D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Maxperson]

That is why the players stepped in to say wait, feel? What about gloves?

The DM assumed the player has no gloves so he described the greasy feel when the character touched the chest.

The set up though is there is nothing one way or the other about what the character was wearing. The DM could be mistaken in their assumption about a PC detail.

It can be run different ways but in my opinion preferably this type of thing would be something for the player to decide, not something to be imposed by the DM's narration.

Assuming it's not an actual playstyle, good odds says that if the DM described that player feeling the wall and finding a small cleverly hidden catch that triggers the secret door to open, the player wouldn't be like, "But I'm wearing gloves!" The players always seem to remember these things when something bad happens.

Wearing gloves while searching a chest for traps and/or attempting to pick the lock would impose disadvantage at the very least. The gloves would interfere to a great degree. It might not even be possible and result in an auto fail.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In short, how does this get resolved at your table?

Players need to BE SPECIFIC, before things happen, or their PC's BE DEAD. That is how the game is played and always has been.

If they were to present a reasonable argument why their PC should be considered to be wearing gloves then I'd consider whether it really ought to apply. However, with FULLY ADEQUATE advance hints and warnings as described, chances are pretty low it'll carry much weight. I'm seriously against a DM who just plays Simon Says and Gotcha! games with players, but leniency for players being vague only goes so far. Assuming I as DM can psychically see the pictures in their minds about how players believe their character is SPECIFICALLY dressed and geared is as invalid as me assuming players know and remember my UNWRITTEN rules.

If a player in a situation like that spontaneously spouted off that, "I always have pictured my PC wearing gloves," then I will immediately counter with, "I have NEVER, EVER heard you state that before, you have no default written description of your PC that states that, you have no listing of gloves as a specific part of your gear, whereas MY CAMPAIGN DEFAULT description of armor states that all ARMOR includes helmet/head covering and gloves/gauntlets and that it is assumed that you're wearing them unless you say otherwise - but likewise if you're NOT wearing armor, then it is assumed that you're NOT wearing any such gear unless you say otherwise, the description of "travelers clothing" does not itself include gloves while a claim of wearing WINTER clothing might hold some weight. If you had addressed just ONE of those tidbits from your position as a player who wishes to prevent ill fates from befalling your PC and I'd be more willing to accommodate you. But you knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred, and I gave you EVERY reasonable opportunity and plenty of hints to STATE specific precautions and you said nothing. Sorry. The situation stands as I described."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wearing gloves while searching a chest for traps and/or attempting to pick the lock would impose disadvantage at the very least. The gloves would interfere to a great degree. It might not even be possible and result in an auto fail.

I mean, that's a pretty ridiculous assertion, given that in a huge proportion of fiction (crime, fantasy, etc.) people are depicted as wearing gloves when they pick locks. This particularly includes a huge proportion of videogames where characters pick locks.

Searching for traps not wearing any hand protection sounds pretty suicidal too. Especially as your eyes are likely doing most of the work if you're trying not to trigger the trap.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, point. If for some reason it was an openly disclosed table rule that all the players could invent into the fiction before you resolve the fortune, then it would cease to be dysfunctional. The trouble being, I can't think of any published game that actually encourages that because it totally destroys most of the aesthetics of play you could have in exchange for just a potential minor increase in fantasy and expression that in practice I don't think would be realized because as I pointed out before, the ability to inject fiction after the secret is revealed discourages the player from being specific, interactive, or communicative before the reveal since anything you introduced before the build would limit your own control over the narrative later.

There's a reason that I included the word "reasonable" in my response. The player can't just interject whatever he wants in order to change things. It has to be reasonable given what is already known. It's reasonable for a PC that has ridden to the dungeon to have gloves on in the cavern system dungeon. Caves are cold and riders often have gloves. It wouldn't be reasonable for someone wearing common clothes in a warm environment to claim the same. At least not without stating the unusual fact prior to the situation being described here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Players need to BE SPECIFIC, before things happen, or their PC's BE DEAD. That is how the game is played and always has been.

If they were to present a reasonable argument why their PC should be considered to be wearing gloves then I'd consider whether it really ought to apply. However, with FULLY ADEQUATE advance hints and warnings as described, chances are pretty low it'll carry much weight. I'm seriously against a DM who just plays Simon Says and Gotcha! games with players, but leniency for players being vague only goes so far. Assuming I as DM can psychically see the pictures in their minds about how players believe their character is SPECIFICALLY dressed and geared is as invalid as me assuming players know and remember my UNWRITTEN rules.

If a player in a situation like that spontaneously spouted off that, "I always have pictured my PC wearing gloves," then I will immediately counter with, "I have NEVER, EVER heard you state that before, you have no default written description of your PC that states that, you have no listing of gloves as a specific part of your gear, whereas MY CAMPAIGN DEFAULT description of armor states that all ARMOR includes helmet/head covering and gloves/gauntlets and that it is assumed that you're wearing them unless you say otherwise - but likewise if you're NOT wearing armor, then it is assumed that you're NOT wearing any such gear unless you say otherwise, the description of "travelers clothing" does not itself include gloves while a claim of wearing WINTER clothing might hold some weight. If you had addressed just ONE of those tidbits from your position as a player who wishes to prevent ill fates from befalling your PC and I'd be more willing to accommodate you. But you knew the job was dangerous when you took it Fred, and I gave you EVERY reasonable opportunity and plenty of hints to STATE specific precautions and you said nothing. Sorry. The situation stands as I described."

This isn't a reasonable position in 5E, which has a truly pathetic equipment and clothing section. Do you have a better list for your table?

I'm seriously against a DM who just plays Simon Says and Gotcha! games with players, but leniency for players being vague only goes so far.

I mean, you seem to be describing a "GOTCHA!" and your first essentially like "I play gotcha! style, be ready!", which is fine, but it's weird as heck to say you're against it. The "Be specific or you die" thing is exactly what "gotcha!" is about.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There's a reason that I included the word "reasonable" in my response. The player can't just interject whatever he wants in order to change things. It has to be reasonable given what is already known. It's reasonable for a PC that has ridden to the dungeon to have gloves on in the cavern system dungeon. Caves are cold and riders often have gloves. It wouldn't be reasonable for someone wearing common clothes in a warm environment to claim the same. At least not without stating the unusual fact prior to the situation being described here.

That's not really "reasonable", though, that's just reflective of your personal biases/beliefs.

If the player says their PC is wearing gloves, unless that player has a history of bad faith stuff (in which, case why are they in your group), you should probably be taking it at face value, rather than trying to decide if it's "reasonable" based on some rather dubious assumptions.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, that's a pretty ridiculous assertion, given that in a huge proportion of fiction (crime, fantasy, etc.) people are depicted as wearing gloves when they pick locks. This particularly includes a huge proportion of videogames where characters pick locks.

You mean fiction where things often don't make sense and problems like that are ignored or glossed over?

Fiction is not a very good place to look for whether gloves would interfere with what you can feel or do. Put a pair on and feel around? Unless they are so thin as to be just a useless visual accessory for a ball or something else formal, they're going to seriously impair your ability to feel small things, as well as your fine motor abilities. If they are that thin, they aren't going to help you with a substance like sticky contact poison that would just seep through the thin fabric.

Searching for traps not wearing any hand protection sounds pretty suicidal too. Especially as your eyes are likely doing most of the work if you're trying not to trigger the trap.

Eyes are just part of the way to find things. The entire point of a trap is not to be seen, so visuals are going to be intentionally limited. Things hidden out of sight. The expert trap finder will need to use touch a good amount of the time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You mean fiction where things often don't make sense or little problems like that are glossed over?

Fiction is not a very good place to look for whether gloves would interfere with what you can feel or do. Put a pair on and feel around? Unless they are so thin as to be just a useless visual accessory for a ball or something else formal, they're going to seriously impair your ability to feel small things, as well as your fine motor abilities. If they are that thin, they aren't going to help you with a substance like sticky contact poison that would just seep through the thin fabric.

I mean, I challenge you to do the same, with a well-made pair of actual leather gloves, not some bumbly-wumbly gloves designed to keep your little fingeroos warm, or industrial gloves. But the thing is, almost nobody owns well-made leather gloves now. Do you?

Leather isn't fabric. Poison won't "seep through" it unless there's something very special about the medium the poison is contained in, or the gloves are damaged.

Eyes are just part of the way to find things. The entire point of a trap is not to be seen, so visuals are going to be intentionally limited. Things hidden out of sight. The expert trap finder will need to use touch a good amount of the time.

Nothing in the rules supports this, and it makes very little sense. For abstract disarming of a trap, maybe, especially if you had to get into the mechanism. I wouldn't call it a reasonable position.

 

[Maxperson]

Something else I noticed about contact poisons in the DMG was that they don't really do damage. In contrast to ingested, inhaled, or injury poisons which can do damage, contact poisons appear to just poison/paralyze/knock out. I wonder if that is the design expectation for all contact poisons, given that there are no damn gloves in the D&D 5e universe (except magical ones).

The climber's kit includes gloves, the 35th trinket on page 160 of the PHB has a glove, and the bigby's hand spell requires a glove, but those were the only places in the PHB that I found them.

The DMG mentions using gloves in extreme cold, has expensive gloves as an art object, and then a bunch of magical gloves.

 

[aco175]

This is D&D. Saves are specific. This isn't a generic "luck save", which would be absolutely 100% justifiable. Some games have them. D&D should probably have them, but it doesn't.

With D&D this is going to be a CON save. But that means you got the poison into your bloodstream. And that makes no sense if you were wearing leather gloves or the like.

I kind of look at all saves as luck saves. There is so much going on around the PCs that any type of save is dependent on several factors. Same with the to-hit and AC mechanics. CON saves from poison can come from many types. You eat something, you breathe something, you get injected or cut with a weapon coated with something to your bloodstream. We have different types of poison but most do damage and you have the poisoned condition.

Making a save could be you notice the stuff you just touched is getting hot and eating your flesh/gloves. You make the save means you wipe most off before too much damage is done or failure means you do not. A fireball coming at you allows a save for half meaning you position or raise your shield or pull out your Acme umbrella, something that is not described unless by the player or DM.

Same with attacking. I say that the goblin attacks you and hits AC15. I would not allow the player to say something like "I have a 16 DEX so I jump out of the way." That is already factored into the attack or the AC.