Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aura" data-source="post: 6852673" data-attributes="member: 6747658">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.The blacksmith has too much to lose by not unbundling the presented items and laying them out so he can see them, so I have problems as seeing this scenario as likely.As an aside, I don't see much value in pointing out how various people are making assumptions/conjecture/whatever as some sort of attempt to made all conjecture equivalent. It's not a matter of whether conjecture is made, it is. It's a matter of how good the conjecture is--how well it fits what we do know. In that context, well reasoned scenarios (even if they might have flaws, see above) encourage conversation and learning, and silly ones (Galactus springs to mind) don't have positive impact.</blockquote>

Verification