D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

Maxperson · Mar 20, 2016

Aura said:
You tend to focus on one word or phrase and ignore the overall meaning. So I'll reiterate it to help communication along. The blacksmith found new information and changed his course of action, abrupt or not. And this constitutes another part of the narrative. More the DM didn't remember / think was relevant to mention.

And why is something normal and reasonable unbelievable to you?

Maxperson · Mar 20, 2016

Aura said:
As long as we're not trying to pretend he's an expert when compared to the pool of armorers, fine.

Many people confuse blacksmith with armorer and/or think that blacksmiths deal with armor. If he isn't also an armorer, the PCs deserved to get ripped off for being stupid enough to take it to a horse shoe maker.

Yardiff · Mar 21, 2016

Aura said:
What is it you consider to be description added to the scene by me? I see analysis of others' description, and noting what plate armor is like.

Ilbranteloth pretty much cover what I and I thinks others were doing when you say "added fanciful stuff to the scenario".

Ilbranteloth said:
So as written, my assumptions description add nothing to the OP and updated description. That has been consistent since the original post. I have added more description as clarification as to why I find that plausible and reasonable, and also in response to other posts that say that the original post without any additional descriptions added are implausible.

Ilbranteloth

And with I'm done.

Sunseeker · Mar 21, 2016

Maxperson said:
Many people confuse blacksmith with armorer and/or think that blacksmiths deal with armor. If he isn't also an armorer, the PCs deserved to get ripped off for being stupid enough to take it to a horse shoe maker.

And we're back to playing the gotcha game by taking advantage of player ignorance. Good times.

Maxperson · Mar 21, 2016

shidaku said:
And we're back to playing the gotcha game by taking advantage of player ignorance. Good times.

Only if you can't understand what I wrote. See, if they were ignorant, then he would ALSO be an armor smith, so no harm no foul. If they took it only to a blacksmith, they were not ignorant, because they know the difference.

Sunseeker · Mar 21, 2016

Maxperson said:
Only if you can't understand what I wrote. See, if they were ignorant, then he would ALSO be an armor smith, so no harm no foul. If they took it only to a blacksmith, they were not ignorant, because they know the difference.

Idiosyncratic word play is the definition of "gotcha" DMing. Arguing that your players screwed up because they assumed the blacksmith also was an armorsmith because, since a "blacksmith" is a generic term for anyone who works with metal and "armorsmith" is a specific term for someone who only handles armor, you're punishing the players for telling you they want to go talk to the Wizard, and then taking advantage of their lack of specificity when you knew they needed to talk to a Transmuter and YOU sent them to "the general wizard" and then turned around and claimed they screwed up by going to the wrong guy.

That is the definition of a gotcha scenario.

Ilbranteloth · Mar 21, 2016

Aura said:
I was actually giving the leeway that the blacksmith is actually specialized in armor, an armorer, whatever. (More murky language, IMO, but whatever.) If that is all you are trying to assert, that he is an armorer, I agree. That is apparently his skill set, and we're not talking about someone who slaps horseshoes onto equines for a living.

The feeling I was getting is people assume he was more than the average armorer. So, I was asking if there is any indication he is significantly more skilled than the norm for those in his trade. Although greater skill would be helpful in getting greater wealth, your statement correlates them directly, as if no other variables were true. Without loading the issue with language I didn't use, like 'scoffed at' and such, can you answer my questions with more than simple assertions? Can you support your one variable, skill derives wealth, statement? Are there no other ways wealth can be acquired? You've recently stated how he's shady, would that be part of how he generates wealth?

(Note: This response applies to Maxperson on the issue of clarifying what we are talking about with his skill set.)

The only person that can answer the question is the DM. And the DM would have played the NPC with the expertise he had in mind. For our discussion it might or might not be important. But the DM may not have even thought of it. He may just view any blacksmith as being able to easily appraise and give a price to a suit of armor. Also, particularly in the way the rules are written, there isn't any differentiation between an average smith, or highly skilled smith. Nor is there any consideration to how well they can appraise a given item. It's just generally assumed that the NPC in question knows the price of any item he's shown. Not all tables play this way, but that's more or less the "default" based on the rules.

This actually applies in general to the discussion beyond what was specifically said. I don't see the smith as having to need to do anything more than look at the bundle, while others think he needed to look at it in much more detail. The DM may not have thought of either situation. That is, he may not have considered the actual action that the smith was doing, beyond a general "he studies the armor" which would also mean he may not have considered potential ramifications (can the ranger see the ring? Is it hidden? etc.).

Ilbranteloth

Maxperson · Mar 21, 2016

shidaku said:
Idiosyncratic word play is the definition of "gotcha" DMing. Arguing that your players screwed up because they assumed the blacksmith also was an armorsmith because, since a "blacksmith" is a generic term for anyone who works with metal and "armorsmith" is a specific term for someone who only handles armor, you're punishing the players for telling you they want to go talk to the Wizard, and then taking advantage of their lack of specificity when you knew they needed to talk to a Transmuter and YOU sent them to "the general wizard" and then turned around and claimed they screwed up by going to the wrong guy.

That is the definition of a gotcha scenario.

Once again your lack of understanding has caused you to post something incorrect. This group is a group of friends who has been playing together for a while, so their understanding on this is mutual.

Either they all are ignorant and they don't know that a blacksmith is not an armor smith, or none of them are ignorant and they do. If they are all ignorant, there can be no gotcha because the DM and players all think a blacksmith is an armor smith. If none of them are ignorant, there can be no gotcha because they know the difference.

So far your responses to my posts are 0-2.

Ilbranteloth · Mar 21, 2016

Shasarak said:
This reminds me of the joke about sending the Ranger out to the shop to get a bottle of milk and if there are eggs then get six.

And the Ranger comes back with six bottles of milk.

Yeah, I usually see that as an engineer or computer programmer, since they take things literally. I guess it would work for an English teacher too, since grammatically that's correct.

Ilbranteloth

FrogReaver · Mar 21, 2016

So the questions that are being asked are:

1. Did the ranger character know about the magical ring before He visited the blacksmith?

2. Did the ranger character know he was selling a ring?

3. Should stating that you are selling a set of adamantime armor ever imply that magica rings and gauntlets are included?

4. What should the ranger have done differently to avoid selling those magical items in the sell situation and the situation leading up to selling the items?

I think I've seen enough back and forth regarding the first 2 questions. What about he other 2 questions?