Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 6842896" data-attributes="member: 6778044">They are two completely unrelated items, so no I wouldn't expect that would occur nor would I be happy with it.With the rules. PHB pg 145Chain Mail...the suit includes gauntlets. Plate...a suit of plate includes gauntlets.You can't purchase a set of gauntlets separately in the game, and in the game they are expected to be part of a suit of armor. Even historically for plate armor, the gauntlets would have been made with and for that suit. And in this specific scenario, the DM even pointed out that they did not look like the original gauntlets made for that suit. They are still part of the suit, just not oem.If there had been some discussion about the gauntlets at any point prior to selling the armor, that probably would have made a difference to me as a DM as well. But it would appear that there was no point, until after the sale, that the indicated any specific interest in the gauntlets alone.But this goes beyond being stored with something else. It's part of it. Reasonably and as noted in the rules. The DM wasn't trying to set up a scenario where they would be fleeced, it presented itself naturally and he (as the NPC) took advantage of it. That doesn't mean that I don't think it's unreasonable to not consider them part of a suit of armor. If, as DM, that's the direction you'd go with it, that's fine.Does that mean the new suit of armor they purchased also didn't come with gauntlets? Because I think that if they aren't part of the suit when you sell them, they shouldn't be when you purchase them either.But if I was the player in this scenario I might have initially been annoyed (like for a split-second, then in character), but then you look at how it played out, and how gauntlets are handled in the game, I'd be fine with it. It's an "I can't believe I did that" moment, like the jacket in the back of the car, leaving your wallet or briefcase on top of the car, your lunch sitting on the kitchen table, or the concert tickets in the drawer. We do boneheaded things and they become funny stories for the future. It's extremely difficult to handle an interaction like this where an NPC is trying to get something of value from the PCs in a negotiation. Because you can't describe every single thing that they can see, it's automatically assumed that if you mention something it's important. Which is why I make sure to put in a lot of descriptions and such that aren't important. But mentioning the gauntlets at any point in this scenario would virtually eliminate the possibility that smith would be able to succeed in duping the PCs.I totally understand why some people would be bothered by it. I just think that based on the description, the game concept of armor, and the importance (or lack thereof) of what they lost it's a non-issue. If something is really an issue for my players, then we'll discuss it and make a decision. If that means retconning something, so be it. But this wouldn't have been one of them in 35+ years.Ilbranteloth</blockquote>

Verification