D&D 5E Would you require a roll for this?

[UngeheuerLich]

At a certain point, even your trapmaker is going to be asking if this is a reasonable way to protect 100 platinum pieces and a scroll of Burning Hands.

100 platinum coins are quite a sum.
That is 1000 gold. Which roughly translates into 100000 dollars. I'd trap that.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

A Rogue (Arcane Trickster) could probably use Mage Hand to safely disarm the trap from a distance.

Yeah this is what I was going to post - a poison need trap like this is already 100% negated by magic spells like mage hand, unseen servant, find familiar (which don't even require the investigation roll to find the trap), so I'd absolutely reward the rogue's approach

 

[Quickleaf]

Yeah this is what I was going to post - a poison need trap like this is already 100% negated by magic spells like mage hand, unseen servant, find familiar (which don't even require the investigation roll to find the trap), so I'd absolutely reward the rogue's approach

I’ll add that this is a matter of approach. For example, when PC is aware of trap, I fold disarming into unlocking, with a fail by 5+ triggering the trap.

So mage hand wouldn’t work unless they’re an Arcane Trickster iirc.

Unseen Servant miiight depend on approach, but probably wouldn’t be able to open a locked chest without the key.

 

[Horwath]

Until the hungry scavengers appear. You chum the waters, you get the sharks in my game.

that is just more corpses to disarm traps, some of those fireball-like might destroy a corpse or two, nice to have fresh ones coming along.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah this is what I was going to post - a poison need trap like this is already 100% negated by magic spells like mage hand, unseen servant, find familiar (which don't even require the investigation roll to find the trap), so I'd absolutely reward the rogue's approach

5E: making non casters superfluous since 2014.

 

[Reynard]

that is just more corpses to disarm traps, some of those fireball-like might destroy a corpse or two, nice to have fresh ones coming along.

I can't imagine having fun in a dungeon based game where I felt that confident about my ability to overwhelm whatever foes exist there. might as well play Diablo at that point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Until the hungry scavengers appear. You chum the waters, you get the sharks in my game.

Wouldn't this be a diabolus ex machina though?

If it's a problem for good things to happen without supporting justification, but instead out of a metagame desire to make a particular end happen, it seems to me that it should also be a problem for bad things to happen as a metagame desire to make something happen rather than because they are supported by justification.

Doubly so when a dungeon, generally notorious for being sealed or inaccessible for long periods of time, does not normally have an environment beneficial to scavengers big enough or dangerous enough to threaten a party.

5E: making non casters superfluous since 2014.

It is merely following in the footsteps of its parent (3.5e) and sibling (PF1e). The moment I heard that "D&D Next" would use 3e rules but with "4e streamlining," it was already obvious that this would come to pass.

 

[Umbran]

There is a chest and the Rogue rolls and detects a trap. A needle trap that would eject into the thief's hand and poison them.

The Rogue's player says that he borrows the Fighters metal gauntlet (which the needle couldn't penetrate) and safely sets off the trap.

Roll for disarm or not?

Most "poison needle" traps I have seen are described as being in the lock - the character trying to pick the lock gets stabbed. Metal gauntlets aren't for fine dexterity, and they have joints a needle can slip through.

So, for that case -
Roll for avoiding/bypassing/disarming the trap with advantage for wearing the gauntlet as protection.
Roll to pick that lock at disadvantage, for wearing that really clumsy gauntlet while doing it.

 

[Reynard]

Wouldn't this be a diabolus ex machina though?

If it's a problem for good things to happen without supporting justification, but instead out of a metagame desire to make a particular end happen, it seems to me that it should also be a problem for bad things to happen as a metagame desire to make something happen rather than because they are supported by justification.

Doubly so when a dungeon, generally notorious for being sealed or inaccessible for long periods of time, does not normally have an environment beneficial to scavengers big enough or dangerous enough to threaten a party.


It is merely following in the footsteps of its parent (3.5e) and sibling (PF1e). The moment I heard that "D&D Next" would use 3e rules but with "4e streamlining," it was already obvious that this would come to pass.

What are your adventurers even doing in a dungeon if there aren't any monsters to fight or parlay with? I honestly don't understand the idea of an empty dungeon being even the slightest bit interesting to explore.

 

[Corinnguard]

The best rogue you want when it comes to dealing with poison needle traps is a Rogue who has a natural resistance and save against poison. Ex. Dwarves and Yuan-Ti. Neither race will need to wear a metal gauntlet when trying to disarm the trap.