D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Seramus]

I have gone camping plenty of times and the only time I wore gloves in setting up tents was when it was cold enough to normally be wearing gloves outside.

I expect people's experiences on wearing gloves are going to vary.

Sure. I see people in construction areas not wearing PPE, snake handlers who don't wear gloves when dealing with venomous snakes, blacksmiths who do everything barehanded, and people who don't put on their safety belt. They make it day after day without issue.

I don't wish those people harm, but they seem like the kind of people who wouldn't wear gloves and end up touching poisoned chests.

 

[iserith]

Let's just split the difference and give up on contact poison.

I think they can be fine as part of an exploration challenge now and again. A complex trap is more interesting to me, but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water here in my view. Glyphs of warding also fall into this category. Telegraph then let the player decide what to do.

 

[Maxperson]

Gloves are also a work tool. I use gloves at work when I am shipping. They prevent paper cuts and keep my hands from getting chapped and dried out. I use them in all seasons. I am able to use gloved fingers to type, grab tape off a roll, and peel stickers off their backing.

Do adventurers consider adventuring to be work and do they bring the tools for the job if it is?

Maybe. But despite protestations to the contrary, adventurers will rely on touch fairly often and gloves will get in the way of that. Like workers(who don't all use gloves), it would be a case by case choice for each PC, which they should let the DM know about.

 

[Maxperson]

I have gone camping plenty of times and the only time I wore gloves in setting up tents was when it was cold enough to normally be wearing gloves outside.

I've never hated myself that much.

Those times that I went camping I never wore gloves.

 

[Seramus]

he situation arises because we have an adventurer that is explicitly not wearing the standard adventurer PPE, but rather wearing civilian "travelling clothes" which have a vague description and are probably intended only as "color" in most games, and which do not in their description mention gloves as a definitive part of the outfit much less describe what those gloves are (satin, knitted wool, fingerless, calfskin, fur lined suede, etc.). Given that the character is explicitly out of the standard adventuring PPE, and given that the GM has already given a ruling on this, and given the lack of detail, the question is "Should the GM overturn themselves just because the player now says "Stop! Don't my travelling clothes have gloves?"

I explicitly assume characters are wearing light gloves unless they say otherwise. Not as part of their armored sets, but because even in a day of ordinary travel (travelling clothes) gloves are incredibly useful. Even when the characters stop at a tavern for some drinks, I assume gloves. When characters have been idling in a city on downtime for 2 weeks, I STILL assume gloves because it makes for faster play the same way I let characters stomp around town in armor because it slows things down to have town guards bug them about it.

Realistically, they are probably taking their gloves on and off frequently throughout the day. But when challenges happen, I assume gloves.
The times when I stop assuming gloves are situations like big social events, where getting dressed up in fancy clothes is part of the charm of the scene. Or bathtime, on the rare occasions where I might spring an encounter while the party is relaxing in a hot springs or something.

TLDR I assume gloves most of the time. It makes sense to wear them most of the time, and even when it doesn't, it speeds up play.

 

[Voadam]

I think it is also worth noting that the DMG specifies that contact poison requires contact with exposed skin.

I feel comfortable as a DM ruling that touching contact poison with a glove does not count as contact with exposed skin. Taking off the glove with contact poison on it could potentially do so but glove contact is not exposed skin contact.

I also think this is a big open invitation for considering skin exposure where otherwise it might not be a direct consideration.

DMG page 257

"Contact. A creature that touches contact poison with exposed skin suffers its effects."

Also in the DMG there are only two contact poisons out of the fourteen listed poisons, carrion crawler mucus and oil of taggit. Not a super common thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think they can be fine as part of an exploration challenge now and again. A complex trap is more interesting to me, but no need to throw the baby out with the bath water here in my view. Glyphs of warding also fall into this category. Telegraph then let the player decide what to do.

But glyphs of warding actually make sense. They allow certain people through.

Contact poison is indiscriminate and can only protect an object you and yours will NEVER try and interact with again. Especially since we've now established that nothing can protect your from it.

 

[Voadam]

But glyphs of warding actually make sense. They allow certain people through.

Contact poison is indiscriminate and can only protect an object you and yours will NEVER try and interact with again. Especially since we've now established that nothing can protect your from it.

Liches work the angles.

 

[Celebrim]

I explicitly assume characters are wearing light gloves unless they say otherwise.

There is nothing wrong with that. If you were up front from the start that I was always wearing gloves unless I stated otherwise, then it would be my responsibility to remember that I am gloved and inform you if I wanted to act without gloves, much as in my game it would be the responsibility of a player wearing heavy armor to tell me that he wanted to remove his gauntlets to help him better search through some pockets in a backpack or thread a sewing needle or do any other task that might benefit from less bulk, more sensitive touch, and improved dexterity.

Arguing over whether the gloves are realistic misses the point. The point is the GM already gave a ruling that the gloves weren't on and based on all the information available to that GM that's an entirely plausible ruling.

You saying, "I just assume the player has gloves on" doesn't solve the actual problem here.

The problem is that in any actually complex gameplay there will be situations where gloves are helpful and gloves are not, which is why as you say in reality players would be taking their gloves on and off through the day.

Given that you always assume gloves, what happens when something bad happens because the player is wearing gloves and then the player retroactively, after discovering the threat or consequences in this situation was the result of insensitive hands and not contact poison to bare skin, demands that you retcon the situation and replay it as if he was not wearing gloves?

And does it change your answer if you know, as the player now doesn't, that he has contact poison on the gloves that he was protected from?

You see at some point accepting the gloves are on or off on the basis of circumstances becomes a really nasty form of railroading where you are deciding to play the character for them. And at some point all the questions about "Are you sure you would do that?" or "Do you have gloves on?" becomes metagame directing, which is one of the most insidious and corrosive sorts of railroading a GM can engage in.

At some point you have to not only allow the player to play his character, but also learn how to do so.

 

[iserith]

But glyphs of warding actually make sense. They allow certain people through.

Contact poison is indiscriminate and can only protect an object you and yours will NEVER try and interact with again. Especially since we've now established that nothing can protect your from it.

Anything can be made to make sense in a game based on make-believe. If we can buy that there's this magical, programmable thing that knows who to blow up on and who not to and can be triggered by touching it, then we can come up with a reasonable explanation for why someone put contact poison on something. If they actually need to interact with the poisoned thing, they can just wash it off per the rules on contact poisons.