D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Ruin Explorer]

And yet you still can't seem to quote where that was proposed, or explain how it somehow magically became part of the discussion that everyone else is participating in.

This is the first time you've asked for the quote, so you're mad about your own failure to ask for something lol! Amazing.

Hold on -- YOU brought up the pedantry of gloves being historically accurate, now you don't want to look too deeply into it?

Also -- if gloves are a fashion accessory, wouldn't you take them off before you do dirty work?

But, more importantly -- if you are going to rely on saving throws, then the dice are telling you something about how the situation played out.

For example, maybe the description of the chest looks like this: The chest has been smeared with an almost imperceptible, deadly contact poison. Any creature touching it with exposed flesh is killed instantly.

versus: The chest has been smeared with an almost imperceptible, deadly contact poison. Any creature touching it must make a saving throw versus poison or be killed instantly.

There's room to quibble, but in the first example the PCs need to approach the situation and potentially make a perception check/search for traps (at disadvantage perhaps?) to notice the poison. If they fail and the rogue tries to pick the lock -- boom, dead, UNLESS the character is established as wearing gloves. Which is up to the player.

In the second example, i would suggest the result of the saving throw could potentially inform us about the presence and efficacy of gloves. Are the worn from battle and adventuring -- that makes sense if they failed their save despite wearing gloves.

I am more of a second example GM most of the time. I like the die rolls to define the world state at times.

Post #173 - you could have found it yourself if you'd bothered to search!

Importantly, what you are acknowledging by focusing on this is that your response would be different depending on the nature of the poison.

 

[Alzrius]

This is the first time you've asked for the quote, so you're mad about your own failure to ask for something lol! Amazing.

And yet you still fail to provide the actual text of the quote. I wonder why that is: maybe because it doesn't provide as strong of a point as you seem to think?

Post #173 - you could have found it yourself if you'd bothered to search!

Ah yes, the old "why don't you go searching for a point which I'm saying proves me right" argument. Poor debating 101, that is.

Importantly, what you are acknowledging by focusing on this is that your response would be different depending on the nature of the poison.

Maybe because, if you actually read the post in question, you'll see that the actual quote says (emphasis mine):

For example, maybe the description of the chest looks like this: The chest has been smeared with an almost imperceptible, deadly contact poison. Any creature touching it with exposed flesh is killed instantly.

So, as an EXAMPLE, the chest is MAYBE coated with deadly poison.

Hm, and yet you're saying that post, made several pages in by someone who isn't the OP and which deliberately couches its presentation in maybes and "examples," is a definitive change to the entire discussion?

As you say: lol.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hm, and yet you're saying that post, made several pages in by someone who isn't the OP and which deliberately couches its presentation in maybes and "examples," is a definitive change to the entire discussion?

I mean, you've already essentially acknowledged I'm right and it's clear you have a double standard - you wouldn't approach a lethal contact poison and a merely debilitating one the same way, would you?

The lethal example is used because it simplifies the conversation. It's the worst-case scenario. If you'd still quibble over gloves when the alternative is killing a PC, that tells us a lot more than whether you'd quibble over gloves when the alternative is 10 rounds of the Poisoned condition or 2d6 damage or whatever.

 

[Celebrim]

You've repeatedly suggested it's totally cool and fine to force a PC to have like a 50% chance of instant death, just because you're unable to accept the concept that the clothing note is made in good faith.

You seem to have a real struggle adhering to the truth. Just how much crap are you going to make up about other people in the discussion out of devotion to strawman arguments? Considering in just how much poor faith your rhetoric has been, it's ironic that you are demanding that the clothing note is made in good faith.

 

[Alzrius]

I mean, you've already essentially acknowledged I'm right and it's clear you have a double standard - you wouldn't approach a lethal contact poison and a merely debilitating one the same way, would you?

So you're admitting that post #173 doesn't go back and reframe the entire discussion with the new detail added by someone who isn't the original poster? Because that's what it sounds like you're admitting to here.

The lethal example is used because it simplifies the conversation.

For you. For me and I suspect a lot of other posters, it changes the conversation from questions of who has what authority over particular aspects of the game and how to resolve those ambiguous areas to a less-interesting question of "are you a killer DM?"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

For you. For me and I suspect a lot of other posters, it changes the conversation from questions of who has what authority over particular aspects of the game and how to resolve those ambiguous areas to a less-interesting question of "are you a killer DM?"

So what, EXACTLY do YOU think the poison does?

Because it's clear that it matters to you, as you're unwilling to consider it to be instant death, and want to change your answer if it is.

 

[Reynard]

How does a GM possibly narrate the results of insight checks without explicitly saying what a PC is thinking? How does a GM narrate passive perception checks without explicitly saying that a character heard/smelled/touched/felt something?

Player: I'm not sure this guy is on the up and up...do I think he's lying?

GM: I dunno it's your character, you tell me.

As I said before, the GM narrates the things under the control (all of reality, minus the PCs).

DM: The merchant finishes his offer.
Player: That's sus. Is he lying?
DM: roll Insight.
Player: :: clatter::
DM: He is definitely lying. His twitchy left eye is his tell.

And "Your character hears/smells/senses something" isn't describing an action the PC is taking, it is describing the result of an action the player chose their character to take.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Lets turn it round. If the poison isn't instant death (or does enough poison damage to kill the character outright anyway) there really is no point in disputing it. The character takes a bit of poison damage, has a short rest and recovers. The DM's ruling doesn't matter, it has no significant effect.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I disagree. I think it's more important for a DM to ask themselves if they want to allow a player to keep rewriting a scene with "but I've always had this thing I never mentioned before" in order to potentially avoid negative outcomes (even if those outcomes are still potential because the die hasn't been rolled yet).

Which isn't what's happening here.

The player assumed gloves came with their kit and that they were protected.

Some people are so concerned about protecting DM authority that they will ignore it and just declare the player is being abusive.

 

[Reynard]

Lets turn it round. If the poison isn't instant death (or does enough poison damage to kill the character outright anyway) there really is no point in disputing it. The character takes a bit of poison damage, has a short rest and recovers. The DM's ruling doesn't matter, it has no significant effect.

It might still set a precedent though, which could have significant effect going forward.

30 minutes later, the party enters a chamber filled with a diseased miasma and the DM tells them to make saves.
Player: I always wear a mask. You know, for safety.