Dwarf and poison.

[Arctic Wolf]

As one of the people said, why not make dwarves immune to natural poison and they are affected by magical poison. Or would that be too complex?

 

[Minigiant]

I think it's a perfectly valid criticism when it's A. never been a part of D&D before - to my knowledge and B. completely limits my ability to tell the stories I want to tell. Once again, I thought the whole damn point of this edition was unification?

Oh the lore was there. Using poison on Dwarves was a bad tactic. Dwarves don't die from poison. Etc. Etc.

The problem is that the D&D favorite subsystem, d20, SUCKS for displaying it in game. It was so bad and terrible, you could forget it was there. You should never forget a racial feature.

Roll low, almost any poison works on a dwarf.
Roll a 1, every poison works on a dwarf.

I don't blame WotC for giving them immunity. The +x bonus failed for 4 editions. Immunity worked for elves and sleep.

 

[slobster]

As one of the people said, why not make dwarves immune to natural poison and they are affected by magical poison. Or would that be too complex?

I think it would be too aggravating. "Wait, I'm a dwarf. I played a dwarf to be immune to poison. Why am I taking damage?"

"Oh, it's a magical poison. You wouldn't expect the King of the Assassin's Guild to use a mundane poison on a dwarf."

"Again? Awesome. I'm glad I gave up +1 to every stat for this ability."

 

[FinalSonicX]

Oh the lore was there. Using poison on Dwarves was a bad tactic. Dwarves don't die from poison. Etc. Etc.

Poison against dwarves is generally less effective than it would be against humans - whether or not the tactic is "bad" depends on the circumstances and the other competing tactics. And Dwarves do die from poison, I've seen some die.

The problem is that the D&D favorite subsystem, d20, SUCKS for displaying it in game. It was so bad and terrible, you could forget it was there. You should never forget a racial feature.

I agree +2 is terrible. Why not +10? Why not any other number? Do you really think a player would forget about a huge +10 bonus on their poison saves, especially with the way char sheets are shaping up?

Roll low, almost any poison works on a dwarf.
Roll a 1, every poison works on a dwarf.

Give advantage to Dwarves on their poison saves and they only fail if both rolls are below the DC. Critical failure requires rolling two 1s. Do you think this is a bad solution?

I don't blame WotC for giving them immunity. The +x bonus failed for 4 editions. Immunity worked for elves and sleep.

That's your assertion. I don't believe +x failed for 4 editions. I do believe it was too weak in 3.5, +2 is too small. But luckily since they're making a new edition, they can make that +x any number they want, or they can grant advantage.

Can someone please explain to me why neither of my two proposed solutions are workable? All I hear is "this is justifiable" instead of "This is the best way of accomplishing our goals".

 

[Minigiant]

I think it would be too aggravating. "Wait, I'm a dwarf. I played a dwarf to be immune to poison. Why am I taking damage?"

"Oh, it's a magical poison. You wouldn't expect the King of the Assassin's Guild to use a mundane poison on a dwarf."

"Again? Awesome. I'm glad I gave up +1 to every stat for this ability."

Monk's Purity of Body all over again.
"Half the diseases after level 5 are supernatural. Boo."

@FinalSonicX

Dwarves died of poison because their resistance sucked. It sucked in 4E too. Sure you almost never failed the save but the initial damage hit no resistance. And ongoing effects were weak anyway.

Immunity is easier and more memorable to me.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Sean K. Reynolds wrote a nice piece a while back as to why absolute mechanics, particularly immunities, are stupid. It's still true. Just give them a save bonus and be done with it.

 

[On Puget Sound]

So defining dwarves as immune to poison means you can't tell a story about a dwarf king that was poisoned? Dude, your story just got better! It's now Balder being killed by mistletoe! Whose sinister hand could have been behind it, and how did they make it work?

They also wrote elves as being all nature-loving, so now I can't tell the story about the war between the elves and the ents. They said orcs are bestial; so much for Gharrristotle the great orcish philosopher, and Ghaaandi the teacher of pacifism. They're totally wrecking my world history!

Seriously, this is worth complaining about, when there's a perfectly good "heavy armor is worse than light armor + dex" issue over there to thrash? Just say "my dwarves won't have immunity" and be done.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't like the immunities to poison and charm that dwarves and elves now get. I think that giving them automatic advantage on saves against those effects is good enough.

 

[variant]

I don't like the immunities to poison and charm that dwarves and elves now get. I think that giving them automatic advantage on saves against those effects is good enough.

A +5 to saving throws against poison and charm is enough? That's totally balanced with +1 to all ability scores. /sarcasm

 

[Leatherhead]

This is when I think a sprinkle of the old 4e exception based design does wonders here.

Of course the god of poison can poison a dwarf....because he is a god, which tends to override things like pesky little racial traits.

I disagree. The D&D gods have limits. The god of light can't blind something with no eyes, even if they are a god.


However what I would like to see: The god (well avatar I guess) of poison isn't just immune to poison, but rather is healed by poison. Lets face it, when the players are going up such a thing they are going to be immune or heavily resistant to poison anyway, adding on a "better" form of immunity make it so that the elementals and whatnot retain a level of power over the PCs.