D&D 5E Was I in the wrong?

[pemerton]

Philosophy contains a lot of what ifs and supposition. It can be helpful if you don't take it too seriously. Philosophers tackle riveting questions like, "How do you know if you are awake? You could be dreaming right now."

The nature and merits of philosophy is a bit of a tangent. Given its my job, though, I do take it relevantly seriously.

I did my first graduate work on the issue of knowledge of the external world, but currently I work mostly on issues in political and legal philosophy.

 

[Aura]

The simplest answer is not that the ranger saw the ring and gauntlets. He saw the stuff is as simple as he didn't see the stuff.

I was applying occam's razor to the proposed explanation, which has added yet another unmentioned step. Please do not misrepresent that. Oh, and the blacksmith has to be 'expert' too, apparently, with no mention? And, of course, the DM can't remember one whit of any of this? Less and less believable all the time.

(Re: The roll - fine, I was wondering. It's been a while.)

 

[Yardiff]

If the smith was just an ordinary blacksmith he wouldnt have the resources to purchase an uncommon item such as adamantine plate mail even if it is damaged.

 

[Aura]

If the smith was just an ordinary blacksmith he wouldnt have the resources to purchase an uncommon item such as adamantine plate mail even if it is damaged.

So having above average skill in blacksmithing is required to have sufficient wealth? There is no other way a person can have that level of wealth? Can you support that with more than simple assertion?

 

[pemerton]

The fact that the item is unusual and valuable - namely, adamantine plate armour - also speaks against the idea that the smith gave it only a cursory once-over without removing it from a bag, unbundling it, etc.

 

[Yardiff]

So having above average skill in blacksmithing is required to have sufficient wealth? There is no other way a person can have that level of wealth? Can you support that with more than simple assertion?

To me an ordinary blacksmith is someone who makes everyday items such as horseshoes, nails, tools, etc. items that sell for maybe 15?gp. An armorer is a blacksmith that specializes in making armor ( your scoffed at expert), items that sell for 1500gp+

maybe that's just me.

 

[Yardiff]

The fact that the item is unusual and valuable - namely, adamantine plate armour - also speaks against the idea that the smith gave it only a cursory once-over without removing it from a bag, unbundling it, etc.

Maybe for an honest merchant, probably not true for a shady merchant.

 

[Yardiff]

So tell me, is this adding to the fanciful scenario and not what the OP posted?

"I was thinking a bit about the 'ranger can't see details of objects in the armor bundle' scenario when I realized what felt so artificial about it: neither can the blacksmith. Now, granting the armor bundle could, theoretically, be turned this way and that to improve the view of any particular item so bundled, this is still not as good simply laying the individual items out on the counter where each individual item is in full view and can be seen in context of the others. Further, once laid out, each piece can be further moved, turned, examined from odd angles, etc.

Let us consider we are talking about plate armor. As mentioned, it is not a single item per se, we just view it as such for the purpose of game mechanics. To know if you have it all there, to know if some pieces fit properly to others, etc, will become more difficult (or even impossible for some questions, like proper fit) by heaving the items bundled as proposed. The individual condition (since the plate armor in question was damaged) of each item will be considerably more difficult to appraise. Add in the different styles of plate armor that are likely (almost surely, particularly if some plate armor has been around for a long time so there are ancient example as well) to exist in a game world, and the problem compounds if you try to appraise the item(s) while still bundled. Does this bundle have tassets? Should it have tassets? Does it have a right tasset and a left tasset, or two of the same? Or are they same left side and right? Questions, questions."

 

[Maxperson]

I was applying occam's razor to the proposed explanation, which has added yet another unmentioned step. Please do not misrepresent that. Oh, and the blacksmith has to be 'expert' too, apparently, with no mention? And, of course, the DM can't remember one whit of any of this? Less and less believable all the time.

(Re: The roll - fine, I was wondering. It's been a while.)

Adding a step is meaningless if the step is exceedingly simple. The simplest explanation for gun shootings is that the gun was already in the hand of the shooter. It generally isn't the explanation that is correct, though. Shooters usually pull the gun out of a pocket, belt or other location first. It's an added step that doesn't really add to the complexity.

The steps being described here are not sufficiently complex to warrant a claim of Occam's Razor.

 

[Maxperson]

I was applying occam's razor to the proposed explanation, which has added yet another unmentioned step. Please do not misrepresent that. Oh, and the blacksmith has to be 'expert' too, apparently, with no mention? And, of course, the DM can't remember one whit of any of this? Less and less believable all the time.

(Re: The roll - fine, I was wondering. It's been a while.)

Um, a blacksmith is an expert at smithing. It's what they do. There was no mention of him being an apprentice or journeyman. Of course, even a journeyman would be an expert, since all it takes is 10,000 hours of experience to become one.