vapor is a poison. The very fact that the vapor is created via a SPELL should be an indicator that it may not follow your expectations. Yes it might be simpler if the spell called for a save vs. spell instead of poison since it is created by a spell but some effects in the game are related to how they impact the target.
In third edition we have fortitude saves which cover all sorts of affects on the body. In second edition we have categories like Petrification/Polymorph (a single category), Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic (a single category), Rod/Staff/Wand (a single category), Breath Weapon, and Spells. Now I'll hazard a guess that Cloudkill's description says "save vs. poison" for brevity. basically just because something calls for a save vs. poison doesn't mean cavaliers will automatically be immune to it. If that still doesn't sink in consider these rules have existed longer than many of us have been alive and aren't going to change just to accommodate your poor interpretation of them.
As you can see the footnote at the end for Spells:
*** Excluding those for which another saving throw type is specified, such as Death, Petrification, Polymorph, etc.
Some spells may call for a save vs. poison but that doesn't mean your immunity to poison will shield you. A similar example could be a spell that does something to the body that calls for a save vs. petrification but doesn't actually transform you into stone is still a spell and immunity to the petrification effect would not shield you.
@Nic_Mercy, thank you for your like-mindedness. Unfortunately, @Lateralus probably doesn't have much knowledge in toxicology or physiology, so rational arguments along those lines won't be possible (and are irrelevant somehow?). Deliberate ignorance is one hell of a wall when it comes to debates.
Duh, like who doesn't know that various things fall under different saving throws? You typed all that because you thought i didn't already know that? Funny. But you know the reason they didn't feel the need to assign the save to breath weapon, death magic, or spells. Is because it actually IS a poison? Toxins are usually poisonous. You're reaching desperately to make it out to be acid or a disease agent or whatever you want it to be. Seems like you just really hate being wrong. Granted there is not an endless amount of evidence to support either argument, but the limited amount of facts that we do have point to my argument being the winner. If the cloud of toxic vapor causes poisoning, and the cavalier it trained to be immune (with no further stipulations to the type of cause of it) to poison, then the logical resulting effect would be immunity to Cloudkill.
Duh, like who doesn't know that various things fall under different saving throws? You typed all that because you thought i didn't already know that? Funny. But you know the reason they didn't feel the need to assign the save to breath weapon, death magic, or spells. Is because it actually IS a poison? Toxins are usually poisonous. You're reaching desperately to make it out to be acid or a disease agent or whatever you want it to be. Seems like you just really hate being wrong. Granted there is not an endless amount of evidence to support either argument, but the limited amount of facts that we do have point to my argument being the winner. If the cloud of toxic vapor causes poisoning, and the cavalier it trained to be immune (with no further stipulations to the type of cause of it) to poison, then the logical resulting effect would be immunity to Cloudkill.
Personally I think you are projecting your own insecurities on to me because I presented facts and historical evidence to back up my claims.
I'll attempt to make my point even simpler and present it in a way that will explain the logic behind your immunity not working:
Cloudkill is a spell. You cannot argue this fact.
It calls for a save vs. poison to mitigate its effects but it IS a spell. Again you cannot argue this fact.
Your immunity is to poisons not spells.
Please show me ANY evidence at all that supports your position that doesn't consist of you hysterically pointing to the word "poison" in the description of the SPELL as it refers to which save you roll.
You don't seem to understand the intricate differences between the three classes of poison.
A poison's route of administration is through any enteral route of the body, leading to absorption through an organ of digestion. Poisons are mostly chemical (though they can be plant- based or a result of consumption as an animal- based defense mechanism) and lead to only one effect: death of an intended site (CNS, PNS, etc.). When a substances has a poisonous effect, the action is empoisonment and the effect is poison/poisoning/poisonous.
Poisons are always poisonous, sometimes toxic, and never venomous. An example of a poisonous poison is the drug Amoxicillin in excess. It doesn't create an antitoxin, and must be counteracted with non-natural methods (such as coal injestion). An example of a toxic poison is Belladonna extract, which kills the body through PNS paralysis (to which there is no antitoxin response).
A toxin's route of administration is universal. Toxins MUST be 'active' and MUST create an antitoxin in order to be classed as a toxin (allergic reactions are toxic- they release antihistamines). Toxins are also dangerous in that they do not cause fatal damage to the body, but rather the excess release of antitoxins.
Toxins are sometimes poisonous, always toxic, and sometimes venomous.
An example of a poisonous toxin would be Aloe in humans*, responded to with antihistamine, the natural antitoxin to allergic reactions. An example of a toxin that is not poisonous, but can still be fatal is Aloe in dogs*, which is capable of killing dogs through the mere release of antihistamines (which causes suffocation and death). Aloe itself is not deadly to dogs. An loose example of a venomous toxin is a mosquito bite, whose venom leads to an anticoagulant response, counteracted by a platelet response. An example of a toxin that is not venomous is a bite from a wandering spider, which can lead to necrosis of the bite site with no cure.
A venom's route of administration is through the circulatory system via direct injection, leading throughout the body and through the cardiovascular system. Venom MUST be administered first into the circulatory system or direct site to be considered a venom. Venoms are almost always localized, with side-effects as a result of a spreading infection.
Venom is never poisonous, sometimes toxic, and always venomous.
And example of a venom that is not toxic is a sting from most scorpions, which only generate the usual infectious response from the human body (fever, inflammation, etc), but have effects that are detrimental to the survival of a human being or sting site.
Using the above information, we can deduce that Cloudkill is a poisonous cloud of toxic nature (as described by the spell scroll and pnp manual). That is, Cloudkill will not kill someone as a result of its poisonous effect, but rather the heavy toxic response incurred by the body of the afflicted. Thus, cloudkill's death effect is the body failing to keep its antitoxins in check, and the damage effect is the body keeping its antitoxins in check but falling ill to the congregate WBC response.
Summary: Cloudkill should still instakill Cavaliers, but the poison damage should either be disease damage or immuned away.
There. Physiological middle ground.
Edit: I have plenty of arguments explanation the many different functions of the body as well as the proposed functions of the spell in question coming from its description. Getting uppity and claiming you are right because you are right is circular. Furthermore, there is no evidence to humans of Faerun being different than the humans of Earth today without magical or divine intervention. The argument of toxicology vastly outweighs "because training." Most, if not all experts have trained in their disciplines for a number of years and there are still things they haven't been exposed to.
I accept that you won't change your opinion, but be reasonable when you type your response. Give me a different viewpoint, a better one, so that I might understand your argument as something more than "Cavaliers should be immune to Cloudkill because lol".
@Drusyc That was a great post and I am inclined to agree with it entirely. The only issue being that as far as Baldur's Gate's game engine is concerned, there is not a "disease" damage type. Diseases do "poison" damage as far as Baldur's Gate is concerned and thus the game engine cannot accommodate such specificity in the spell effect.
Duh, like who doesn't know that various things fall under different saving throws? You typed all that because you thought i didn't already know that? Funny. But you know the reason they didn't feel the need to assign the save to breath weapon, death magic, or spells. Is because it actually IS a poison? Toxins are usually poisonous. You're reaching desperately to make it out to be acid or a disease agent or whatever you want it to be. Seems like you just really hate being wrong. Granted there is not an endless amount of evidence to support either argument, but the limited amount of facts that we do have point to my argument being the winner. If the cloud of toxic vapor causes poisoning, and the cavalier it trained to be immune (with no further stipulations to the type of cause of it) to poison, then the logical resulting effect would be immunity to Cloudkill.
Personally I think you are projecting your own insecurities on to me because I presented facts and historical evidence to back up my claims.
I'll attempt to make my point even simpler and present it in a way that will explain the logic behind your immunity not working:
Cloudkill is a spell. You cannot argue this fact.
It calls for a save vs. poison to mitigate its effects but it IS a spell. Again you cannot argue this fact.
Your immunity is to poisons not spells.
Please show me ANY evidence at all that supports your position that doesn't consist of you hysterically pointing to the word "poison" in the description of the SPELL as it refers to which save you roll.
If somebody casts the spell Poison on a cavalier, and it requires a save vs spell, guess what? Cavalier is IMMUNE. You know why? Because it doesn't say "resistant", it says, "immune". In ADnD when you're immune to something you are immune to it. Fire immunity means man made or magical. Same thing applies here. Cliudkill poisons it's victims just like the spell poison.
Just tossing this out there, and it has nothing to do with deciding whether the BG spell should affect cavaliers or not (I don't think it would be practical, for the reasons @CamDawg stated above):
In 3e, the spell was specified as poisonous, and it specifically noted that creatures immune to poison were immune to its effects.
I don't think that's a revision of the spell; I think it's a clarification. The spell deals poison damage, so it's poison, and any ability that makes you immune to poison should make you immune to spells that deal poison damage.
That doesn't mean that I think cavaliers should be made immune to all poison damage (and by extension diseases), but the PnP rules do support it.
EDIT: The full "change" for this would require making disease damage untyped, making the poisoned status effect do poison damage, and just giving the cavalier immunity to poison damage. But it probably still wouldn't give you immunity to the death effect of Cloudkill unless you made a specific notation about it.
Hey, if Vampires aren't immune to it, then Cavalier's shouldn't be either (joke).
Seriously, I would suspect that, since it doesn't do "Magical" damage, it will effect anyone that is less than 6 HD (4?).... Not necessarily a 'Bug', but more an oversight.
Just tossing this out there, and it has nothing to do with deciding whether the BG spell should affect cavaliers or not (I don't think it would be practical, for the reasons @CamDawg stated above):
In 3e, the spell was specified as poisonous, and it specifically noted that creatures immune to poison were immune to its effects.
I don't think that's a revision of the spell; I think it's a clarification. The spell deals poison damage, so it's poison, and any ability that makes you immune to poison should make you immune to spells that deal poison damage.
That doesn't mean that I think cavaliers should be made immune to all poison damage (and by extension diseases), but the PnP rules do support it.
3rd edition PnP rules support it you mean.
Unfortunately we are working in 2nd edition and from the perspective of the spell description as it appeared in 2nd edition not 3rd.
That 3rd edition adds an additional stipulation is a compelling argument however.
And if Lateralus had used THAT as evidence to support his argument I'd have likely found it just as compelling and felt less obligated to argue with him. He, however, did not and chose to be antagonistic without using any actual logic or evidence to support his position.
Good God! I finally found a thread that makes me want to point my finger and yell, "NERDS!!!!!!!" and then go play sports. The back and forth debate is simultaneously fascinating and horrifying.
Can we at least all agree that the Cavalier is a criminally underpowered kit that needs to be buffed in the next patch? I mean, if they don't have the ability to wade through one of the most powerful spells in the game unmolested, then what DO they have?
Just tossing this out there, and it has nothing to do with deciding whether the BG spell should affect cavaliers or not (I don't think it would be practical, for the reasons @CamDawg stated above):
In 3e, the spell was specified as poisonous, and it specifically noted that creatures immune to poison were immune to its effects.
I don't think that's a revision of the spell; I think it's a clarification. The spell deals poison damage, so it's poison, and any ability that makes you immune to poison should make you immune to spells that deal poison damage.
That doesn't mean that I think cavaliers should be made immune to all poison damage (and by extension diseases), but the PnP rules do support it.
3rd edition PnP rules support it you mean.
Unfortunately we are working in 2nd edition and from the perspective of the spell description as it appeared in 2nd edition not 3rd.
That 3rd edition adds an additional stipulation is a compelling argument however.
And if Lateralus had used THAT as evidence to support his argument I'd have likely found it just as compelling and felt less obligated to argue with him. He, however, did not and chose to be antagonistic without using any actual logic or evidence to support his position.
I mentioned it jokingly in passing, but quite literally VAMPIRES in BG2 are not immune to Cloudkill. They don't breath and they are quite a bit more 'Immune' to poisons than Cavaliers ever could be. If they get killed by Cloudkill, then anything living will/should also.
@Drusyc Are Cavaliers immune to Carbon Monoxide? As DM I'd say no. By extrapolation, I'd say no to cloudkill immunity.
Its not described as being carbon monoxide, and the last time i inhaled that stuff i did not instantly die. My con is average at best and i am barely 4 hit die.
I mentioned it jokingly in passing, but quite literally VAMPIRES in BG2 are not immune to Cloudkill. They don't breath and they are quite a bit more 'Imjmune' to poisons than Cavaliers ever could be. If they get killed by Cloudkill, then anything living will/should also.
I mentioned it jokingly in passing, but quite literally VAMPIRES in BG2 are not immune to Cloudkill. They don't breath and they are quite a bit more 'Immune' to poisons than Cavaliers ever could be. If they get killed by Cloudkill, then anything living will/should also.
I mentioned it jokingly in passing, but quite literally VAMPIRES in BG2 are not immune to Cloudkill. They don't breath and they are quite a bit more 'Immune' to poisons than Cavaliers ever could be. If they get killed by Cloudkill, then anything living will/should also.
Vampires are immune in BG2. You agreed with my testing on that thread.
No. The vampires later in the game are immune, not because of any immunity, but because they are higher level. That was what was discussed in the thread. The one in Irenicus' dungeon definitely is not immune.
I mentioned it jokingly in passing, but quite literally VAMPIRES in BG2 are not immune to Cloudkill. They don't breath and they are quite a bit more 'Immune' to poisons than Cavaliers ever could be. If they get killed by Cloudkill, then anything living will/should also.
Vampires are immune in BG2. You agreed with my testing on that thread.
No. The vampires later in the game are immune, not because of any immunity, but because they are higher level. That was what was discussed in the thread. The one in Irenicus' dungeon definitely is not immune.
The one in Irenicus' dungeon is the only one in the entire game that is not immune. Saying that Vampire"s" in BG2 are not immune to cloudkill is wrong since it is one unique vampire and not any of the vampires that actually attack the Charname.
There is one bugged vampire in Irenicus' dungeon that people are not intended to fight that is differently coded and not immune. All others are. That is why I tested all forms of "Fledgling" vampires - because they are the lowest hit dice vampires in the game outside of the one vampire in Irenicus' dungeon that people are not really intended to fight.
This was clearly an oversight in programming. Are you aware of any other vampires that are not immune?
@AHF, I am not going to argue the point as to if there are other low level vampires in the world or not. Nor am I going to argue if it was the level or something else that caused it. It really has very little relevance other than that a decision was made in the game development which says that below a given level EVERYTHING dies due to CloudKill. The Cavalier class doesn't exclude itself. And since there are others that are immune to poison that aren't immune to CloudKill, I'd say it was a oversight.
@AHF, I am not going to argue the point as to if there are other low level vampires in the world or not. Nor am I going to argue if it was the level or something else that caused it. It really has very little relevance other than that a decision was made in the game development which says that below a given level EVERYTHING dies due to CloudKill. The Cavalier class doesn't exclude itself. And since there are others that are immune to poison that aren't immune to CloudKill, I'd say it was a oversight.
Every vampire the Charname is intended to combat is immune to Cloudkill as far as I know. I don't think you are trying to mislead anyone but people shouldn't be thinking vampires can be harmed by cloudkill in BG2. Every one that attacks the Charname is immune.
Comments
It doesn't matter if the effect is magical or non-magical. Cavaliers are immune to both. There are not any exceptions in the kit description. They can't use bows, which is a major inconvenience. Poison immunity is a perk that makes up for that. Furthermore this is an ability, it can't be dispelled or bypassed by magic.
We have established that the spell cloudkill is a poison. And we have established that cavaliers are immune to poisons.
1. Poisons are injested, not injected. This means, due to the current wording of the Cavalier kit, both pnp and BG:EE, the Paladin would not be immune to anything that caused poison damage unless it was lodged directly into his throat and he was forced to swallow.
2. The 'poisons' inflicted by creatures of natural or unnatural nature in BG:EE are actually venoms. Unfortunately, many venoms have differing effects. Some invade the circulatory system, many can remain localized and become myopathic/osteopathic.
3. We have no understanding of the mechanics behind a Cavalier's poison immunity. Are they immune because such-and-such good aligned deity said so? Are they immune because they injested dead poison strains / live viral/fungal strains for a natural immunity? Are they immune because their fortitude is so great their body simply beats off any infection?
4. Cloudkill is a toxic vapour, which means it behaves differently than an injested poison or an injected venom. It's porous absorption, which means any natural immunity to poison through fortitude or shock therapy is gone (because the vapour can bypass filtering organs and achieve 100% bioavailability). This leaves room only for magical protection and protection through divine intervention.
5. Is the Cavalier protected as long as he can pray? If yes, and Cloudkill attacks the CNS, then the Cavalier will fail to save and die (makes perfect sense since they can no longer divine their protection). If no, and he is protected all the time, I declare Deus Ex Machina, what deity has nothing better to do than to watch a single Cavalier?
6. Does the Cavalier have a magical protection? If he was born with a magical protection, immunity should confer at a certain level. If he has achieved it through gear/spells, then he's immune in pnp and BG:EE appropriately, and this argument cannot go any farther.
7. Natural creatures cannot poison with their bites, no argument here.
8. How can we assume that unnatural creatures (Dragons, Demons) are administering a magical venom with their bites/scratches? Perhaps their toxins are actually lethal doses of asbestos or a demon's claws are crawling with nematocysts? On that topic, how can we be sure ghasts aren't poisoning your body with a paralytic? Should Cavaliers be immune to the bites/scratches of ghasts as well?
One way is directly via the poison mechanism, used by things like the Assassin's poison weapon ability, various spiders, Asp's Nest darts, and so on. This is generally used to touch a target once and then inflict X damage over Y time (i.e. you get hit by a poisoned weapon and suffer damage over the next couple of rounds). Cavaliers are immune to this.
The second way is through the generic damage mechanism with a damage type of poison. This is the method used by Cloudkill as well as Prismatic Spray, Flail of Ages, poison mists, etc. This is a one-time effect (i.e. Flail of Ages does poison damage on hit, but won't affect you next round). Cavaliers are not immune to poison damage, as noted by the OP.
The problem is that providing immunity to poison damage effectively makes the target also immune to disease, since disease inflicts poison damage.
I'm not budging nor do i want to side track the discussion by elaborating on ireelivances, let's just agree to disagree. I hope the dev might see it my way but if not, what's one more dead cavalier gonna matter?
If I pour chlorine down your throat I don't think immunity to poison will save you.
If I lock you in an air tight room filled with trichloroethylene fumes (a remnant of the previous generation of microchip manufacturing), your immunity to poison is not going to keep you from dying.
I see Cloudkill the same way. Being toxic does not necessarily mean being a "poison" for purposes of a Cavalier's immunity. It's a DM call and a logical one to make that the vapor from Cloudkill is outside of the bounds of immunity if for no other reason than it is magically conjured and doesn't have to follow the rules because the DM says so. The DM in this case being the game devs.
First and foremost I did not say Cloudkill WAS Chlorine Gas. I specifically said it is "LIKE" Chlorine Gas. And by that I meant it is like a toxic vapor... which is how the spell is described. It is not described AS a poison. It is described as a "toxic vapor" that requires a save VS. poison.
If you have any familiarity with AD&D 2nd edition you'll know that saving throws are used for all sorts of things that may not necessarily be specifically related to their name. For example, some traps might require a save vs. rod/staff/wand even though no actual magical rod/staff/wand is involved in the trap.
The spell description is correct. It is your interpretation of that description which is in error. In effect, just because the spell calls for a save vs. poison does not mean that the vapor is a poison. The very fact that the vapor is created via a SPELL should be an indicator that it may not follow your expectations. Yes it might be simpler if the spell called for a save vs. spell instead of poison since it is created by a spell but some effects in the game are related to how they impact the target.
In third edition we have fortitude saves which cover all sorts of affects on the body. In second edition we have categories like Petrification/Polymorph (a single category), Paralyzation/Poison/Death Magic (a single category), Rod/Staff/Wand (a single category), Breath Weapon, and Spells. Now I'll hazard a guess that Cloudkill's description says "save vs. poison" for brevity. basically just because something calls for a save vs. poison doesn't mean cavaliers will automatically be immune to it. If that still doesn't sink in consider these rules have existed longer than many of us have been alive and aren't going to change just to accommodate your poor interpretation of them.
As you can see the footnote at the end for Spells:
*** Excluding those for which another saving throw type is specified, such as Death, Petrification, Polymorph, etc.
Some spells may call for a save vs. poison but that doesn't mean your immunity to poison will shield you. A similar example could be a spell that does something to the body that calls for a save vs. petrification but doesn't actually transform you into stone is still a spell and immunity to the petrification effect would not shield you.
I'll attempt to make my point even simpler and present it in a way that will explain the logic behind your immunity not working:
Cloudkill is a spell. You cannot argue this fact.
It calls for a save vs. poison to mitigate its effects but it IS a spell. Again you cannot argue this fact.
Your immunity is to poisons not spells.
Please show me ANY evidence at all that supports your position that doesn't consist of you hysterically pointing to the word "poison" in the description of the SPELL as it refers to which save you roll.
A poison's route of administration is through any enteral route of the body, leading to absorption through an organ of digestion. Poisons are mostly chemical (though they can be plant- based or a result of consumption as an animal- based defense mechanism) and lead to only one effect: death of an intended site (CNS, PNS, etc.). When a substances has a poisonous effect, the action is empoisonment and the effect is poison/poisoning/poisonous.
Poisons are always poisonous, sometimes toxic, and never venomous.
An example of a poisonous poison is the drug Amoxicillin in excess. It doesn't create an antitoxin, and must be counteracted with non-natural methods (such as coal injestion).
An example of a toxic poison is Belladonna extract, which kills the body through PNS paralysis (to which there is no antitoxin response).
A toxin's route of administration is universal. Toxins MUST be 'active' and MUST create an antitoxin in order to be classed as a toxin (allergic reactions are toxic- they release antihistamines). Toxins are also dangerous in that they do not cause fatal damage to the body, but rather the excess release of antitoxins.
Toxins are sometimes poisonous, always toxic, and sometimes venomous.
An example of a poisonous toxin would be Aloe in humans*, responded to with antihistamine, the natural antitoxin to allergic reactions.
An example of a toxin that is not poisonous, but can still be fatal is Aloe in dogs*, which is capable of killing dogs through the mere release of antihistamines (which causes suffocation and death). Aloe itself is not deadly to dogs.
An loose example of a venomous toxin is a mosquito bite, whose venom leads to an anticoagulant response, counteracted by a platelet response.
An example of a toxin that is not venomous is a bite from a wandering spider, which can lead to necrosis of the bite site with no cure.
A venom's route of administration is through the circulatory system via direct injection, leading throughout the body and through the cardiovascular system. Venom MUST be administered first into the circulatory system or direct site to be considered a venom. Venoms are almost always localized, with side-effects as a result of a spreading infection.
Venom is never poisonous, sometimes toxic, and always venomous.
And example of a venom that is not toxic is a sting from most scorpions, which only generate the usual infectious response from the human body (fever, inflammation, etc), but have effects that are detrimental to the survival of a human being or sting site.
Using the above information, we can deduce that Cloudkill is a poisonous cloud of toxic nature (as described by the spell scroll and pnp manual). That is, Cloudkill will not kill someone as a result of its poisonous effect, but rather the heavy toxic response incurred by the body of the afflicted. Thus, cloudkill's death effect is the body failing to keep its antitoxins in check, and the damage effect is the body keeping its antitoxins in check but falling ill to the congregate WBC response.
Summary: Cloudkill should still instakill Cavaliers, but the poison damage should either be disease damage or immuned away.
There. Physiological middle ground.
Edit: I have plenty of arguments explanation the many different functions of the body as well as the proposed functions of the spell in question coming from its description. Getting uppity and claiming you are right because you are right is circular. Furthermore, there is no evidence to humans of Faerun being different than the humans of Earth today without magical or divine intervention. The argument of toxicology vastly outweighs "because training." Most, if not all experts have trained in their disciplines for a number of years and there are still things they haven't been exposed to.
I accept that you won't change your opinion, but be reasonable when you type your response. Give me a different viewpoint, a better one, so that I might understand your argument as something more than "Cavaliers should be immune to Cloudkill because lol".
*Forgot to clarify zoonotic difference
If somebody casts the spell Poison on a cavalier, and it requires a save vs spell, guess what? Cavalier is IMMUNE. You know why? Because it doesn't say "resistant", it says, "immune". In ADnD when you're immune to something you are immune to it. Fire immunity means man made or magical. Same thing applies here. Cliudkill poisons it's victims just like the spell poison.
In 3e, the spell was specified as poisonous, and it specifically noted that creatures immune to poison were immune to its effects.
I don't think that's a revision of the spell; I think it's a clarification. The spell deals poison damage, so it's poison, and any ability that makes you immune to poison should make you immune to spells that deal poison damage.
That doesn't mean that I think cavaliers should be made immune to all poison damage (and by extension diseases), but the PnP rules do support it.
EDIT: The full "change" for this would require making disease damage untyped, making the poisoned status effect do poison damage, and just giving the cavalier immunity to poison damage. But it probably still wouldn't give you immunity to the death effect of Cloudkill unless you made a specific notation about it.
Seriously, I would suspect that, since it doesn't do "Magical" damage, it will effect anyone that is less than 6 HD (4?).... Not necessarily a 'Bug', but more an oversight.
Unfortunately we are working in 2nd edition and from the perspective of the spell description as it appeared in 2nd edition not 3rd.
That 3rd edition adds an additional stipulation is a compelling argument however.
And if Lateralus had used THAT as evidence to support his argument I'd have likely found it just as compelling and felt less obligated to argue with him. He, however, did not and chose to be antagonistic without using any actual logic or evidence to support his position.
Can we at least all agree that the Cavalier is a criminally underpowered kit that needs to be buffed in the next patch? I mean, if they don't have the ability to wade through one of the most powerful spells in the game unmolested, then what DO they have?
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/16048/vampires-killed-by-cloud-kill-minor-spoilers-only-please/p1
Vampires are immune in BG2. You agreed with my testing on that thread.
The one in Irenicus' dungeon is the only one in the entire game that is not immune. Saying that Vampire"s" in BG2 are not immune to cloudkill is wrong since it is one unique vampire and not any of the vampires that actually attack the Charname.
There is one bugged vampire in Irenicus' dungeon that people are not intended to fight that is differently coded and not immune. All others are. That is why I tested all forms of "Fledgling" vampires - because they are the lowest hit dice vampires in the game outside of the one vampire in Irenicus' dungeon that people are not really intended to fight.
This was clearly an oversight in programming. Are you aware of any other vampires that are not immune?