Dwarf and poison.

[Minigiant]

One thing I noticed is that the medusa doesn't have a save on her poison damage, at least not directly. You have a dex save to avoid the attack, and then take regular damage + poison.

So dwarven poison resistance to saves would not work in this instance....unless you want to rule that I get advantage to DEXTERITY saves against poison as well.

Same thing in 4E. If a monster actually did poison damage, the dwarf's bonus to poison saving throws would have no effect.

That is interesting. Maybe this will change. Or maybe we need...poison DR.

DR is a tracking monster. Too high and it is immunity to anything but DM poisons. Too low and it is ignorable.

I'm on board with the No Absolutes train of thought.

This is what I'd like to see:

Poison Resistance: A dwarf character has Advantage on any Save to resist poison and Damage Resistance 5 against damage done by poison. Duration of non-damaging poison effects are halved for dwarves.

(Optionally, the DR could scale by adding +1/2 level.) With DR, the dwarf becomes effectively immune to many minor poisons, but particularly potent dwarf king killing poison isn't out of the question.

This is exanding on the way 4E handled it for a Tiefling's fire resistance, and I thought that was a great idea. Since poisons in the playtest seem to be mostly straight up damage, I think DR against it works well. The Advantage mechanic, DR scaling and duration modification can be added\removed to tweak to the DM's taste for his campaign.

Advantage vs. certain effects and modfied durations would work well for toning down other immunities as well, such as Elf vs. Sleep\Charm.

See above.

I'm just curious.

Why are we all so intent on poisoning the Dwarf King in this thread? Is there some reference that I'm missing? Is it just a matter of closing off interesting storylines? Couldn't you as easily have the Dwarf King stabbed to death in his own chambers, locked from the inside and immune to scrying and teleportation?

It's not like poison is the only method of assassination out there, or the only way to add intrigue. Closing off one for the occasional adventure that deals with dwarven royalty . . . maybe I'm missing something?

Someone, I believe FinalSonicX said, the immunity would ruin his tale that the ancient dwarf king was assassinated by poison in his food.

I suggested the immunity could stay and the poison is a special one that bypasses the immunity making it even more special.

 

[FinalSonicX]

I'm just curious.

Why are we all so intent on poisoning the Dwarf King in this thread? Is there some reference that I'm missing? Is it just a matter of closing off interesting storylines? Couldn't you as easily have the Dwarf King stabbed to death in his own chambers, locked from the inside and immune to scrying and teleportation?

It's not like poison is the only method of assassination out there, or the only way to add intrigue. Closing off one for the occasional adventure that deals with dwarven royalty . . . maybe I'm missing something?

Here's the thing - I don't want the Dwarven king to die from being stabbed to death - the circumstances of my story dictate that he is poisoned and dies. My example of the king who anticipates an assassination attempt foolishly doubles the guard but does not think to suspect his "loyal" servants. One of his servants laces his dinner with potent poison, and the king dies a painful death.

In this circumstance, stabbing the king to death A. is not reasonable if he is paranoid and keeps guards with him at all times and B. Does not conform to the story I'm trying to tell - it's a story about the Dwarven King trying in vain to avoid his fate by force of arms. Perhaps the assassin has motivations related to past sins of the king.

In my story, the servant is a lowly non-magical commoner. There is no wizard involved, and no magic. It's partially a tale of arrogance - nothing can harm me with my mighty armies, powerful spells, and heavy stone walls protecting me! There's a ridiculously simple solution - offer advantage to dwarves on their poison saves. After playing last night, advantage is a VERY nice thing to have but failure is still possible.

Developing specific countermeasures base on magic often feels just as bad as DM fiat. "Well this poison works because a wizard/a god did it or because i said so/ it needs to happen for the sake of the plot". D&D should support as many stories as possible without having to resort to throwing out common rules because they're getting in the way.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'll make my suggestion again (though I understand why some people like complete immunity, I think it causes later problems for DMs):

Dwarves automatically save against any poison with a DC equal to or less than their Constitution.

Ordinary characters have to save against poison, and even a lowly DC of 5 could be troubling on a bad roll. Making this the rule establishes a clear immunity to a whole class of poisons, but leaves scope for poison use in plots and super-monsters.

 

[slobster]

In this circumstance, stabbing the king to death A. is not reasonable if he is paranoid and keeps guards with him at all times and B. Does not conform to the story I'm trying to tell - it's a story about the Dwarven King trying in vain to avoid his fate by force of arms. Perhaps the assassin has motivations related to past sins of the king.

Cool idea! There are still ways to assassinate someone other than poison, but which still highlight the king's folly for relying on force alone. Magic springs to mind. Servants would have access to the king's chambers, and could hide a fetish under his bed or his throne which allow dark magics to be worked on him. His barber could secret away a piece of his beard, which gives a dark sorcerer a mystical link that can be used to kill him.

Heck, he's not immune to disease. Arrange to taint his food/clothes/whatever with disease, so that he falls ill and dies. Make it a bizarre, rare one with strange effects so that his advisors and doctors can't aid him, and to play up the strangeness surrounding his death. That's a poisoning in all but name, anyway.

There is other stuff you could do. Think of the restriction as a challenge to your creativity! It will challenge your players even more because they know the king was immune to poison; what else could have struck him down so quickly and without apparent cause?

 

[Derren]

I suggested the immunity could stay and the poison is a special one that bypasses the immunity making it even more special.

Please not. Immunity breaking things are the absolute worst thing you can introduce. People simply have to accept that in 5E you can't poison a dwarf. Its part of the system.

 

[FinalSonicX]

Cool idea! There are still ways to assassinate someone other than poison, but which still highlight the king's folly for relying on force alone. Magic springs to mind. Servants would have access to the king's chambers, and could hide a fetish under his bed or his throne which allow dark magics to be worked on him. His barber could secret away a piece of his beard, which gives a dark sorcerer a mystical link that can be used to kill him.

Heck, he's not immune to disease. Arrange to taint his food/clothes/whatever with disease, so that he falls ill and dies. Make it a bizarre, rare one with strange effects so that his advisors and doctors can't aid him, and to play up the strangeness surrounding his death. That's a poisoning in all but name, anyway.

There is other stuff you could do. Think of the restriction as a challenge to your creativity! It will challenge your players even more because they know the king was immune to poison; what else could have struck him down so quickly and without apparent cause?

Magic doesn't really fit the profile of my assassin - he/she is a commoner. He/She kills the king through his/her own skill rather than through magic. Disease would be easily detected and healed by divine magic before he died unless it was a super-special disease (which goes back to DM fiat). And why is my assassin not affected by the disease he exposed the king to?

I think it's ridiculous that I should need to deal with this when it would be infinitely more simple to just grant dwarves advantage on poison saves or a significant bonus to said saves.

Until someone can explain to me why we NEED immunity and why it's the best mechanic for granting dwarves their poison-related racial compared to advantage or a straight bonus, I'm viewing this as a negative thing.

 

[Derren]

I think it's ridiculous that I should need to deal with this when it would be infinitely more simple to just grant dwarves advantage on poison saves or a significant bonus to said saves.

A fine example of what I wrote before

"D&D must fit my adventures" ,instead of "my adventures must fit D&D".

 

[slobster]

Magic doesn't really fit the profile of my assassin - he/she is a commoner. He/She kills the king through his own skill rather than through magic. Disease would be easily detected and healed by divine magic before he died unless it was a super-special disease (which goes back to DM fiat). And why is my assassin not affected by the disease he exposed the king to?

I think it's ridiculous that I should need to deal with this when it would be infinitely more simple to just grant dwarves advantage on poison saves or a significant bonus to said saves.

You know what works in your games, and what doesn't, so I can only spitball ideas for you. But the disease seems to be functionally the same as poison in this case. Why isn't the assassin affected? For the same reason she wouldn't be poisoning herself. She is careful. And magic to outright cure any disease isn't that common in my games - but again, this is your game, and you make the rules.

In the end I like the immunity rule because it is simple and effective in everyday play. The amount of time and energy saved by such a streamlined mechanic more than makes up for (in my humble opinion) any verisimilitude problem I might have with it. If it means my dwarven regi-cutioners have to think outside the box a little, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

 

[Minigiant]

I'll make my suggestion again (though I understand why some people like complete immunity, I think it causes later problems for DMs):

Dwarves automatically save against any poison with a DC equal to or less than their Constitution.

Ordinary characters have to save against poison, and even a lowly DC of 5 could be troubling on a bad roll. Making this the rule establishes a clear immunity to a whole class of poisons, but leaves scope for poison use in plots and super-monsters.

DC 5 poison. Why bother include that unless the DM is a twisted PC killer who just throws hazards out to wear them down.

Easier flat immunity and immunity breakers.

Please not. Immunity breaking things are the absolute worst thing you can introduce. People simply have to accept that in 5E you can't poison a dwarf. Its part of the system.

It's not that bad.

The was feats in 3E I believe that let you deal fire damage to the fire immune. No one cry about those. This is no different.

Dwarves are immune to poison. Elves are immune to sleep and charm. Zombies are immune to poison, disease, sleep, charm, fright, and necrotic damage.

Very high level poisons and magic can bypass these immunities.

I feel for you [MENTION=63787]FinalSonicX[/MENTION]. But can't you just make Dwarfslayer poison common in dwarflands.

The idea that a commoner poisoned the king with simple poison robs the belief that dwarves are resistant to poison. It screams "Shenanigans!". Like sleep spells working on the elf queen. Or burning a balor with mundane torches.

 

[Derren]

It's not that bad.

The was feats in 3E I believe that let you deal fire damage to the fire immune. No one cry about those. This is no different.

Those exact feats were bad and the only ones not crying about them where those people who do not want immunities anyway. Whats next? Feats to make you immune to immunity breaking things?