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

[Oofta]

It's a wild strawman that 'wearing a metal gauntlet for the last stage in order to counter a poison needle' equates to 'always say yes no matter what it is'.

You can always always always come up with a reason why something 'wouldn't work' or 'still needs a roll'. I think the quoted example is plausible and smart and I would certainly allow it.

I don't think it's wild to interpret "If every time players come up with this kind of idea you go with it, they are going to interact with their environment more and try to solve future problems creatively as well. Presumably, this is what you want." (underline added for emphasis) means always saying yes. It also clearly states that if you don't always "go with it" you're DMing wrong. I think always saying yes is a bad idea, having a conversation with the player and figuring out what they're trying to accomplish and talking alternatives is far better. Sometimes the answer will still be no, but they will know why the answer is no.

As I've said repeatedly whether the specific scenario would work is a DM judgement call. Gauntlets are never made completely of metal because they wouldn't work for holding a weapon, a player can't just declare otherwise. Even if they were made entirely of metal, they wouldn't provide the manual dexterity to trigger the trap in my opinion.

I'm talking general approach here. I will never be an "Always say yes" DM, that does not in any way harm or limit out of the box thinking.

 

[Corinnguard]

So is a fighter's intended role "I engage enemies in combat and do nothing else"?

It's not that simple. A person playing a fighter is going to do a lot more than fighting.

 

[Oofta]

Sure. I did not mean to suggest that a dungeon should be only or constant fights, just that they were, to me, an important component of the playstyle.

I've also been in sessions where everything came down to some kind of charisma check. If I want to play a gruff fighter with poor social skills, it gets old quick.

 

[soviet]

Nobody said fighters couldn't do anything else, only that the player likely chose the fighter because they wanted to, you know, fight.

So like I said, an entirely superficial analysis. 'They're called fighters, they must fight!'.

All 5e characters are mechanically focused on combat. Fighters don't get any more combat-relevant stuff than anyone else. Players of other character classes I'm sure also want to fight.

 

[soviet]

I don't think it's wild to interpret "If every time players come up with this kind of idea you go with it, they are going to interact with their environment more and try to solve future problems creatively as well. Presumably, this is what you want." (underline added for emphasis) means always saying yes. It also clearly states that if you don't always "go with it" you're DMing wrong. I think always saying yes is a bad idea, having a conversation with the player and figuring out what they're trying to accomplish and talking alternatives is far better. Sometimes the answer will still be no, but they will know why the answer is no.

As I've said repeatedly whether the specific scenario would work is a DM judgement call. Gauntlets are never made completely of metal because they wouldn't work for holding a weapon, a player can't just declare otherwise. Even if they were made entirely of metal, they wouldn't provide the manual dexterity to trigger the trap in my opinion.

I'm talking general approach here. I will never be an "Always say yes" DM, that does not in any way harm or limit out of the box thinking.

'This kind of idea' meaning 'a plausible solution to the problem, like wearing metal gauntlet to counter a needle trap at the final stage'.

 

[Oofta]

'This kind of idea' meaning 'a plausible solution to the problem, like wearing metal gauntlet to counter a needle trap at the final stage'.

First, it didn't read that way. But I also explained that, in my opinion, it is not a plausible solution and why. Since I would decide it is not a plausible solution I gave my approach, which would be to discuss why I say no and then have a conversation about what the player is attempting and alternative solutions.

In the case of a needle trap, I honestly can't think of any but in many cases the answer comes down to "You can't do that but you could try [fill in options with perceived chances of success]."

 

[Clint_L]

Look, a poison needle trap is the laziest, most predictable trap in the game, and I expect that as soon as a rogue knows it’s there, they’re like, “lol, poison needle. Hand me me something hard.” I’m not going to quibble on the gauntlet. “Well, actually medieval gauntlets blah blah blah…”. Player: “Whatever, Poindexter, point is I trigger it with something other than my flesh.”

 

[Vaalingrade]

At a certain point of denying mitigation methods, the player might as well just as if the DM just wants them to assume they got poisoned or eaten by sharks as a punishment for trying things just to save everyone time and die rolls.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If the trap goes off when the chest opens, the gauntlet would help but not render the thief immune because they're busy picking the lock.

If the trap can be set off before picking the lock, then the gantlet will let them do that and then pick the lock with no danger from the trap. (If I hadn't decided previously, this is what I'd go with.)

The thief would absolutely know which it is, and they could take additional steps that might change the options.

 

[Reynard]

At a certain point of denying mitigation methods, the player might as well just as if the DM just wants them to assume they got poisoned or eaten by sharks as a punishment for trying things just to save everyone time and die rolls.

Not every idea is a good one.