| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:53:11
|
We are discussing the depiction - how it is drawn by the artist - not its final effectiveness (which we all know can change depending upon magical enhancements).
Realistic means drawn the way real life armor is assembled - practical and protective and taking into account the necessities of weight and articulation vs. level of protection. Realistic armors can still look good but they look exactly like what they are - armor. Links to examples of this can be found in ESdB's earlier posts in the Drow scroll.
Fantastic is the opposite - it doesn't matter if it is drawn in such a manner as to be impractical, overly huge or very skimpy, or not making allowances for articulation - so long as it looks good. An example of this would be the Chain Mail Bikini discussed earlier.
Somewhere Between is basic realistic armor with added fantastic elements to it to make it visually appealing while still giving the impression that it is in fact, armor. An example of this would be the oversized pauldrons as seen in the Dragon Age series of computer games. The pauldrons are huge and impractical but the rest of the armor is appropriately sized and jointed in such a way as to make it realistic.
Final level of protection (AC) isn't really being taken into account in what I'm asking because whether the armor is depicted as realistic or fantastic, magic enhancements like Bracers of Armor +5 change the final effectiveness of a character's protection because they are exactly that - Magic.
Hope this clarifies for you.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
Edited by - Wolfhound75 on 17 Feb 2012 22:03:28 |
 |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 21:58:14
|
quote:
That's a ridiculous false equivalency.
Romance books are basically softcore porn. And they are usually read alone.
 Isn't reading supposed to be a solo activity?
quote:
If you want to say that what you're reading is 'fantasy porn'? Fine! Great! Then you've accepted that it is the sexified version, instead of trying futilely to justify how it's not.
Who said anything about fantasy porn? The fantasy I tend to enjoy is the stuff that doesn't rely on needless "love" scenes. (part of the reason i can't stand Stephen King)
|
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
Edited by - Artemas Entreri on 17 Feb 2012 21:59:29 |
|
|
|
Lady Shadowflame
Learned Scribe
115 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
That's a ridiculous false equivalency.
Romance books are basically softcore porn. And they are usually read alone.
Isn't reading supposed to be a solo activity?
quote:
If you want to say that what you're reading is 'fantasy porn'? Fine! Great! Then you've accepted that it is the sexified version, instead of trying futilely to justify how it's not.
Who said anything about fantasy porn? The fantasy I tend to enjoy is the stuff that doesn't really on needless "love" scenes. (part of the reason i can't stand Stephen King)
Yes, reading is generally solo. Playing RPGs, however, is not. This may surprise you, but you're discussing this in a forum devoted to a setting used for a role-playing game.
And now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I'll spell it out:
Romance = pornish.
You want to call it the female equivalent of fantasy covers.
Judging a pornish thing and a not pornish thing by the same standards is like complaining your bike isn't a Mercedes Benz.
Therefore, if you want to use 'sex sells' in the same way as romance, your fantasy has to be judged in that pornish context.
If you don't want it in that context, stop comparing it to something that is. |
Save a lizard... Ride a drow.
|
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4686 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:11:09
|
Wolf that does not help much, non magical armour the type you describe can not be purchased. Magic is implied with types or armour you are concerned about.
As to images, I only load the ones I need to. I bow out of the discussion and will abstain. from poll. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:14:37
|
quote:
Yes, reading is generally solo. Playing RPGs, however, is not. This may surprise you, but you're discussing this in a forum devoted to a setting used for a role-playing game.
What!? Please tell me you are kidding.
quote:
And now you're just being intentionally obtuse. I'll spell it out:
Romance = pornish.
You want to call it the female equivalent of fantasy covers.
Judging a pornish thing and a not pornish thing by the same standards is like complaining your bike isn't a Mercedes Benz.
Therefore, if you want to use 'sex sells' in the same way as romance, your fantasy has to be judged in that pornish context.
If you don't want it in that context, stop comparing it to something that is.
Forgive me, i have never read a romance book and never thought they were that graphic. I thought stuff like Penthouse Letters was published for that purpose??
It doesn't matter if it is socially acceptable or not, sex sells. Watch just about any TV commercial to see proof of this. Even "innocent" ones about non-sex related products such as headache medicine always have a hot wife and a normal looking husband.
Anyways, apologies to the OP for curving of topic for a tad. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
Edited by - Artemas Entreri on 17 Feb 2012 22:16:00 |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
sarahdarkmagic
Acolyte
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:36:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
Forgive me, i have never read a romance book and never thought they were that graphic. I thought stuff like Penthouse Letters was published for that purpose??
Penthouse Letters has a very masculine tilt to it and that doesn't appeal to all women. Hence the need for romance novels. The assumption that it would appeal to all women and meet their needs highlights an underlying issue. The percentage of media that frames the world from the perspective of a stereotypical heterosexual male reinforces among some people that that is the way everyone views the world.
In most of life, there are enough alternative images to dispel this to a degree. Unfortunately in RPGs, the percentage tends to be even higher than in real life and it creates an environment that is hostile to a significant percentage of women. The issue really isn't particular instances of artwork but rather the sheer amount of sexualized and objectifying art of women.
As a heterosexual woman, this typical stereotypical heterosexual male framing of the world innately feels wrong to me because it doesn't match how I view men or women. My suspension of disbelief is instantly shattered. However, for people whose views are closer to that stereotype, it matches up more and their suspension of disbelief doesn't suffer as much. Unfortunately, it also means that they don't understand why I have a problem with it when they do not. |
|
|
|
Wolfhound75
Learned Scribe
USA
217 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 22:51:33
|
@Imp
Agreed that just because it looks armor-ish doesn't mean that it is but, that is why I specified Armor. By your statement if it's not supposed to be a functional armor, then let's call pieces of that sort clothing.
Good Hunting! |
"Firepower - if it's not working, you're not using enough." ~ Military Proverb
"If at first you do succeed, you must've rolled a natural 20!" |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 17 Feb 2012 : 23:32:51
|
| Another problem of having a character wearing a "chainmail bikini" is that they might want the full AC bonus of a more realistic suit of chainmail. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7975 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 00:06:15
|
| The opposite extreme is also depicted in some artwork. Where a character is coated with enough metal to look like a little BattleMech. Such suits of armor must easily weigh several times more than the wearer, and I can't imagine the wearer having any flexibility (let alone any ability to move) without assistance from magics, servos, or hydraulics. Trying to be a walking panzer is hardly functional, you really don't need armor as thick as your torso. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 01:08:03
|
you know I was wanting to say that the armor in the other post that was boob armor..... that would somewhat be functionable IF it had a mesh under the plate that covered her entirer torso.....
Im not touching it effective ness though |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 01:46:36
|
Note that in my post I also said (and males) in parenthesis. I'm not sexist - I assume women appreciate ridiculously clad men as well (and I'm thinking about Boris Vallejo's work now - the man loved painting himself half-naked).
I am fine with the fantasy trope of 'scantily clad' men and women - it is part of the genre. At the same time, I do think there are times where it would be inappropriate (some mentioned Alusair - despite her ardent sexuality, I would think it odd for her to wear such ridiculous armor... unless it was in the nature of a costume).
So maybe I should have voted 'in between', but I like fantasy art in general, and have no problems with it (with or without clothes).
I don't base my purchases by whats on the cover of a book, but I'm sure some do. As for me, we have the internet today if I want that sort of crap - I am no longer fourteen and need to drool over silly pictures in game books. A piece of art is just a piece of art, to me.
But while we are on the subject, I just want to point out that far too much 'inaccurate' art got through the cracks, and they need someone in charge of double-checking all of that as well. It would be nice to see a monster that actually matched its text description (wrong skin color? c'mon... don't the artists READ?), and no more "here is a Warforged where a Dragon should be". How did something THAT bad get by EVERYONE involved? These things don't go through a 'final check'?
Sometimes, just an extra pair of eyes is all you need. If the art matches what is supposed to be depicted, I can care less how they are dressed.
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Mmmmmmmm... Red Sonja.
Both Conan and Peter Parker are lucky guys. 
And BTW, see if you spot my homages to Conan lore on my Chult map.
Do you have a link?
It was as easy as googling 'Markustay' and 'Chult'. I am amazed at how many sites have posted my maps when I search for them, but by the same token, I am very glad they did, since I no longer have the originals. I had the very bad habit (in retrospect) of taking down all of my maps every few months to put up new ones.
As for the Chult map, the only rendition I still have up on DeviantART is the revisited version I did for 4e. The references are still there. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 18 Feb 2012 01:59:43 |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:01:38
|
| Somewhere in between. The latest trends in spiky armors can be melted down into ingots for all I care. Not only are they impractical, they look like Beetlejuice when he's anxious. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:08:34
|
| What Markustay said about that effing Warforged in the GHotFR. I almost shut the book out of disgust (not that I have anything against Warforged when they are in their appropriate place-not a FR book and not when there is supposed to be a dragon!). Also that picture of Jhaamdath's destruction where they try to pass off a orb-shaped building as a giant wave. Especially stupid considering the fact that the weird bald psions in the foreground are just going about their business oblivious, also considering that you can see the front entrance to the building. |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4430 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 04:49:45
|
I voted fantastic, but that's strictly from a "Game" perspective. In art, I think it's a little bit "in between" as you want a visual of how someone might hold up against certain combative struggles yet remain provocative enough to capture your eye. In literature, it's far more "realistic" for some reason but perhaps it's because authors are attempting to fill that sort of feeling or sense of verisimilitude for the reader.
And as this thread is designed mostly from an artists view, It's been far more evident that big, glossy (or gritty), sharp armor is 'Cool' for guys but more revealing and 'Sexy' armor is designed for girls. Really, I'm ok with this as real-world armor isn't even close to elegant, fun, or sexy. Frankly it's cumbersome, hot, pointy, it pinches, and heavy. This is me in my 'field-plate' which is actually very light for it's design (weighing in at about 30 lbs for 18 gauge stainless) and it's not even articulated with couters (elbow armor), gorget (neck armor), or a chain/leather skirt. But it still a b!tch to get on and hot as hell. I couldn't imagin wearing chainmail or a leather gambeson under it and fighting on a 90° day. No wonder I only wear it in winter and at events. 
Suffice to say, most covers on books or in the Fantasy Art aren't made to show functionality or realism (not the majority anyways) and I think that's a good thing. As seen in my pic (which is bad and 5 years old), realistic armor can be drab and that doesn't attract new readers or give a sense of fantasy when reading IMO. |
Edited by - Diffan on 18 Feb 2012 04:53:42 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 05:24:34
|
All appearances to the contrary, the following is not meant to step on anybody's feelings. I actually voted for Fantasy, for reasons I might get to later. But after reading the thread I've changed my mind. Here's why.
The art published as part of a role-playing sourcebook should assist in immersing yourself in the world. That's the whole purpose of the art. The 3e Realms campaign setting sold fantastically (I'm assuming, since WotC never complained about it) with no cover art. The 3e PH and DMG had basically no cover art. If the sourcebook is good (and sometimes even if it's not) gamers will buy it even if it has no art at all. The purpose of the art is to add something to the gaming experience. If it doesn't do that, then the money WotC spent on purchasing that artwork is wasted. Waste is dumb.
(Edit: I should say the value of the artwork lies in its contribution to play, rather than the purpose. I can't speak for WotC's intent in their art purchases, but I would imagine attracting customers is part of it... I just think that's a poor choice of priorities given the realities I cite here.)
Those who like seeing unrealistic combat scenes (i.e., essentially naked busty girl + big sword + dragon = woohoo) are not assisted in their role-playing by such images. The art doesn't help the game in those cases; it becomes a distraction. 10-year old boys (of all ages), I'm looking at you. Nothing wrong with being 10, when you're actually 10. There is something wrong with being 10 when you've been on the planet for 20+ years. "Whoa, look at this chick" is very dumb.
Those whose suspension of disbelief is instantly shattered by this type of image, as sarahdarkmagic eloquently put it, are obviously not helped by such art. Not only does it not contribute to their gaming experience, but there's a decent chance that they won't even buy the book... or play the game anymore. The more disrespectful pictures you slap on the front of books, the more peeved they'll get, until they give up in disgust and stop looking. Pissing the womenfolk off is just plain dumb.
The point is that revealing art doesn't help anyone's game. It might be nice to look at, but the impact it has is not one that helps role-playing. And there are other places to find nice pictures to look at, and a lot of them are free.
So let's have artwork that contributes to the gaming experience, rather than prompting all the 10 yr old boys at the table to make regrettable comments in front of the long-suffering girls. Let's have more female heroes in the artwork, and let's have them being smart and strong and sexy, without being sleazy about it... with the sneaky but well-meaning intent of encouraging more women to give this hobby a fair shot. Because it is a great game, and role-playing is a great hobby... there's just sometimes a lot of old sexism to overcome in the course of enjoying it.
Too many women have been turned off to gaming already, by seeing a greasy gawking male gamer in the bookstore drooling over a picture of a bimbo in a chain mail bikini. Let's pool our considerable creative talents and come up with a better image for the game we wish more women were interested in.
Let's have artwork that's great for its depiction of awesome mountains and forests and oceans and... "whoa, look at this dragon" ...instead of "heh heh... boobs." |
Edited by - xaeyruudh on 18 Feb 2012 05:36:27 |
|
|
|
xaeyruudh
Master of Realmslore
USA
1853 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 05:29:12
|
| And nice armor, Diffan! But yea, that's pretty light in comparison to historical plate armors. Looks like fun for fairs and stuff though. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 07:20:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Garen Thal
Women don't read comics, so we can make the outfits as skimpy as we want. We can make Power Girl's breasts as large as possible, and even put a big keyhole in the middle of her costume.
Interestingly, I'll add something to this, since the illustrations for Power Girl's new costume in the New 52 finally, in my opinion at least, does away with the nonsense cleavage-window. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 09:43:43
|
Szass Tam: "Why need an armor when you have magic?" |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 10:41:07
|
Tell that to someone who obliterated thousands of armored soldiers and turned them into mindless pets. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Imp
Learned Scribe
231 Posts |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 13:58:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by xaeyruudh
And nice armor, Diffan! But yea, that's pretty light in comparison to historical plate armors. Looks like fun for fairs and stuff though.
That's actually fairly reasonable for a field plate harness. From antiquity to the modern day, main battle armour for warriors has pretty consistently ranged from 30-50 lbs., after all. Lighter than this usually means less than full coverage of the important areas*, while heavier armour than this tends to degrade the long-term effectiveness of the soldier, in particular his strategic and operational mobility**.
Contrary to popular belief, the material a suit of armour is made from does not dictate the weight. Rather, the material constrains the armourer in how much protection he can hope to provide while still keeping the whole suit light enough for it to be viable as field armour.
In general, any kind of armour will be enough to stop muscle-powered missiles, because while arrows or javelins are excellent penetrators in flesh, the kinetic energy behind them is actually extremely low and their weight is not high enough to push through on momentum (as heavier missiles and hand-held weaposn may do). Sling stones or thrown missiles, meanwhile, essentially have no penetrating power and instead wound by direct energy transfer. A fairly inflexible outer barrier, even if it is merely thin leather, combined with some padding underneath will reduce the impact from bone-breaking to merely annoying.
Leather thick enough to serve as armour is heavier than good textile armour and both are heavier than any kind of metal armour. Maille provides superior protection to any prior armour at its weight and is also well suited to cover irregularly shaped parts of the body as well as areas requiring mobility and flexibility. While maille on its own is less effective in dispersing blunt trauma than some other armour, it was always worn with padding to address that problem.
The plate harness, far from being an example of the heaviest armour available, was actually a technological innovation which allowed an unprecedented level of protection at the lighest weight and least impediment of movement ever seen. A fit man can run, swim, climb, jump cartwheels and fence while wearing field plate harness (or a hauberk of maille).
He can do this because he has to. Field armour isn't any good if the soldiers can't patrol in it all day, negotiate rough ground, ford rivers, cross moats, take hills or assault up walls and stairs. It is therefore designed from the ground up to be only as heavy as the wearer can take while still retaining the ability to perform all those things. For most men, even fit men in military service, that is between 30-50 lbs.***
Anything heavier than 50 lbs. is most likely made for a special purpose**** or a large man. It might be absolute front-line armour, meant for shock action and not meant to be worn for anything other than a pitched battle. In periods where sufficiently large and aggressive horses were available, such troops are likely to be mounted, in which case their operational mobility is less impeded by heavier armour.
For a man of ordinary size, a suit of armour weighing more than 70 lbs. is most likely not meant for battle at all. Only for a brief period of time while armourers attempted to proof battlefield armour against arquebus and pistol balls did anything commonly worn on the field get heavier than this and such harnesses quickly proved impractical, even for well-mounted troops who did nothing but shock action.
If a suit of armour weighs that much, it is far more likely to be made for tourneys than war. Jousting and melee armour was extreme sporting gear and over the four or five centuries of its history, it evolved away from battlefield armour as thoroughly as a modern benchrest rifle (Heavy unlimited class) for the 1,000 yard shot is far removed from an assault rifle.
*Meaning both those most exposed to danger, i.e. forearms and sometimes lower leg for people fighting in melee, and the critical areas of brain, massive blood vessels in the upper torso and, once technology exist to cover areas needing flexibility with material that can withstand typical threats, large blood vessels elsewhere (stomach, groin, thigh, etc.).
**That is, his ability to cover scores of miles of ground on a time-scale of days in seeking or avoiding battle in order to secure strategic goals on one side and his ability to cover a few miles or even a couple of hundred yards on a time scale from minutes to hours in maneuvering around a battlefield.
***For the armour and helmet. The weight of weapons is added on top of that and if missile weapons are an important threat, possibly the weight of a shield as well (though most troops with a full size shield either wore lighter or no armour or were used almost exclusively as shock troops, being too heavy to effectively do anything else). When you consider that soldiers would often have to carry supplies and survival gear on top of their fighting outfit, it becomes clear that soldiering has always been a rough trade and that no one has had it rougher than the poor bloody infantry.
****That is, it is not meant as an all-purpose man-at-arms harness, what he wears all day at war, whether he's out riding on chevauchée, investing a fortress, marching or fighting a battle. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 18 Feb 2012 14:04:58 |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 14:26:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Szass Tam: "Why need an armor when you have magic?"
...or when 99% of all weapons on Toril won't harm you?  |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 15:16:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
Szass Tam: "Why need an armor when you have magic?"
Consider the fact that magic follows certain rules. These rules are not identical to what Earth-human believe natural laws to be, and some of them seem to be not so much laws, but an imperfect understanding of magical theory manifesting itself in a self-imposed limitation, but nevertheless, there clearly exist constraints on magic.
Magic is not unlimited. To perform a task with magic, you must expend magical energy. This energy is sometimes easy to obtain, but it is never entirely free.
One fairly common law of magic is that certain shapes or materials make it easier to imbue things with magical properties. This could influence the development of fashion for protective magical items, of course, with some seeking to maximise utility by conforming to these shapes and using these materials but others bucking the trend and deliberately flaunting their degree of magical power by enchanting the item in the most difficult way.
This means, however, that for an enchanter with the same power and same access to magical energy, the magical item that best conforms to the underlying magical laws will be more powerful, as it makes more efficient use of the magic he puts in. A GM can use this to justify almost any aesthetic fashion, in that if the universe so dictates, an aesthetic choice becomes functional.
However, in the absence of mystic correspondence, a tool well made for a given purpose will be better for that purpose than something poorly made for it. Given the same magical energy used to make both of them better at the task, the tool that started out as a better mundane tool will end up as the better enchanted tool.
An expertly forged and well-balanced sword made sharper and more controllable with magic will still be a better sword than a front-heavy and brittle blade made by a novice, even after both have the same amount of magic applied to them to correct their defects and improve their virtues. Simply speaking, all magical energy that you have to waste on removing an innate design flaw in the mundane item being enchanted is energy that you can't use to make the tool more powerful in magical ways.
Exactly the same thing applies to armour. Armour that is designed to protect well and restrict mobility as little as possible will ultimately be more effective than armour that is less functional before enchantment.
This is why, even in a magical world, function will shape form, particularly in fields where failure has a high chance of removing you and your preferences from the range of possible fashions. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Aryalómë
Senior Scribe
USA
666 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 15:39:42
|
| I hate a lot of this new fantasy armor that's been appearing in the newer games, especially those that come out of Asia. I like The Elder Scroll's, Warhmmaer's, D&D's, Dragon Age's, Lord of the Ring's, and Everquest's armors the best. They have a fantastical element, but not the over the top, cheesy, skimpy, and ridiculousness of the newer ones. |
|
|
|
Artemas Entreri
Great Reader
USA
3131 Posts |
Posted - 18 Feb 2012 : 17:37:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by entreri3478
...or when 99% of all weapons on Toril won't harm you?
Because you never know when you are facing one of the 1%.
I would imagine that it would be fairly difficult to surprise Szass Tam, especially with something as mundane as a magical weapon. |
Some people have a way with words, and other people...oh, uh, not have way. -Steve Martin
Amazon "KindleUnlimited" Free Trial: http://amzn.to/2AJ4yD2
Try Audible and Get 2 Free Audio Books! https://amzn.to/2IgBede |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Fantasy Armor
