Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aura" data-source="post: 6845130" data-attributes="member: 6747658">I was referring to the blacksmith's quote from randrak, which you altered a bit. And the point I'm trying to make is there is a lot of ambiguous language. The entire shop scene, so nothing is taken out of context:I'm going to accept your correction that the gauntlets were originally presented as a 'set', but the quote you offer partially undermines even that by noting the different iconography. And, specifically, they appear magical according to the rules set forth by the OP in his game world. This is important for later. Additionally, I'm going to remind you sets themselves can be vague concepts.The problem here is your think there is certitude on issues that are really quite vague. Let's take a look:You're losing track of what I am contending. I am not contending the players haven't made mistakes. I am contending the blacksmith scene denied the ranger's player the ability to realize previous mistakes. So, in the context of the blacksmith scene, 'the whole thing' does not immediately equate 'set of full plate armor, gauntlets, and ring'.  It means all of something, and contextually, all of what is being offered. The phrase is appropriate in either the scenario of the player offering a set of full plate armor, and in the scenario of the player offering a set of full plate armor with mismatched gauntlets and a fused ring. Thus, it isn't the tip off you seem to think.As for the issue of the party blowing it twice in a previous scene, I'm not arguing against that. It doesn't matter when we get to the blacksmith scene--the DMs performance in that scene cannot be rated based on the previous scene.Whether it is part of a 'set' or not (and I have accepted your quote, as noted above, with some caveats) isn't central to my argument. I'm arguing that there is no language specific enough in the blacksmith scene to indicate what you believe was indicated.So you agree the appraise check should have, at a minimum, given the sensory information that the DM denied the player. I say this because you specify what it should 'reveal', but that was not said to the player. So, is it a DM mistake for not mentioning this? And if it isn't, then why, considering what you've just said, above?And whether the ring is devalued considerably (and you cannot make that assertion since you don't know how much effort to remove the ring it would take, or whether it works just fine on the gauntlets, but I digress) doesn't even begin to address the overall value here, which is clearly and inarguably increased by the presence of two magic items (obviously magic, as per the DM's campaign rules.) Can you please explain to me how two magic items doesn't enhance the value of what is being offered? The blacksmith immediately recognizes the added value the ring alone (no comment on the gauntlets was given either way) and immediately started trying to purchase the armor, and you're arguing that even with a good appraise roll, the ranger can't figure out the same?</blockquote>

Verification