Can a Rutterkin's Bite poison a Paladin?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
12
down vote

favorite












The Rutterkin (from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, pg. 136) has the following attack:




Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: + 4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
Hit: 12 (3d6 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a creature,
it must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw against
disease
or become poisoned. At the end of each long rest, the
poisoned target can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect
on itself on a success. If the target is reduced to 0 hit points
while poisoned in this way, it dies and instantly transforms into
a living abyssal wretch. The transformation of the body can be
undone only by a wish spell.




(Bold emphasis mine)



A level 3 Paladin has the Divine Health class feature (PHB, pg. 85):




By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.




Recently, our party's level 3 Paladin got bitten by a Rutterkin and failed the Constitution saving throw. The DM has ruled that he is now poisoned (although hasn't told the player yet). The player (correctly) suspected that it might be something disease related, but the DM says it still counts (he has explained to me privately that it's because it gives the poisoned condition, not a disease).



Would a Paladin with Divine Health be able to automatically succeed the saving throw against a rutterkin's bite?



On the one hand, the saving throw is "against disease", but as my DM points out, the effect is gives is the poisoned condition rather than a disease specifically. Which interpretation is correct?










share|improve this question





























    up vote
    12
    down vote

    favorite












    The Rutterkin (from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, pg. 136) has the following attack:




    Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: + 4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
    Hit: 12 (3d6 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a creature,
    it must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw against
    disease
    or become poisoned. At the end of each long rest, the
    poisoned target can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect
    on itself on a success. If the target is reduced to 0 hit points
    while poisoned in this way, it dies and instantly transforms into
    a living abyssal wretch. The transformation of the body can be
    undone only by a wish spell.




    (Bold emphasis mine)



    A level 3 Paladin has the Divine Health class feature (PHB, pg. 85):




    By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.




    Recently, our party's level 3 Paladin got bitten by a Rutterkin and failed the Constitution saving throw. The DM has ruled that he is now poisoned (although hasn't told the player yet). The player (correctly) suspected that it might be something disease related, but the DM says it still counts (he has explained to me privately that it's because it gives the poisoned condition, not a disease).



    Would a Paladin with Divine Health be able to automatically succeed the saving throw against a rutterkin's bite?



    On the one hand, the saving throw is "against disease", but as my DM points out, the effect is gives is the poisoned condition rather than a disease specifically. Which interpretation is correct?










    share|improve this question

























      up vote
      12
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      12
      down vote

      favorite











      The Rutterkin (from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, pg. 136) has the following attack:




      Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: + 4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
      Hit: 12 (3d6 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a creature,
      it must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw against
      disease
      or become poisoned. At the end of each long rest, the
      poisoned target can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect
      on itself on a success. If the target is reduced to 0 hit points
      while poisoned in this way, it dies and instantly transforms into
      a living abyssal wretch. The transformation of the body can be
      undone only by a wish spell.




      (Bold emphasis mine)



      A level 3 Paladin has the Divine Health class feature (PHB, pg. 85):




      By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.




      Recently, our party's level 3 Paladin got bitten by a Rutterkin and failed the Constitution saving throw. The DM has ruled that he is now poisoned (although hasn't told the player yet). The player (correctly) suspected that it might be something disease related, but the DM says it still counts (he has explained to me privately that it's because it gives the poisoned condition, not a disease).



      Would a Paladin with Divine Health be able to automatically succeed the saving throw against a rutterkin's bite?



      On the one hand, the saving throw is "against disease", but as my DM points out, the effect is gives is the poisoned condition rather than a disease specifically. Which interpretation is correct?










      share|improve this question















      The Rutterkin (from Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, pg. 136) has the following attack:




      Bite. Melee Weapon Attack: + 4 to hit, reach 5 ft., one target.
      Hit: 12 (3d6 + 2) piercing damage. If the target is a creature,
      it must succeed on a DC 13 Constitution saving throw against
      disease
      or become poisoned. At the end of each long rest, the
      poisoned target can repeat the saving throw, ending the effect
      on itself on a success. If the target is reduced to 0 hit points
      while poisoned in this way, it dies and instantly transforms into
      a living abyssal wretch. The transformation of the body can be
      undone only by a wish spell.




      (Bold emphasis mine)



      A level 3 Paladin has the Divine Health class feature (PHB, pg. 85):




      By 3rd level, the divine magic flowing through you makes you immune to disease.




      Recently, our party's level 3 Paladin got bitten by a Rutterkin and failed the Constitution saving throw. The DM has ruled that he is now poisoned (although hasn't told the player yet). The player (correctly) suspected that it might be something disease related, but the DM says it still counts (he has explained to me privately that it's because it gives the poisoned condition, not a disease).



      Would a Paladin with Divine Health be able to automatically succeed the saving throw against a rutterkin's bite?



      On the one hand, the saving throw is "against disease", but as my DM points out, the effect is gives is the poisoned condition rather than a disease specifically. Which interpretation is correct?







      dnd-5e paladin saving-throw poison disease






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Aug 17 at 20:36









      NoOneIsHere

      255312




      255312










      asked Aug 17 at 7:13









      NathanS

      15.7k370170




      15.7k370170




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          22
          down vote



          accepted










          The Paladin is immune



          The fact that the saving throw is specifically against disease, and that Paladins are immune to disease means they should not have to make a save against this effect, regardless of what condition it applies on failure.



          I suspect that the 'poisoned' condition is a way of representing the penalty of being diseased since there isn't a separate 'diseased' condition, although this is 'designer intent' territory. (It would also mean that a character immune to the 'poisoned' condition would also not be affected regardless of their save - technically they may have the disease but are just immune to its effects).






          share|improve this answer
















          • 1




            Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
            – Michael W.
            Aug 17 at 19:54

















          up vote
          21
          down vote













          It cannot poison the paladin.



          A disease, mechanically, is not a condition. It itself can impose conditions to PCs or provide other effects. The paladin is immune to disease and hence immune to its conditions and effects that he would otherwise suffer from (in this case being poisoned and turning into an abyssal wretch).



          If a character was immune to being poisoned (instead of being immune to disease), it would also be fine (since that is the main effect of the disease).






          share|improve this answer




















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "122"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129863%2fcan-a-rutterkins-bite-poison-a-paladin%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            22
            down vote



            accepted










            The Paladin is immune



            The fact that the saving throw is specifically against disease, and that Paladins are immune to disease means they should not have to make a save against this effect, regardless of what condition it applies on failure.



            I suspect that the 'poisoned' condition is a way of representing the penalty of being diseased since there isn't a separate 'diseased' condition, although this is 'designer intent' territory. (It would also mean that a character immune to the 'poisoned' condition would also not be affected regardless of their save - technically they may have the disease but are just immune to its effects).






            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
              – Michael W.
              Aug 17 at 19:54














            up vote
            22
            down vote



            accepted










            The Paladin is immune



            The fact that the saving throw is specifically against disease, and that Paladins are immune to disease means they should not have to make a save against this effect, regardless of what condition it applies on failure.



            I suspect that the 'poisoned' condition is a way of representing the penalty of being diseased since there isn't a separate 'diseased' condition, although this is 'designer intent' territory. (It would also mean that a character immune to the 'poisoned' condition would also not be affected regardless of their save - technically they may have the disease but are just immune to its effects).






            share|improve this answer
















            • 1




              Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
              – Michael W.
              Aug 17 at 19:54












            up vote
            22
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            22
            down vote



            accepted






            The Paladin is immune



            The fact that the saving throw is specifically against disease, and that Paladins are immune to disease means they should not have to make a save against this effect, regardless of what condition it applies on failure.



            I suspect that the 'poisoned' condition is a way of representing the penalty of being diseased since there isn't a separate 'diseased' condition, although this is 'designer intent' territory. (It would also mean that a character immune to the 'poisoned' condition would also not be affected regardless of their save - technically they may have the disease but are just immune to its effects).






            share|improve this answer












            The Paladin is immune



            The fact that the saving throw is specifically against disease, and that Paladins are immune to disease means they should not have to make a save against this effect, regardless of what condition it applies on failure.



            I suspect that the 'poisoned' condition is a way of representing the penalty of being diseased since there isn't a separate 'diseased' condition, although this is 'designer intent' territory. (It would also mean that a character immune to the 'poisoned' condition would also not be affected regardless of their save - technically they may have the disease but are just immune to its effects).







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Aug 17 at 7:31









            PJRZ

            5,1271331




            5,1271331







            • 1




              Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
              – Michael W.
              Aug 17 at 19:54












            • 1




              Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
              – Michael W.
              Aug 17 at 19:54







            1




            1




            Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
            – Michael W.
            Aug 17 at 19:54




            Have the disease but immune to the condition? Sounds like a typhoid mary running around!
            – Michael W.
            Aug 17 at 19:54












            up vote
            21
            down vote













            It cannot poison the paladin.



            A disease, mechanically, is not a condition. It itself can impose conditions to PCs or provide other effects. The paladin is immune to disease and hence immune to its conditions and effects that he would otherwise suffer from (in this case being poisoned and turning into an abyssal wretch).



            If a character was immune to being poisoned (instead of being immune to disease), it would also be fine (since that is the main effect of the disease).






            share|improve this answer
























              up vote
              21
              down vote













              It cannot poison the paladin.



              A disease, mechanically, is not a condition. It itself can impose conditions to PCs or provide other effects. The paladin is immune to disease and hence immune to its conditions and effects that he would otherwise suffer from (in this case being poisoned and turning into an abyssal wretch).



              If a character was immune to being poisoned (instead of being immune to disease), it would also be fine (since that is the main effect of the disease).






              share|improve this answer






















                up vote
                21
                down vote










                up vote
                21
                down vote









                It cannot poison the paladin.



                A disease, mechanically, is not a condition. It itself can impose conditions to PCs or provide other effects. The paladin is immune to disease and hence immune to its conditions and effects that he would otherwise suffer from (in this case being poisoned and turning into an abyssal wretch).



                If a character was immune to being poisoned (instead of being immune to disease), it would also be fine (since that is the main effect of the disease).






                share|improve this answer












                It cannot poison the paladin.



                A disease, mechanically, is not a condition. It itself can impose conditions to PCs or provide other effects. The paladin is immune to disease and hence immune to its conditions and effects that he would otherwise suffer from (in this case being poisoned and turning into an abyssal wretch).



                If a character was immune to being poisoned (instead of being immune to disease), it would also be fine (since that is the main effect of the disease).







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Aug 17 at 7:31









                J.E

                2,373525




                2,373525



























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129863%2fcan-a-rutterkins-bite-poison-a-paladin%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    Popular posts from this blog

                    How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                    Bahrain

                    Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay