Dragon's-Eye View - Appropriate Armor

Dragon's-Eye View
Appropriate Armor
by Jon Schindehette

What is appropriate armor? Senior creative director Jon Schindehette answers that question, plus hopefully gives you a few things to think about along the way.

Talk about this article here.

astralArchivist.com - 4e D&D house rules, homebrew, and story hours - now featuring ENWorld's Zeitgeist adventure path! Will Thibault is a winged, feathered serpent rarely found anywhere except in warm, jungle-like regions or flying through the ether. Due to his intelligence and powers he is regarded with awe by the inhabitants of his homelands and is considered to be divine.
It's an insightful start, but that's all that it is, a start. If every depicted female warrior starts coming from cultures that wear chainmail bikinis while every depicted mail warrior starts coming from cultures that wear fullplate armor, then it doesn't matter how "culturally appropriate" you think each character it being depicted, because there's still a problem with how everybody's being depicted as a whole.

Additionally, I'll post here the comment that I made to the article itself:

In other words, a male knight in full battle dress, wading through the desert sands, is just about as silly as a female fighter, in a chainmail bikini, forging through the frozen wastes of the Iceland Dale.

This is false. Those things are not exactly as silly. The latter is sexually objectifying and degrading, and it is that way on purpose. The former is simply inappropriate, possibly even intended to be comedic. I very much appreciate the effort, Jon, but you're still missing the point, and you need to look deeper than you're looking. You cannot divorce D&D from our real-world culture, as you have so expertly pointed out yourself, so you cannot divorce "chainmail bikinis" from real-world issues of sexism and objectification of women simply by comparing it to another scenario that may be equally illogical but that does not carry nearly the same cultural baggage.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
the one main thing with female armor or attire that some people mistake for amor( ie Red Sonya's scale mail bkini slave girl garb) is that they fail to mention that no one fighter is just going to stand there and let you just hit them while they try to hit you.

As Drizzt has said Tiresome dance.  It really is a dance and there are tactics and skills for dealling with an unarmored warrior against an armored opponent.

so in that regard.... the exagorated fantansy and the stylized fantasy outfits would function in a fight. you might not last long... but thats not the point.



all that said.



I dont mind flesh revealling armor tank top and short styled armor( elmore has one on his site) is not bad to me, but Red Sonya's armor only looks good on Red Sonya.  So id be in the decent middle ground of it all...         
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I love the above art. Very evocative. I would love to see more schetches like this.

I also think that it's necesary to look at armor, weapon and clothing designs from a cultural and environmental standpoint and make them appropriate for such. I look forward to seeing how this plays out in the art for 5e.
Meh.  Let the artist draw what he's in the mood for.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
We are pretty much using all types of armors in our campaigns... Whatever the character feels like wearing is ok.

The only time anyone ever bothers from a mechanical standpoint is pretty much in extreme heat/cold... But that's very seldom and we usually don't put characters in those situations unless they can fix it with a warm cloak or if the PCs can fix it with endure elements.

I want to see a diverse set of clothes/armor in the books ranging from dresses such as the manga character to naughty leather such as the fantastic realism character to realistic armor such as the photorealism character.

When it comes to character inspiration I usually look through the entire web anyways for cool armors/clothes. Whatever happens in the core books I will survive... Art is nice in the books, but I dont live and die by it.

If you ask me which I like to look at most... I could tell you it was the realistic art... but that would be a lie... Monkeyman inside prefers bikini armors... but monkeyman's decisions is usually bad from a get-more-girls-into-the-game point of view... so I'll survive even if the book contains just the realistic art.

In the end... maybe for once I agree upon something with Salla :D... Let the artist draw what he feels like and it will probably be better than if someone is dictating everything.


The Character Initiative


Every time you abuse the system you enforce limitations.
Every time the system is limited we lose options.
Breaking an RPG is like cheating in a computer game.
As a DM you are the punkbuster of your table.
Dare to say no to abusers.
Make players build characters, not characters out of builds.




Sexy vs sexism is a tough line to walk. For all the talk of inappropriate chainmail bikinis, it often seems like the opinion of what real, modern women think of fantasy attire isn't always taken into account. Does a woman coming to DnD for the first time want her character to wear the same platemail as a man or does she want to be more "sexy" and wear something like a fantasy version of an outfit out of Cosmo?
Meh.  Let the artist draw what he's in the mood for.


That's not how art commissioning works, and it's also not how to overcome sexism.

Z.
Meh.  Let the artist draw what he's in the mood for.

That's not how art commissioning works, and it's also not how to overcome sexism.

+1 and +1

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

Bracers and armor rings all the way.  That way, everyone can be nearly naked and still fight.
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

I don't think that it has to be just one or the other. It's not like there's anything wrong with sexuality or women being sexy. It's just a matter of proportion that's the problem, women being portrayed as sex objections very disproportionately compared to men. I think that going to either extreme, putting everybody in full plate or giving everybody chainmail thongs, is a bad idea. Let's have both! Let's put more women in armor, alongside men, and more men in leather harnesses, alongside women!

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

I don't think that it has to be just one or the other. It's not like there's anything wrong with sexuality or women being sexy. It's just a matter of proportion that's the problem, women being portrayed as sex objections very disproportionately compared to men. I think that going to either extreme, putting everybody in full plate or giving everybody chainmail thongs, is a bad idea. Let's have both! Let's put more women in armor, alongside men, and more men in leather harnesses, alongside women!


Well duh.  I want nekkidness for both.  Smile
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

Bracers and armor rings all the way.  That way, everyone can be nearly naked and still fight.



whats good for the goose is good for the gander 

a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
The article's logic demanded context-utilitarian dress and was egalitarian in the use of such logic (our two warriors in post 1 evidence this). Sexual objectification thru dress was not mentioned specifically, but was ruled out by this logic, as was worn equipment flying in the face of realism. I felt those were two hot topics as far as D&D art goes, and it satisfied them as far as dress is concerned. I too was sick of tank-top armor laid directly over the skin (The Ancient Romans had the sense to wear padding under theirs).

Did it deal with other ways of gender portrayal in art? No. Did it deal with how PHB item prices were extensions of a realistic economy? No. The article wasn't about further issues of gender or further considerations of realism, but future articles may be. Buck up. It seems they've been looking at hot topics on the forum for some article direction, so make a thread that deals with the issue and make it popular.
One thing that has really always bothered me about the way armor is talked about in D&D is peoples focus on it depicting things from the real world. The problem with this is that what is fuctional armor for an adventurer would be a very different beast from what is functional for a battlefield soldier. No adventurer in their right mind would go spelunking in Plate, at least not plate as we think of it.  Garb folks in things that would make sense for an adventurer to wear, if that doesn't look like a real world style of armor that is fine because RL armor isn't designed to be worn all the times in any sort of climate the wearer might be in from day to day.
Sometimes, funtional and sexy do get to co-exist:

While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

Bracers and armor rings all the way.  That way, everyone can be nearly naked and still fight.


In which case, both in game terms and realism terms, they'll lose.

This is a roleplaying game, not a source of specialised pornography. When I want to see members of both sexes wearing nothing, or only tiny amounts of leather, there are places I can go. This isn't one of them. I'm not opposed to exposed flesh in all circumstances - do the PCs visit a 'festhall'? A bathhouse? A gymnasium? All valid circumstances. But armour should be functional, rather than fetishistic.

Z.
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

Bracers and armor rings all the way.  That way, everyone can be nearly naked and still fight.


In which case, both in game terms and realism terms, they'll lose.

This is a roleplaying game, not a source of specialised pornography. When I want to see members of both sexes wearing nothing, or only tiny amounts of leather, there are places I can go. This isn't one of them. I'm not opposed to exposed flesh in all circumstances - do the PCs visit a 'festhall'? A bathhouse? A gymnasium? All valid circumstances. But armour should be functional, rather than fetishistic.

Z.


Someone is taking things way too seriously.

Besides, if a magic ring protects as good as armor does, then it would work just as fine in a dungeon as it does in a bath house.
While others crusade for more armor on women, can I crusade for less armor on men?

I don't think that it has to be just one or the other. It's not like there's anything wrong with sexuality or women being sexy. It's just a matter of proportion that's the problem, women being portrayed as sex objections very disproportionately compared to men. I think that going to either extreme, putting everybody in full plate or giving everybody chainmail thongs, is a bad idea. Let's have both! Let's put more women in armor, alongside men, and more men in leather harnesses, alongside women!



Reminds me of your much more detailed stance in the previous thread on this topic.

As a straight guy who started playing this game as an adolescent teenager, I of course was appreciative of the hot-slave girls and chainmail bikinis in my youth.  I was becoming more mature when 3e came out, and also met more gamer girls, who pointed out to me how good of a job 3e had done about correcting the sexist issue in fantasy art.  In the 3e PHB, for example, Vadania, Alhandra, Lidda, and Naull are all appropriately clad in armor (or cloth) as befits someone of their class.  It was female character art that could appeal to females.  Ember was showing the most skin, but even that, I thought, was still in good taste, because she didn't look like a stripper, she looked like somone who was dressed-down to beat some @$$.

When 4e preview art came out, I thought we were seeing a step back.  In Races and Classes almost all the females wore bare-midriff outfits, some of which clearly were intended to be considered "armor".

I think Crimson_Concerto here said it best in another thread, which I wish I could find and link, because the argument was poignant.  Short version is, I agree completely.  Sexy adventurer types are fine, but be fair.  And that doesn't necessarily mean oiled-up muscly Conan-types, because that isn't the converse of the chainmail bikini.  Oiled up muscly Conan-types are geared towards straight men, who look at the picture and think "yeah, I wanna be THAT guy!", not women (or gay men) to look at and find sexually enticing.

There need to be some females in appropriate armor to appeal to female gamers with cool visuals that are not sexually exploitative.  I think that's too important to ignore.  But I'm fine with having some eye-candy guy types for those who are interested in such.  It shouldn't offend anyone, and it keeps everyone happy.
I dunno, I liked the art that the article posted okay.  And I take the point that armor can vary based on the topic of the artistic work.  I'd like more equal representation of men and women.  But I don't really care if armor is 'realistic' or not.  I want fantasy to be fantastic.  I think 4e did a decent if imperfect job.  Ideally  want armor in-game to be a purely aesthetic choice.
Someone is taking things way too seriously.

Besides, if a magic ring protects as good as armor does, then it would work just as fine in a dungeon as it does in a bath house.

I'm always up for attracting more yaoi fangirls, as long as someone remembers to tell the artists they need to start drawing the sorcerers as petite fem boys. Not everyone out there likes Conan the Barbarian types.
Poll was stupid.

I would have liked a poll on which of the final three pictures everyone wanted.




I'd vote for Photorealism. 

I don't need to see cleavage in every image of a woman.
chainmail bikinis are stupid
Poll was stupid.

I would have liked a poll on which of the final three pictures everyone wanted.




I'd vote for Photorealism. 

I don't need to see cleavage in every image of a woman.



I'd have wanted an option for "all, based on the feel of the campaign". I like all three.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
Someone is taking things way too seriously.

Besides, if a magic ring protects as good as armor does, then it would work just as fine in a dungeon as it does in a bath house.

I'm always up for attracting more yaoi fangirls, as long as someone remembers to tell the artists they need to start drawing the sorcerers as petite fem boys. Not everyone out there likes Conan the Barbarian types.


Hmmm..why stop at just sorcerers?  There can be pretty boy warriors too.
We also have to be sure they include magical unisex dancing silks in the Magic Item Compendiums. Wink

On a more serious note, while my game is not as fetish ridden as some here wish it to be, I do include some themes that might be considered as being "Yaoi" in nature.  Laugh at me as you will, but I have never, ever had a problem with getting female gamers in my group and keeping them playing.  Currently, I have 3 ladies in my campaign, and in the past I ran a game for 6 ladies for a total of 3 years running.

Should D&D Next have art straight from a June/Yaoi Manga?  Probably not. 

It is the idea that everything must be the cliched medieval style societies, armors, cultures and dress codes that needs to be looked at.  To be sure, keep D&D Next at a "G" or "PG" rating.  Those of us who want more mature themes will add them on our own. 

But the fact is, a pretty boy wizard, an armored up warrior woman, or a loin cloth, bead and feather clad tribal protector should never be considered as "Fetish" material.  All three examples can be rendered at the "G" or "PG" ratings.   If a person finds such as being fetishist, the issue is within them and not the subject matter.
If dnd n 5e is rated E ( G for the movie folk)for everybody... I'm sticking with Pathfinder.

Pg to PG 13 please.....(T for the sets of people)
 
a mask everyone has at least two of, one they wear in public and another they wear in private.....
I voted photorealism.

I'll love to see a Dragon's eye about B&W illustrations.  
If dnd n 5e is rated E ( G for the movie folk)for everybody... I'm sticking with Pathfinder.

Pg to PG 13 please.....(T for the sets of people)
 


Yes, the PG to PG 13 range would be my choice too.
Poll was stupid.

I would have liked a poll on which of the final three pictures everyone wanted.




I'd vote for Photorealism. 

I don't need to see cleavage in every image of a woman.



I'd have wanted an option for "all, based on the feel of the campaign". I like all three.



None of those pictures did it for me.  The manga one is too mahou shojo, the fantastic realism one too uninspired, and the photorealistic one is just too...eh, ugly.  But at least the last one has armor that looks like it could reasonably function as something better than cloth (not that there's anything wrong with that).  I'm a fan of manga style, just not that particular style (or at least, not going by this one sample piece).



Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
It was an OK article, but those three pictures really tick me off
The one labelled "manga' is... well what armor looks like in World of Warcraft, or almost every Fantasy game out there, D&D included.
The one labelled 'photorealism' is the same as fantasy realism, you just have poorly rendered plate armor with goofy pauldrons and skulls instead of a fetish suit. I don't want any of those. 
You could relabel those, from left to right "cleavage, smiling", "cleavage, frowning", and "no cleavage, frowning" and that's about as descriptive. 

All I want is quality of execution.


Here's some art I like:


IMAGE(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qpvmaBgOVNA/TV0Mp3JSGcI/AAAAAAAAAhc/Gdp2Q0fWP94/s1600/24mxon8.jpg)
Here we have a highly stylized charcter... with a very strong sense of volume to the design. You can tell what is cloth and what is hard armor and the straps are made with the care and detail of somebody who knows what actual armor looks like.
In many ways it has more 'photorealism' than say, Wayne England's designs where round people have flat slabs of armor glued to them.



IMAGE(http://wargamingforums.com/graphics/40k/space%20orks/2007/orkboyz.jpg)
Here's some space ork figures. Because they're inhuman the line between 'stylized' and 'realistic' is blurred, as they have inhuman anatomy to support their crude (in look, but stylish in execution) arms and armor. 


Here's some awesome Frank Frazetta
IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lxjmKdogbiY/TPpyz--MBYI/AAAAAAAAEdM/QC9CuF30RlI/s1600/frank_frazetta_themoonmen.jpg)
His colors are great and he has a really really really refined sense of anatomy, his heroes move with the grace of hunting cats. It's also quite highly stylized. Most people don't wear pants, but damn does he draw some fierce ass muscles.



IMAGE(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VNuH-8RXTRU/TXZvIc0Cm-I/AAAAAAAAByI/a4e-75SEdIc/s1600/angus003.jpg)
This one's by Angus McBride. He actually does paintings for books on historic arms and armor, so he has a great sense of what's realistic and fits it fantastically into the fantasy.


Stuff by Yoshida
IMAGE(http://www.gamingtp.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tacticsss4.jpg)
IMAGE(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltgd8l2vjR1r1afgwo1_500.jpg)


He's shown his versatility in various projects. Again a great sense of how things work which he commands in doing his fantastic designs.



I just like stuff that looks good. That's it. I enjoy good beef, good chicken, good pork and I will take a good eggplant over crappy chicken.
I dunno man, I'd just prefer a question with more substance than "how do you prefer your boobs, covered, smiling, or frowning?". I'll take any of them, as long as they're executed well. 

Poll was stupid.

I would have liked a poll on which of the final three pictures everyone wanted.



I'd have wanted an option for "all, based on the feel of the campaign". I like all three.


I agree with you there Kalnaur.  Ultimately, I think the style of armor comes down entirely to campagin decisions.  I'm the kind who favors letting the players decide what their armor looks like as a matter of simple appearance (then again, I require a minimal amount of realism and can shrug off a CMB protecting just as well as regular chainmail; or just refluffing armor into defensive fencing styles).  I'd even go so far as to say, put a picture like that in the book (with three correspoding male versions).  That way DMs and players alike can understand the difference between each style and decide accordingly.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

I voted photorealism.

I'll love to see a Dragon's eye about B&W illustrations.  


Yes, please!
It definitely skirts and avoids the issue of chainmail bikinis or armour with peek-a-boo holes or exposed navals. Which is a pretty serious topic, which affects people's enjoyment of the game.

5 Minute WorkdayMy Webcomic Updated Tue & Thur

The compilation of my Worldbuilding blog series is now available: 

Jester David's How-To Guide to Fantasy Worldbuilding.

Is it just a cleavage, naval, cheek issue?  I think there's a place for that, like a provocative bard or some such, but not every female needs to be nekked.

Great examples, OgreBattle!

I dunno, I liked the art that the article posted okay.  And I take the point that armor can vary based on the topic of the artistic work.  I'd like more equal representation of men and women.  But I don't really care if armor is 'realistic' or not.  I want fantasy to be fantastic.  I think 4e did a decent if imperfect job.  Ideally  want armor in-game to be a purely aesthetic choice.



I also like the art, and style.  I guess I can't add anything beyond I agree 100% with you on everything.
Not all of England's armor looks terrible.  This mostly seems to have been a deliberate art direction decision for 4e; to look deliberately bad.  Any depiction of a Dwarf in armor looks terrible because of the slabs of metal glued on look.



I dunno, I liked the art that the article posted okay.  And I take the point that armor can vary based on the topic of the artistic work.  I'd like more equal representation of men and women.  But I don't really care if armor is 'realistic' or not.  I want fantasy to be fantastic.  I think 4e did a decent if imperfect job.  Ideally  want armor in-game to be a purely aesthetic choice.



I also like the art, and style.  I guess I can't add anything beyond I agree 100% with you on everything.


 
Basically I think a problem comes in, when it gets down to it there are people wanting medieval sim game that arent happy if the game encourages that variety.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I dunno, I liked the art that the article posted okay.  And I take the point that armor can vary based on the topic of the artistic work.  I'd like more equal representation of men and women.  But I don't really care if armor is 'realistic' or not.  I want fantasy to be fantastic.  I think 4e did a decent if imperfect job.  Ideally  want armor in-game to be a purely aesthetic choice.



I also like the art, and style.  I guess I can't add anything beyond I agree 100% with you on everything.


 
Basically I think a problem comes in, when it gets down to it there are people wanting medieval sim game that arent happy if the game encourages that variety.



Yep, I don't understand that.  I mean I just do not see D&D ever doing a good job at that, seems like the amount of work you would have to do, you might as well make your own system.

Anyway I don't like the late armor in WOW (nothing to do with D&D just stating an opinion) but I see no reason that armor like it can show up alongside real world armor in artwork. 
The slutty armor thing has been said and complained about a million times really that I wonder why people still bring it up, D&D, Anime, Video games were, (as mean as it might sound and Im NOT saying this is everyone by any means), was almost set for nerdy guys/shy guys/etc whom had trouble interacting in the "real world" and talking to girls or having girl friends was huge part of that. And they are the ones that thankfully kept it alive, made it grow and in the NOW its a huge trend and even the "Cool" guys and girls playing these games which was nearly unheard back (Not saying they didnt, but lets face it did jocks in 1980 play d&d or beat up the kid that played d&d?)

So with that being said, having women wearing nearly nothing was sheer sex appeal, plain and simple, when someone drew a women wearing some metal bra that made her breast nearly pop out and a metal thong that looked so uncomfortable that its amazing she could even walk they didnt sit back and say "Ok thats enough armor to deflect a hammer swing but what can I do to make sure a sword thrust?" Nope sorry they were thinking "Did I make her breast large enough?"
The slutty armor thing has been said and complained about a million times really that I wonder why people still bring it up, D&D, Anime, Video games were, (as mean as it might sound and Im NOT saying this is everyone by any means), was almost set for nerdy guys/shy guys/etc whom had trouble interacting in the "real world" and talking to girls or having girl friends was huge part of that. And they are the ones that thankfully kept it alive, made it grow and in the NOW its a huge trend and even the "Cool" guys and girls playing these games which was nearly unheard back (Not saying they didnt, but lets face it did jocks in 1980 play d&d or beat up the kid that played d&d?)


I was the football and baseball player in 1978 who played the game... and also hung out with the artists and english major types as well as those who rightly thought computers were the wave to follow... I was too eclectic to be "cool", can I be a bard thank you. I also loved the sex appeal elements being 15, note the real women I have spoken with wearing chain mail bikinis are quite interesting personalities.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Then you my friend were in the 5% crowd, as I said it wasnt directed to EVERY player ever, my friend was also a football player whom played with us Im just giving the general basis.