You Win a Roll on a +4 Tome and Someone Else takes it. What Should You Do?

[DDO_Noob]

I wasn’t going to post anything or make a big deal about what happened to me on a recent ToD run… but there’s been another forum post with untrue information about the event… and I’ve been getting tells asking me what happened. I’ll post the facts here (with names and guilds removed) and you can decide if it was an honest mistake or if I got screwed.

* I join a ToD group LFM that is looking for a healer (I’m a heal-spec FvS). Everyone is in the same guild except me and a couple others.

* We complete the raid and a +4 CHA tome drops for a Ranger in the group. He decides to put it up for roll.

* I get the high roll with an 85 but for some reason the tome gets assigned to a Sorc in the group.

* I speak up and let the group know that I didn’t get the tome. The Ranger says he made a mistake and gave the tome to the wrong person.

* We ask the Sorc to assign the tome to me (in group chat and in tells). The Sorc does not respond. He is standing next to the chest and not responding to tells or chat.

* Ranger says he sent tells and the guy must be AFK. He says I should wait till he gets back.

* People start leaving group after getting end rewards and it’s just me and the Sorc standing next to the chest.

* A few minutes after the last person leaves the group (only the two of us in group now) the Sorc loots the +4 CHA tome and recalls.

* I send tells to Sorc… saying that was ‘uncool’ and ‘W T F’.

* Sorc responds with “Is there a problem. I was AFK because I had to drive a family member somewhere”.

First off, I don’t know any Sorc that would go AFK for a roll on a +4 CHA tome. Also, why would he come back and just loot it without saying anything to me standing there or reading his chat? The whole thing seems a bit “fishy” to me. I don’t think the ranger was involved. He felt bad about the incident and even sent me a /tell while on another character offering me a +2 tome (that I didnt take) because he felt bad about what happened.

Everything I listed above is fact. There’s some more information that I considered posting but it’s hearsay and I don’t think that the guild involved would intentionally exclude my roll.

So what do you think… honest mistake or did I get screwed?

[Wizzly_Bear]

from what you've said, you did get jipped....however, i gotta ask - why would you roll on a +4 charisma tome on a fvs?

[Enochroot]

from what you've said, you did get jipped....however, i gotta ask - why would you roll on a +4 charisma tome on a fvs?

Word, there's almost no reason to do this. The tome should most definitely have gone to the sorc anyway.

[karnokvolrath]

Weather he sould have gotten or not seems a stretch for someone being a troll. If it is agreed to be rolled on, then that that regardless. But, what can u do, these things happen.....

[FluffyCalico]

Word, there's almost no reason to do this. The tome should most definitely have gone to the sorc anyway.

In which case it should:
1) Have been put up for roll for specific classes only
2) At least told him why it was being given to the sorc instead
3) Not been lied about and played off as an accident which it wasn't

[Roricon]

That's pretty genius !

OP It's kinda pointless to figure out what you gonna do cuz you got screwed .

At least get a +2 tome then, it's not that useless after all.

[Elsbet]

3) Not been lied about and played off as an accident which it wasn't

You don't know that is what happened. Since I've run with some of the people involved for well over 2 years, I'd say it is highly unlikely that is the case.

Drama much?

[Asketes]

need before greed, please proceed

but all who can use, please abuse



same reason my rogue will roll on an int tome

same reason my righter will roll on a cha tome (saves & intim)

same reason monks should roll on a str tome

[moomooprincess]

if the Sorceror was in their guild then I would say a mistake. If the ranger knew the Sorceror and the sorceror was in their guild, and the ranger tried to make up for it, I vote that the ranger has high honor and the ranger would not associate with less honorable players.

If the Sorceror was another PUGger, now that might be a problem.

Did the sorceror roll on the tome? Because, if the sorc was there and rolled I highly doubt the the sorceror "left" to drive someone.

Was the sorceror loot still in there? If the loot is still in the chest, then the sorceror probably did leave. If the loot was gone, then the Sorceror looted and was standing there and quite possibly going to wait until you left the group.

I could definitely see looting as soon as he/she gets back. If a true DDO addict the guy hurries back after "leaving" and just loots the chest. He notices the group has left he wants to keep playing, loot all and go. If I was the sorceror and I saw a +4 tome I would have thought it was nice the others left it for me and looted.

If the sorceror had rolled and looted, then something smells funny. Because by rolling the sorceror agreed to the terms of the unwritten code that it was a roll off.

I always think it is funny that people "leave" at certain times.

Finally, it is just a game. You could be getting shot at or bombed or lose your job or lose your house.

Write down the player as a possible unfriendly and go on.

[Atenhotep]

Word, there's almost no reason to do this. The tome should most definitely have gone to the sorc anyway.

CHA is a major CHA for a FvS... just as it is for a sorc, just as it is for a Bard, just as it is for a Pally and even a Cleric (I need a +4 CHA and WIS on mine).

The ONLY Classes which do not rely on CHA are .. well, any fighter which is not Intimidate specced.

[Wizzly_Bear]

CHA is a major CHA for a FvS... just as it is for a sorc, just as it is for a Bard, just as it is for a Pally and even a Cleric (I need a +4 CHA and WIS on mine).

no. its not.

sorc = dc and sps
bard = dc, sps, and perform
paladin = extra saves, extra smite damage, and extra lay on hands damage
fvs = extra sps

imo paladin should actually come first for a charisma tome, then sorc, then bard, then intims and umds, then everyone else (fvs included with "everyone else")

The ONLY Classes which do not rely on CHA are .. well, any fighter which is not Intimidate specced.

what about umd specs? or any other class that wants to use SF pots without havign to equip an item? thats just as "useful" as a fvs getting it.

[Delt]

no. its not.

sorc = dc and sps
bard = dc, sps, and perform
paladin = extra saves, extra smite damage, and extra lay on hands damage
fvs = extra sps

Just because you choose to leave "casting level" off the FVS entry doesn't make it true...and therefore, doesn't make your opinion any less silly.

It's kinda like if I choose to believe people purposefully bug out big red in part 4 and he doesn't just do it by default since the last patch. I can believe whatever I want, but most people who know better would consider me a ******

[Junts]

no. its not.

sorc = dc and sps
bard = dc, sps, and perform
paladin = extra saves, extra smite damage, and extra lay on hands damage
fvs = extra sps

imo paladin should actually come first for a charisma tome, then sorc, then bard, then intims and umds, then everyone else (fvs included with "everyone else")


what about umd specs? or any other class that wants to use SF pots without havign to equip an item? thats just as "useful" as a fvs getting it.

You are forgetting the very important 'divine might qualification is based on base cha + tome cha'. My paladin recently bought a +4 charisma tome from a friend (which precluded 2 sorcs and a bard rolling on the item, or more likely his cleric taking it for 2 umd or to reincarnate) because I needed the +4 to qualify for divine might 3; +2 to damage per hit is a very big deal, and many older paladin builds are in situations of needing +3 and +4 tomes to qualify for higher divine might ranks .. even cha-based paladins who didn't level in it may need a +4 tome to qualify for DM4 (which requires a total of 20 .. 16 +4 tome, 17 +3 tome, or level ups in charisma .. which you think is most likely?)

A paladin is just as likely to take the +4 tome as an opportunity to save 8 action points over a +2, given their paucity of available AP compared to all the enhancements they need, but DM qualifiers (this is also significant for a melee cleric, by the way ..) are a tremendous factor that put them on par with bard and sorc need.

[jerryxenon]

imo paladin should actually come first for a charisma tome, then sorc, then bard, then intims and umds, then everyone else (fvs included with "everyone else")

Can I add you to my friends list lol

[Enochroot]

CHA is a major CHA for a FvS... just as it is for a sorc, just as it is for a Bard, just as it is for a Pally and even a Cleric (I need a +4 CHA and WIS on mine).

The ONLY Classes which do not rely on CHA are .. well, any fighter which is not Intimidate specced.

This is absolutely ignorant in how cha works for FvS.

There's a few actually good reasons for FvS to take a +4 cha tome, and I'm not seeing it in "healing" FvS (maybe I'm misinterpreting what a "healing" FvS is ...

- to minimize cha investment and still cast level 9 spells - and minimize enhancements/gear
- to use cha skills (umd, intim, etc)

I "assumed" (yes, maybe wrongly) - that a "healing specced FvS" would have plenty of cha to cast level 9 spells, and probably doesn't care that much about being super "tight" on cha points, and also, that a "healing specced" build wouldn't be umd/intim.


To call cha a "major" stat on FvS other than that is otherwise ridiculous. The spell point gain from cha increase is negligible - and to say it's the "same" as for a bard or a sorc is just plain stupid.

[Atenhotep]

This is absolutely ignorant in how cha works for FvS.

To call cha a "major" stat on FvS other than that is otherwise ridiculous. The spell point gain from cha increase is negligible - and to say it's the "same" as for a bard or a sorc is just plain stupid.

Yup. I have a different opinion than you so the automatic default is that I am, of course, a hundred different kinds of stupid and you are brilliant.

I hope the next time a healer runs out of mana healing you because you didnt buy any heal pots you remember just how "ignorant" I am.

[Yajerman01]

well, any fighter which is not Intimidate specced.

Bah! Halfling 12/6/2 fighter/pally/monk with minimal intimidate, but that pally splash coupled with UMD has value for me. Improved saves, UMD, and pally melee enhancements sounds viable.

But I digress, I get what your saying.

[Atenhotep]

Bah! Halfling 12/6/2 fighter/pally/monk with minimal intimidate, but that pally splash coupled with UMD has value for me. Improved saves, UMD, and pally melee enhancements sounds viable.

But I digress, I get what your saying.

Actually I agree. I was in eror not to include UMD Builds specifically as well.

My main cleric is a UMD build (she uses stone skin wands, teleport scrolls, etc) and is hoping that our TOD grinds results in a +4 WIS and CHA Tome.

[Tarackian]

You are certainly misinformed. and know nothing of what you speak. FVS also use charisma as a primary stat.

Word, there's almost no reason to do this. The tome should most definitely have gone to the sorc anyway.

[Enochroot]

This is absolutely ignorant in how cha works for FvS.

There's a few actually good reasons for FvS to take a +4 cha tome, and I'm not seeing it in "healing" FvS (maybe I'm misinterpreting what a "healing" FvS is ...

- to minimize cha investment and still cast level 9 spells - and minimize enhancements/gear
- to use cha skills (umd, intim, etc)

I "assumed" (yes, maybe wrongly) - that a "healing specced FvS" would have plenty of cha to cast level 9 spells, and probably doesn't care that much about being super "tight" on cha points, and also, that a "healing specced" build wouldn't be umd/intim.


To call cha a "major" stat on FvS other than that is otherwise ridiculous. The spell point gain from cha increase is negligible - and to say it's the "same" as for a bard or a sorc is just plain stupid.

You are certainly misinformed. and know nothing of what you speak. FVS also use charisma as a primary stat.

I'll quote myself - reputable source.