Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end its the age old argument that dates back to AD&D between people that would really prefer if the game was a historically accurate medieval melee simulation with historical weapons and armor and people that don't care how outrageous it gets as long as they get to do cool stuff :D
In the end a compromise is necessary. D&D based games are NOT historically accurate Medieval Fight Club. Nor can they ever be above about level 4. However neither can the games be an "anything goes" totally magical world with no concession to real world physics - else immersion goes out the window.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- it's quite clear that AC is completely abstract just like hit points are. You can say that a chainmail bikini or fullplate thong allows less mass to aim at or simply allows the wearer easier dodges. That's fine in the tabletop so I don't see how it would be a huge deal in a video game.
Amazing how the 'fullplate thong' then gives penalties to movement, acrobatics, casting and swimming, takes 4 minutes to put on, and weighs 50 pounds.
I think girls should get bonuses to conceal weapons since that hairpin then obviously must be a "female greatsword".
GM: She appears to be wearing only a metal thong.
BRB: huh? umm.. anyway she's still a drow and I split her skull with a full power attack, i got 24 for 19 damage.
GM: Sorry, your overhead chop hits her thong with a big clank but fails to do any damage.
BRB: nono, I wasn't trying to sunder the thong, just hit her exposed flesh.
GM: yeah, but she has high AC due to full plate. Didn't you listen?
BRB: doh! Damn girlie armor rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yep, you definitely read my post.
I admit I actually did, but then I have also read the PF rules stating that armor gives armor bonus and not dodge bonus. A "full plate thong" would actually restrict your ability to dodge since there is a max dex bonus.
If you are talking about enchanted thongs (mechanically working like bracers, amulets or rings), then we are not disagreeing. I'm only discussing standard non-magical armor, where I fail to understand how that protects what it doesn't cover, just as a fail to see how a plate thong would make it easier to dodge than a leather thong (unless again it is enchanted).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the end its the age old argument that dates back to AD&D between people that would really prefer if the game was a historically accurate medieval melee simulation with historical weapons and armor and people that don't care how outrageous it gets as long as they get to do cool stuff :D
To quote my friend after 10 minutes of TERA: "Sorry, but if I can stab you in the boob you are not wearing armour."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dodge is a type of bonus with associated rules, but DEX doesn't give you a dodge bonus to AC so you can clearly dodge with AC without having a dodge type bonus.
Very well, since we both insist on playing it out this way:
Dex and dodge bonuses contribute to touch AC. Armor bonus does not. So your full plate thong apparently makes it easier to dodge my fist but harder to dodge my hand.
There is nothing in the RAW stating how much coverage you need to get AC (except of course if you actually try to take cover behind something), but the SRD does describe what full plate looks like:
"This metal suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor".
meh, this is a waste of time
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is absolutely nothing in the rules that states how much of your body has to be covered for a particular AC. Dodge is a type of bonus with associated rules, but DEX doesn't give you a dodge bonus to AC so you can clearly dodge with AC without having a dodge type bonus. Armors can look any way you like; the system isn't that specific. It is never specified if your armor fully absorbed a blow, deflected it or if you moved out of the way.
Yep, you definitely read my post.I admit I actually did, but then I have also read the PF rules stating that armor gives armor bonus and not dodge bonus. A "full plate thong" would actually restrict your ability to dodge since there is a max dex bonus.
If you are talking about enchanted thongs (mechanically working like bracers, amulets or rings), then we are not disagreeing. I'm only discussing standard non-magical armor, where I fail to understand how that protects what it doesn't cover, just as a fail to see how a plate thong would make it easier to dodge than a leather thong (unless again it is enchanted).
I wouldn't put same AC on bikinis and something covering the whole body whether or not they are made of the same material. The fact that PFO doesn't support DEX bonus to AC works around this as well. There is magic in the game. But if it isn't magic, I hope they implement some kind of realistic art style.
I think there should definitely be choices in the game. Personally, I don't care about the sexy armor. I never really play female characters and I sure don't try to make my male characters look sexy. I want them to look as badass as possible :D. But there are people out there who enjoy the smexy outfits and they should be entitled to it if they want it. It doesn't really make sense to have a character with skimmmmpy armor run into the heat of battle, but then again this is a fantasy MMO. I'm sure there will be all kinds of armor types for every character, regardless of race or gender.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I remember the armor styles from NWN2 being a pretty good compromise between functionality and sleek and sexy. They provided enough surface area coverage to be believable while still being flirty.
No, they didn't. They provided an aesthetic that allowed the same level of willing suspension of disbelief to include magic, an adventurer's academy with a graduation tutorial teaching how to buy stuff, taverns full of people waiting for somebody to hire them (but not ever letting somebody hire two of them at once), those same mercenaries having long-unresolved quest lines that coincidentally involve collecting random items, and the ability to rest several times while engaged in time-sensitive missions and still arrive just in the nick of time.
Don't give us nothing but boring realistic armor; give us spiky armor, skimpy armor, shiny armor, and novelty armor. But make it easier to pretend that the armor protects us than the other things we have to pretend; don't make the armor harder to believe than the rest of the game.
And yes, I would rather see more cosmetic variations of armor than have a few variations that don't clip in any of the animations or the like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember the armor styles from NWN2 being a pretty good compromise between functionality and sleek and sexy. They provided enough surface area coverage to be believable while still being flirty.No, they didn't. They provided an aesthetic that allowed the same level of willing suspension of disbelief to include magic, an adventurer's academy with a graduation tutorial teaching how to buy stuff, taverns full of people waiting for somebody to hire them (but not ever letting somebody hire two of them at once), those same mercenaries having long-unresolved quest lines that coincidentally involve collecting random items, and the ability to rest several times while engaged in time-sensitive missions and still arrive just in the nick of time.
Don't give us nothing but boring realistic armor; give us spiky armor, skimpy armor, shiny armor, and novelty armor. But make it easier to pretend that the armor protects us than the other things we have to pretend; don't make the armor harder to believe than the rest of the game.
And yes, I would rather see more cosmetic variations of armor than have a few variations that don't clip in any of the animations or the like.
Totally agree DeciusBrutus. I definitely fall into the "It's fantasy, lets make it fun camp."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Totally agree DeciusBrutus. I definitely fall into the "It's fantasy, lets make it fun camp."I remember the armor styles from NWN2 being a pretty good compromise between functionality and sleek and sexy. They provided enough surface area coverage to be believable while still being flirty.No, they didn't. They provided an aesthetic that allowed the same level of willing suspension of disbelief to include magic, an adventurer's academy with a graduation tutorial teaching how to buy stuff, taverns full of people waiting for somebody to hire them (but not ever letting somebody hire two of them at once), those same mercenaries having long-unresolved quest lines that coincidentally involve collecting random items, and the ability to rest several times while engaged in time-sensitive missions and still arrive just in the nick of time.
Don't give us nothing but boring realistic armor; give us spiky armor, skimpy armor, shiny armor, and novelty armor. But make it easier to pretend that the armor protects us than the other things we have to pretend; don't make the armor harder to believe than the rest of the game.
And yes, I would rather see more cosmetic variations of armor than have a few variations that don't clip in any of the animations or the like.
Me, also!!
Both sides are arguing for their own fun. Basically for some the metal thong detracts from the amount of fun they have while others, the lack of t&a armor ruins their fun.
Which is why most of us have said some variant of: "Choices are good. Just don't MAKE me wear X!"
(I also believe that if there's going to be skimpy armor in the game, it should be equally skimpy for male and female characters. But that's me.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have absolutly no problem at all with T&A. I just don't want it to be attached to "Heavy" armors. Play a Monk, a Bard, a Rogue, a Wizard, or a Sorceror if you want to wear skimply clothes. Accept that the less restricive clothing gives you the opportunity to expose some skin and use abilities that cannot be used when you are encased in metal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am actually finding this whole thread fun. I don't play female characters simply because as a male i am more comfortable playing what I know best, though I see nothing wrong with it in the least. Likewise, I would never wear any clothing or armor (robes in my case as my main will be a Wizard-type) that looks "skimpy", but agree people should be allowed to do so if they wish to do so. However, if I see you in game, I will likely ask you IC "Aren't you rather cold" or "How do you protect all that bare skin?!", just for the chuckle I will get out of the asking and because I love to RP.
Live and let live, but if you do something silly, expect to get chuckled at for doing it. If you chuckle along with me, so much more fun for us both.
Speaking of a good chuckle, thank you for the one you gave me randomwalker with this:
GM: She appears to be wearing only a metal thong.
BRB: huh? umm.. anyway she's still a drow and I split her skull with a full power attack, i got 24 for 19 damage.
GM: Sorry, your overhead chop hits her thong with a big clank but fails to do any damage.
BRB: nono, I wasn't trying to sunder the thong, just hit her exposed flesh.
GM: yeah, but she has high AC due to full plate. Didn't you listen?
BRB: doh! Damn girlie armor rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as their is skimpy clothing available, and combat isn't the only thing to do in this game (which it won't be), I'm fine with it. In traditional MMORPG's there was little to no reason to do anything other than kill things, so you'd always wear your armor. I want to see a lot more reasons for social interaction outside of combat. And what you're wearing is what other people see, no more of this "cosmetic clothing" BS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People seem to be forgetting something about Chainmail Bikinis. People tend to hit where they look. So woman only need to protect their breasts as that is where everyone is looking anyway.
In all seriousness though. Hot "skimpy" armor on female characters better looking to more gamers then "realistic" armor. Even stait woman have a tendence to like the look of the "skimpy" armor over the more realistic armor. (Woman are just better looking the men.)
And don't forget this simple truth. Sex Sells.
Except Elves its really hard to tell the difference with elves...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know if it was pointed out already but take a look at the iconic Pathfinder characters. The Barbarian, Monk and Sorcerer have skimpier clothes but the Paladin (despite being female) and even the Rogue have very little skin showing. These characters will be in PFO and following their design I don't think we have too much to worry about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What would be interesting is settlements/areas where wearing of armor of any type at all is banned :D
Even people that are playing "Historical Medieval Fight Club" must admit that historically armor was not worn 24/7 and in fact only worn at tournaments, in battle or when on-duty if members of a military organization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I could maybe give in so that the breastplate armor type could include some kind of metal bikinis for women as the name suggests. But then you would have to have some metal in the thighs to make up for the belly.
But if metal bikinis without magic give the same armor bonus as a full heavy plate metal suit covering all the body parts, I rage quit. :'(
But I'll be back after having some hot chocolate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is it so scary to allow women to choose how to dress? This seems like what it all boils down to. We're not discussing whether men should be afforded the choice, because that's obviously a given. However, women should cover themselves up because gosh darn it we can't have gear designed with unrealistic attributes! *puts away 2' wide greatsword and rides away on giant bat*I could maybe give in so that the breastplate armor type could include some kind of metal bikinis for women as the name suggests. But then you would have to have some metal in the thighs to make up for the belly.
But if metal bikinis without magic give the same armor bonus as a full heavy plate metal suit covering all the body parts, I rage quit. :'(
But I'll be back after having some hot chocolate.
I like when visuals corresponds to stats. It gives more meaning to graphics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's please all refrain from judgment-laden terms here. No one has objected to "skimpy" (it's in the thread title), nor to "full-coverage", but beyond that, let's try not to imply values or motives to others by characterizing their preferences with loaded terms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one has objected to "skimpy"Actually, a lot of people are objecting to skimpy armor, either wanting them completely left out of the game or at least giving a harsh penalty to whoever chooses to wear it.
From the OP:
"IF YOU WANT YOUR MALE OR FEMALE CHARACTER TO LOOK SEXY THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT -IT'S A SANDBOX- JUST NOT WITH THE COMBAT PROTECTION."
So no combat protection if you wish to be less than fully covered. Skimpy armor should be in a "corner", with the OP's taste as the "norm".
Same poster:
"Sexier armor and other types of wardrobe can be electives in the realm of specialized crafting or cash shop."
All women (and of course men playing female characters) can enjoy spending real money to dress up their character in the style they like because we need to incentives for people to wear the gear that the OP prefers.
Then of course there are other posters flat out saying that there should be no skimpy armors at all. How this counts as "no one has objected" is a mystery to me.
Terms, Trikk. My entire post (of which you quoted only a snippet) was about avoiding value-laden terms.. No one has objected to the use of the terms skimpy or full-coverage; these seem to be neutral terms to use. Use of value-laden terms beyond that (and I'm not going to list any as that will simply open another can of worms) doesn't move the discussion anywhere and fosters a negative environment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Why is it so scary to allow women to choose how to dress? ...
I think women should dress as they see fit.
I'm not as comfortable having men pretending to be women and playing dress-up with the representation of a female body as a toy and using it as a sexual fetish in public.
I would think that women by now would be a little weary of males who think real women are sex toys, but since I am male who am I to say?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is it so scary to allow women to choose how to dress?
Because it has nothing to do with "allowing" women to choose how to dress? It's about telling everybody that if you are not wearing heavy armour then, surprise surprise, you are not wearing heavy armour.
Why that is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me.
|
"Impractical armor" is an old conversation to most people by now so I'm going to skip right to the question: Are we there yet? Is the PFO community ready to move our characters beyond the hot hot shake your stuff kobold seducing sexy times battle equipment?
you mean the Inverse Law of Armor that Red Sonja comics are famous for? Isn't Red Sonja still a staple of the Genre?
Isn't Deja Thoris also still a staple of the Genre? Isn't He-Man also a staple?
I think there is still room for impractical armor for those who want it. A high dex, and the dodge and mobility feats and possibly uncanny dodge works for a character dressed in impractical armor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think there is still room for impractical armor for those who want it. A high dex, and the dodge and mobility feats and possibly uncanny dodge works for a character dressed in impractical armor.
Oh certainly. If you're happy with an AC in the 10 - 13 range, those outfits are perfectly viable. Of course, those characters are not staples of D&D or Pathfinder characters. Unless they are all supposed to be druid/monks or something.
What you can do, however, that is perfectly in line with the D&D/Pathfinder genre, is wearing glamered fullplate.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the OP was making a case for the primary purpose of armor in the game to provide mobility and a barrier for the arteries and vital organs of the body part it's worn on and for that purpose to show through visually; rather than a primary purpose to sexualize the wearer.
No individual's fashion preference is behind it. There are other things to wear when one wants to look sexy than than the fundamental armor that's integral to the game. As a fundamental everyone is subjected to it to play the game. Elective choices should be the realm of customization.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is it so scary to allow women to choose how to dress?Because it has nothing to do with "allowing" women to choose how to dress? It's about telling everybody that if you are not wearing heavy armour then, surprise surprise, you are not wearing heavy armour.
Why that is such a difficult concept to grasp is beyond me.
Because essentially your saying my opinion and view of the game is the only legitimate one. I only want realistic armor, becuase my opinion is somehow better then yours. Your opinion is not in fact better. I find it limiting and unrealistic. There are going to be people who want all options and forms of armor available to them.
Personally I play Male Arcane spellcasters and this has been my choices
Dark Age of Camelot Robes
World of Warcraft Robes and power armor (Don't ask)
Final Fantasy XI Robes with very limited pants options.
I'm sick and tired of having my end game armor being Robes.
I like shirts and pants.
Just the same by going I want realistic armor you are limiting the options of people who want skimpy outfits.
I have no problem with dudes who want to dress up in bondage gear and call it full plate the game is a fantasy after all.
You want realism cool.
I want every possible option available.
I want every person to log in the game to be able to play in the way they want to without someone else telling them no you can't be X, because someone else doesn't like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wouldn't it be great, if no one ever got offended
Wouldn't it be great to say what's really on your mind
I have always said 'all the rules are made for bending'
And if I let my hair down, would that be such a crime?
I wanna be consequence free
I wanna be where nothing needs to matter
I wanna be consequence free
just sing Na Na Na Na Na Ne Na Na Na!
~~~
Choice is great and all, but consequence gives our choices weight. Without consequence choices become shallow and meaningless. If you could just do anything you want all the time, then what's worth doing anymore?
It's been pointed out that glamors and other spells can make anything you wear look like anything else. With those in place there is no limitations on what you can look like. That magic isn't just available to anybody though, you have to earn it. By playing the game. A insane concept, I know, a game you actually have to play, but there it is. Just putting that out there.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Right now it looks like we have a few different summaries of opinions. In no particular order:
- 1. People who believe that skimpy outfits should not be available
- 2. People who believe that skimpy versions should be required
- 2a. (Differentially based on the gender of the character)
- 3. People who believe that both options should be available with essentially no mechanical differences (including the cases where the same stats could have either style and where glamered equipment is available and cheap)
- 3a. (Differentially based on the gender of the character)
- 4. People who believe that skimpy armor should be available, but with significant mechanical differences (including the cases were glamered equipment is not available or has a significant cost or opportunity cost)
- 4a. (Differentially based on the gender of the character)
3 and 4 can be broken down further on gameplay differences, but this is an esthetics discussion.
Does anybody see a different option?
EDIT: Added 2a, 3a, 4a.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
WRT to item 4.
If I recall correctly "Glamered" is an option applicable to any armor that only costs a fixed amount of coin (2700 gp in PnP) and does not use up any of the enchantment bonus slots.
Thus unlike other enchantments you can add Glamered to anything at a set cost (as opposed to say spell-turning/reflecting which cost whatever it takes to add +5 to your current armor).
if the PFO follows PnP in this regard a set of full plate can be "Glamored" to look however you like (though the description does say "normal clothing" not chain mail bikini) at a low cost which has no detrimental effects on adding other enchantments later. Only true seeing can see through the glamor.
From SRD:
Glamered
A suit of armor with this ability appears normal. Upon command, the armor changes shape and form to assume the appearance of a normal set of clothing. The armor retains all its properties (including weight) when glamered. Only a true seeing spell or similar magic reveals the true nature of the armor when disguised.
Moderate illusion; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, disguise self; Price +2,700 gp.
Right now it looks like we have a few different summaries of opinions. In no particular order:
- 1. People who believe that skimpy outfits should not be available
- 2. People who believe that skimpy versions should be required
- 3. People who believe that both options should be available with essentially no mechanical differences (including the cases where the same stats could have either style and where glamered equipment is available and cheap)
- 4. People who believe that skimpy armor should be available, but with significant mechanical differences (including the cases were glamered equipment is not available or has a significant cost or opportunity cost)
3 and 4 can be broken down further on gameplay differences, but this is an esthetics discussion.
Does anybody see a different fifth option?
I'd add a caveat to (2), (3) and (4): Skimpy armor should be equally skimpy on both genders, and full-coverage armor should be equally full-coverage on both genders. Armor should not be skimpy on females/full-coverage on males or vice versa.