D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Ruin Explorer]

What's adversarial is demanding gloves you didn't mention, didn't put on your character sheet, and aren't referenced in the rules only after learning that there are possible negative consequences for not wearing them.

The crux of the issue is here - you're assuming bad faith on the part of the player. As @Reynard has pointed out, that makes this more or less impossible to resolve.

I mean, what if the gloves are on the character sheet, but so is a huge amount of clothing, not all of which could possibly be worn at once? Are you going to just assume the PC is this guy? Or a naked dude with a very full backpack?

 

[Maxperson]

“Foraging clothing” and “riding clothing” don’t have their own specific entries in the equipment list, so I feel like traveler’s clothes is meant to cover similar space (especially “riding clothing;” riding feels like a pretty typical part of traveling). Cold weather clothing is indeed a separate entry from traveler’s clothes, but I picture that as like polar weather clothing, since temperature management is like the primary function of most outdoor clothing.

99% of possible equipment don't have specific entries in the 5e book. It's very, very clear that one set of clothing is not appropriate for all of those conditions. My players understand this and come up with stuff to buy that is not on the list all the time.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I mean, there's this from PHB p 175:

A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.


Wondering if that makes it a Rule or a Guideline...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

99% of possible equipment don't have specific entries in the 5e book. It's very, very clear that one set of clothing is not appropriate for all of those conditions. My players understand this and come up with stuff to buy that is not on the list all the time.

That is cool to hear, and improves my opinion of what you were saying, but I am telling you, you have a rather unusual bunch of players if they're constantly buying off-list clothing etc. Virtually all players buy some off-list stuff, but it tends to be more specialized, specific, or flashy stuff than just "gloves" or the like.

I always liked 2E's Aurora's Whole Realms guide for that (albeit had to ban a couple of items lol), but I feel like it doesn't fit well with 5E.

 

[Maxperson]

That is cool to hear, and improves my opinion of what you were saying, but I am telling you, you have a rather unusual bunch of players if they're constantly buying off-list clothing etc. Virtually all players buy some off-list stuff, but it tends to be more specialized, specific, or flashy stuff than just "gloves" or the like.

I always liked 2E's Aurora's Whole Realms guide for that (albeit had to ban a couple of items lol), but I feel like it doesn't fit well with 5E.

There was a 3e 3rd party book called Ultimate Equipment Guide I think. If I recall correctly it was pretty good as well.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Just to return to the original question, one thing I've done before as a bad faith detector on claims of "I'm wearing gloves" or the like is just to say "Ohhhhh gloves huh? Okay that's interesting" and then look at my notes and pause for a few seconds, because if it is bad faith prevarication, I guarantee you that is where the player says "Wait did I say gloves... that's not right!" or something. But if they don't, well, fair enough.

 

[LordEntrails]

This is at the least a huge leap. Fundamentally this is a question of adjudication of a proposition. The player offered a very simple very straight forward proposition with no adornment. The player got a negative consequence. The player then retroactively tried to adorn the proposition with a previously never before mentioned, disclosed, or used tool for which the player had zero evidence that he even had much less was wearing. The player now is demanding a retcon.

No it's not. It is just as valid to be seen as a case of a DM being an ass by making an assumption and punishing a player for it. Did the DM is session zero spend 10 hours detailing exactly everything that they players must do in each and every case? Did they write that down like they are demanding the players do? It is the DM once again ASSUMING a single statement "if it's not on your character sheet, then you don't have it" CYA for the DM but not for the Players. Simple BAd FAith on part of such a DM.

ao one here is being "punished".

I've played with DMs who act like you propose. Whether intended it or not, those DMs make me feel like I'm am being punished. That is real. The behavior you are advocating does in fact make some players feel like they are being punished. Therefore, for all effective purposes, this type of DM behavior is punishment to some players.

Everything else is people trying to wiggle out of that quite obvious truth. Probably solely to avoid table arguments preemptively yielding to the demand to get the game going.

Or it is a DM have a bad faith assumption about a player. Once again it is a DM making assumptions, assuming in the height of their ego that they are correct and the players are wrong. It is adversarial in it's nature.

This is such a ridiculous leap that I really feel you ought to feel some shame offering it up.

I feel shame in a lot of things. Not this. Perhaps I should suggest you should ...? But I won't. And I don't think that. And, personal attacks are against board rules.

No it's not.

Yes it is. Even if you don't think it is. I do.
My opinion is just as valid as your opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That is cool to hear, and improves my opinion of what you were saying, but I am telling you, you have a rather unusual bunch of players if they're constantly buying off-list clothing etc. Virtually all players buy some off-list stuff, but it tends to be more specialized, specific, or flashy stuff than just "gloves" or the like.

I always liked 2E's Aurora's Whole Realms guide for that (albeit had to ban a couple of items lol), but I feel like it doesn't fit well with 5E.

The Whole Realms Catalogue is one of my favorite RPG supplements ever! I used it to buff my gear list.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I feel like this is just really doubling down on the key problem here, which is that D&D has saves that are at once, way too specific, and not specific enough to be used in the way you want to use them.

In what way?

So with your stitching logic, which is not entirely worthless, I agree, you'd what, just instantly kill the PC?

No, that is the point of saves and assigning the DC. If a poison is so potent as to instantly kill, either the DC and/or the damage would need to be high enough to have that be the case most of the time.

Or would you make a save? But if it was a save, why on earth would it be a CON save? Basically the only thing that can save you is dumb luck.

Sure, again that is the point of saves.

You could go many routes IMO depending on how the DM wants the nature of the poison to work.

1. The PC makes a Wisdom (Perception) check to notice the almost imperceptible poison. The DC should be sufficiently high, at least 20.
2. Any other PCs around the chest could also make a check as well, perhaps warning the first PC before the chest is touched.
3. Perhaps a DEX save for the PC to pull back their hand before touching it?
4. Assuming you actually touched the chest at this point, it is a CON save because it can be resisted. As I said in my prior post, CON is just one part of it, proficiency (i.e. skill, experience, etc.) is also a part, but unless the DC is low enough and the bonuses high enough, luck is the biggest factor.

For example, a couple weeks ago I was driving in bad weather (snow, low visibility, icy roads) but the snow plows were out, sanding the roads, etc. so the conditions weren't as bad as they otherwise would be. The two factors effectively cancelled out the disadvantage (bad roads) and advantage (plowing/sanding), so overall any Dexterity (Drive) check I make would be normal.

Now, other people were driving more slowly, and at one point I moved to pass another vehicle. As I rounded the curve of the highway, suddenly there was a truck along the roadside, half in my lane! I had made my check, driving safely, but with this I had to react, and so it would be a DEX save. My reaction speed is good, above average, so because of that in "making my save" it plays a part, but luck is also there.

I was lucky I wasn't looking down at my speed, lucky I wasn't changing my music, lucky the car I was passing slowed down enough to allow me to avoid the truck by partially going into their lane. Any one of these factors (and many many more) could have contributed to my failing the DEX save.

In the poison example, there are many factors still: how much poison is needed to kill instantly, is it always lethal (high DC, so possible to not be killed) or can a good constitution give you a chance (however small) of surviving it, is it possible to build up a resistance, etc.

Many creatures' biology makes them more or less affected, so how does that play into it?

So, a saving throw is partially skill, ability, and luck each. If you have a high enough skill and ability, you can always save because the DC is low enough that even a 1 makes it. Likewise, it can be high enough that regardless of skill and ability, even a 20 fails. So, luck isn't always a factor, but only those times when success or failure is automatic.

 

[Celebrim]

The crux of the issue is here - you're assuming bad faith on the part of the player.

Given that all of your arguments are given in bad faith up to and including distorting my words...

Yes, I am assuming bad faith on the part of the player. I have explained why I am assuming bad faith based on long experience as a GM with many many different players - friends, strangers, young people, old people, novices, grognards. I am pretty confident in my diagnosis of the sort of player that pulls this sort of stunt.

But, importantly, the assumption of bad faith has absolutely nothing to do with the process of adjudication.

As @Reynard has pointed out, that makes this more or less impossible to resolve.

I don't need to agree with Reynard about anything. There is nothing impossible about adjudicating the situation fairly. Even if I thought the character was acting in good faith, I'd still go through the same explanation. Something like:

"You the player offered me a simple and natural proposition, "I open the chest." The most reasonable and natural assumption when a person opens something is that they grab any obvious handle with their hand and open it. It would be unnatural to assume anything else, and if the player intended something other than the obvious and natural they should have specified it. The simple and casual nature of the proposition implies, absent any other evidence, that the character acted in a simple and casual fashion. No tool was specified nor any special circumstances implied. I made accounting of the fact that you were wearing only normal clothing that in game has no protective qualities save for a very minor bonus made against long term exposure to wet and minor cold and whose principal implied qualities is that it's durable enough to wear outdoors in normal circumstances and in normal weather without suffering damage. I note that your character sheet has no mention of gloves, and further that the description of the clothing makes no mention of gloves and certainly no mention of a specific sort of gloves which would be relevant here. I further note that before this moment you've made no mention of gloves that might be relevant to any of the actions you've hitherto taken. Nothing in the fiction has established the presence of gloves and you have made no prior attempt to assert their presence. So I rule that you aren't wearing gloves, and I apologize if you actually did imagine you wear gloves, but as you can offer me no evidence of that I can only from an impartial standpoint rule that you don't have gloves. The previous ruling stands for lack of positive evidence to contradict it. In the future, if you think something is particularly pertinent to a scene or to a particular proposition you should positively assert its presence so that no one has to guess about things. I do try to steer players to revealing anything I think is pertinent, but I can't always do that without revealing information in the metagame (which isn't fair to you or the other players and spoils the game) or which interferes with your agency (which again isn't fair to you or the other players), and fundamentally it's not my responcibility to play your character for you."

I mean, what if the gloves are on the character sheet, but so is a huge amount of clothing, not all of which could possibly be worn at once? Are you going to just assume the PC is this guy? Or a naked dude with a very full backpack?

View attachment 270718

And again with the dumb bad faith argument on your part. I have already said that if the player could as much as show that he owned gloves, I would give him the benefit of the doubt (even if as was highly likely he was acting in bad faith). That's because the process of adjudication I outlined is both impartial and favors the player. If I did somehow get as clownish of a situation as you imagine in your distorted bad faith argument, then I would give the player a little lecture about if he really did have 20 different outfits that he needed to make clear in some fashion which one he was wearing, preferably by marking it on his character sheet but at the least by at some point signaling whenever he was changing outfits.