165 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

Xewaka: Yes, she is a duelist and thus a melee fighter. But consider that duels aren't something happening spontaneously on the field of battle most of the time. Duels are a highly ritualised, structured form of combat where rules are put in place before the fighting starts (the rules might be: there are no rules though). Even if Isabela is a cheat, that form of fighting is a very specific form. Often occuring in cities and the like due to slighted honour or somesuch. Often to first blood or to death. In either of those, armour isn't very useful (even against armour a strike can draw blood... not to mention that most such duels have an agreement not to use it. In the latter case it really doesn't matter, does it. If you lose you're dead anyways).
Granted, I'm focusing very much on the duelist part there. The pirate part is a profession more reliant on intimidation and trickery than on a fair fight as well.

Armour figure most prominentely or the field of battle (because it's so much going on that it's difficult to keep the defences up against all threats at all times). Incidentally, it's also the last place I'd expect Isabela to be in.
If she's the kind of "fighter" that only fights when she's surprised, the odds are on her side or in duels, why would she wear armour?

As for the mages being untrained in armour. That's a fair point. A very good one. But allow me to use it for a counter. What makes you assume Isabela and Varric are? If they're not used to wearing it, then putting it on in times of danger might affect your fighting ability. Which is really dangerous in melee. If they have years of experience of not using it, would it not be better for them not to put it on at all? Since otherwise they'd have to train to learn to compensate for it?

I'm not saying wearing armour is a bad idea. I'm just questioning the reasoning behind why they "must" wear it.

As for Bethany's maille "apron" I like it. It protects the most sensitive area on the body, the abdomen. Above it is only the ribcage (and the lungs) which is fairly well protected. But an unfortunate slash across the stomach is a slow death.

And Varric not using cover. No worries... it's not like bows or crossbows are accurate weapons (which is why they were used massed instead of individually). Then again... everyone do get unlucky once in a while (which is amusingly why people actually took wearing armour seriously: stray arrows.)

Aermas wrote...
This. Armor is believable, clothing is not, unique armor is okay, only wearing clothing is not

But why is that? What is so wrong with spies and sailors/duelists not wearing armour? Why can our wandering scholars get away with it but noone else (and not even scholars if they happen to be non-mages)? If one party member is a baker by their background, should they be wearing armour too?

Modifié par Sir JK, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[nightcobra]

Sir JK wrote...

Xewaka: Yes, she is a duelist and thus a melee fighter. But consider that duels aren't something happening spontaneously on the field of battle most of the time. Duels are a highly ritualised, structured form of combat where rules are put in place before the fighting starts (the rules might be: there are no rules though). Even if Isabela is a cheat, that form of fighting is a very specific form. Often occuring in cities and the like due to slighted honour or somesuch. Often to first blood or to death. In either of those, armour isn't very useful (even against armour a strike can draw blood... not to mention that most such duels have an agreement not to use it. In the latter case it really doesn't matter, does it. If you lose you're dead anyways).
Granted, I'm focusing very much on the duelist part there. The pirate part is a profession more reliant on intimidation and trickery than on a fair fight as well.

Armour figure most prominentely or the field of battle (because it's so much going on that it's difficult to keep the defences up against all threats at all times). Incidentally, it's also the last place I'd expect Isabela to be in.
If she's the kind of "fighter" that only fights when she's surprised, the odds are on her side or in duels, why would she wear armour?

As for the mages being untrained in armour. That's a fair point. A very good one. But allow me to use it for a counter. What makes you assume Isabela and Varric are? If they're not used to wearing it, then putting it on in times of danger might affect your fighting ability. Which is really dangerous in melee. If they have years of experience of not using it, would it not be better for them not to put it on at all? Since otherwise they'd have to train to learn to compensate for it?

I'm not saying wearing armour is a bad idea. I'm just questioning the reasoning behind why they "must" wear it.

As for Bethany's maille "apron" I like it. It protects the most sensitive area on the body, the abdomen. Above it is only the ribcage (and the lungs) which is fairly well protected. But an unfortunate slash across the stomach is a slow death.

And Varric not using cover. No worries... it's not like bows or crossbows are accurate weapons (which is why they were used massed instead of individually). Then again... everyone do get unlucky once in a while (which is amusingly why people actually took wearing armour seriously: stray arrows.)

i think though that the word duelist doesn't have the same meaning as it does in the real world, from what we know of isabela she chose the name duelist due to the fact that she specializes on fighting against heavily armored warriors using wit/speed/grace to overwhelm her opponents going so far as even disregarding combat etiquette and other rules to win. 

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

Armour figure most prominentely or the field of battle (because it's so much going on that it's difficult to keep the defences up against all threats at all times). Incidentally, it's also the last place I'd expect Isabela to be in.
If she's the kind of "fighter" that only fights when she's surprised, the odds are on her side or in duels, why would she wear armour?

I don't expect Isabela to wear armor at all times. I expect her to wear it when I recruit him to accompany Hawke to a Dungeon crawl or any other situation where head-on combat is to be expected. At the very least, I'd expect her to carry a buckler.

Sir JK wrote...
As for the mages being untrained in armour. That's a fair point. A very good one. But allow me to use it for a counter. What makes you assume Isabela and Varric are? If they're not used to wearing it, then putting it on in times of danger might affect your fighting ability. Which is really dangerous in melee. If they have years of experience of not using it, would it not be better for them not to put it on at all? Since otherwise they'd have to train to learn to compensate for it?

I'm not saying wearing armour is a bad idea. I'm just questioning the reasoning behind why they "must" wear it.

Admitedly, because I expect someone who labels himself as a rogue to be proficient in leather armor. It's more of a mechanical choice than a background one. I still find it believable (if not expected) that an information broker and spy will carry a chain shirt under his loose and concealing coat to avoid "unpleasantness" in negotiations. I'd also expect a pirate to strap a buckler on his non-leading forearm (that, incidentally, is the origin of the term "swashbuckler") for a modicum amount of defense with minimal encumberance.

Sir JK wrote...
As for Bethany's maille "apron" I like it. It protects the most sensitive area on the body, the abdomen. Above it is only the ribcage (and the lungs) which is fairly well protected. But an unfortunate slash across the stomach is a slow death.

I'd argue the level of protection of bones. I mean, if the attack hits bone, it is already a fairly grievous wound, regardless of the zone hit.

Sir JK wrote...
And Varric not using cover. No worries... it's not like bows or crossbows are accurate weapons (which is why they were used massed instead of individually). Then again... everyone do get unlucky once in a while (which is amusingly why people actually took wearing armour seriously: stray arrows.)

You have a point there. However, one of the things we have come to expect of heroic fantasy is that archers have a much higher level of accuracy than the weapons should allow, thus cover again gains relevance.

[Sir JK]

Nightcobra: Fair enough. But my question still stands. She's not a soldier. So why demand her to be armoured when another non.soldier group (the mages) are given a free pass?

Light armours aren't that good in melee anyways. Gambesons (also known as padded jacks) strength lie in being good against arrows, they're not that useful against anything else. Soft leather is useless for armour purposes (both too expensive and protects less than gambesons) unless you lack linen/cotton/silk and hard leather is essentially plate but made out of skin (it's lighter but more expensive).

Modifié par Sir JK, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:16 .

[Sir JK]

Xewaka wrote...
I don't expect Isabela to wear armor at all times. I expect her to wear it when I recruit him to accompany Hawke to a Dungeon crawl or any other situation where head-on combat is to be expected. At the very least, I'd expect her to carry a buckler.

Now you assume we'll be doing dungeon crawls. What if all fights in the game are of the unexpected and/or provoked inside civilisation kind? I'm not saying that's the case mind.

Admitedly, because I expect someone who labels himself as a rogue to be proficient in leather armor. It's more of a mechanical choice than a background one. I still find it believable (if not expected) that an information broker and spy will carry a chain shirt under his loose and concealing coat to avoid "unpleasantness" in negotiations. I'd also expect a pirate to strap a buckler on his non-leading forearm (that, incidentally, is the origin of the term "swashbuckler") for a modicum amount of defense with minimal encumberance.

Are you sure she calls herself a rogue (in that sense of the word) though, and that's not just her class mechanics-wise? She might call herself sailor, pirate, swashbuckler and other. Would that change things? That she doesn't indentify herself with anything that would ever wear armour?

Also, fun fact. You don't strap bucklers to your arm. You hold them in the punchguard. They're not used for passive defence or blocks but for active defence and deflections, just like a offhand weapon would. Anything you can do with a buckler, you can do with a second dagger (differently admittedly, but it's the same idea behind it) and for the most part: vice versa

I'd argue the level of protection of bones. I mean, if the attack hits bone, it is already a fairly grievous wound, regardless of the zone hit.

The bones would break even if she wore armour though. All the armour does it make sure she has a greater chance surviving the hit. It won't stop her from being rendered incapable of continuing the fight.

S
You have a point there. However, one of the things we have come to expect of heroic fantasy is that archers have a much higher level of accuracy than the weapons should allow, thus cover again gains relevance.

True true. I was mostly joking anyways (after all, what is a big shield if not mobile cover?) 

Modifié par Sir JK, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:26 .

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Xewaka: Yes, she is a duelist and thus a melee fighter. But consider that duels aren't something happening spontaneously on the field of battle most of the time. Duels are a highly ritualised, structured form of combat where rules are put in place before the fighting starts (the rules might be: there are no rules though). Even if Isabela is a cheat, that form of fighting is a very specific form. Often occuring in cities and the like due to slighted honour or somesuch. Often to first blood or to death. In either of those, armour isn't very useful (even against armour a strike can draw blood... not to mention that most such duels have an agreement not to use it. In the latter case it really doesn't matter, does it. If you lose you're dead anyways).
Granted, I'm focusing very much on the duelist part there. The pirate part is a profession more reliant on intimidation and trickery than on a fair fight as well.

Armour figure most prominentely or the field of battle (because it's so much going on that it's difficult to keep the defences up against all threats at all times). Incidentally, it's also the last place I'd expect Isabela to be in.
If she's the kind of "fighter" that only fights when she's surprised, the odds are on her side or in duels, why would she wear armour?

As for the mages being untrained in armour. That's a fair point. A very good one. But allow me to use it for a counter. What makes you assume Isabela and Varric are? If they're not used to wearing it, then putting it on in times of danger might affect your fighting ability. Which is really dangerous in melee. If they have years of experience of not using it, would it not be better for them not to put it on at all? Since otherwise they'd have to train to learn to compensate for it?

I'm not saying wearing armour is a bad idea. I'm just questioning the reasoning behind why they "must" wear it.

As for Bethany's maille "apron" I like it. It protects the most sensitive area on the body, the abdomen. Above it is only the ribcage (and the lungs) which is fairly well protected. But an unfortunate slash across the stomach is a slow death.

And Varric not using cover. No worries... it's not like bows or crossbows are accurate weapons (which is why they were used massed instead of individually). Then again... everyone do get unlucky once in a while (which is amusingly why people actually took wearing armour seriously: stray arrows.)

Aermas wrote...
This. Armor is believable, clothing is not, unique armor is okay, only wearing clothing is not

But why is that? What is so wrong with spies and sailors/duelists not wearing armour? Why can our wandering scholars get away with it but noone else (and not even scholars if they happen to be non-mages)? If one party member is a baker by their background, should they be wearing armour too?

So much wrong with this,

1. Wearing armor will not compromise your fighting ability
2.She is not a "duelist" her specialization is titled "Swashbucker" (Though this is a highly in-accurate term for her)
3. She will be getting into large battles, not one-on-one fights & should take countermeasures against it.
4. I see no reason to disallow mages to have armor, barring any kind of hampering to their magic casting ability
5. If they used to be a baker, they are a baker no longer, they are now under my command as they are now my troops, I will not let their ignorance compromise their own life, my life, or anyone else's life.
6. Bows & Crossbows were very accurate, if they were not viably accurate they would not have been used as a weapon. The only reason they are thought to be inaccurate is because when archers were grouped together on the battlefield hundreds of feet from the enemy most archers could not see through the many ranks of soldiers ahead of them. So they developed methods around that fact.

[Aermas]

Sir JK wrote...

Nightcobra: Fair enough. But my question still stands. She's not a soldier. So why demand her to be armoured when another non.soldier group (the mages) are given a free pass?

Light armours aren't that good in melee anyways. Gambesons (also known as padded jacks) strength lie in being good against arrows, they're not that useful against anything else. Soft leather is useless for armour purposes (both too expensive and protects less than gambesons) unless you lack linen/cotton/silk and hard leather is essentially plate but made out of skin (it's lighter but more expensive).

Gamesons are not useful against arrows, a properly shot arrow or bolt can easily pierce plate, Gamesons were used to cushion blows & to turn the cutting power of swords into blunt force, they thought it was better to turn a what could have been longsword's slice into a baseball bat's swing

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

Now you assume we'll be doing dungeon crawls. What if all fights in the game are of the unexpected and/or provoked inside civilisation kind? I'm not saying that's the case mind.

I'd say when I'd expect her to wear armor. An ambush inside city bounds, yes, I wouldn't expect her to carry armor.

Sir JK wrote...
Are you sure she calls herself a rogue (in that sense of the word) though, and that's not just her class mechanics-wise? She might call herself sailor, pirate, swashbuckler and other. Would that change things? That she doesn't indentify herself with anything that would ever wear armour?

Also, fun fact. You don't strap bucklers to your arm. You hold them in the punchguard. They're not used for passive defence or blocks but for active defence and deflections, just like a offhand weapon would. Anything you can do with a buckler, you can do with a second dagger (differently admittedly, but it's the same idea behind it) and for the most part: vice versa

You have a point with the buckler. So I'll attempt another angle. I don't know if you've read Alatriste novels (or "sword and cape" novels in general), but you might notice that people who expect to engage in dueling will carry padded waistcoats, thick gloves, capes, and wide-brimmed hats, all of it designed to entrap an opponent's blade. This is the kind of protection I'd like to see on Isabela (not exactly that armor, as the hats might not be that useful at sea, but I hope I make my point clear). It makes her duelist nature more evident to me.

The bones would break even if she wore armour though. All the armour does it make sure she has a greater chance surviving the hit. It won't stop her from being rendered incapable of continuing the fight.

I disagree. A deep cut is painful, and pain and shock are fightstoppers. Armor can prevent such slashing, and allowing to continue to fight. But we're talking different kinds of wounds here, I think

True true. I was mostly joking anyways (after all, what is a big shield if not mobile cover?) 

It's also a surprisingly effective offensive weapon.

Modifié par Xewaka, 21 novembre 2010 - 01:55 .

[Sir JK]

Aermas:

Wearing armour will not impair you at all once you've gotten used to it, no. And while it is not too difficult to get used to armour, it is still something needed to train in. Just like you'd need to practise if you got a new sword with a different point of balance.

But if Isabela has never worn armour in her life, then putting her in it and then pushing her out in combat will put her at risk. She might not be slower, but she won't be used to carrying all that extra weight and will tire quicker.



True, her new-found title is swashbuckler (it used to be duelist). Most swash bucklers weren't the armour wearing types either though (and yes, I'm aware it's misused due to her lack of buckler).



I define large battles as when armies clash mind. Not the tiny little skirmishes we'll see. In a small skirmish personal skill will matter more than armour. In both battles and skirmishes getting hit at all is a bad idea, regardless of what you're wearing anyways. The only thing armour will allow you is a chance to crawl out alive.



Fair enough about mages wearing armour. But if we allow them to wear armour, is not the next logical step to up all to plate? Since it's superior protection to light armours?



And if they has her entire life of experience fighting non-armoured, is that not something to capitalise on? The fighting style will be different. Is that something you'd just ignore?



Bows and crossbows are not accurate weapons, they can be used by a skilled archers for marksmanship but they are not very accurate. They are too much subjected to wind, the waying of the archer, the lactic acid in his/her arm and even if the ground shook. 40 m is in many military codices considered to be the minimum range for using archers.



Gambesons are fairly good at stopping arrows. They provide a very thick padding (real gambesons are often like 20-30 layers of cloth per inch or more) that soaks up the kinetic energy (to be hit still hurts like hell though, cann definantely break a bone). Kind of like punching into a pillow to use an analogy. They're not too good at stopping a slice or a cut though.

Arrows can penetrate them, yes. That's why they fell out of fashion to plate. But the crusade era is full of stories of Frankish retainers in gambesons that were walking around as living pincushions, the arrows having failed to penetrate the armour (and the turks and arabs weren't using weak bows, those composite things had a draw of 120-140). Completely unharmed. .

[nightcobra]

Sir JK wrote...


True, her new-found title is swashbuckler (it used to be duelist). Most swash bucklers weren't the armour wearing types either though (and yes, I'm aware it's misused due to her lack of buckler).

doesn't mean she isn't a duelist though, according to what we know...isabela's exclusive specialization is the swashbuckler, the duelist specialization could also be there but available to all rogues.

[Sir JK]

Xewaka wrote...
I'd say when I'd expect her to wear armor. An ambush inside city bounds, yes, I wouldn't expect her to carry armor.

Indeed, that might well be the case much of the time. Something we cannot know yet.

You have a point with the buckler. So I'll attempt another angle. I don't know if you've read Alatriste novels (or "sword and cape" novels in general), but you might notice that people who expect to engage in dueling will carry padded waistcoats, thick gloves, capes, and wide-brimmed hats, all of it designed to entrap an opponent's blade. This is the kind of protection I'd like to see on Isabela (not exactly that armor, as the hats might not be that useful at sea, but I hope I make my point clear). It makes her duelist nature more evident to me.

The broadbrimmed hats too? Huh... interesting. But I'd like to point out that at sea you want to be wearing less and not more. You get soaked fairly quickly and anything made out of cloth will be adding a couple of kg to their weight and that's if you don't fall over board. It's one of the primary reasons armour was rare at sea.

I disagree. A deep cut is painful, and pain and shock are fightstoppers. Armor can prevent such slashing, and allowing to continue to fight. But we're talking different kinds of wounds here, I think

Yes, a slash and a cut are unlikely to get throuh good armour (metal that is, light armours won't help much) but the force in them will be carried through and delivered by the armour itself to the bones. Maille will prevent your arm from being cut off, but not prevent the bones in it from breaking. Of course if the blow gets deflected and the force not transfered fully, then the armour probably saved your life. That's a very rare circumstance though and not something non-plate will achieve.

It's also a surprisingly effective offensive weapon.

Indeed. Anyone just using shields defensively misses out on a lot (and probably dies)

[Xewaka]

Sir JK wrote...

The broadbrimmed hats too? Huh... interesting. But I'd like to point out that at sea you want to be wearing less and not more. You get soaked fairly quickly and anything made out of cloth will be adding a couple of kg to their weight and that's if you don't fall over board. It's one of the primary reasons armour was rare at sea.

Yes, the broadbrimmed hats were the closest thing to helmets socially acceptable. And I did say that I didn't want her to carry this exact type of protection, but an equivalent level appropiate to her background.

Yes, a slash and a cut are unlikely to get throuh good armour (metal that is, light armours won't help much) but the force in them will be carried through and delivered by the armour itself to the bones. Maille will prevent your arm from being cut off, but not prevent the bones in it from breaking. Of course if the blow gets deflected and the force not transfered fully, then the armour probably saved your life. That's a very rare circumstance though and not something non-plate will achieve.

I'm not speaking of turning killing blows into nuisances, I'm speaking of avoid glancing blows become crippling. But I can see your argument.

Indeed. Anyone just using shields defensively misses out on a lot (and probably dies)

That why I love how sword&shield warriors worked in DA:O. Compared to most other games, they made a rather effective use of their shields.

[Sir JK]

Xewaka wrote...
Yes, the broadbrimmed hats were the closest thing to helmets socially acceptable.

Interesting. Thank you for telling me that . I had no idea, makes a lot of sense now though

And I did say that I didn't want her to carry this exact type of protection, but an equivalent level appropiate to her background.

Like long boots that can be removed (and stored in her cabin) instead of pants, a decent overcoat for her torso and pieces of jewelry neatly positioned to protect her neck and wrists you mean? .
Isabela's outfit might look out of place on a battlefield but on a boat it makes a whole lot of sense. She's not carrying a thread more than she needs. Which actually is a very good idea at sea due to all the water (which will be constantly spahsing onto deck).

I'm not speaking of turning killing blows into nuisances, I'm speaking of avoid glancing blows become crippling. But I can see your argument.

At a mediveal fair I visited a while back, there was this re-enactor that said: "Unless you're wearing a harness [plate/hard leather] there is no such thing as a glancing blow and even then: armour turning a crippling blow into a glancing one is not luck, the strike still passed five levels of defence". Put things in perspective.

That why I love how sword&shield warriors worked in DA:O. Compared to most other games, they made a rather effective use of their shields.

Yup. First game I ever seen them really used offensively. Next step: moving the shield together with the sword and not independently of it (and definantely not in the opposite direction). But I'm willing to wait for that

[TheOrtReport]

This debate is pretty much a "realism" vs "looking cool" one.

Personally, I say screw realism, I don't care if running around in a regal dress as a warrior would be stupid in real life, as long as it looks friggen sweet doing so.  I play the game for fun, and being decked out in cool looking clothes add to my enjoyment.

I still understand why people want to have realistic looking armor in the game, and I respect their opinions.  I just hate when these discussions turn into, people who don't care about realism = console players/kids/go play final fantasy/downfall of Rpgs.

So yes, OP I do like the idea of fighting in nice looking clothing.

[Xewaka]

TheOrtReport wrote...

This debate is pretty much a "realism" vs "looking cool" one.

Personally, I say screw realism, I don't care if running around in a regal dress as a warrior would be stupid in real life, as long as it looks friggen sweet doing so.  I play the game for fun, and being decked out in cool looking clothes add to my enjoyment.

I still understand why people want to have realistic looking armor in the game, and I respect their opinions.  I just hate when these discussions turn into, people who don't care about realism = console players/kids/go play final fantasy/downfall of Rpgs.

So yes, OP I do like the idea of fighting in nice looking clothing.

The problem is: You can look cool while still being protected. It's not a mutually exclusive thing. But it is being forced on us as such, and it is very frustrating. Why can't I have companions with both fashion and common sense?

[tmp7704]

Sir JK wrote...

Isabela's outfit might look out of place on a battlefield but on a boat it makes a whole lot of sense. She's not carrying a thread more than she needs. Which actually is a very good idea at sea due to all the water (which will be constantly spahsing onto deck).

Which, considering her boat was sunk, and she's spending 10 years of the game on land and frequently fighting people who are supposedly trying to capture her... doesn't make as much sense as it'd seem after all, no?

She's like a guy who comes to office work in fire-fighter gear because he used to work as one few years ago.

Modifié par tmp7704, 21 novembre 2010 - 06:07 .

[Piecake]

I could really care less if they wear 'realistic' armor or not. If we want to go the 'realistic' route then your full plate body armor should turn into a big metal oven when you are hit by a gigantic enemy fireball and you slowly burn to death in horrible agony while the metal fuses to your skin.



Now against lightning bolts you'd have to be a masochist to wear plate because thats just asking to get hit.

[Aermas]

Piecake wrote...

I could really care less if they wear 'realistic' armor or not. If we want to go the 'realistic' route then your full plate body armor should turn into a big metal oven when you are hit by a gigantic enemy fireball and you slowly burn to death in horrible agony while the metal fuses to your skin.

Now against lightning bolts you'd have to be a masochist to wear plate because thats just asking to get hit.

Can you explain the metaphysical properties that would allow such an occurrence?

[Piecake]

Aermas wrote...

Piecake wrote...

I could really care less if they wear 'realistic' armor or not. If we want to go the 'realistic' route then your full plate body armor should turn into a big metal oven when you are hit by a gigantic enemy fireball and you slowly burn to death in horrible agony while the metal fuses to your skin.

Now against lightning bolts you'd have to be a masochist to wear plate because thats just asking to get hit.

Can you explain the metaphysical properties that would allow such an occurrence?

fireball=hot

hot fireball=hot metal

hot metal=painful, burny and possibly melty

[Grand_Commander13]

Gosh, it's too bad there's no way to insulate your skin from the armor... I guess we're just going to have to render ourselves inanely vulnerable to common and still very deadly threats so that the rare fireball doesn't cook us in our uninsulated armor. If only someone would hurry up and invent leather, or cloth...

[Piecake]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Gosh, it's too bad there's no way to insulate your skin from the armor... I guess we're just going to have to render ourselves inanely vulnerable to common and still very deadly threats so that the rare fireball doesn't cook us in our uninsulated armor. If only someone would hurry up and invent leather, or cloth...

Leather would probably work, but then you'd be wearing a full leather body suit, and that just sounds absurd.  But cloth?  If you grab frying pans/open the oven with an extra shirt, then more power to you, but I think any normal person needs something more.  And again, even if that worked, full cloth body suit.  Just odd

So, in conclusion leather>plate, pie>cake, ducks>turtles

Modifié par Piecake, 22 novembre 2010 - 12:15 .

[tmp7704]

Piecake wrote...

fireball=hot

hot fireball=hot metal

hot metal=painful, burny and possibly melty

Something to consider -- it takes a while for high temperature to warm up the metal nevermind melt it. The game fireballs don't last longer than a second, that's not much of heat source to speak of.

Plus, how is that any worse from being hit by the same hot fireball while wearing clothing that will be instead set on fire?

[Grand_Commander13]

tmp7704 wrote...

Something to consider -- it takes a while for high temperature to warm up the metal nevermind melt it. The game fireballs don't last longer than a second, that's not much of heat source to speak of.

Plus, how is that any worse from being hit by the same hot fireball while wearing clothing that will be instead set on fire?

You have to realize you're arguing with pedants who feel clever for pointing out a distinction between "cloth" and the more general "fabric" and who seem to forget that metal is a lot harder to shove a sword through than leather.

Or did I miss the part where the wealthiest of knights adorned themselves in animal skin to protect themselves from lance blows and sword thrusts?

[AnimaTempli101]

Ummm... You can scramble out of them. With Plate you're screwed, all those buckles and straps.

[Aermas]

What do you use to take hot items out of an oven? An oven mitt. What is an oven mitt made of? Cloth

What does every Plate wearing have under their plate? A gameson, which is about 1-2inches thick. Much thicker than an oven mitt,