Clothing as hindrance in combat

[Donnadogsoth]

Holy crap this has descended so far into absurdity.

When you get ambushed by gunmen while wearing unoptimal pants, sure. You may be 0.01% more likely to die while running with your pants hitched up than running with normal pants. Of course, your pants have little effect on diving for cover (ie, just leaping from a dead stop) which is the brightest idea, but whatever. Donna lives in a world where people sprint away from bullets as their best bet.

In all instances, your living or dying is in the hands of the shooter that ambushes you. If their gun is already out, halfway aimed, and you stumble into their sight, you are dead. It takes them less time to point in your general direction and start squeezing the trigger than it does for you to shift your entire body mass and put it any sort of significant distance away from where it currently is. So no, the fractions of a second you would get from sprinting are already lost when you reorient your momentum or fight inertia to begin movement. You're dead, kiddo.

The military is pretty explicit about priority 1 being to get into cover, and when ambushed out-of-cover, soldiers die. You can look up videos of military ambushes. Just count how many manage to survive the first few seconds. It will be a very low number. (Except for really big groups, which are their own armor.)

Anything smaller than a 5% difference is not worth modeling in d20, because you overexxagerate.

As for the dress, you need not tear the entire dress apart, which is where you fail to logically process.

Have you ever born witness to a small hole in a garment? Imagine lots of those. That is the most probable result of getting your dress caught in a bramble bush. NOT ending up naked.

I have gotten myself caught on doorknobs before (I happen to be just the right height) and except for jeans, this results in a torn pocket and a slight stumble when I move at a walking pace. Same general principle applies.

I'm not saying that the clothing has 0 consequence in either situation. (Which you could realize by...reading what I wrote.) But what I HAVE been saying is that the penalties are TOO SMALL to render in the d20 system with any sort of accuracy, meaning they would have to be inflated. Meaning that your PCs have competence removed from them in order to support your "super kewl idea." Which you can do, sure. It's stupid, but you can do it.

cf. post above.

[Keltest]

One could run full tilt in panic into the arms of a bramble.

ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Knee-crotch pants are stupid for a variety of reasons. Their infinitesimally diminished running speed when you pull them up to where they should be is not one of them. Soldiers would want both hands free, not because it increases their running speed, but because hands are useful things, and soldiers benefit from having them.

[Vinyadan]

ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?

She brambled into them.

[ImNotTrevor]

One could run full tilt in panic into the arms of a bramble.

Yes, one could. Unless they fall full-body into the brambles, they can pull free pretty easily. Once they are full-body in the brambles...the dress just makes an already really bad problem a worse problem. But even a guy in armor will have a bad time getting out of a bush he fell into, brambles or otherwise.

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Strawman Fallacy.
No one is arguing that these are the optimal pants for the situation.

And, the pants prevent the use of hands. Which are very needed for things like Shooting, Throwing grenades, and etc. But crotchwaist paints will allow you to run one-handed.

That, and you're throwing away the points I made in favor of making me defend one I didn't make. Shame shame.

[Vinyadan]

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Strawman Fallacy.

Never heard of him.

[ImNotTrevor]

Never heard of him.

He looks like this:


He's famous for mocking his opponents for using really stupid strategies they didn't actually use.

[Donnadogsoth]

Yes, one could. Unless they fall full-body into the brambles, they can pull free pretty easily. Once they are full-body in the brambles...the dress just makes an already really bad problem a worse problem. But even a guy in armor will have a bad time getting out of a bush he fell into, brambles or otherwise.

Really, it would take no less time to free oneself from a belle dress in a bramble than if one were wearing leather armour? You've tested this?

Strawman Fallacy.
No one is arguing that these are the optimal pants for the situation.

And, the pants prevent the use of hands. Which are very needed for things like Shooting, Throwing grenades, and etc. But crotchwaist paints will allow you to run one-handed.

That, and you're throwing away the points I made in favor of making me defend one I didn't make. Shame shame.

You've tested this with crotch-waist pants that they allow running just as fast as with regular pants?

And if we pit a regular soldier against his twin in crotch-knee pants, and tell them to maneuver a broken field as fast as possible, over the distance of a mile, they'll both arrive at the finish line at the same time?

[Donnadogsoth]

ooo, are dire brambles invisible now? Or perhaps she ran off a ledge into one?

Or at night.

Knee-crotch pants are stupid for a variety of reasons. Their infinitesimally diminished running speed when you pull them up to where they should be is not one of them. Soldiers would want both hands free, not because it increases their running speed, but because hands are useful things, and soldiers benefit from having them.

cf. post above.

[ImNotTrevor]

Really, it would take no less time to free oneself from a belle dress in a bramble than if one were wearing leather armour? You've tested this?

Ooooh so NOW you want things to be tested for accuracy rather than just what makes sense now that it goes AGAINST your opinion. Mk. That explains a lot.

Also, leather armor won't be punctured by a bramble bush, so it won't get caught at all. The difference between the two is EXISTANT but NOT SUFFICIENTLY LARGE to merit an entire rulesystem for clothing hindrances. Remember, your original proposition to show the necessity of this rule was that robes are flowy. After this was disproven and several other things, your argument is currently that these rules are necessary in case someone in a flowy dress ends up stuck in a bramble bush. Do you see why I now find this absurd?

You've tested this with crotch-waist pants that they allow running just as fast as with regular pants?

And if we pit a regular soldier against his twin in crotch-knee pants, and tell them to maneuver a broken field as fast as possible, over the distance of a mile, they'll both arrive at the finish line at the same time?

The above? Yeah, though not officially. I can sprint about as fast in either case. I'm not particularly fast to begin with, though. And as I said before (and you ignored) I was able to play a dancing game that requires rapid, accurate leg movements in baggy, sagging pants and flip-flops without a noticeable dip in skill.

The below? Maybe. But now we're getting even more ridiculous to find a difference.

Let me put it in all-caps because you seem to be bad at finding it when I keep saying it.

DIFFERENCES DO INDEED EXIST, AND THE CLOTHING NOTED MAY INDEED HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. HOWEVER, THIS IMPACT IS TOO SMALL TO RENDER WITHIN A D20 SYSTEM WITHOUT OVERINFLATING AND/OR OVERSIMPLIFYING THE PENALTY, THUS UNDOING THE ATTEMPT AT "REALISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE BY MAKING THE PENALTY NOT REALISTIC.

STOP. READ THE ABOVE AGAIN.

Ok. Do you get it NOW?

[goto124]

One complaint I have about web sites like: http://bikiniarmorbattledamage.tumblr.com/ is that they almost seem to have a double standard against showing skin. They poo-poo any fantasy outfit that is impractically skimpy, but heap praise on female armor that is too bulky, covered in spikes, too thick to move, has shoulder pads too large to actually lift your arms, blinding helmets, or long flowing capes.

The logic is that they're on equal terms with the male characters, who do have that sort of unrealistic armor as you described.

We're fighting for gender-equal unrealism!

Because this is fantasy, unrealism is part and parcel of the genre. Just that it has to be balanced with suspension of disbelief, and sticking to your own rules that you made up in your own world (if less cloth = greater freedom of movement, why don't the men do that too?).

That's my thoughts anyway. Many of those websites tend to be overly obssessed with 'realism', when we're actually more concerned with verisimilitude.

They also seem to make the argument that an ideal combatant is covered in head to toe in thick slabs of shapeless metal, and anyone else is just asking to be killed, which seems really weird as in a lot of genres have people of both genders engage in melee combat wearing completely non sexualized clothing with no protective value whatsoever (like say your standard Wuxia or Steampunk).

I wasn't trying to be that exact, was just looking for an attractive female who was wearing a dress and holding a chalice instead of a weapon and that was the best I could find.

Also, man most of those dresses are ugly. They may be historically accurate, but I think you could find a happy medium between realism and attractive, something like a girl would wear at a ren-fair or something that a fair / princess would wear in a fantasy movie.

I agree with the rest of your post though. It's why we have a Dungeons & Dreamboats thread - finding good art is hard.

[neonchameleon]

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Given that military uniforms are a modern thing? May not be their choice.

But if you want a military commander who would agree to impractical equipment I'm going to point at the F-35. Or for clothing The Wehrmacht's clothing was pretty awful. And then there's the whole issue with one-size-fits-all camouflage that can't hide in any terrain.

Asking to name a military commander who'd do certain things is a silly question.

[Donnadogsoth]

Ooooh so NOW you want things to be tested for accuracy rather than just what makes sense now that it goes AGAINST your opinion. Mk. That explains a lot.

Also, leather armor won't be punctured by a bramble bush, so it won't get caught at all. The difference between the two is EXISTANT but NOT SUFFICIENTLY LARGE to merit an entire rulesystem for clothing hindrances. Remember, your original proposition to show the necessity of this rule was that robes are flowy. After this was disproven and several other things, your argument is currently that these rules are necessary in case someone in a flowy dress ends up stuck in a bramble bush. Do you see why I now find this absurd?

So you haven't tested it, I haven't tested it, so if I rule that a dress will take a few seconds to rip free of a bramble more than leather armour will, you can't gainsay that.

The above? Yeah, though not officially. I can sprint about as fast in either case. I'm not particularly fast to begin with, though. And as I said before (and you ignored) I was able to play a dancing game that requires rapid, accurate leg movements in baggy, sagging pants and flip-flops without a noticeable dip in skill.

The below? Maybe. But now we're getting even more ridiculous to find a difference.

Let me put it in all-caps because you seem to be bad at finding it when I keep saying it.

DIFFERENCES DO INDEED EXIST, AND THE CLOTHING NOTED MAY INDEED HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. HOWEVER, THIS IMPACT IS TOO SMALL TO RENDER WITHIN A D20 SYSTEM WITHOUT OVERINFLATING AND/OR OVERSIMPLIFYING THE PENALTY, THUS UNDOING THE ATTEMPT AT "REALISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE BY MAKING THE PENALTY NOT REALISTIC.

STOP. READ THE ABOVE AGAIN.

Ok. Do you get it NOW?

I'll grant you the dancing functions, but I'm still not sure about running. You've run in baggy pants but as baggy as I've been describing? And how long did it take to hitch them up? And I'm especially not sure about the practicality of such pants in military conditions. And how about performing a Y-kick in such pants? You know, a kick to an opponent's head.

[Donnadogsoth]

Given that military uniforms are a modern thing? May not be their choice.

But if you want a military commander who would agree to impractical equipment I'm going to point at the F-35. Or for clothing The Wehrmacht's clothing was pretty awful. And then there's the whole issue with one-size-fits-all camouflage that can't hide in any terrain.

Asking to name a military commander who'd do certain things is a silly question.

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

[Keltest]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

Are you familiar with the armor check penalty? Restricted movement like that is already taken into account in 3.5, at least.

[neonchameleon]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

Not in D20. You might if you were using d1000s. There is no basic task that you are going to fail one time in 20 because of that clothing. And it's unrealistic in d20 to apply penalties for anything less serious than that. As well as being bad game design.

As for the camo example, that's an example of not getting a bonus.

Edit: The Armour Check Penalty in d20 is ridiculously punishing and is bad game design. (And people still wear heavy armour in d20 because it provides bonusses). The closer a load is to your body the easier it is to carry - and there is no more form fitting armour ever made than a good suit of gothic plate, and it's designed with maximising your mobility in mind. Therefore the armour check penalties for any armour should almost without exception* be lower than the encumberance penalties for wearing a backpack of that weight. Swimming in plate armour is not recommended - but it's easier than swimming carrying just about any other 50lb weight that isn't bouyant. And it's certainly easier to cartwheel or walk across a tightrope wearing plate than carrying the same weight.

* Jousting plate was the armour people needed cranes to get on horses with. It was strictly sports-based armour and not worn to go to war because that would be silly.

[Vinyadan]

Do you give mali for wearing a thick winter jacket?

[Knaight]

Therefore the armour check penalties for any armour should almost without exception* be lower than the encumberance penalties for wearing a backpack of that weight. Swimming in plate armour is not recommended - but it's easier than swimming carrying just about any other 50lb weight that isn't bouyant. And it's certainly easier to cartwheel or walk across a tightrope wearing plate than carrying the same weight.

* Jousting plate was the armour people needed cranes to get on horses with. It was strictly sports-based armour and not worn to go to war because that would be silly.

I wouldn't make an exception even for the heavier jousting specific plates (and the ubiquity of cranes in jousting is ridiculously exaggerated). If the armor is heavy enough that you need a crane to get up on a horse, then a comparable backpack is really going to suck. The only exception that would make sense is localized armor check penalties involving leg armor and leg movement, as a heavy backpack legitimately isn't worse there than armor on the legs - there's a reason that infantry plate often had the back of legs unprotected, whereas cavalry would load up on the heavier armor.

[Satinavian]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

No.
Partly because the argument against the uniform boils down to "to elaborate and expensive for simple infantry uniforms" and "backpacks are better than a belt".
Partly because a -1 would be far too much for a bad uniform.

[Herabec]

Don't really have anything to add to this discussion...

Just wanted to thank you all for an incredibly entertaining read to go along with my breakfast.

Also, why does this place smell like a den of trolls? *sniff* In fact, this entire topic smells like troll.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

(@ the "low pants" discussion)

In 5e you can interact with any 1 object as part of your move action. If a gangster wants to pull up his pants, that's how long it takes, plus he only has one hand free while running. The southern belle? That's how fast she can tear her dress, if she makes the strength check. (Failure makes it a full round action.)

If you're in situations where the PC's are wearing outfits even they consider ridiculous, work with whatever system you're using. If they want cool robes, a cape or spikes on their armor just give the realism a rest. They can ones a day end the universe at will, I'm sure they're wearing the enchanted robes of not getting underfoot.

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you familiar with the armor check penalty? Restricted movement like that is already taken into account in 3.5, at least.

No. I have 1st ed around somewhere. Is it in there? I don't remember seeing it in the DMG.

[Vinyadan]

No. I have 1st ed around somewhere. Is it in there? I don't remember seeing it in the DMG.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm

[Âmesang]

Armor Check Penalty: Player's Handbook, p.122

Carrying Capacity: Player's Handbook, p.161

EDIT: Ninja'd by typing one-fingered on a tablet at a slow fast-food Wi-Fi.

[ImNotTrevor]

So you haven't tested it, I haven't tested it, so if I rule that a dress will take a few seconds to rip free of a bramble more than leather armour will, you can't gainsay that.

What if it is a STR 24 Epic Level Barbarian raging in a dress? Would it still take several seconds for this person to rip free?

The entire situation is incredibly contextual and is solved in 3.5 with a Strength Check as the standard action and then a move action. Less Movement than a double-move, but meh. It has been modelled and a penalty isn't part of it. Also a flat penalty says "This cloth is sufficiently powerful that it can negatively affect even you, Dragon Disguised As A Princess." Even if the effect is negligible, the thought of a STR 40 character being forced to expend any sort of legitimate effort to extricate themselves (or even being hindered at all) is laughable. Flat Penalties deny Fictional Positioning.

I'll grant you the dancing functions, but I'm still not sure about running. You've run in baggy pants but as baggy as I've been describing? And how long did it take to hitch them up? And I'm especially not sure about the practicality of such pants in military conditions. And how about performing a Y-kick in such pants? You know, a kick to an opponent's head.

I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

As has been said multiple times, no one is arguing that the pants are practical. They aren't.

However, by the same token, the problems presented have quick fixes sufficient to nullify the 5% penalty.

To give my ACTUAL recommendation for how to handle clothes penalties? Because I do have one. A legit one.

Just use whatever already exists, and draw attention to the specifics based on the results.

"You're stuck in a bramble bush, roll a strength check"
[Player fails the roll]
"Alright, your clothes are caught, and you stumble as you try to rip yourself free."

The clothes have consequence, and cause problems. But we retain complete narrative flexibility to handle all of the fine details of the situation without just throwing in a flat penalty to every physical activity. (Depending on how caught you are, you may not be hindered at all in doing certain tasks, like firing a hand crossbow.)

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

[Donnadogsoth]

What if it is a STR 24 Epic Level Barbarian raging in a dress? Would it still take several seconds for this person to rip free?

The entire situation is incredibly contextual and is solved in 3.5 with a Strength Check as the standard action and then a move action. Less Movement than a double-move, but meh. It has been modelled and a penalty isn't part of it. Also a flat penalty says "This cloth is sufficiently powerful that it can negatively affect even you, Dragon Disguised As A Princess." Even if the effect is negligible, the thought of a STR 40 character being forced to expend any sort of legitimate effort to extricate themselves (or even being hindered at all) is laughable. Flat Penalties deny Fictional Positioning.



I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

As has been said multiple times, no one is arguing that the pants are practical. They aren't.

However, by the same token, the problems presented have quick fixes sufficient to nullify the 5% penalty.

To give my ACTUAL recommendation for how to handle clothes penalties? Because I do have one. A legit one.

Just use whatever already exists, and draw attention to the specifics based on the results.

"You're stuck in a bramble bush, roll a strength check"
[Player fails the roll]
"Alright, your clothes are caught, and you stumble as you try to rip yourself free."

The clothes have consequence, and cause problems. But we retain complete narrative flexibility to handle all of the fine details of the situation without just throwing in a flat penalty to every physical activity. (Depending on how caught you are, you may not be hindered at all in doing certain tasks, like firing a hand crossbow.)

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

That all seems fair. Thank you for convincing me.

[ImNotTrevor]

That all seems fair. Thank you for convincing me.

No problem, broski.

[Tiktakkat]

I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

While I do not support the concept of going overboard with rules for clothing, as someone who could kick to the head, and had issues with pants binding at the wrong moment during a kick, I must note that your analysis is incorrect on two points.

First, when clothing binds like that, you are typically unaware that it is going to bind until it actually does, at which point it is too late to adjust it before it has a negative effect. Your leg (or arm; or whatever else) has already been brought up short, hindering whatever it is you were trying to do. And such restricted motion is more than sufficient to prevent an effective defense or ruin an effective attack, even in amounts measured in fractions of an inch.

Second, 1 second is an absurdly long time in that kind of combat situation. It is more than enough of a delay for a strike to get through an attempted defense, or to allow a person to evade and counter.

Fighting your clothes is not something you want to be doing when someone is trying to hurt you.

[ImNotTrevor]

While I do not support the concept of going overboard with rules for clothing, as someone who could kick to the head, and had issues with pants binding at the wrong moment during a kick, I must note that your analysis is incorrect on two points.

First, when clothing binds like that, you are typically unaware that it is going to bind until it actually does, at which point it is too late to adjust it before it has a negative effect. Your leg (or arm; or whatever else) has already been brought up short, hindering whatever it is you were trying to do. And such restricted motion is more than sufficient to prevent an effective defense or ruin an effective attack, even in amounts measured in fractions of an inch.

Second, 1 second is an absurdly long time in that kind of combat situation. It is more than enough of a delay for a strike to get through an attempted defense, or to allow a person to evade and counter.

Fighting your clothes is not something you want to be doing when someone is trying to hurt you.

Your first example isn't part of the situation presented, nor does it argue against any points I've actually made. You can hitch up your pants and run. That's it.

For the second, you missed the "or less" on the end there. "1 second or less" is different from 1 second. And reorienting your momentum to break into a sudden sprint can be done while grabbing your pants and pulling upwards. It is amazing, but people CAN do 2 things at the same time without their brains violently exiting the skull.

In the situation presented, Pants McCrotchwaist is suddenly getting shot at. So I dealt with THAT scenario. Not a kung-fu fight in gangster pants. Which is part of why I said that such things are too contextual to boil down to a simple flat penalty. In the specific instance you're presenting, sure. You can attribute misses to clothes issues. But a flat penalty is not going to accurately represent the problem in any way.

[VoxRationis]

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

Perhaps a solution that actually takes the clothing into account as more than a post facto explanation for something that would have happened without it.

[Keltest]

Perhaps a solution that actually takes the clothing into account as more than a post facto explanation for something that would have happened without it.

As a general rule, anything like that is either taken into account with the existing armor check penalties and max dex bonuses, or would be identified and corrected prior to being taken out into the field by adventurers. Unlike, say, soldiers, adventurers generally have the luxury of taking the time to personalize their armor/clothes and make sure it fits comfortably and doesn't get in the way.