D&D 5E The Gloves Are Off?

[tetrasodium]

I think you're misreading the situation somehow, but trying to parse your posts is difficult sometimes, so I can't pinpoint exactly where you may be going awry. The player is portrayed as believing the gloves make them safe from whatever it is they touched on the chest, so they raised their existence when the DM called for the Con save. The player is acting within their role. It would have been better perhaps if they said "I put on my gloves before I touch the chest," but the player may have simply believed the gloves were always on.

Where the DM would be stepping outside of their role is, as some suggest, the DM agrees the player has gloves, but presses on with the saving throw anyway because the roll will determine whether the character rubbed their eyes or picked their nose or whatever. That is the DM establishing what the character is doing which is not in the DM's role.

I don't believe that I'm misreading anything.

Spoiler: "this is very clear

Unbeknownst to an unarmored character and despite the DM's sufficient telegraphing, they touched a chest that has been smeared with a dangerous contact poison. The DM describes the greasy feel of the poison and asks for a Constitution saving throw.

"Wait just a minute!" exclaims the player. "I imagine my character is wearing gloves. They have traveler's clothes on."

The DM considers this. There is nothing in the rules that says any clothing set comes with gloves, nor any armor for that matter except scale mail, chain mail, or plate which come with gauntlets at least (none of which the PC is wearing). There are no gloves in the equipment section to purchase, and the character has no magical gloves.

Is it reasonable that the player believed the clothing set they have comes with gloves that they are wearing even though it's not specifically listed on their character sheet? Does the timing of establishing this fact - after touching contact poison - matter to resolving this issue? Do you as DM side with the player's seemingly good faith belief that the character is wearing gloves or are they making that saving throw?

In short, how does this get resolved at your table?

Spoiler

• The DM gave "sufficient telegraphing". It doesn't matter if this is a description a failed perception/investigate check or a failed save. All that matters is that it was "sufficient"
  • ↑ The GM has described the environment (5e PHB pg6/181)
• "will my gloves protect me?" is a perfectly reasonable question for a player to ask at this point. The player did not do so however
• "Despite the DM's sufficient telegraphing" [the Player] touched the chest [with their character].
  • The player has described what they want to do(5e PHB 6/181)
• The next step in the play loop is to move straight to resolution of the "sufficiently telegraphed" contact poison because the player chose to come into contact with it. It is too late to ask how much protection the gloves offer because that rule no longer exists in 5e.
  • ↑ The GM narrates the results of the adventurer's actions (5e PHB6/181)

A player believing that gloves are protective does not make them so in all situations & the onus is on them to ensure that their character determines if they will help or not before uttering the words "hold my beer"

 

[payn]

In 3e though, you just literally could not detect or disarm certain traps without being a rogue. IT's not just more difficult, it just wasn't possible. In fact, it wasn't possible for the classes that could create those traps to detect them.

So you just sent whoever had the best saves and HP into it to spring it, then healed them.

Oh yeah, half the barb abilities were for shaking off trap springing lol.

Yeah, that rogues only spot traps was one of the first things I house ruled away.

 

[Quickleaf]

So "don't make this thing others enjoy because I don't like it"?

I think that's an unfair statement distorting what I was saying.

But if your group likes "contact poison on a chest" scenarios, then by all means establish some standard operating procedures that work for your group. That might include listing out which suits of armor/clothes include gloves. That might include asking your players in advance about when they are gloved up vs. when they are glove-less. You could even differentiate it at the individual poison level, with some contact poisons being more virulent (seeping through thicker material or evaporating quickly) than others.

There are a lot of ways to handle that which could work well for your group. None of which are wrong.

 

[Voadam]

Anyone who dumps Wisdom and doesn't train Perception gets what they deserve.

In 3e that was "anyone who doesn't have a rogue with a decent search skill" (which is separate from their spot skill for avoiding some ambushes or their listen skill for avoiding others or their disable device skill for disabling found mechanical traps which is separate from their lock picking skill).

I house ruled that search DC restriction out and gave rogues instead an auto roll for detecting traps similar to elves with secret doors.

I am not big on niche protection. I like fighters with skills, and more healing options than a cleric, and I like being OK with no rogue.

 

[iserith]

In 3e though, you just literally could not detect or disarm certain traps without being a rogue. IT's not just more difficult, it just wasn't possible. In fact, it wasn't possible for the classes that could create those traps to detect them.

So you just sent whoever had the best saves and HP into it to spring it, then healed them.

Thankfully we had all those wands of cure light wounds.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh yeah, half the barb abilities were for shaking off trap springing lol.

Yeah, that rogues only spot traps was one of the first things I house ruled away.

And then 3.5 came in with the decision that only spellcasters could use alchemy to make items.

You needed magical powers to stir things.

My houserules for 3.5 was thicker than the PH.

 

[payn]

And then 3.5 came in with the decision that only spellcasters could use alchemy to make items.

You needed magical powers to stir things.

My houserules for 3.5 was thicker than the PH.

Mine are called Pathfinder classic.

 

[jasper]

I mean, I challenge you to do the same, with a well-made pair of actual leather gloves, not some bumbly-wumbly gloves designed to keep your little fingeroos warm, or industrial gloves. But the thing is, almost nobody owns well-made leather gloves now. Do you?

Leather isn't fabric. Poison won't "seep through" it unless there's something very special about the medium the poison is contained in, or the gloves are damaged.

Nothing in the rules supports this, and it makes very little sense. For abstract disarming of a trap, maybe, especially if you had to get into the mechanism. I wouldn't call it a reasonable position.

Fine fine. You don't poisoned.
Evil Jasper DM, Hm who was taking 2nd shift. Oofta. Okay everyone give me two con saves.
Group. Why.
Well Ruin Did not notice the poison on his gloves from earlier. And he the one who cooked and served the gold dragon steaks which everyone ate. The poison transfer to the steaks. So now it is a contact and injested poison.
'''
Doing take backs, leads to a three page sop for checking for traps, walking down corridors etc. I had enough of BS take backs back in 1E.

 

[Reynard]

In 3e that was "anyone who doesn't have a rogue with a decent search skill" (which is separate from their spot skill for avoiding some ambushes or their listen skill for avoiding others or their disable device skill for disabling found mechanical traps which is separate from their lock picking skill).

I house ruled that search DC restriction out and gave rogues instead an auto roll for detecting traps similar to elves with secret doors.

I am not big on niche protection. I like fighters with skills, and more healing options than a cleric, and I like being OK with no rogue.

I think the kind of exploration being described here with things like contact poison on chests is exactly the kind of game that benefits from niche protection, though. When you narrow the play loop, it is good to have characters specialized for that loop.

It occurs to me that @iserith did not actually indicate in the OP if this was a typical challenge in the game. That is, whether the campaign is about dungeon delving and dealing with traps and so on.

 

[TheSword]

I feel this runs into the issue with what @TheSword was talking about. What if you run into someone with no visual creative talent or eye for detail who doesn't describe thier shoe laces, but then wants to use their shoe laces as a garrote?

Type D&D Rogue into google and you will get 500 pictures of rogues clicking on each picture will give you another 20 pictures…

… if … and only if you can’t find one that suits you can describe in writing the variances that your character has in detail.

Absolutely no visual creative talent required.

… or you know wing it and tell players they don’t get mechanical benefits from cosmetic choices.