Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aura" data-source="post: 6845199" data-attributes="member: 6747658">Regarding the appraise attempt by the ranger on the armor:Yes, granted. However, I think we can arrive at the most reasonable reading.Appraising items without taking in sensory information is simply a more error-prone way of doing it. There has to be some sensory information involved, whether you are relying on other's description, memory, etc. But, it's the same process, only with less direct and we know what effect that has on accuracy. And complications are much more difficult to deal with and the armor is damaged.Contextually, he makes the roll after getting a low bid on the explanation that the armor is damaged, which increases the need for critical evaluation. It is rather difficult to read the way you're offering in that context. If he'd asked the DM, while walking to the blacksmith, "Hey, about how much does an adamantine plate armor suit go for, anyway?", I might be inclined to agree with you.And I'm going to agree with your contention we can do our best to assess the situation and talk about it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I'm going to bring this part up, not in an attempt to argue you're wrong, but more about the problem of non-specific terms:That's a big kinda sorta fuzzy area. Mechanically speaking, a suit of armor is the whole thing... gauntlets, helm, etc., as another poster has contended. Except... it's not when those items are discrete mechanical entities, such as magical items. Your suit of full plate includes gauntlets if you don't have magical gauntlets/gloves/whatever, and it doesn't if you have them. Where did the 'normal' gauntlets go? Does anyone keep track of that? Anyway, the point of this is to illustrate how we can get into vague terminology and strong mental images of what is going on, and taking advantage of ambiguity is not generally a good idea.My view is also that it is a simulation. And you are correct in saying that if you mention the gauntlets during the encounter, the player will be alerted. Use game mechanics and common sense to work through the simulation and let the cards fall as they will. The reason I contend the DM made a mistake is for NOT doing that, in several ways. The player could reasonably be offered perception and/or insight rolls... neither came into play. The player then suggests and makes a good roll for appraise... but no relevant information is given. Meanwhile, the blacksmith succeeds wherever necessary, no roll mentioned.The problem with the interesting encounter concept is it's entirely subjective. I'd also like to offer that it tends to lead to a bit of blindness for the simulation aspect and other potentially interesting encounters as well. Could it be said the blacksmith tricking the ranger is interesting? Sure. Could it be said the ranger catching on at the last minute and stringing him along for a little amusement is interesting? Sure, why not? How about coming up with a clever way to turn the tables? Interesting enough? And, to the point, this is precisely the issue I think went on with the DM--he felt he saw an interesting conclusion, and he started running the scene in a way to strongly bias towards that conclusion while ignoring the simulation aspect and other potentially interesting conclusions.I'm going to tail the end of one paragraph to the beginning of another here:Absolutely. I think there is a disconnect between the two camps in this issue. The successes and failures are important. I agree with that. But the view seems to be rather black and white, and I don't agree with either. Let me explain what I mean. Some posters give the feeling that if you argue the DM was incorrect in his handling of the situation, you don't think there should be consequences for actions. And some other posters give the feeling that if you argue there is a reasonable chance the ranger might lose possession of the items, it's DM trickery, gotcha and whatnot.I offer this: Because the players made a mistake, there is a chance the guy selling the armor will lose possession of the ring and gauntlets. Depending on his actions, the chance can change, and the Int roll to evaluate the armor was a step in the right direction for the players. And there is also a baseline chance he's just going to notice the ring and gauntlets in terms of passive perception from handling them. Roll the dice, move your mice, live with the results.Remember, people in the 'real' world are not always penalized for mistakes. Sometimes sensory queues remind allow me to notice my mistake and I'm not penalized. Sometime I suspect something is wrong and take a step to investigate and I'm not penalized. But sometimes neither works out and bad things happen.I read, then shamelessly deleted the rest. I hope you don't mind, I'm just not against any of that. I just have my way of going about it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification