Spiritofpower

No, I agree; There should be size difference because, well, there's size difference. I may have misinterpreted you as saying we needed something besides the armor being properly sized. And I probably could've phrased that better... We don't need any other distinction besides armor size because of the armor decoration idea brought up by Diagoras (I don't want to keep mentioning it again and again and again, but it is a really good, really simple idea that solves all the problems distinguishing between party members in homogenous armor). The armor should, of course, be adjusted to fit the being in question, but that's all. And said adjusting really doesn't qualify as an entirely separate breastplate, at least in my book. ...On a slightly different subject, though, what about Godlikes? I mean, there's a difference between resizing an armor and full-on putting holes in the thing to accommodate horns. I also remember hearing that Godlikes could have wings, which would obviously require a radically altered backplate. And then there's the concept art of a godlike with his head on fire, which I imagine would make it rather hard to wear a hat made out of regular, flammable materials.

The concept art is exactly what I meant by "properly fitting the armor"; though one might argue that the waist is unrealistically narrow comparative to the legs, as she appears to be wearing a heavily modified metal corset. I'd like it if Obsidian removed that. And why does the armor need to be like that anyway? It's not as if you, the player, will be ridiculed for accidentally mistaking a girl in plate for a guy. And I have no problem with straying from realism - as long as there is sufficient reason to do so. Deliberately adding elements to armor for the sole purpose of distinguishing between male and female when there are other, better ways to do it without said elements is not sufficient reason. Edit: Oh, and let me make this clear: I'm fine with the current concept art. I would be satisfied with it if it didn't change. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved and that doesn't mean I can't point out what parts I'd prefer be changed.

I think we can all agree that, aside from properly fitting the armor to the person in question, there would be few, if any, differences between male and female plate armor. Keep in mind, plate exists not to absorb blows, but to deflect them. Sufficiently high-quality plate armor is shaped such that it can deflect practically any blow from practically any angle, with the only real weakness being the eye-slits and possibly the breathing holes, which really aren't much of a weakness at all. Modifying the armor's shape (such as adding boobs to it) would only compromise this goal. So in short, a female breastplate should look basically identical to a male one, albeit fitted to a female character, from a realism perspective. And from the perspective of telling party members apart, the tabard/armor paint/other decoration idea brought up by Diagoras fills this role perfectly well, and makes sense in-universe. I think that basically covers everything this topic was originally made to determine. If I'm wrong on any points, or if anyone has any legitimate objections to these proposals, please tell me.

Simple, effective, makes sense... I like it. There could be a system where, depending on what armor they're wearing, you could choose to, say, add custom-designed (think the emblem designing in Halo and the like; You can choose a symbol, background, and various colors) insignia to their armor, have them wear custom-colored tabards (possibly with aforementioned insignia on them), paint their armor... The question is, should this be a free process you can do on the fly, or will you need to go to specialty armor decoration shops to add stuff like this? The first is more convenient, but the second is more immersive and realistic.

I figured as much, but I'd honestly rather restate what's already been said than not say it at all. Hey, complaining about bikini armor is fine, especially if they present it as being just as effective as full friggin' plate. I'd just like the option to dress up my characters in fanservice-y outfits if I'm willing to deal with the impracticality of them as armor (assuming I don't just put them in said impractical-yet-good-looking gear only when in town or something). Now, for the point about having to invest skill in armor; Yes, it is certainly possible Obsidian will do that. And if they do? Great. Excellent. I am perfectly satisfied. But I'd still like some form of armoring for mages that's independent of actual armor, so that the ones running around in robes and such can take a hit or two. Not saying they should tank hits or anything, but they should at least have some form of protection against damage. And besides that, I don't think armor actually had a whole lot of skill to it in real life; I think it was mostly just conditioning so you wouldn't die of exhaustion/heat in the middle of battle. Of course I'm not sure on this, not having actually worn armor, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone even imply you need specialized training in order to protect yourself with armor. But again, I wouldn't know. However, does a spell-effectiveness reduction when wearing armor make sense? I mean, how I understand it, mages (in this game at least) use incantations to bend arcane forces to their will in order to achieve an effect. Why would wearing armor impede this in any way? I can understand plate impeding movement and general motion, because it did (though not by very much), but why would it impede magic? I mean, if the armor reduces the effectiveness of spellcasting, it should, logically, reduce the effectiveness of incoming spells, right? Anyways, that aside, you do have a point. If Obsidian does it like that, there doesn't need to be a balancing mechanic for armor vs. no armor for mages. Excellent. I've been keeping up with the updates, but I didn't quite remember if Obsidian said anything on this matter so I figured it'd be better to err on the side of caution. Certain classes having special abilities and an affinity for certain skills is just fine.

Personally, I think PE should go with some form of magical defense; Say, a "Magic Armor" perk or skill or whatever that you can level up, and has some form of advantage to people who don't wear armor (like, your spells get a 15% bonus or something. Nothing OP, but some form of balanced incentive to make going around without armor worth your while). What I'm basically saying here is that, if you want to dress up your party in a strange and eclectic mix of plate, chainmail, and lingerie, you should be able to do so; provided you're willing to deal with the consequences (i.e. not having any armoring, or less armoring, or getting fined for indecent exposure depending on local laws). And I'm also saying mages should have some form of balanced incentive to forgo armor, otherwise you're just gonna slap some plate on everyone except the rogue and be on your merry way, and the stereotypical robed wizard will become an impractical concept. And please, PLEASE don't give us D&D's "Wait, you're a rogue? And, what's that -- you want to pick up the anti-undead artifact sword your fighter was holding and take out that last zombie lord because he got killed? Too bad, you're a rogue and are therefore physically incapable of wielding it in any capacity under any circumstances," crap. If I want to stuff my wizard in plate with a sword I should be able to, but I don't expect him to be able to use it very well, at least at first. I guess what I'm saying is I'd like a system similar to Morrowind's; you have certain classes, and they are good at certain things, but there is nothing preventing you from grabbing that awesome sword you just found and using it, even if you don't specialize in it. Just don't expect to be able to use it well for quite a while. Actually, I think this point could use some more elaboration, so I'll start off with what a 'class' is, and sort of go from there. A 'class', as I define it, is a character background which defines what they have been trained to do; For example, a wizard knows how to cast spells reasonably well because they've been taught to do so. A fighter has been trained in the use of weapons and armor, and is thus capable of using them effectively. In short, a class defines what a character can do at the beginning of the game, because pre-game that's what they've been doing. So what I'm trying to say is, just because I have been trained how to make fireballs rain from the heavens, doesn't mean I can't learn how to use a sword. I may need lots of experience and use of the sword to be able to use it well, and that would, of course, keep me from learning magic quite as quickly, but I should still be able to start learning if I want to. Heck, maybe even get as good as a fighter eventually, though that would take a rather negligent fighter and a very dedicated swordsmage (assuming the fighter is leveling alongside me). Similarly, just because I know the best way to swing an axe such that your head will suffer a slight case of severing, doesn't mean I can't learn how to shoot lightning from my fingers. It may take a long while until I can do it well enough for it to be of any real use, but there shouldn't be anything explicitly preventing me from learning how if I want to. ...Wow, that's a long rant. Anyways, all that up there is, obviously, just my opinion. I would absolutely love it if PE ended up being like that, but it may not, I don't know. I'd just like to get that out there. ...And, something just occurred to me; If you've got, like, a rogue trying to learn spellcasting, and a wizard in your party, I can totally see the wizard giving the rogue a few pointers to get him started. Like a system where the more experienced members of your party can teach the less-experienced members, if the newbie wants to learn a skill the more-experienced guy is good at.

Ooh, very nice. I'd like to see armor like that in PE, possibly as the sort of stuff you see end-game and on royalty and the like. Though I personally find the codpieces a bit overdone. Heh, I'm fine with an armor coated in acid-etched gold, but put a large codpiece on it and suddenly I think it looks ridiculous... Anyways, I now have some more pictures, this time of the ancient Greek Xiphos: Really difficult to find pictures of these. Also note that when you search you find lots of stuff which doesn't match the main descriptors of Xiphoi according to my research, which is that they have a leaf-shaped, double-edged blade, widest approximately two-thirds of the way down, coming to a point. I'd really like to see some of these in PE.

Eeeee, not using very properly, I'd say. That edge on edge contact is hurting my soul. I'm not really convinced blocking with the flat was how they did it, but I'm not going to argue the point here. I assume that that one was perhaps an exhibition shot by a photographer who thought edge-on-edge looked better, and insisted they do it like that. I mainly chose it because it looked good and illustrated the arming sword's size rather well. I've found that all across the internet intelligent people will insist repeatedly that blocking edge-on-edge is an absolutely terrible idea, but then they also say Anyways, this time I give you one of the ever-popular Asian swords; the Jian! Expecting katana? Too bad, jian time. And if you're wondering, yes, the last two are the same sword. Also, it was way easier to find these than it was to find decent arming sword and flammenschwert pics. Freakin' overhyped Asian swords...

I think this thread has a very noticeable deficiency in terms of weapon pictures. Thus, I come bearing a remedy for this problem! Namely, the arming sword: Actual museum piece here; it's the long one on the far right: Here's a couple of guys using these: And these are several pictures of a modern reproduction: And these are pictures of a different type of sword, the "flame-bladed sword" otherwise known as the flambard, flammard, or flammenschwert.

For my first post (and contribution to this thread, and hopefully PE in general) I give you , or more specifically his videos about various historical weapons and armor, and how often popular media gets it horribly, terribly wrong on oh-so-many levels. A few of the more interesting/relevant ones: