-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?
- Thread starter GeeksDreamGirl
- Start date
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I don't mind scantily clad pictures of women. Even unrealistically armored ones.
I mean, even laying aside the dragons and elves and wizards and junk, the armor is hardly the most unrealistic thing about those gals...
But there is a fine line between women who happen to be scantily clad, and women who are only there to be scantily clad. If the scanti-ness is meaningful, communicating something, it can be good. If it's just there because they want to attract lonely 13 year olds...well, I can still see it's place, since I don't exactly write the laws of the universe that dictate that any man ages 12-62 (and sometimes older?) will be hypnotized into staring at even the artistic depiction of a semi-nude form of something they're attracted to (statistically speaking, probably the chicas).
I don't mind the "barbarian loincloth" pictures, either, for what that's worth.
Still, variety is the spice of life. I'd rather see the segsy in forms other than those which inspired Heavy Metal. But that's me.
I mean, even laying aside the dragons and elves and wizards and junk, the armor is hardly the most unrealistic thing about those gals...
But there is a fine line between women who happen to be scantily clad, and women who are only there to be scantily clad. If the scanti-ness is meaningful, communicating something, it can be good. If it's just there because they want to attract lonely 13 year olds...well, I can still see it's place, since I don't exactly write the laws of the universe that dictate that any man ages 12-62 (and sometimes older?) will be hypnotized into staring at even the artistic depiction of a semi-nude form of something they're attracted to (statistically speaking, probably the chicas).
I don't mind the "barbarian loincloth" pictures, either, for what that's worth.
Still, variety is the spice of life. I'd rather see the segsy in forms other than those which inspired Heavy Metal. But that's me.
How is that babe in the barely there armor getting any AC bonus?
Distraction bonus?
That was my guess. I picture the opponent staring and drooling like some stereotypical gamer repeating the words, "Boobs!" (if he can even get the words out).
I'm not making a broad generalization, I'm making a generalization about broads. Insert bad joke sound here.
I really wish I could remember where that joke is from.
Vegepygmy
First Post
I don't know if you're the only one, but I'm definitely not with you on this point.
You actually "HATE" those pictures? You might be the only one. Well, you and Gloria Steinem.
Either a given artistic piece actually works or it doesn't. Oftentimes there's a scantily-clad women there just to excite prurient interest and it doesn't really work or do anything. That's quite dumb, especially when the girl doesn't look like she "belongs" in that (lack of) outfit. But I can imagine a piece showing a Red Sonja-esque character whose scantily-cladness emphasizes the character's raw physicality, contempt of personal danger and recklessly self-legislating lifestyle. Not an admirable character, but an interesting one to be sure.
In that latter case it's just like Conan in a loincloth: either he's dressed like that because he's escaping the evil snake temple, or it emphasizes that this guy is really strong, brave and does things his own way, or both. A battle babe in a loincloth could say the same thing. Or it could be mere wankery. It depends on the overall composition, context and presence of the piece.
I suppose there's an element of it that constitutes a judgment call on the part of the viewer. If I were to lay out a principle, it would be ask yourself this: does the bare broad in question look like she could slay a giant snake or cut a bloody swath through wicked minions in that state? If she really just looks like a modern bimbo that wandered into a fantasy realm then no it's probably not appropriate. If she looks like Conan minus the Y chromosome then yes it probably is.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
The obvious Real World answer lies in the nature of males. (Need I explain further?)
In the fantasy settings of D&D ...
It was every fighter's dream to have magical armor in 1E, because it was weightless (literally: weightless.) It is nice not to have to carry around 70 pounds of plate armor and shield ... just wearing the stuff is difficult enough (use some Real World comparisons.)
Nobody in 1E ever really figured out (not in any supplement I ever saw) how to produce Force Field Clothing, which is what a chainmail bikini would be a variant of (for men, simply, shorts.) The equivalent, roughly, of the Dune personal body shield. It never happened.
Theoretically, Wall of Force, cast multiple times and with Permanency (5% chance per application of a permanent loss of 1 point of Constitution) could have been used to create an almost invincible set of shields around the user, using tiny pieces of clothing as their focus, moving with the wielder (an exception to the normally stationary nature of Wall of Force.) This would have granted AC -10 in 1E or 2E, AC 30 (or higher) in 3E, and gave at least +4 to saves against spells like fireball and the like. (Maybe, +8, if really done right ... or count it as 90% cover.)
Considering just how BADLY any sort of clothing was vulnerable to fire, it was a worthwhile endeavor. Fire was an incredibly popular weapon back then ('I carry 50 oil flasks, and the wizard is ready with Firefinger!') and Item Saving Throws were required if you failed yours. If they failed, you were alight and took 2d6 damage per round until it was extinguished.
In a Worst Case Scenario, Armor - made of metal - could fail it's save, and aside from being ruined, it could superheat and glow from that heat. Or, even partially melt. Anyone caught inside a full suit of Armor, even Mail, when that happened was fried (2d6 damage to 5d6 damage per round from the incredible heat, plus 2d6 regular fire damage from burning clothing, save for all other items again) unless they could jump into the nearest (hopefully) large lake.
LOL. The Dragon thus got it's meal Well Done, before the wrapping was even removed.
Protecting clothing and armor from this effect was extremely difficult. It was far easier to protect the person. So the less clothing or armor you wore, the better. Rings of Protection were thus quite popular. Spells like Phantom Armor and Spirit Armor were equally popular.
The Chainmail Bikini actually, thus, made sense ... within the reality of 1E, and especially in 2E, where armor did weigh (although it still carried no encumbrance penalty.)
You would have thought that the Chainmail Bikini of Force, of the Chainmail Bikini +5, would have been devised. But it never happened.
In the fantasy settings of D&D ...
It was every fighter's dream to have magical armor in 1E, because it was weightless (literally: weightless.) It is nice not to have to carry around 70 pounds of plate armor and shield ... just wearing the stuff is difficult enough (use some Real World comparisons.)
Nobody in 1E ever really figured out (not in any supplement I ever saw) how to produce Force Field Clothing, which is what a chainmail bikini would be a variant of (for men, simply, shorts.) The equivalent, roughly, of the Dune personal body shield. It never happened.
Theoretically, Wall of Force, cast multiple times and with Permanency (5% chance per application of a permanent loss of 1 point of Constitution) could have been used to create an almost invincible set of shields around the user, using tiny pieces of clothing as their focus, moving with the wielder (an exception to the normally stationary nature of Wall of Force.) This would have granted AC -10 in 1E or 2E, AC 30 (or higher) in 3E, and gave at least +4 to saves against spells like fireball and the like. (Maybe, +8, if really done right ... or count it as 90% cover.)
Considering just how BADLY any sort of clothing was vulnerable to fire, it was a worthwhile endeavor. Fire was an incredibly popular weapon back then ('I carry 50 oil flasks, and the wizard is ready with Firefinger!') and Item Saving Throws were required if you failed yours. If they failed, you were alight and took 2d6 damage per round until it was extinguished.
In a Worst Case Scenario, Armor - made of metal - could fail it's save, and aside from being ruined, it could superheat and glow from that heat. Or, even partially melt. Anyone caught inside a full suit of Armor, even Mail, when that happened was fried (2d6 damage to 5d6 damage per round from the incredible heat, plus 2d6 regular fire damage from burning clothing, save for all other items again) unless they could jump into the nearest (hopefully) large lake.
LOL. The Dragon thus got it's meal Well Done, before the wrapping was even removed.
Protecting clothing and armor from this effect was extremely difficult. It was far easier to protect the person. So the less clothing or armor you wore, the better. Rings of Protection were thus quite popular. Spells like Phantom Armor and Spirit Armor were equally popular.
The Chainmail Bikini actually, thus, made sense ... within the reality of 1E, and especially in 2E, where armor did weigh (although it still carried no encumbrance penalty.)
You would have thought that the Chainmail Bikini of Force, of the Chainmail Bikini +5, would have been devised. But it never happened.
Similar Threads
