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.

 

[iserith]

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.

I leave that to the readers to decide and to frame their points with or without that assumption as needed.

 

[Reynard]

I leave that to the readers to decide and to frame their points with or without that assumption as needed.

Ok. But it is actually relevant to the question of whether the player was right to say "I'm wearing gloves" as a defense. This might have been the first instance of contact poison, but if this was ongoing dungeoneering, the nature of the relationship between GM and players was surely already established. To whit: if this is a game about going in holes and trying to come out alive with loot, my response is best summed up as "Write down gloves next time."

 

[TheSword]

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.

This sounds very much like you’re just being assertive and not very convincingly. Leather absolutely is a fabric for instance.

In my experience leather isn’t waterproof (the interweb agrees) and even things that are waterproof often don’t stay waterproof when they come into contact with chemicals… like say a contact poison which is designed to permeate skin (which is essentially what leather is).

I think you’re approaching this from the wrong angle though.

[Edit: realized I was replying to a comment many pages back. Boy this thread moved fast!]

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"The PH doesn't have listings for it, so I just paid some gold and now have a Madcat battlemech. You're welcome for me saving the game."

As I stated, any DM who accepts such an argument from a player has ONLY themselves to blame for letting their own bad judgement destroy their own game. Hey, if the DM wants battlemechs in their D&D - I believe that's like Warhammer, right? Go for it. Game on and be happy. But, "Gauntlets and gloves don't exist because they're not listed for sale?" "My PC has everything I SAY they have because I want it that way at the moment?" Good luck with that as DM OR player.

 

[iserith]

Ok. But it is actually relevant to the question of whether the player was right to say "I'm wearing gloves" as a defense. This might have been the first instance of contact poison, but if this was ongoing dungeoneering, the nature of the relationship between GM and players was surely already established. To whit: if this is a game about going in holes and trying to come out alive with loot, my response is best summed up as "Write down gloves next time."

It is the obligation of the player though to record their equipment on their character sheet regardless. So I'm not sure it really changes the calculation at all here. This contact poison might just have easily been on something in a noble's bedroom in a heist scenario as a classic dungeon crawl. As long as the DM reasonably telegraphs the threat, then we're not really in gotcha territory, and the player can be mistaken as to traveler's clothes having gloves in either scenario.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Doesn't really change anything. In 1e AD&D footwear was explicitly part of equipment and players were implicitly encouraged to pick the sort they preferred with the same sorts of considerations that they might pick gloves of different thicknesses and types.

Doesn’t the fact that boots were actually on the equipment list in AD&D make it at least a little bit different?

 

[Lanefan]

Do you have underwear on your characters' equipment lists (with secret pockets sewn into them), or do your characters go commando?

Small-clothes are assumed to be included with any clothing kit. If they want to add the secret pockets, that's up to them.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Yeah, I've gone that route; and while I've found a fair number of images that very much suited characters past and present, there's still a bunch of characters for whom I either have to accept something that's only very vaguely in resemblance, or can't find a thing.

This probably isn't helped by the fact that my Hobbits and the modern D&D Halflings don't look at all like each other, and there's very few pieces of Gnome art out there that aren't silly. Oh, and there's not all that many pictures of Elves that don't have mainsails for ears - I keep having to search for Half-Elves in order to find decent Elf portraits (and have found some good ones!) but they often look too Human.

There also seems to be a penchant these days for portraying Fighters of all species as either covered in tattoos or covered in scars, neither of which is appealing.

 

[Celebrim]

Doesn’t the fact that boots were actually on the equipment list in AD&D make it at least a little bit different?

Not in terms of resolution. At most, it just reduces the number of times I have to make assumptions about what the shoes are like. But there is typically in D&D a notable lack of rules concerning what clothing actually means or how it helps. How much of a difference does high hard boots make versus low soft boots anyway? Things like that I've been dealing with for 40 years.

Fortunately, most players make it easy be dressing appropriately for style reasons. But imagine in any edition how you deal with someone who wears leather armor or elven chain, but insists on wearing a closed great helm, heavy leather gauntlets, and high hard steel toed boots. That's the sort of thing you have to think about when DMing if players are going to insist gear matters.

Almost everyone in the thread has focused heavily on how the gloves/boots or whatever are inherently an advantage. And they just aren't if you are playing a more general skill-based game with a variety of challenges. You'd probably be happier barefoot on wet flowstone than you would be in a hard soled boot. Low boots fill with mud and become worse than being barefoot. High hard boots are hard to be stealthy in no matter what clothing you are wearing, etc. Which is one reason why the sudden appearance of hitherto unmentioned gloves is so awkward, because even if you did have gloves there is absolutely no guarantee that they'd be useful in this situation or that they wouldn't have been worse than useless hitherto in all the situations prior to this.

Another signal to me here is the assumption that you don't have to record gear very much assumes you don't play in a science fiction setting where often gear acts like magic items except that its fairly cheap and readily available. If you let players call out "I got that" in a setting were science is sufficiently close to magic, they would literally always have the solution to everything all the time unless you put some limits on things. (Heaven help me when my players figure out that they can buy makers that make other things in setting, which I'm surprised they haven't realized given how much most of them enjoy playing with 3D printers.)

Now, you don't have to use a process of play where gear matters to the resolution of the game, but as soon as the player goes, "But poison can't effect me, I have on gloves!" you have a player insisting that we have a process of play where gear matters (with some cause, it's not wrong to call out gear especially if you are leaning more toward game as simulation).

Fundamentally, it's the players responsibility in pretty much every system I'm aware of to call* on their gear as part of the proposition. Even in a Nar game without explicit gear, useful gear needs to be called on before you get to a resolution or fortune step - how you use your gear to gain extra dice, how your profession might apply to this check. Then the GM can rule on that. Wheedling the DM in retrospect because you didn't make a call is always bad play, even if it was an honest mistake. (Which 9 times out of 10 it isn't.)

*Call: To mention pertinent aspects of the fiction especially those that pertain to your character when making a proposition to ensure the DM makes the right decision because you both have the same mental image.

Failure to call is like a DM that describes a room, fails to mention the gaping hole in the middle of it, and then tells a player he's fallen into the obvious pit because he offered a proposition that implied crossing the room. That's not the player's fault. "Oh, didn't I tell you, there is a gargantuan dragon snoring in the room. You should have assumed that even though I didn't mention it. It wakes up and attacks". Everyone recognizes that's a problem. Well, this guy with his unestablished gloves that aren't on his character sheet and he claims he assumed he was wearing because "Traveller's Gear" is doing the same thing, and it's not the GMs burden to fix that. This whole situation goes differently if the player just asks, "What sort of gloves came with my Traveller's Gear?" Do that first, and you might just get gloves. Do that afterwards, and you don't.

There is such a thing as good play by players as well.

 

[corwyn77]

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

...and half of them will be labeled Rouge.