Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6827540" data-attributes="member: 6801315">I can just refer to the posts of the DM in question here.&nbsp; He's explained himself the following:He starts his post by saying he plays with his best friends, he's the DM, there's a player he's annoyed with because he's always on his phone (attempted justification for his actions, which as pointed out isn't even relevant.&nbsp; His actions were wrong regardless)Party kills bad guy and get armor, gauntlet and ring.&nbsp; Bad guy is wearing the gear so the party is required to handle the items to loot.&nbsp; 5e rules:Per the 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide: IDENTIFYING A MAGIC ITEMSome magic items are indistinguishable from theirnonmagical counterparts, whereas other magic itemsdisplay their magical nature conspicuously. Whatever amagic item's appearance, handling the item is enough togive a character a sense that something is extraordinaryabout it.So that clears up that the party should have been given the information that the gear was magical in nature when they handled it, when looting the body.After that, the party bags the loot.&nbsp; How they decide to do this is completely irrelevant.&nbsp; If the argument is that the DM doesn't have to be super picky about everything, the same goes for the party.&nbsp; Simply saying &quot;We loot the gear and put it in our bag together&quot; should be enough.They go to town and collectively agree to sell &quot;the armor&quot; and that they want to keep the &quot;gauntlet and ring&quot;.&nbsp; The ranger (not even the person the DM is annoyed with), goes to the smith to get it appraised.&nbsp; He says &quot;Hi I'm selling this set of armor&quot; which is clearly meant to only be the armor and NOT the gauntlet + ring.&nbsp; The party just discussed this.&nbsp; As pointed out by others in this thread, it's called a SET OF PLATE ARMOR.&nbsp; Saying I'm selling &quot;SET OF ARMOR&quot; does not represent selling gauntlets and more specifically selling a ring clearly not part of the armor.&nbsp; The DM pointed that out to the party earlier after all.So now the DM is aware of what the party is expecting, what the party knows about the gear in question and what the goal of going to the smith is:&nbsp; Get the armor appraised and then sell it if the smith is willing to pay the fair appraised price.&nbsp; The Ranger rolls INT well and gets info back from the DM:&nbsp; &quot;The smith says the armor is worth around x which is within the expected ballpark&quot;.&nbsp; The ranger then goes &quot;ok sounds good, I'll sell you the armor for x&quot;.&nbsp; And now we get to the malicious part:Despite all of the above and information the DM gave to the party, the stated intent of the party, the stated checks the ranger made, etc...&nbsp; Despite ALL OF THAT the DM then goes &quot;So you're selling this set of armor for x?&quot; with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than the one expressed by the players, the ranger, the ability check rolled, etc..&nbsp; up to that point.&nbsp; And not only does he do this, he does so with the conscious GOAL of screwing over the entire group.&nbsp; So of course since the intent has been expressed, the actions up to this point all clearly show the intent expressed and the player TRUSTS THE DM NOT TO BE A DOUCHE:&nbsp; He simply agrees, that yes, this armor set for the value you stated.The DM makes the transaction, with full knowledge and intent of screwing over the group.&nbsp; Later, when the group goes &quot;alright lets take a solid look at that ring and gauntlet&quot; the DM goes &quot;but guys, you sold it earlier to the smith!&quot; only for the group to get very confused I'm sure.&nbsp; Again, the intent stated by the group and the actions done by the group were clearly made with the intent to sell &quot;the set of armor&quot; which did not include as stated by the DM previously &quot;the gauntlet + ring&quot;.&nbsp; And finally, to get back to his justification for violating Wheaton's Law:&nbsp; But the guy is on his cell phone during the game, it's annoying.You defend him all you want lowkey.&nbsp; He came here asking us if what he did was wrong.&nbsp; I'm here to tell him that it was.&nbsp; Agree to disagree.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Noctem, post: 6827540, member: 6801315"] I can just refer to the posts of the DM in question here. He's explained himself the following: He starts his post by saying he plays with his best friends, he's the DM, there's a player he's annoyed with because he's always on his phone (attempted justification for his actions, which as pointed out isn't even relevant. His actions were wrong regardless) Party kills bad guy and get armor, gauntlet and ring. Bad guy is wearing the gear so the party is required to handle the items to loot. 5e rules: Per the 5th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide: IDENTIFYING A MAGIC ITEM Some magic items are indistinguishable from their nonmagical counterparts, whereas other magic items display their magical nature conspicuously. [B]Whatever a magic item's appearance, handling the item is enough to give a character a sense that something is extraordinary about it.[/B] So that clears up that the party should have been given the information that the gear was magical in nature when they handled it, when looting the body. After that, the party bags the loot. How they decide to do this is completely irrelevant. If the argument is that the DM doesn't have to be super picky about everything, the same goes for the party. Simply saying "We loot the gear and put it in our bag together" should be enough. They go to town and collectively agree to sell "the armor" and that they want to keep the "gauntlet and ring". The ranger (not even the person the DM is annoyed with), goes to the smith to get it appraised. He says "Hi I'm selling this set of armor" which is clearly meant to only be the armor and NOT the gauntlet + ring. The party just discussed this. As pointed out by others in this thread, it's called a SET OF PLATE ARMOR. Saying I'm selling "SET OF ARMOR" does not represent selling gauntlets and more specifically selling a ring clearly not part of the armor. The DM pointed that out to the party earlier after all. So now the DM is aware of what the party is expecting, what the party knows about the gear in question and what the goal of going to the smith is: Get the armor appraised and then sell it if the smith is willing to pay the fair appraised price. The Ranger rolls INT well and gets info back from the DM: "The smith says the armor is worth around x which is within the expected ballpark". The ranger then goes "ok sounds good, I'll sell you the armor for x". And now we get to the malicious part: Despite all of the above and information the DM gave to the party, the stated intent of the party, the stated checks the ranger made, etc... Despite ALL OF THAT the DM then goes "So you're selling this set of armor for x?" with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MEANING than the one expressed by the players, the ranger, the ability check rolled, etc.. up to that point. And not only does he do this, he does so with the conscious GOAL of screwing over the entire group. So of course since the intent has been expressed, the actions up to this point all clearly show the intent expressed and the player TRUSTS THE DM NOT TO BE A DOUCHE: He simply agrees, that yes, this armor set for the value you stated. The DM makes the transaction, with full knowledge and intent of screwing over the group. Later, when the group goes "alright lets take a solid look at that ring and gauntlet" the DM goes "but guys, you sold it earlier to the smith!" only for the group to get very confused I'm sure. Again, the intent stated by the group and the actions done by the group were clearly made with the intent to sell "the set of armor" which did not include as stated by the DM previously "the gauntlet + ring". And finally, to get back to his justification for violating Wheaton's Law: But the guy is on his cell phone during the game, it's annoying. You defend him all you want lowkey. He came here asking us if what he did was wrong. I'm here to tell him that it was. Agree to disagree. [/QUOTE]

Verification