D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[Vaalingrade]

Maybe, but it's a pretty traditional approach to narrating saving throws versus poison, with justification going all the way back to Gygax.

All the more reason to never engage with it ever again!

 

[Lanefan]

Uh-huh, but saying the choice is between "neutral referee" (which is a fairly outmoded/outdated approach to DMing, and not one 5E favours)

Not the first thing 5e's got completely wrong.

 

[Alzrius]

Is it reasonable to assume every players has encyclopedic knowledge of all non-core first party rules though?

I don't know about "encyclopedic knowledge," but when you say that they're not in "the game," that term seems to encompass the entirety of the official first-party materials, and given that it's stated as a declarative, then it seems to suggest that the speaker is asserting that they do, in fact, possess such knowledge. Hence why it's usually better to say "as far as I know," or "insofar as I'm aware," etc.

And even then, it's not really germaine to the issue that traveler's clothes in 5e. doesn't say what it includes and the player made a reasonable assumption.

I was under the impression that traveler's clothes in 5e does say what they include ("boots, a wool skirt or breeches, a sturdy belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), and an ample cloak with a hood"), it's just that they don't include gloves.

The contact poison works and requires a save upon making contact. It's kind of jank to say then that the save is to see if it made contact.

Leaving aside that I don't know what "jank" means, I'd say that's an entirely reasonable interpretation (from what I'll call a "grounded perspective," since introducing the term "realistic" tends to send things spiraling off on a tangent about how it's foolish to expect anything to function as per the real world in a game world with fantastic aspects), insofar that most people can't simply shrug off poison, and so the saving throw represents either making contact and necessarily taking damage from it (on a failed save) or avoiding making skin contact with it (on a successful save).

 

[payn]

The contact poison works and requires a save upon making contact. It's kind of jank to say then that the save is to see if it made contact.

I dont think so. The character didnt know there was poison at all on the chest. Why would they be careful? Maybe they hit the wrist, or touched their face, or maybe the gloves dont really protect and it seeped through? After that, they are walking around with gloves coated in contact poison they dont know about. Eventually, someone is going to come into contact with it. Might as well resolve it in the here an now.

If they spotted it before interacting, totally different discussion.

 

[iserith]

If as you say, other editions played this issue differently, then it is in fact necessary to be clear that 5e has a different point of view. Especially if 5e as written was intended to bring back fans of previous editions.

I don't really recall any edition of D&D saying that they are standalone games and that previous editions' rules do not apply. So at least they are keeping with tradition (assuming my recollection is correct).

I ran into the same problem myself when converting from D&D 3.5e to D&D 4e - my games were just not working as well as I would have liked. I realized at some point it was because I was dragging assumptions from the previous game into the new game and, once I learned to stop doing that, everything was smooth sailing going forward. When D&D 5e came out, I knew what I had to do and that was to read the rules first including the DMG and have a think on what my game should look like given these new rules.

 

[iserith]

I was under the impression that traveler's clothes in 5e does say what they include ("boots, a wool skirt or breeches, a sturdy belt, a shirt (perhaps with a vest or jacket), and an ample cloak with a hood"), it's just that they don't include gloves.

It would appear that DDB cribbed that from D&D 3e PHB as there is nothing anyone so far as been able to find in D&D 5e books that says this. That statement matches the D&D 3e PHB exactly. Only 3e refers to it as "traveler's outfit."

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, it seems that same error has perpetuated through all editons, though there's 3rd-party equipment books (the 3e Ultimate Equipment Guide being perhaps the king of them all) that cover this, never mind it's fairly easy for a DM to come up with an expanded list as a homebrew.

Specific to gloves, neither have I; but I have heard it said about mirrors, telescopes/spyglasses, compasses/lodestones, and other things that would exist in the setting but because they weren't on the equipment lists were assumed not to.

I think that it's understandable that the Core Rules wouldn't necessarily have everything, and that there's an understanding that more stuff exists that what's found in the PHB's equipment lists. Heck, sometimes you can find expanded lists in first-party supplements anyway. I mentioned the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide earlier in the thread as a sourcebook that had gloves. It wasn't the first either, as Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue also has an entry for them (page 83).

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think that it's understandable that the Core Rules wouldn't necessarily have everything, and that there's an understanding that more stuff exists that what's found in the PHB's equipment lists. Heck, sometimes you can find expanded lists in first-party supplements anyway. I mentioned the 3.0 Arms and Equipment Guide earlier in the thread as a sourcebook that had gloves. It wasn't the first either, as Aurora's Whole Realms Catalogue also has an entry for them (page 83).

Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.

Which is why the AEG should have been in the PH in place of all that alignment and Paladin junk.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes, the player is factually incorrect here and has failed to record gloves on their character sheet. The DM is well within their role of mediating between the rules and the players to tell them so and press on with the saving throw. But in terms of table harmony in the moment, is it worth doing that?

Probably not. But it does open the door to just conceding to the player every time something like this happens, and that sort of thing can eat at your calm.

 

[iserith]

Probably not. But it does open the door to just conceding to the player every time something like this happens, and that sort of thing can eat at your calm.

I would expect that a typical DM isn't going to have the memory of a goldfish and can determine for themselves if the player is honestly mistaken or is trying to take advantage of them, and act accordingly.