Dwarf and poison.

[Evenglare]

So what im seeing is that rogue dwarfs are severely overpowered. Rogues are usually the trap finders and such, unlocking doors etc. Well traps usually involve some sort of poison, a favorite among DMs are poison pins when a lock fails. It just seems unbalanced.

 

[Starbuck_II]

So what im seeing is that rogue dwarfs are severely overpowered. Rogues are usually the trap finders and such, unlocking doors etc. Well traps usually involve some sort of poison, a favorite among DMs are poison pins when a lock fails. It just seems unbalanced.

Or just not use poison as a stable anymore.
It doesn't make them overpowered unless DM is stuck in his ways.

 

[Transformer]

Dwarves presumably don't get a bonus to dexterity, the rogue's primary ability score, and their "no speed penalty from heavy armor" racial ability is useless to a rogue. Trapfinding and disarming is only one (small, relative to combat) part of a rogue's duties. Sometimes the rogue will fail (especially given the specifics of trapsearching while you explore in the playtest doc, the DM rolling only once and in secret), so sometimes another party member will trigger the trap anyway. Finally, there are all kinds of traps: acid is an easy substitute for poison, as are magic arrows, pits, rolling bolders, collapsing rooms, spikes from the floor, fire sprays, and every manner of magical trap. If poison is necessarily showing up in more than, say, a third of a DM's traps, he should look at some sample traps and get some more ideas.

So, definitely not the kind of synergy I'd call gamebreaking.

 

[Evenglare]

so basically never use poison traps if you have a dwarf rogue?

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not fond of any PC that starts out at level 1 with "immunity" to anything. For those type of characters it just makes certain story elements impossible. What do dwarves do - drink rattlesnake venom for breakfast and wash down dinner with freshly milked spider venom?

I'd have rather they went with Advantage and a +3 bonus vs. the element. This goes for the elf as well. I'd rather go with the "unlikely to happen" than "can't happen - ever."

For example, by older D&D lore the mighty hero Kharas (from Dragonlance DL3) was ignobly felled by the sting of a scorpion. This was in an age of D&D where dwarves had insane bonuses against poisons. That wouldn't be possible under the current rules.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I agree that this design absolute is an over-simplification. I would prefer Dwarves get a bonus to their saving throws or perhaps even have advantage with poison saves.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Transformer]

I recognize that this is a subjective thing, but I don't want to go back to carefully limited bonuses to resist things rather than full-blown immunity. Now that I've seen dwarves given actual immunity to poison, and elves to charm and sleep, the alternative reeks of safe, carefully-sanitized, "Fun" design. Only abilities that actually need to be limited to remain balanced should be limited. If immunity isn't gamebreaking--and I see no reason why it should be--why not give it? Why add a little extra math to the system that isn't needed? I understand that the math for lots of things must be carefully tuned and can't be allowed to go to infinity. I know why damage, for example, needs to be kept within certain limits, and why save-or-dies are problematic. But why does resistance to a very specific type of damage need to be so laboratory-tested and hermetically-sealed and fitted with a nice boring optimizer-proof lock? If a race's other abilities are weak enough, why not immunity? It's much cooler. +4 resist to poison makes me yawn when I'm building a character. But immunity? Awesome.

And I definitely don't want legendary warriors dying from regular old scorpion bites. And if it was the demigod king of the scorpions and not just a regular old scorpion, then well, maybe the poison resist should specify that it doesn't apply to certain legendary poisons.

Anyway, I think if the playtest doc had said +4 resist to poison I wouldn't have batted an eye. But now that it says immunity, I want it to stay.

 

[slobster]

I'm not fond of any PC that starts out at level 1 with "immunity" to anything. For those type of characters it just makes certain story elements impossible. What do dwarves do - drink rattlesnake venom for breakfast and wash down dinner with freshly milked spider venom?

This is basically off-topic, but venom almost universally needs to be introduced to the bloodstream to have its intended effect. So, while I don't know why you would, you could actually drink rattlesnake venom for breakfast and wash it down with freshly milked spider venom (though you'd need to milk a lot of spiders to get enough to go with your cheerios)! No poison immunity required.

 

[Raith5]

It stood out to me as way over powered. Besides does it mean that Dwarves cant get drunk? That is an even bigger problem.

 

[Leatherhead]

so basically never use poison traps if you have a dwarf rogue?

Why would you do that? The point of immunity is to be immune. If poison never exists, the immunity is worthless.

Also, poison gas traps are way cooler than poison needle traps. Instead of unduly punishing the dwarf, you get to give them some heroic spotlight time.