Is every trap a poison trap?
Do all rogues use poison weapons?
Are vermin is every dungeon?
Are drow in every war band, bandit crew, or slaver party?
Many traps are poison traps.
Many rogues use poison weapons.
Giant spiders are pretty common in many adventures I've run, read, or played. Snakes too.
Drow are fairly common in certain areas of the underdark - if you're playing in Faerun.
I get it.
You see dwarves as shorter humans with strong stomachs, right?
No, I most certainly do not. I think you're making assumptions about my perceptions. I think that dwarves are resistant to poison and by making them immune WotC have effectively completely changed the nature of dwarves from what they have been previously. 5e is supposed to be inclusive, changing things like this without a good reason is non-inclusive. D&D needs to support a range of playstyles, stories, and settings.
A +10 bonus even defies your logic. Poison that beats a +10 bonus with a Con bonus would have to be a very powerful poison.... a DM creeated poison that bypasses dwarven immunity perhaps?
the +10 was an example, but let's say that we have a Dwarven Rogue (because that poison immunity plus stonecunning makes for a sweet Rogue if you ask me) with a con of 10. That means we get a +10 bonus to our poison save. If we don't have advantage and the poison is a DC 15 poison, then we have to roll a 5 or higher to save. That means the dwarf still has a 20% chance of failure. The same dwarf with an 18 con only fails on a 1. So it's not flat immunity - like the rest of the game it's a sliding scale. Sometimes you save, sometimes you fail. Some fail more than others, but statistically all dwarves will do better than non-dwarves. If we grant advantage, then it certainly doesn't make the roll trivial, but it still makes for a good resistance.
So ignoring the fact that my +10 was a random example (it could just as easily be a +8, a +6, or any other number), why do you think my suggestions are inferior to flat immunity.
Undead, demons, devils, elementals, and angels aren't always involved in an adventure or campaign plot.
Poison always involved in an adventure or campaign plot.
Your games are weird.
I'll ackknowledge that undead aren't really uncommon in my games, and demons and devils show up sometimes. That said, poisons are still employed by a large portion of my NPCs and monsters. I don't think my games are terribly weird.
If an assassin thinks he can bypass the dwaf king's poison resistance, his resistance must suck, huh.
If the wood elves think their fey poisons can beat the dwarves without being specially engineered to do so, their resistance must suck, huh.
Perhaps the dwarven king knows an attempt will be made on his life and doubles the guard? The lowly servant of the king feels as though a direct attack would spell suicide, but maybe no one would notice him lacing the food with arsenic? It's a bit of a gamble, but it's better than getting killed by guards. The dwarf can still have good resistances and the plan can still work and the story can still be told.
Resistances don't have to suck for it to be possible to say "long ago the Dwarf King was poisoned to death by one of his trusted servants". A CHANCE of failure is all that is required to make poison still relevant and still provide the opportunity to engage in these kinds of stories. Or do you disagree?
I see.
You want base races to be modified humans and not fantasy races who are different from humanity. Many people have that view.
I find it boring.
That's not what I want. I want immunity to an entire category of damage and effects to be a little bit harder to grab than just picking a specific race. I want to be able to tell the stories I want to tell and run games like I currently do with 5e without having to houserule and explain all of this to every new player who shows up expecting to play his poison-immune dwarven assassin.
