So much fantasy art of female characters has them wearing what looks like the result of an explosion in a metal foundry or Stripper armor (Armor based on stripper/fetish gear). This makes me sad.
by MariusBota Explosion in a foundry, anyone? by longai That looks painful to fight next to. Also, boobs mostly exposed! by Grafit-art That's amazingly exposed, even for an archer. by KilartDev "I do all my fighting in a bikini and a half-skirt!" also by KilartDev That doesn't look very practical. You'd better hope no enemy ever gets behind you… by RaffaeleMarinetti I… have no words. by zinnaDu And here's the stripper armor… also by zinnaDu That looks actually uncomfortable to wear… by GPzang Yeah, this fulfills someone's fetish SOMEWHERE. by The-Immortel-Flame I am keeping my yap buttoned here by fellmagus This one isn't actually bad-if only she hadn't left her chest open to any passing arrow or sword… by TheBastardSon Seems you might want to cover your belly in battle, dear.
This page is starting to look like an ad for super glue - "New WONDER GLUE!!! Forget the laws of physics - this amazing new product will hold your armor in place no matter how violent and intense the fighting. As a bonus no matter how large and long your leaps nothing will fall off, and nothing will fall out!"
I saw this one and laughed sooo hard I had to post it on my second tumblr. Words simply failed me, so I used a second picture to tell a thousand words.
There are lots and lots of comments trying to be sarcastic like "no, I don't need to protect my legs", "yeah, I only need to protect my shoulder".
RPGs these days don't have notions like trade offs between armor and agility for a certain fight skill? (i.e.: fencing doesn't quite work with a full-body knight armor, even though fencing against a full-body armor is almost pointless unless you can precisely target a hole).
Take Roman legionnaires, for example. Why don't you laugh at them, "yeah, I only need to protect my tummy, my head, and my lower legs, and my hips, but these stylish skirt made of leather straps should do it". That scant armor already weighted more than 80lbs. Plus shield, plus weapons.
Now, I'm not saying such designs are beyond criticism, but criticism must take in consideration the intended level of "realism" of the *fantasy* game, and, if you're really taking it that seriously, so at least be informed that armor isn't simply a matter of "the more, the better" for every situation, that there were asymmetric armors and lots of uncovered spots and such things.
RPGs these days don't have notions like trade offs between armor and agility for a certain fight skill? (i.e.: fencing doesn't quite work with a full-body knight armor, even though fencing against a full-body armor is almost pointless unless you can precisely target a hole).
There is no such trade-off worth considering. Covering yourself in metal armour of some sort will always be the most beneficial action by far, and whatever impediment it might have on your agility will be negligible in relation to the protection it grants you. Romans, as you brought up, did not have such equipment because it was the best protection or allowed them to be "agile" or whatever, but because it was part of a mass produced uniform and the rulers did not want to spend more money on it than what was necessary to cover the basics. Consider also that Roman armour changed as time went on and they became more and more heavily armoured.
Take Roman legionnaires, for example. Why don't you laugh at them, "yeah, I only need to protect my tummy, my head, and my lower legs, and my hips, but these stylish skirt made of leather straps should do it".
We do. When Rome invaded Dacia they suffered massive casualties as the Dacians, wielding their big ass scythe-sword falxes, regularly lopped off limbs or incapacitated Roman soldiers by attacking their unprotected arms and legs. Rome's fortunes in this war was not turned until they reinstated shoulder/arm protection and proper greaves as part of the legionary uniform.
Now, I'm not saying such designs are beyond criticism, but criticism must take in consideration the intended level of "realism" of the *fantasy* game, and, if you're really taking it that seriously, so at least be informed that armor isn't simply a matter of "the more, the better" for every situation, that there were asymmetric armors and lots of uncovered spots and such things.
1. What game? No particular game is being focused on here. They're just random pictures LadyRhian found while wading through the huge amounts of ridiculous art on the internet while looking for pictures to post in her "Too many pictures for any thread" thread.
2. No functional historical armour have been so inefficient as to contain, for example, belly and/or boob windows. The equivalent would have been your Roman soldier example up there having a naked stomach to show off his awesome sexy abs or nothing covering his upper torso so he can show off his well-shaped breast muscles. Furthermore, very, very few of these armours were made to look the way they do because of how real armour looked over the course of history. They're made to look that way for the service of the audience, not the service of the character itself.
No, there *are* trade offs. Heavy armor is heavy, heavy is more expensive, harder to transport, more tiresome to walk around it, and hinders mobility. Historical weak spots in armors weren't there just because they were dumb and hadn't realized yet what smart gamers figured out, that if they were all protected in heavy metal they'd be theoretically safer.
As I said, "I'm not saying such designs are beyond criticism", and there are plenty of game-armor designs that are just for the "pin up"/beefcake looks -- but even then, as there were some real armors as well, such as high-ranking Roman officers with their "muscle armors" and ornaments, and even full body armors full of ornaments, or minimal armors such as those of gladiators. (Perhaps actually the real-world equivalent if the hypothetical Roman "awesome sexy abs" armor?)
The most protective armor probably was that one that has a huge "belly" and a conical/funnel "face" to fend arrows, yet I don't see many people complaining that not all armors aren't that one (or that present-day real soldiers don't walk around with huge armors covering all of their bodies, rather than just bullet proof vests, leaving much unprotected, for that matter). But even that one probably has its trade offs, such as if arrows aren't supposed to be much of an issue, then the belly and the face cone are just a larger body frame to be targeted by close-range weapons (Plus heavier, plus reducing the field of vision, plus less agile, so on).
@vnkwerjau I don't know where you get the idea that no one wears armor any more. Soldiers in the field wear body armor. Scientists and manufacturers are working on ballistic cloth that needs only be as thick as a typical button-down shirt to protect someone from being shot and killed (by a .22 caliber bullet, anyway). Armor to protect you from larger caliber bullets has to be thicker, but scientists and manufacturers are working to up the protection and lower the cost.
Metal armor stopped being worn because of the rise of guns. Metal armor does not protect you very well from a bullet, unless your armor is so heavy you are unable to move in it. That's the reason why people went from something like plate mail to plain clothing. Since the armor was no longer protective, the cost of wearing the weight was no longer worth it.
A fencer using a foil could actually hurt a knight in Plate armor by exploiting gaps in where the armor covers his body (mostly at the joints and where the body must flex and move) but the knight is also more easily suited to hurt the duelist. Armor like suits of plate mail and more protective armors hang from different areas of the body, whereas chain mail, for example, hangs mainly from the shoulders and causes your shoulders to get tired very, very quickly. I know people who have worn actual plate mail and they said it was not as heavy or clumsy as you think as more pieces of it are supported by individual body parts. Regardless, you didn't see armor designed with boob windows or armor consisting of a single piece of arm armor outside of, say, Gladatorial combat, where the body was meant to have vulnerabilities that opponents could exploit (and possibly also to show off, considering that Roman women certainly loved them some gladiators (from old graffiti found in Pompei and other places, which are like classical versions of the modern "DAT ASS")).
I don't know where you get your 90lbs figure from. Most armors weighed between 40-60 pounds, and the weight is distributed over the entire body. Modern day soldiers wear 90 pounds of gear on their bodies, similarly distributed. Plus guns and ammo. And chain mail actually weighs more because the links have to cover more of the body area than a shaped metal plate. Why so much chain mail? Plate mail is harder to make and harder to articulate properly. Knights could also do cartwheels and run around in their armor. Many in the SCA who wear metal armor can do the same (assuming one is in reasonable shape), even if they make their armor out of heavier grade steel than medieval armorers used. Once armorers were able to craft articulated plate, the plates over chain mail type went away, and people who could afford to upgrade their armor did so.
So yes, more protection is better. In real life, it was predicated on what you could afford. Not everyone could afford a suit of articulated plate mail. But D&D/AD&D, like most games, is not reliable for weights of armors (or, in newer versions, for how restrictive they are), because they have to balance out how armor works in the game. Games are not reality. Don't assume, because a game has something, that it's completely accurate. Oftentimes, it's changed in the name of "game balance".
But D&D/AD&D, like most games, is not reliable for weights of armors (or, in newer versions, for how restrictive they are), because they have to balance out how armor works in the game. Games are not reality.
Especially in fantasy games like Baldur's Gate, where most armors are magical or not even ''armors'' at all. Why complain that the armor doesn't cover everything, when you have bracers of armor and spells that give you the same protection as a breast plate?
In real life, the purpose of armors is to cover and protect, but the purpose of art and fantasy is precisely not to be realistic. Ancien art often portrays warriors and heros as completely naked. Scenes of epic actions with erotic undertone is nothing modern.
Anyway, here's one I made myself. She's wearing a bikini of AC 2, Sun Lotion of Deflection and the long hair is a clever illusion.
Oddly enough, the sequel did a complete reversal in this regard - the armour and clothing was much more sensible and far less garish.
Reading through this thread, what really disgusts me is the degree to which the "anime aesthetic" has colonised individuals' artistic endeavours. You know the look of which I speak - the "face of an eight-year-old girl, the body of a buxom twenty-something" look. Have a look at the screenshots over at the Skyrim Nexus, and you will see it everywhere. I personally regard "anime style" as a crutch for artists are unwilling (or unable) to develop a style of their own.
You realize that Celtic warriors...feared by the Roman Empire...fought naked, right?
Some did, but it's a misconception that they all did. Many of them wore early forms of chain mail, often called ring mail today, or breast plates. The Roman Gladius was adopted from the Celts and had a small tapered tip, specifically for stabbing into ring mail or other gaps in armor. The small tip could pop a ring and stab straight into the mail. They had pretty advanced iron working and utilized the hell out of it.
Just alot of nitpicking for High Fantasy concept art. Most of these people look to be rogues or the like so they wouldn't even be wearing heavy armor as is. Even in WoW there are only like 3 Armor-kini's and they suck stats wise.
Just alot of nitpicking for High Fantasy concept art. Most of these people look to be rogues or the like so they wouldn't even be wearing heavy armor as is. Even in WoW there are only like 3 Armor-kini's and they suck stats wise.
Not sure if this is an April fool's troll post, but either way I face palmed pretty hard.
I posit that these tropes are expressions of the archetypes of the masculine and feminine in extremis or in ideals, which is essentially what a Hero figure is, they represent an ideal, which is why we admire, look up to them and find them attractive.
Agreed that there are some uh...interesting folk who take it too seriously and do not seem to understand the word "Fantasy". What many of us forget is that we are all free to draw or depict our Heroes as we like, and let the audience decide, as it always does.
I think that John Patterson, EL James and Jane Austen are poor novelists, but do I want to restrict or ban their output because I object to their content? By the gods no.
This page is starting to look like an ad for super glue - "New WONDER GLUE!!! Forget the laws of physics - this amazing new product will hold your armor in place no matter how violent and intense the fighting. As a bonus no matter how large and long your leaps nothing will fall off, and nothing will fall out!"
I saw this one and laughed sooo hard I had to post it on my second tumblr. Words simply failed me, so I used a second picture to tell a thousand words.
(Image)
Egads, you could take smeone's eye out with those!
(Quote)
Especially in fantasy games like Baldur's Gate, where most armors are magical or not even ''armors'' at all. Why complain that the armor doesn't cover everything, when you have bracers of armor and spells that give you the same protection as a breast plate?
In real life, the purpose of armors is to cover and protect, but the purpose of art and fantasy is precisely not to be realistic. Ancien art often portrays warriors and heros as completely naked. Scenes of epic actions with erotic undertone is nothing modern.
Anyway, here's one I made myself. She's wearing a bikini of AC 2, Sun Lotion of Deflection and the long hair is a clever illusion.
(Image)
Note the wizard on the left having a right good perv
(Quote) @smeagolheart this is really awesome!!(Quote)
I like to wonder that in fantasy settings there are many Pirelli calendars nailed on every blacksmith shop walls. *,*
There's a few paintings in NWN modules that seem to be portaits or landscapes, of who or what am unsure. I suppose the Pirelli calendar equivalent in D&D would be Volo's Cartwheels calendar or some such. Just about recall when Pirelli calendar was good, now it's all this pretentious postmodern weirdness.
Comments
I saw this one and laughed sooo hard I had to post it on my second tumblr. Words simply failed me, so I used a second picture to tell a thousand words.
RPGs these days don't have notions like trade offs between armor and agility for a certain fight skill? (i.e.: fencing doesn't quite work with a full-body knight armor, even though fencing against a full-body armor is almost pointless unless you can precisely target a hole).
Take Roman legionnaires, for example. Why don't you laugh at them, "yeah, I only need to protect my tummy, my head, and my lower legs, and my hips, but these stylish skirt made of leather straps should do it". That scant armor already weighted more than 80lbs. Plus shield, plus weapons.
Now, I'm not saying such designs are beyond criticism, but criticism must take in consideration the intended level of "realism" of the *fantasy* game, and, if you're really taking it that seriously, so at least be informed that armor isn't simply a matter of "the more, the better" for every situation, that there were asymmetric armors and lots of uncovered spots and such things.
We do. When Rome invaded Dacia they suffered massive casualties as the Dacians, wielding their big ass scythe-sword falxes, regularly lopped off limbs or incapacitated Roman soldiers by attacking their unprotected arms and legs. Rome's fortunes in this war was not turned until they reinstated shoulder/arm protection and proper greaves as part of the legionary uniform.
1. What game? No particular game is being focused on here. They're just random pictures LadyRhian found while wading through the huge amounts of ridiculous art on the internet while looking for pictures to post in her "Too many pictures for any thread" thread.
2. No functional historical armour have been so inefficient as to contain, for example, belly and/or boob windows. The equivalent would have been your Roman soldier example up there having a naked stomach to show off his awesome sexy abs or nothing covering his upper torso so he can show off his well-shaped breast muscles. Furthermore, very, very few of these armours were made to look the way they do because of how real armour looked over the course of history. They're made to look that way for the service of the audience, not the service of the character itself.
As I said, "I'm not saying such designs are beyond criticism", and there are plenty of game-armor designs that are just for the "pin up"/beefcake looks -- but even then, as there were some real armors as well, such as high-ranking Roman officers with their "muscle armors" and ornaments, and even full body armors full of ornaments, or minimal armors such as those of gladiators. (Perhaps actually the real-world equivalent if the hypothetical Roman "awesome sexy abs" armor?)
The most protective armor probably was that one that has a huge "belly" and a conical/funnel "face" to fend arrows, yet I don't see many people complaining that not all armors aren't that one (or that present-day real soldiers don't walk around with huge armors covering all of their bodies, rather than just bullet proof vests, leaving much unprotected, for that matter). But even that one probably has its trade offs, such as if arrows aren't supposed to be much of an issue, then the belly and the face cone are just a larger body frame to be targeted by close-range weapons (Plus heavier, plus reducing the field of vision, plus less agile, so on).
http://secretagentmagazine.com/how-to/Bulletproof-Clothing.htm
Metal armor stopped being worn because of the rise of guns. Metal armor does not protect you very well from a bullet, unless your armor is so heavy you are unable to move in it. That's the reason why people went from something like plate mail to plain clothing. Since the armor was no longer protective, the cost of wearing the weight was no longer worth it.
A fencer using a foil could actually hurt a knight in Plate armor by exploiting gaps in where the armor covers his body (mostly at the joints and where the body must flex and move) but the knight is also more easily suited to hurt the duelist. Armor like suits of plate mail and more protective armors hang from different areas of the body, whereas chain mail, for example, hangs mainly from the shoulders and causes your shoulders to get tired very, very quickly. I know people who have worn actual plate mail and they said it was not as heavy or clumsy as you think as more pieces of it are supported by individual body parts. Regardless, you didn't see armor designed with boob windows or armor consisting of a single piece of arm armor outside of, say, Gladatorial combat, where the body was meant to have vulnerabilities that opponents could exploit (and possibly also to show off, considering that Roman women certainly loved them some gladiators (from old graffiti found in Pompei and other places, which are like classical versions of the modern "DAT ASS")).
I don't know where you get your 90lbs figure from. Most armors weighed between 40-60 pounds, and the weight is distributed over the entire body. Modern day soldiers wear 90 pounds of gear on their bodies, similarly distributed. Plus guns and ammo. And chain mail actually weighs more because the links have to cover more of the body area than a shaped metal plate. Why so much chain mail? Plate mail is harder to make and harder to articulate properly. Knights could also do cartwheels and run around in their armor. Many in the SCA who wear metal armor can do the same (assuming one is in reasonable shape), even if they make their armor out of heavier grade steel than medieval armorers used. Once armorers were able to craft articulated plate, the plates over chain mail type went away, and people who could afford to upgrade their armor did so.
So yes, more protection is better. In real life, it was predicated on what you could afford. Not everyone could afford a suit of articulated plate mail. But D&D/AD&D, like most games, is not reliable for weights of armors (or, in newer versions, for how restrictive they are), because they have to balance out how armor works in the game. Games are not reality. Don't assume, because a game has something, that it's completely accurate. Oftentimes, it's changed in the name of "game balance".
Pushups:
Cartwheels:
Aerobics:
Armor in motion (this is full, articulated Plate armor):
And here's 14th Century armor, showing what this guy can do:
Forward rolls in armor:
Falling from a horse in armor:
Mobility issues? What mobility issues?
©1986, 2003 Wizards of the Coast All Rights Reserved
In real life, the purpose of armors is to cover and protect, but the purpose of art and fantasy is precisely not to be realistic. Ancien art often portrays warriors and heros as completely naked. Scenes of epic actions with erotic undertone is nothing modern.
Anyway, here's one I made myself. She's wearing a bikini of AC 2, Sun Lotion of Deflection and the long hair is a clever illusion.
And we cannot forget...
Oddly enough, the sequel did a complete reversal in this regard - the armour and clothing was much more sensible and far less garish.
Reading through this thread, what really disgusts me is the degree to which the "anime aesthetic" has colonised individuals' artistic endeavours. You know the look of which I speak - the "face of an eight-year-old girl, the body of a buxom twenty-something" look. Have a look at the screenshots over at the Skyrim Nexus, and you will see it everywhere. I personally regard "anime style" as a crutch for artists are unwilling (or unable) to develop a style of their own.
I don't feel like being banned
Some did, but it's a misconception that they all did. Many of them wore early forms of chain mail, often called ring mail today, or breast plates. The Roman Gladius was adopted from the Celts and had a small tapered tip, specifically for stabbing into ring mail or other gaps in armor. The small tip could pop a ring and stab straight into the mail. They had pretty advanced iron working and utilized the hell out of it.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0026.html
Not sure if this is an April fool's troll post, but either way I face palmed pretty hard.
Agreed that there are some uh...interesting folk who take it too seriously and do not seem to understand the word "Fantasy". What many of us forget is that we are all free to draw or depict our Heroes as we like, and let the audience decide, as it always does.
I think that John Patterson, EL James and Jane Austen are poor novelists, but do I want to restrict or ban their output because I object to their content? By the gods no.