Dwarves and Poison Immunity?

I need to post a whole thread just for this. Dwaves should not be immune to poison. Resistance maybe, but immune makes them never feel the effects of alcohol. This just doesn't seem for dwarven at all. Please take this out of the dwarven racial traits, it doesn't need to be this broken.


I need to post a whole thread just for this. Dwaves should not be immune to poison. Resistance maybe, but immune makes them never feel the effects of alcohol. This just doesn't seem for dwarven at all. Please take this out of the dwarven racial traits, it doesn't need to be this broken.




Well, a dwarf might be able to get drunk, but not OD on alcohol Wink
Seriously though,  I agree that Dwarves should not be totally immune to poison. Resistance to poison makes far more sense to me.
They keep drinking because they want all others to think of them as drunkards while they are taking over the world.
Risk? What risk? We grab the treasure, and if a monster comes at us, we hammer it. Where's the risk in that?
When I first read that dwarves are immune to poison my immediate reactions was "no way." After much thought, my reaction is now "no way." Being immune to it is just far too powerful. I could get on board with having advantage when rolling a saving throw vs. poison, or having resistance to poison damage.

Seriously though; immunity? No way!

AD&D is powergaming – powergaming for the DM. And back then, DM stood for "Dire Munchkin."

 

I suppose people are entitled to their uninformed opinions; I just don’t see the point when that opinion won’t be respected. Proper research can be the difference in appearing a fool vs. a respectable dissident. 

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/3.jpg)

this was one of the bigger problems I saw. I can see them have advantages on there saves, but being immune really takes a lot of the threat from low level monsters.
I love how this is the third thread I've seen about this subject. Apparently people are REALLY concenred about whether or not their dwarf can get drunk...you know...now that there is a condition for it lol. If you want your dwarf to be drunk, let him be drunk. Don't let some freaking mechanic stop you from RPing your character. This is such a minor issue it boggles my mind that it deserves a thread lol
My two copper.
I love how this is the third thread I've seen about this subject. Apparently people are REALLY concenred about whether or not their dwarf can get drunk...you know...now that there is a condition for it lol. If you want your dwarf to be drunk, let him be drunk. Don't let some freaking mechanic stop you from RPing your character. This is such a minor issue it boggles my mind that it deserves a thread lol




The point is they are immune to poison.  They just chose to use being drunk as an example. (In the real world alcohol acts like a posion to the human body)  Here is another example, they are now immune to drow poison, so all those little bitty darts with sleep poison no longer work.  Think about all of those RA Salvatore novels that would be incorrect.  Another example, a deity of Poison cannot poison a dwarf. 


So in my survey feeback I would suggest the design team change 'immune' to 'resistant'.

Remember, no matter where ever you go, there you are. --Shaundakul

this was one of the bigger problems I saw. I can see them have advantages on there saves, but being immune really takes a lot of the threat from low level monsters.



DMs need to stop spamming poison. Poison is supposed to be seen... what... 5% of the time at most.

There are only 2 poisonus monster in the beastiary. I didn't count the traps but it can't be more that 2 or it is TOO much.

I love how this is the third thread I've seen about this subject. Apparently people are REALLY concenred about whether or not their dwarf can get drunk...you know...now that there is a condition for it lol. If you want your dwarf to be drunk, let him be drunk. Don't let some freaking mechanic stop you from RPing your character. This is such a minor issue it boggles my mind that it deserves a thread lol




The point is they are immune to poison.  They just chose to use being drunk as an example. (In the real world alcohol acts like a posion to the human body)  Here is another example, they are now immune to drow poison, so all those little bitty darts with sleep poison no longer work.  Think about all of those RA Salvatore novels that would be incorrect.  Another example, a deity of Poison cannot poison a dwarf. 


So in my survey feeback I would suggest the design team change 'immune' to 'resistant'.




The Deity of Poison probably can bypass the dwarven immunity.
He can grant spells.
I am pretty sure some genetic bonus is not going to stop him.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I suggest poisons and sickness could have got different levels or degrees of dangeroussnes.

Other option is a "damage reduction" about poisoned damage. 

Total immunity to all poisons could break the balance.

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

As a side note, what did poeple think of the intoxicated condition?
Damage resistence when you are drunk seems a bit much...
I think the question is really more of a "does being immune to poison as pertains to the typical life of an adventurer mean that the dwarf race is actually immune to every existing poison, even deity level poisons and the stereotypical poison (intoxicant) of alcohol... or does it just mean that monsters with poisons effects don't get to use them on dwarves and nothing more?"

My answer? Game rules are not the laws of in-character reality, they are what makes playing the game fun, easy, and enjoyable for the players.

In-character reality: Dwarves are more resistant to poison than other races = Game rule: dwarf characters are immune to poison is perfectly fine by me - especially after watching for years as a buddy in my gaming group played dwarf after dwarf (his favorite race) and seemingly always managed to fail saving throws against poison despite the odds stacked in his favor, making it appear that dwarves weren't actually resistant to poison at all.

The blanket immunity makes it certain that the dwarf will be less affected than other races when put up against a poisonous monster, which I (and I am sure he) will be very glad to see.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Intoxicated condition should be explained better. I don´t know if intoxicated character enduraces better pain or it´s a penalty when he does damage to enemy.

Poison Immunity ought be replace by "Poisonous damage reduction".

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Immunity is a lot more interesting than resistance, for my money.  Simpler to handle in play, too.

And I just don't see so much gameplay riding on poison that this is really going to affect the game noticeably.  Certainly, it might affect individual encounters immensely, but the game is no longer intended to be balanced at the encounter level.  It's the adventure level that matters, and neutering a few poison-centric encounters ain't going to unbalance an adventure.  It's just going to make the dwarf players feel awesome for a little while.  Nothing wrong with that.
I agree that it could be more interesting than Immune. Immune closes a lot of doors. Maybe double Advantage (roll 3d20, take the best). That brings a 50% (11+ on d20) to 88% which is much more interesting and more fun to roll.
Well I don't see the brokeness or overpoweredness of poison immunity.

1) Older editions tries resistance and bonuses to saves, I saw many dwarve fail saves and takes load of poison based pain. Some players even forget the resistance.

"I fail too"
"Didn't you forget your dwarve bonus?"
"Oh yeah... Well. Still fall."

2) There is only 3 instances or poison in whole playtest. And One is a trap that the dwarf might not even trigger.

3) D&D Next is using adventure design. Not encounter design. We are back to "Cast Spell. End Fight". I played the wizard and ended 2 fights outright with burning hands.

Poison Immunity = Burning Hands

4) If poison immunity trivialize the **** adventure.... that is the DM fault. Having a whole lot of poison monsters or traps is just like having every room filed with kbolds and rats.

With a wizard, a Kobold lair is a joke and free gold/XP.
With a dwarf, a centipede next is a joke and free gold/XP.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

As a side note, what did poeple think of the intoxicated condition?
Damage resistence when you are drunk seems a bit much...



I dont like it myself, however I do understand where its coming from....I work the medical field and drunk individuals in car accidents are hurt FAR FAR less than those that are sober, this is due to an intoxicated persons being more limber and just unable to tense up/ brace for impact as they are impared.

so based on that real world fact I see where they were going, but I still think in game its silly. 
Save the Stargate franchise vist http://www.facebook.com/SaveSGU
I think poison should just deal half damage/effect duration to dwarves. No fiddly subtraction, just cut it in half.


I mean, why the heck do you want to bring a dwarf to a jungle? Apparently because dwarves, creatures of the mountains, are immune to like half of its hazards. It just seems silly.


Not to mention if they are immune to poison, alot of other things have much BETTER reasons to be immune to poison.  This leads to poison being a really horrible tool in anyone's arsenal. Your better off just setting everything on fire.
If poison does a little extra damage as it does in other additions, I don't see what the big deal is.  Keep it simple.  The dwarf is immune to poison.  He doesn't take the extra d6 of damage.  Good for him.

Now, if poison were something to be feared, like it is in real life.  Then I would say drop it to a resistance.  But, it never has been feared much.  It never actually paralyzes you and forces you to stop breathing.  It doesn't destroy all the cells in your arm where you are struck.  It doesn't make your red blood cells start to boil and pop.

No, all it does is make you fatigued.  Weak.  A little more sore.  Give 'em immunity.  They're dwarves after all! 
Why not only poison resistance, only half damage and half time effects?

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

Most likely they do not want just resistance because you have poisons that drop you unconscious, and there is no system to be 'half unconscious'.

As to intoxicated,  I am unsure that 'being drunk is cool' is a good message to put in a game (unless it's Paranoia, possibly).
 
Most likely they do not want just resistance because you have poisons that drop you unconscious, and there is no system to be 'half unconscious'.

Resistance rather than immunity doesn't have to mean taking less damage. For example, the Dwarf in 4E was more resistant to poison by having a bonus to saves to reduce their duration, and the Dwarf in 3.5 was more resistant to poison by javing a bonus to saves to prevent them from taking effect to begin with.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Most likely they do not want just resistance because you have poisons that drop you unconscious, and there is no system to be 'half unconscious'.

Resistance rather than immunity doesn't have to mean taking less damage. For example, the Dwarf in 4E was more resistant to poison by having a bonus to saves to reduce their duration, and the Dwarf in 3.5 was more resistant to poison by javing a bonus to saves to prevent them from taking effect to begin with.



And both abilities were terrible.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Resistance rather than immunity doesn't have to mean taking less damage.


The current implementation for resistance means this though. You take half damage.
I do think they want to move away from bonuses (i.e. what you see in advantage), and I am fine with that.  It means less calculations with every d20 roll and less stacking.
Otoh, 'just' half damage won't help against conditons such as unconsiousness, death, or permanent petrification, but I don't know how to resist such conditions mechanically in an elegant way.

Gomez
And both abilities were terrible.

Sure, the 3.5 version sucked, but all racial features sucked back in 3.5. The 4E mechanic seemed to work well enough to me. What do you expect from Dwarves exactly? They're common natural humanoids, just like humans. Their feature's aren't going to be all out there and crazy, and they shouldn't be. This is a dwarf, not an earth elemental.

The current implementation for resistance means this though. You take half damage.

I'm not talking about the "current implementation" of resistance as a game term. I'm just saying colloqually.

I do think they want to move away from bonuses (i.e. what you see in advantage), and I am fine with that.

How about that then? Give dwarves advantage on all poison saves. Perfect? Probably not, we only have 2 examples of creatures that use poison attacks, and either way there's no telling how poisons will eventually work, but it's an idea that's still a hell of a lot better than complete poison immunity.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Most likely they do not want just resistance because you have poisons that drop you unconscious, and there is no system to be 'half unconscious'.

Resistance rather than immunity doesn't have to mean taking less damage. For example, the Dwarf in 4E was more resistant to poison by having a bonus to saves to reduce their duration, and the Dwarf in 3.5 was more resistant to poison by javing a bonus to saves to prevent them from taking effect to begin with.



And both abilities were terrible.



To expand upon what Orzel is saying here, because I so very thoroughly agree with him.

3.5: A drow stabs you with his poisoned blade, you are a dwarf... you are 10% less likely than other races to be unconscious as a result of this - you roll, and sometimes you fail and are affeced just as much as everyone else.

In-character you seem to have no more resistance to poison than the wizard that also failed, and even less resistance than that human rogue that managed to succeed at his save.

4e: A scorpion nails you with its stinger, you are a dwarf... you take the effect of the poison at the start of your turn, and save against it at the end of your turn - you roll, you succeed... but others succeed at saves very frequently also... and sometimes you still find a way to fail, even more than one round in a row.

In-character you seem, again, to have no more resistance to poison than the wizard that happens to roll high 50% percent of the time (which statistically everyone is expected to do).

5e: A poisonous snake chomps down into your leg, you are a dwarf... you take the same damage from the fangs that everyone else would, and the poison does nothing to you worth assigning mechanics too.

In-character you seem to have such a tolerance for poisons that you wouldn't fall even to the deadliest distilations known in this age... while everyone else seems to sometimes get affected and sometimes not.

Older editions versions of "you don't get poisoned" just didn't do their job.

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Dwarves aren't supposed to "not get poisoned". That's never been a thing. They get poisoned just like everybody else. It's not like they're earth elementals or something. They're basically just short, stocky humans. Their relationship to poison has always been and should continue to be statistically more resistant, which both 3.5 and 4E did (whether those specific implementations were to your satisfaction are another story). Those features didn't accomplish "You don't get poisoned" because that's not what they wanted to or were supposed to accomplish. They were supposed to accomplish "You can shrug off the effects of poison more easily", which they did.

A Goliath and a Gnome both getting into a wrestling match with the Tarrasque and both losing doesn't mean that people don't feel like that Goliath is bigger and stronger than the Gnome. That's absurd. By the logic y'all are throwing around, the only way the Goliath will feel bigger and stronger is if it automatically succeeds all grapple checks.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
5e: A poisonous snake chomps down into your leg, you are a dwarf... you take the same damage from the fangs that everyone else would, and the poison does nothing to you worth assigning mechanics too.

This is all it is, really.

That poisoned arrow meant to drop a human isn't going to do much but make Mr. Dwarf slightly dizzy.  However, were Mr. Dwarf to chug a gallon of methylmercury, he's still going to die.
Actually, ive just had a huge argument with a fellow D&D player about his "100% immunity". 

We came up with the following house rules:

Given the fact as the dwarf earns experience and gets older and more mature, the better he is at handling poison.

Dwarf immunity towards poison= dwarf level+5 VS caster level of poison.

Lets pretend that a dwarven king level 10, is sitting on a throne surrounded by his best bodyguards.
Suddenly out of the blue the best drow assasins in the whole underdark appears behind his throne and stabs him with the powerful poison they can create, the essence of lolth. This assasins knows that the dwarf king is really hardcore against poison, but having the poison made by Lolth herself (caster level 20+), the dwarf's immunites is not enough (only up to level 15 poison). The dwarf king takes the hit, and soon after suffers the effects and dies Q___Q

Another rule we were talking about, were the rule of " if you have the dwarfs X hp+value less than poison strength, the poison works" kid of mechanism.

Whatcha think?

EDIT! This also works if lets say a Level 2 dwarf gets bitten by a level 10 Naga. the naga's caster level for its poison = its own levels.  

That sounds perfectly reasonable, Joon.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
A straight +20 would probably have the same net result.

I need to post a whole thread just for this. Dwaves should not be immune to poison. Resistance maybe, but immune makes them never feel the effects of alcohol. This just doesn't seem for dwarven at all. Please take this out of the dwarven racial traits, it doesn't need to be this broken.




I don't like EITHER the dwarf or elf racial bonuses.  To powerful imo.
 
I like it. While it says "immune" that doesn't mean that there are no effects, just that mechanically there's no effect. You can still roleplay that Drow Poison makes you feel a little drowsy (hmm, that pun came out of nowhere), or that the scorpions poison still burns.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I don't like EITHER the dwarf or elf racial bonuses.  To powerful imo.
 




Now Immunity to sleep and charm is way underpowered.

Monsters that cause sleep or charm are rare as heck outside the Underdark (drow) or whereever Fey are from in the setting (Feywild/Faerie/Avalon/Neverland)

I'd trade both immunities for a single hit point in a second.

That being said, I want my dwarves immune or practically immune to poison. None of this +2 to poison saving throws garbage. Or +5 to poison saves AFTER you take poison damage trash.

The Caves of Chaos has 3 instances of poison. A dwarf should get poison damage no more than once on a bad day.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

They were supposed to accomplish "You can shrug off the effects of poison more easily", which they did.

Except for when they didn't, which is what I am getting at here: older editions had rules that gave a statistacl advantage to dwarves when it came to poison... but not to such a degree that it 100% of the time made a dwarf, once dice where involved, take any less effect from poison.

It was a flaw of the all-or-nothing poison save in 3.5 and a flaw of the ease of saving throws in 4e - dwarf characters end up in situation where their supposedly "increased resistance" to poison doesn't actually seem to exist.

3.5 - wyvern stings two characters, both fail, both take the same poison effects... so the +2 doesn't actually change anything (at least not in literally 90% of cases - i.e. when the dwarf rolls a result that is either 1 or 2 short of what any other race would need to get).

4e - wyvern stings two characters, both take ongoing poison damage and then successfully save... so the +5 doesn't actually feel like a bonus most of the time because 10 or higher is very easy... and then there is 20% of the time (rolling a 1 through 4) that the bonus doesn't change failure either... so a full 25% of the time... that's an improvement from 3.5 and 10%...

Neither are enough of a chance for any sort of consistent feelign that dwarves are less affected by poison.

As for the Goliath & Gnome portion of your post (which I have left out), I should point out this: A goliath's minimum damage with a strength based attack is going to be higher than the gnome's minimum damage with a strength based attack 100% of the time (so long as the goliath is, as is likely, actually stronger) - that is what makes him feel stronger... why does he get a 100% of the time mechanical advantage for increased strength just by being "a little stronger" when you don't think a dwarf should have a 100% of the time advantage for increased poison resistance?

almost everything has a very clear 100% of the time advantage... but dwarf poison resistance, halfling fear resistance, and elf enchantment resistance has been a 10% of the time advantage that they gain by giving up a 100% of the time advantage (human benefits have always been 100% of the time advantages, whether it was unlimited level progression, feats and skill points, or better ability score modifiers - everyone else gets saddled with a few situational effects that don't even apply in all of the situations they affect).

ATTENTION:  If while reading my post you find yourself thinking "Either this guy is being sarcastic, or he is an idiot," do please assume that I am an idiot. It makes reading your replies more entertaining. If, however, you find yourself hoping that I am not being even remotely serious then you are very likely correct as I find irreverence and being ridiculous to be relaxing.

Actually, ive just had a huge argument with a fellow D&D player about his "100% immunity". 

We came up with the following house rules:

Given the fact as the dwarf earns experience and gets older and more mature, the better he is at handling poison.

Dwarf immunity towards poison= dwarf level+5 VS caster level of poison.

Lets pretend that a dwarven king level 10, is sitting on a throne surrounded by his best bodyguards.
Suddenly out of the blue the best drow assasins in the whole underdark appears behind his throne and stabs him with the powerful poison they can create, the essence of lolth. This assasins knows that the dwarf king is really hardcore against poison, but having the poison made by Lolth herself (caster level 20+), the dwarf's immunites is not enough (only up to level 15 poison). The dwarf king takes the hit, and soon after suffers the effects and dies Q___Q

Another rule we were talking about, were the rule of " if you have the dwarfs X hp+value less than poison strength, the poison works" kid of mechanism.

Whatcha think?

EDIT! This also works if lets say a Level 2 dwarf gets bitten by a level 10 Naga. the naga's caster level for its poison = its own levels.  




No offense Joon (and I've told others this), but why in the world would you make a rule change to a PLAYTEST?  Play test it with what they gave you - immunity.  You might actually find it's not as bad as you think.  Or you might wind up hating it more.  But, playtest the actual rule.  It's like being a painter and someone showing you a new way to do something.  Try their way out before you decide it's no good and change their technique.  After awhile, you might notice it has more validity than what you origianlly thought. 
Older editions had rules that gave a statistacl advantage to dwarves when it came to poison... but not to such a degree that it 100% of the time made a dwarf, once dice where involved, take any less effect from poison.

I'm confused. You're telling me that like you think that it contradicts what I said, but it doesn't.

It was a flaw of the all-or-nothing poison save in 3.5 and a flaw of the ease of saving throws in 4e - dwarf characters end up in situation where their supposedly "increased resistance" to poison doesn't actually seem to exist.

3.5 - wyvern stings two characters, both fail, both take the same poison effects... so the +2 doesn't actually change anything (at least not in literally 90% of cases - i.e. when the dwarf rolls a result that is either 1 or 2 short of what any other race would need to get).

4e - wyvern stings two characters, both take ongoing poison damage and then successfully save... so the +5 doesn't actually feel like a bonus most of the time because 10 or higher is very easy... and then there is 20% of the time (rolling a 1 through 4) that the bonus doesn't change failure either... so a full 25% of the time... that's an improvement from 3.5 and 10%...

Neither are enough of a chance for any sort of consistent feelign that dwarves are less affected by poison.

Like I already said, if you didn't feel like those bonuses were enough, that's fine, and I could actually even certainly get behind giving them something more substancial, but trying to address that problem by giving them outright immunity is like using a nuclear strike to swat a fly.

A goliath's minimum damage with a strength based attack is going to be higher than the gnome's minimum damage with a strength based attack 100% of the time (so long as the goliath is, as is likely, actually stronger) - that is what makes him feel stronger... why does he get a 100% of the time mechanical advantage for increased strength just by being "a little stronger" when you don't think a dwarf should have a 100% of the time advantage for increased poison resistance?

The Dwarf did have a 100% of the time advantage, at least as long as a save of some kind was involved. But that advantage plays out the same way that the Goliath's bonus to damage plays out when you consider that doing one or two more points of damage mean pretty much zero if the creature doesn't end up at 0 or below because of it. If a monster has 10 HP left, my Goliath does 7 damage, and then my ally does 6 damage, then I contributed exactly as much as if I had played a Gnome and had done only 5 damage instead. The higher damage did not matter, just as sometimes a bonus to saving throws will and should fail. Your issue with "doesn't feel more resistant" is that you keep looking at individual instances. Yeah, there are a lot of individual instances when a particular bonus is useless despite having come up, but that doesn't mean that you won't feel the effect in the long run.

almost everything has a very clear 100% of the time advantage...

That's going to depend on how you define "advantage". If you define advantage like I am, then yeah, and that's going to include the Dwarf poison save bonuses. If you're defining advantage like you are, though, then no, almost nothing is going to be advantageous 100% of the time.

human benefits have always been 100% of the time advantages, whether it was unlimited level progression, feats and skill points, or better ability score modifiers

By what appears to be your critera for a 100% advantage, none of those things fit it. If you use that feat to get yourself Weapon Expertise, for example, then that racial feature is only going to have been useful on 5% of all attack rolls. If you use those bonus skill points to take maximum ranks in Spot, you still have a good chance to fail at spotting a sneaky monster. If you take +2 Constitution, then that doesn't matter very much when you have 6 HP left and get hit by an attack that causes you to take 10 damage.

Play test it with what they gave you - immunity. You might actually find it's not as bad as you think.

If the objection to it were one of mechanical balance, then you would be right, but that's not where the objection is coming from. The objection is on thematic grounds, so no amount of "just try it" is going to alter that.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I like immunity, I feel it's more dwarvish... but I can live with an half/damage reduction.
No more vancian. No "edition war" for me, thank'you.

No offense Joon (and I've told others this), but why in the world would you make a rule change to a PLAYTEST?  Play test it with what they gave you - immunity.  You might actually find it's not as bad as you think.  Or you might wind up hating it more.  But, playtest the actual rule.  It's like being a painter and someone showing you a new way to do something.  Try their way out before you decide it's no good and change their technique.  After awhile, you might notice it has more validity than what you origianlly thought. 



Because the playtest is incomplete. Simple as that

My group needs better poison rules, so we created them. I wont be playing Cavern os chaos until the new set of rules are getting batched out :P

If it is broke, then why not fix it your self? Hope it gave you the answers you needed



EDIT: and of cource given the fact that so many (my self included) thinks that the Dwarven immunity is broke as hell :P  
I agree that immunity is just too powerful. Use resistance when damage is concerned, and advantage on saves. Clean and simple, and no additional math.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Howdy folks,

I've moved this thread to a forum where it is more on-topic.

Thanks.   

All around helpful simian

Not sure of the Immunity to Poison neither. 

I think i'd prefer a more toned down versionsuch as:

Dwarven Resilience: Poison attacks have Dsadvantage against you and you have Advantage for any Poison saves. 
Sign In to post comments