Just noticed that u can enchant clothing!

[mrmonocle]

Not only it looks much cooler on a wizard, clothing's got no recovery penalties and is better than any robe in that respect. My wizard armor of choice is set.

[Havelok]

I just hope there is a decent variety of clothing -- I don't want no stinky armor, though the Hide Armor looks really cool for once (lots of feathers!)

[Heijoushin]

How does the enhancting actually work? Do you need to gather reagents? Pay lots of gold? Level up some ability?

 

That sounds interesting though!

Edited March 11, 2015 by Heijoushin

[mrmonocle]

[mrmonocle]

How does the enhancting actually work? Do you need to gather reagents? Pay lots of gold? Level up some ability?

 

That sounds interesting though!

It works just as with normal armor.

[Osvir]

How does the enhancting actually work? Do you need to gather reagents? Pay lots of gold? Level up some ability?

 

Reagents/Ingredients+copper. You right-click the item for the description, and then there's an "Enchant" button at the bottom. You can enchant anywhere as long as you have the items and money.

 

I believe you can only enchant Torso, Weapon, and Shield. Maybe helmets too? (If there are generic boots & belts & gloves, with no stats like in Baldur's Gate II, there might be enchanting to them as well).

Edited March 11, 2015 by Osvir

[wanderon]

It will be interesting to see how easy or difficult gathering enchanting materials is in the full game as opposed to the BB where we get a fairly large supply in the BB crews inventory as the game starts.

 

Has anyone determined the number of enchantments that can be added to a single weapon or other item? Can you upgrade lower level enchantments to higher level later without issue from already reaching whatever limit there may or may not be?

 

Maybe I should go play with this now... 

[Luckmann]

Yes you can.

 

I'm mildly annoyed at the fact that if you are going what amounts to armour-less, robes are for some reason just very-light-armour, while clothes are not-armour. If you wear robes already, you're doing so because you want as low of a penalty to your recovery/action speed as possible. At this point, you're unfortunately better off either naked, or dressing in "clothes" rather than "robes".

Thematically, I really can't see the difference between "clothes" and "robes", but from a min-maxing perspective, if we ignore potential "special" robes (of which we have no concrete knowledge), robes are inferior to clothes.

I'd really prefer it if robes were simply "downgraded" to "clothes" or vice versa. Why would a piece of cloth shaped like a bathrobe be so functionally different from cloth shaped like a shirt?

 

Edit: That said, holy **** Dyrwood clothing looks amazing. Vailian looks appropriately like a court jester.

 

Edit 2: ...I wonder if it would be feasible to go for a armour-less Paladin duelist, one-handing a rapier... should I try?

Edited March 11, 2015 by Luckmann

[Veevoir]

Because, unlike any other clothes, robes give you special powers!

 

.. or maybe not.

Agreed on the point that robes should be clothes as well. Sure they are "wizard clothes", but still clothes, not armor.

[Osvir]

I got a Monk Concept/Idea :D

 

Shirtless, pants-only, armor/torso wear?



Maybe for expansion...? Or maybe even... Monk tattoo's, Fist/Torso/Head Enchantments/Talents?

In a similar way like Godlikes can't wear any helmets, perhaps there could be Monk "permanent Talents" or Enchantments that take up an Equipment Slot? (I.E. Taking "Head Tattoo" makes the Monk unable to wear any headwear, and taking "Torso Tattoo" makes the Monk unable to wear any armor etc.).

[Luckmann]

Because, unlike any other clothes, robes give you special powers!

 

[...]

 

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, dude.

[Quetzalcoatl]

Thematically, I really can't see the difference between "clothes" and "robes", but from a min-maxing perspective, if we ignore potential "special" robes (of which we have no concrete knowledge), robes are inferior to clothes.

Robes offer a small amount of protection, regular clothing doesn't. That's an obvious difference.

 

[Luckmann]

 

Thematically, I really can't see the difference between "clothes" and "robes", but from a min-maxing perspective, if we ignore potential "special" robes (of which we have no concrete knowledge), robes are inferior to clothes.

 

Robes offer a small amount of protection, regular clothing doesn't. That's an obvious difference.

 

 

Yes, mechanically, that's the problem. Hence why I commented on the thematic nature, and why I said that robes should be downgraded to be "clothes" or vice versa (i.e. "clothes" should be comparable to "robes".

 

The differentiation is ridiculous, especially when we're talking about levels of protection that doesn't mechanically matter.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Luckmann

[wanderon]

Well the obvious answer is robes are constructed as a form of armor and unenchanted clothes are not perhaps there is a tailor somewhere that can make you an unenchanted robe if you really must have one.

 

I for one would not want to have to enchant a robe in order for it to have any armor function at all nor would I want all clothes to automatically have armor enchantments. 

 

As it stands it's another armor option and I see it as a good thing.

[Luckmann]

Well the obvious answer is robes are constructed as a form of armor and unenchanted clothes are not perhaps there is a tailor somewhere that can make you an unenchanted robe if you really must have one.

 

I for one would not want to have to enchant a robe in order for it to have any armor function at all nor would I want all clothes to automatically have armor enchantments. 

 

As it stands it's another armor option and I see it as a good thing.

 

How, and why? Why would you construct robes as a form of armour, yet use no leather or metal in it's construction? How would you even start sewing a robe "as a form of armour"? I'm genuinely curious here, because I'm not sure where to even begin over the large amount of "wat?" going through my head.

 

Robes and clothing can be equally enchanted, by the way, although it is entirely possible (likely, even) that there's select apparel of the robe variety in the game that has unique enchants or something to that effect. I'd be surprised if there wasn't several "unique" robes, so to say. I doubt that the same attention has been paid to "regular" clothing.

 

And while you personally wouldn't want to enchant a robe yourself to have any armour at all, I don't think most would want to gimp themselves like that, at least not once they've learned the rules (I suspect most will stick to Robes either because they specifically want robes, and feel like the trade-off is worth it just so they can look the way they want, or because they have yet to learn that it's a trap choice).

 

Personal tastes like that can't really be accounted for, but I think it's sad that people should be punished just because they want to wear a set of robes instead of walking around naked or with basic "clothes". There's no thematic or mechanical reason I can think of where it would make sense (thematic) or be beneficial (mechanical) to wear robes over clothes, currently.

 

You say it's another armour option and that therefore it's inherently a good thing. But more isn't always better, far from it. It's like making a distinction between the clothes a farmer wears to that which a noble wears, and therefore, on principle, it'd be a good thing, whether it makes sense thematically or not, whether it contributes a meaningful option to your choice of armour or not. It really wouldn't. And it really doesn't.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Luckmann

[Falkon Swiftblade]

can you change dye color of the clothes, those examples above are fantabulous

[wanderon]

I suspect they included the ability to enchant "clothes" specifically to give people an option to wandering around naked and thus being unable to have any enchantments at all in order to eliminate the recovery penalty in armor.

 

(And the fact that it was just going to be so apparent that traveling naked was an exploit of the system because no adventurer would ever logically do such a thing they they felt a way was needed to eliminate it without penalty.) 

 

As to why you have no problem with that scenario (adventuring naked) and yet can't fathom how robes and clothes can be different in armor class is beyond me (other than the whole I want what I want when I want it syndrome.)

 

The fact that they have decided to add a level of armor that can be enchanted without a recovery penalty is in my opinion no reason to change the current status of robes to match it as robes are in fact quite fine as they are and there have got to many more productive things to be done 2 weeks before release.

[Luckmann]

[...]

 

As to why you have no problem with that scenario (adventuring naked) and yet can't fathom how robes and clothes can be different in armor class is beyond me (other than the whole I want what I want when I want it syndrome.)

 

[...]

 

I have no idea what you're even trying to say, whether it's just nonsense or a blatant strawman. I'm going to go with the guess of a (bad) strawman.

[wanderon]

In a nutshell - I think it's fine if robes are different than common clothes.

[Luckmann]

In a nutshell - I think it's fine if robes are different than common clothes.

 

I think we all already understood that, it doesn't mean you have to create poorly constructed strawmen instead of actual arguments.

 

Thematically and mechanically, the separation between robes and "clothes" makes no sense, nor does it serve a meaningful thematic or mechanical purpose.

[tdphys]

If you limit "robes" to mean tough body length outer-garment, like these guys:

 

 

 

then I could see it being a step up from clothes.   If you're talking about a flimsy night-garment "robe", then, yeah sure call it clothes.

[wanderon]

 

In a nutshell - I think it's fine if robes are different than common clothes.

 

I think we all already understood that, it doesn't mean you have to create poorly constructed strawmen instead of actual arguments.

 

Thematically and mechanically, the separation between robes and "clothes" makes no sense, nor does it serve a meaningful thematic or mechanical purpose.

 

 

Sigh - I think you already understand exactly what I am saying but I will spell it out for you once more since I have nothing better to do at the moment:

 

1) I think the reason clothes that can be enchanted have been added is to do away with the whole naked adventuring BS.

 

2) robes already existed with a minimal DR and weapon recovery penalty

 

3) (new option AFAIK) - Clothes have no DR nor penalty but can be enchanted (at a cost)

 

This gives you two separate choices - robes with a DR and penalty prior to spending any additional cost enchanting them or clothes without both which can be enchanted at a cost but (as far as we know) will never have a penalty.

 

I see nothing wrong with these choices and see no need to change robes from what they are now to make them the same as the new item that's been added -

 

the concept that robes all have both DR and penalty and clothes don't is no more ridiculous than naked adventuring in the first place (see #1) this "fix" is a way to mostly eliminate it by giving people a NEW non-penalty option that looks even cooler than the robes to begin with and certainly looks better than naked adventurers - (and will play out much better in guides etc than the naked adventurer as an option) without having to waste time and resources remaking every robe in the game and they opened another option by being able to add some already enchanted clothing if they wish.

 

It ain't rocket science it's just adding a new option and retaining the old robe and it's fine by me.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

So I'm not in BB, when you enchant clothes, is it possible at all to do so in a way I could actually create at least 1 party member to play without armor successfully, or is kinda gimmicky RP thing's that add a point of something here and there for like lore or something? Could I create something like immune to fire damage, and can I enchant things like cloaks too?

[Voss]

 

It ain't rocket science it's just adding a new option and retaining the old robe and it's fine by me.

 

Apparently it is, because you've completely missed the points

 

1) Having a wizard put on a robe shouldn't be a punishment for the wizard

2) Some people want robes to be functional rather than bad, even if only for costume variety.

3) Robes are not any more restrictive and confining than several other outfits of the same period, nor do they use thread any more capable of turning sword blades than anything else.

4) The armor system is borked to the point that only specific character builds should bother with any sort of armor at all, and everyone else should lounge around in casual clothing, or be naked. Which given the setting and historical parallels, isn't as ridiculous as you seem to think it is.

 

 

So I'm not in BB, when you enchant clothes, is it possible at all to do so in a way I could actually create at least 1 party member to play without armor successfully, or is kinda gimmicky RP thing's that add a point of something here and there for like lore or something? Could I create something like immune to fire damage, and can I enchant things like cloaks too?

 

Currently you're better off with most of the party without armor.  The recovery multiplier is ridiculously awful, and the amount of DT is poor.

Edited March 13, 2015 by Voss

[Falkon Swiftblade]

Awesome, since I actually would prefer to play without armor, and only periodically use it in the latter part of the game. Or, it would be cool to equip both clothes and armor and dictate which is viewable on the toon.