D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[Lejaun]

Why do you assume that all blacksmiths have integrity and would bring attention to the gauntlets like that?

Why do you presume that players would sell armor as a set (who quickly after say they want to have the ring and gauntlets checked out as their next step in town) wanted to sell the armor and ring and gauntlets as one package without noticing that it was included?

The fact that the players said they wanted to have the gear checked out shows that it was not their intention to sell it with the armor.

 

[feartheminotaur]

I am sorry, but what exactly is a frost cheese Minotaur? I am genuinely curious of this is auto correct, or a real thing.

It's a 4e thing - a damage boost based on stacking cold damage via feats and items.

There was a feat gave the target of your attack vulnerability to cold 5 if you hit it with a power that had the 'cold' keyword (via a frost weapon, class power, or using a magic frozen whetstone on your weapon), a feat that granted you combat advantage (+2 to attack) if you attacked with a cold power, and one that gave you +X/tier cold damage rolls. Add in some magic gloves that gave bonus to cold damage...

So, his minotaur was a dual-wielding fighter hybrid, which had lots of multi-attack powers. So, he who would hit once, deal cold damage, so the target was vulnerable to cold 5 (took 5 extra damage from cold attacks) and then would make multiple extra attacks, all at with a bonus to attack and a big bonus to damage (at 21st level, it was like +15 damage per attack).

Considered cheesy and required a frost weapon, so...'frost cheese'.

 

[Maxperson]

You have to separate PC knowledge from player knowledge; otherwise it's meta-gaming, and meta-gaming leads to ridiculous narratives. The PLAYER forgot about the ring and gauntlets; but did the player's CHARACTER? You need to decide what makes rational sense, and retcon where necessary. The fear of retconning can sometimes lead us to double down on silly narratives that leave players and DM's alike disappointed and bitter.

Fix the situation with a retcon so the outcomes are sensible and non-metagame.

We don't know if the PC forgot or not, that's why I would have given the PC a roll to remember.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Lejaun]

He didn't recognize the value beyond "There's a ring here." and the gauntlets weren't known about at all until the PCs returned and told him. Any idiot will know that armor + ring is more valuable than just armor.

He didn't recognize the value, but there is no way that he'll sell the items back to them for a small profit for doing nothing? Yeah...still don't buy it. The DM screwed over the players.

 

[Maxperson]

Why do you presume that players would sell armor as a set (who quickly after say they want to have the ring and gauntlets checked out as their next step in town) wanted to sell the armor and ring and gauntlets as one package without noticing that it was included?

The fact that the players said they wanted to have the gear checked out shows that it was not their intention to sell it with the armor.

The PC could easily have forgotten that the set was wrapped together and thought the ring and gauntlets were somewhere else. When selling the set, the PC might not have been aware that he was selling those items and then tried to get them appraised, only to realize his mistake and return to the blacksmith.

Both scenarios are valid and understandable. As the DM, I'm not going to assume one over the others. I will give the PC a roll to realize the error, but if the player who wasn't paying attention forgets and the roll is not successful, indicating that the PC was also making an error, done is done. The party is just going to have to roleplay out the recovery or loss.

 

[ThirdWizard]

That's not obvious at all. The armor set was wrapped up together. He could have, and apparently did, just hand over the set for the blacksmith to look at. There's no guarantee that it was examined in plain sight, that the PC was watching every move, or that at a distance, he would have again noticed the marking that differentiated the gauntlets. Heck, the gauntlets could have been buried under another part of the armor out of sight to any but the blacksmith.

The failure was on the part of the player who wasn't paying attention.

I'm sure there are lots of ways to spin it. At the end of the day, however, the players are upset because the fiction in their mind was different than what was in the DM's mind. And, here's the thing. The DM knew that their fiction were different. The DM let that happen. On purpose. This is exactly like the player running into the chasm to die, and the DM saying "Your fault."

I honestly don't see how the character wouldn't have seen the gauntlets and ring right there in his face. The blacksmith saw them. They were standing right beside each other. The blacksmith was going over each bit of the armor in question, right there, as the player character watched him. What more do you want? You should always give players the benefit of the doubt.

Imagine this scenario:

DM: All doors in the Temple of Kaggoth have two locks. It's one of their things.

later

Player: I search the lock for traps.
DM: You don't see anything.
Player: I pick the lock and open the door.
DM: The door is still locked because you didn't pick the second lock. The trap on the second lock, which you didn't check, goes off.

The player was looking at the door! The DM should remind them that there is, in fact, a second lock.

I dislike games where the player has to describe their actions in excruciating detail. Some prefer that level of detail on the part o the players, but does the player of the character who is selling something actually have to describe how they're standing in order not to be screwed over by the DM? I should hope not.

The DM should have pointed out the error on the part of the player.

 

[Maxperson]

He didn't recognize the value, but there is no way that he'll sell the items back to them for a small profit for doing nothing? Yeah...still don't buy it. The DM screwed over the players.

Why would he sell it back before ascertaining what those things are worth? He's a businessman, not someone running a charity.

 

[Lejaun]

No, that's not true. Taking the OP at face value (which we have to do, since all together now, WE WEREN'T THERE), we can understand the following chain of events:

1. "I made sure to note that the gauntlets were made to look like part of the full set though the iconography seemed different. I also mentioned that the ring was placed on the gauntlet in such a way, that it was stuck there (think Sauron's armor with the ring)." (note- no determination of anything being magical or not).

So, it has been established that the armor, gauntlet, and ring are one piece. "One set."

2. "The party became focused on the sword of wounding since it seemed to have some kind of curse (I placed a ghost guardian linked to it) and they told me that they would bundle the full set up completely and carry it as is."

The party was only paying attention to the sword, and bundled up the "full set" of armor. Affirmatively.

3. "He then moved on to the magic shop (to check the swords) and then met up with the rest of the crew."

The Ranger then went to the magic shop to check on the swords. If the Player at that time was concerned about the ring and gauntlet he had sold, he would have brought it up at the magic shop.

It was only after the Ranger met up with everyone that this player thought through the whole ... oh yeah, I should probably have checked the ring (ad/or gauntlets) separately. And you know what? That's totally fine. These things happen. It's called player agency. Player mistakes are not only part of the game, but they are the game. Because of this player mistake, there are now interesting complications.

The party is neutral/good. What do they do? Offer an outrageous sum of money? Intimidate or kill the blacksmith? A heist? Just let it go? How do these options fit in with their characters?

This is why we play TTRPGs ... and what computer games don't give us. Through a series of events, an emergent opportunity has occurred. That ... is awesome.

If you play D&D because of the loot, more power to you. But that's why I play Diablo III. I play D&D for just these types of occurrences. The unexpected. The fun.

Interesting that you quote everything that might fight your scenario, but when it comes to the part that shows they obviousely did not intend to sell the gauntlet and ring with the armor you instead rephrase it to fit your scenario.

"It was then, when they wanted to check the ring and gauntlets that I reminded them that it was all in the set."
That statement right there shows that they did not want to sell the gauntlet and ring. It showed that they had a certain interest in it.

What also is not mentioned in the scenario you present is the DM's dislike of a player using a phone during the game. He mentions his dislike of that, and then the players just happen to sell valuable gear for copper on the gold. I think that shows that the DM is trying to punish players ingame for out of game activity.

 

[The Old Crow]

If the blacksmith was looking at the stuff in plain sight of the ranger, then the ranger should have noticed the guantlets were with the set once the bundle was unwrapped, and then possibly the ring, too. Just because the player has possibly forgotten that they are there in the bundle should not render the character blind to their existence when they are right in front of his face. I can see why the players are feeling tricked.

The other issue though is thatit appears the DM doesn't feel like the players are paying attention, and this is impacting his enjoyment of the game. Definitely need to discus this with the table. Phone guy is just being downright rude.