D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean I think we can all agree the 5E equipment list is maybe the single worst equipment list D&D has ever seen.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I mean, you're welcome to look at them that way.

I just don't think it makes sense or is reasonable to do so, personally.

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.

Then why is your CON factored in? Why is your class factored in? Are Barbarians particularly good at wiping off goo quickly? I'd suspect the exact opposite was true, and that the reason Barbarians get a CON save proficiency is because they're so tough.

But if they're so tough, why is that being factored in when you're saying it's about whether you touched it?

This is a basic issue with D&D's rules design. Virtually every example of a CON save is something that's "after the fact", too. After you've been bitten by the poisonous snake, for example.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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?

It is absolutely reasonable. I'll repeat for emphasis and clarity...

As I said, this is how the game of D&D is played and always has been. Others may choose to play it differently and I have no problem with that. But MY understanding of how the game works is definitely stated to players at the outset, written down for them to see (whether they actually DO read it or not) and still verbally repeated as often as is necessary. If a player sees inadequate description for gear - they are free to SPECIFY their gear, to have their PC buy something NOT listed or better described by default, and list it in their character sheet. I cannot reasonably ASSUME that anything they come up with on the fly is something I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, any more than things that I DON'T SAY as DM is something THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

Even though as a DM I specifically dislike and avoid playing Simon Says and Gotcha! games as a valid approach to D&D, I will only give so much leeway before a ruling must be made. Players must be clear and specific if the ultimate safety of their PC's is truly important to them. That is THEIR responsibility as players to safeguard their characters, not MINE as DM to protect them from their own poor play by being vague, being blind to hints, and not taking advantage of opportunities SPECIFICALLY given in situations like this. As the OP noted, the player wasn't forced into it, goaded into it, tricked into it, etc. If a player wants to NOT be poisoned when opening a chest they need to be clear and specific and NOT just assume the DM is on the same page, same as the DM needs to be clear and specific to attempt to GET the player on the same page. Opening a chest? SAY YOU'RE PUTTING ON GLOVES. Even if you don't have any such thing written down as part of your gear, that'll go further than simply saying for the first time, ever, "Oh! I always assumed my character is always wearing gloves!"

 

[aco175]

Then why is your CON factored in? Why is your class factored in? Are Barbarians particularly good at wiping off goo quickly? I'd suspect the exact opposite was true, and that the reason Barbarians get a CON save proficiency is because they're so tough.

But if they're so tough, why is that being factored in when you're saying it's about whether you touched it?

This is a basic issue with D&D's rules design.

I agree that it is one the design flaws in the game. These things are not spelled out and left to the DM or player to come up with why or how people make saves. The barbarian could be fast taking off his gloves, or only started to touch it before pulling away and saying, "I must have missed the Perception check to notice this stuff on the chest." He could say that his PC is like Wolverine and he pushes out the poison. He could pull a Hulk and yell at the poison to back off.

All silly, but there is no mechanics to figure all it out. Most of the time, I do not describe what happens on a save or a missed attack unless the players gets into it. We just move on.

 

[Maxperson]

I can also easily envision such a game, and even more easily envision myself walking away from it while saying a few choice words...

It's not my kind of game, either, but people do play that way.

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, this pedantry of the silliest kind, isn't it?

The point is that it's all pedantry of the silliest kind, including the idea that "everyone wore gloves in medieval Europe (even though that's a generalization that's at best only sort of true), so they do in your campaign setting!"

 

[Vaalingrade]

As I said, this is how the game of D&D is played and always has been. Others may choose to play it differently and I have no problem with that. But MY understanding of how the game works is definitely stated to players at the outset, written down for them to see (whether they actually DO read it or not) and still verbally repeated as often as is necessary. If a player sees inadequate description for gear - they are free to SPECIFY their gear, to have their PC buy something NOT listed or better described by default, and list it in their character sheet. I cannot reasonably ASSUME that anything they come up with on the fly is something I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN, any more than things that I DON'T SAY as DM is something THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

Please cite a place where this has been written in every edition of D&D.

Willing to bet it's not in at least 3 out of 5 main editions.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I get this. Here, in Saskatchewan, I'm quite familiar with cold weather while still being quite hot enough in August to have a beer outside.

You don't qualify for what he said then. He listed two criteria. 1) unfamiliar with cold weather, 2) sitting outside in August having a beer.

You only fit one of those two criteria and would presumably, as you're familiar with cold weather, have included gloves in the cold weather clothing.

 

[Reynard]

Player agency is important, but this take on it strikes me as going too far, because there are times when the DM is supposed to violate a player's agency of their character.

Has the PC failed their save against some sort of mind-affecting effect? Then the DM is going to dictate what they do to some degree.

This is an exception based on an in game event.

Is the PC repeatedly acting in a way that violates their alignment? Then their alignment is going to change accordingly, whether or not they like it.

This is a consequence of a player choice, not forcing a choice.

Is the PC acting on player knowledge that their character couldn't possibly have? Then they'll be told that their character couldn't possibly be undertaking the action(s) that they're undertaking.

This is a corner case that I have never seen come up in play, aside from the occasional low level character pulling out the torches when they see trolls. I used to fight against this one but at some point I realized it was better to just randomly change things like vulnerabilities. Trolls in this world are healed by fire, for example, or must be submerged in holy water to be permanently killed or whatever. Of course there is an actualy mechanism for this these days, so if a player whose character you're not sure would know a thing says they want to do a thing with that knowledge, ask for an Arcana check.

In either case, still not reducing agency.

In the early days of the hobby, the DM was referred to as a referee, and like a referee sometimes they need to make a call that the player can't do something with their PC, no matter how much they want to.

Sure. "I jump across the 100 foot chasm" is not a thing the PC can do, but my job as the GM is to simply ask, "Are you sure?" and let the results emerge naturally.

 

[Alzrius]

This is an exception based on an in game event.

So we've established that exceptions exist.

This is a consequence of a player choice, not forcing a choice.

I'm not sure I'd characterize violating player agency as "forcing a choice," so much as enforcing a consequence (which is a large part of what the DM does anyway) where the PC doesn't want said consequence. If the player doesn't want to be Chaotic Evil, but consistently acts in such a manner, then that's going to be their alignment regardless of whether or not they want it. Hence, their agency with regard to their character is violated.

This is a corner case that I have never seen come up in play, aside from the occasional low level character pulling out the torches when they see trolls.

So you've seen it come up, then. Likewise, I've seen it come up too. Hence, there's a justified pretext for saying "no, that's not what your character does," violating the player's agency of their character.