Armor designs for females?

[Deophaun]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, chainmail bikinis are out

Apparently because they're too covering.

Spoiler

Show

[goto124]

I knew I should've added an extra note for exceptions. I went back to edit the post.

When I said 'chainmail bikini', I was thinking of this.

Spoiler: These are acceptable

Show

[Deophaun]

Well, at least she doesn't have a pair of anvils welded to her shoulders, so I think hers is still more practical.

[2D8HP]

....When I said 'chainmail bikini'...

I didn't read all of the pages, but I'm pretty sure that last time "chainmail bikinis" were discussed someone referenced:

Spoiler: Orks in bikinis

Show

and who am I to defy tradition?

[goto124]

Those aren't chainmail bikinis! They're just regular bikinis!

Oglaf delivers.

[Anonymouswizard]

Since it's fantasy, armor on female characters should be just as unrealistic as armor on male characters.

By this metric, if a female character's coworker is wearing full plate she should not be wearing a chainmail bikini, but spikes of villainy, horns on helmets, and tge dozen other unrealistic things that male characters also suffer from are perfectly fine.

Now I want to see a chainmail bikini with spikes of villainy...

The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

Eh, if a female PC wants to walk around with their chest uncovered in my games, that's generally fine. I mean, not while in a city or most towns, but it really does depend on the area, and once you're outside of the city most people will be fine with that. I still recommend keeping them under control when fighting, but as a man I'm nowhere near an expert on that topic.

I think for me the acceptability of armour design comes down to three things: time period, is it low or high fantasy, and what is the other gender wearing. If men are running around in loincloths or leaving their chests exposed the same is fine for women, and this is more acceptable in a high magic game than a low magic one.

(I've designed female characters who wear everything from sensible plate to a skirt and nothing else [although she was a mage], I've got no problem with revealing armour as long as the torso is covered because it would be a bit hypocritical)

[Dragonexx]

With magical armor, I've more ruled that matters more is the enchantment, over the actual armor itself. So, you can totally run around in nonsensical sexy armor like below provided it's magical. Doesn't matter one way or the other what the opposite gender is doing. Style is style and I like my characters to be aesthetically pleasing.

Spoiler: Full Plate Baby!

Show

Of course what I should start posting in these threads is this.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

[Anonymouswizard]

Spoiler: Full Plate Baby!

Show

Please, that's like quarter-plate at most!

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

This is true. If the entire group is fine with full plate consisting of two cups and a thong then who am I to argue? Meanwhile, if the group tells me that my leather armour has to cover my chest to get AC bonuses, I should probably concede.

Obligatory OotS reference.

[EccentricCircle]

Given the layers of padding and chainmail that have to be worn under a suit of full plate armour, the shape of the metal bit on the outside doesn't really reflect the shape of the person bit on the inside at all.
No matter how busty someone is they aren't going to need a bump on the outside of their breast plate, but that doesn't mean that they won't put a bump there for fashions sake.

[goto124]

Meanwhile, if the group tells me that my leather armour has to cover my chest to get AC bonuses, I should probably concede.

In such a group, there had better be Dex or Cha bonuses for not covering up. Female or otherwise :D

but that doesn't mean that they won't put a bump there for fashions sake.

Agreed. Males also get abs on their armor for no reason other than to look impressive. There're even real-life examples.

[Satinavian]

Agreed. Males also get abs on their armor for no reason other than to look impressive. There're even real-life examples.

But not for full plate.

While armor is often very ornamental and where muscle cuirasses exist, a boob plate has its place, societies that were advanced enough to really forge full plates with working joints everywhere had long figured out the optimal design for the torso plate to deflect blows and provide the most stability.

Neither white armor nor Gothic armor is ever seen with modeled abs. The even better known Maximilian armor doesn't feature it either.




So while i don't have a problem with boob plate at all, the general armor and tech level has to fit it.

[goto124]

Does that extend to absplate? I've always advocated for gender-equal unrealism.

[CharonsHelper]

A girl in my college group joked that her armor looked like the worst sorts of female fantasy armor, but it really protected everything. Females just all get their armor glamoured for free to look like that to distract male foes.

[goto124]

I should look for art of a warrior in full plate, but with skin badly painted on the armor. Like the armor version of body shirts, or whatever they're called.

[Airk]

I should look for art of a warrior in full plate, but with skin badly painted on the armor. Like the armor version of body shirts, or whatever they're called.

Let's not forget stuff like this.

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

[Mechalich]

Let's not forget stuff like this.

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

Early editions of D&D retained the physical ability score limits for female characters, so there was a significant mechanical reason why female martials would not be abundant.

[1337 b4k4]

Let's not forget stuff like this.

But the way early editions worked was women didn't wear armor. :P Early editions of D&D portrayed women adventurers rarely, and when they did, they were usually wizard types. The exception that I can recall is, oddly, is the cleric in the old Mentzer red box starting adventure, who wore reasonably covering (if still strangely skin tight) chainmail.

There's actually a decent bit of women in armor in early D&D artwork. Everyone remembers the sexy sorceresses, but the adventurers tended to at least be wearing ranger gear. To be sure, there's a lot less of them than men, but it's not quite a TnA fest that it's sometimes portrayed as either. Some examples:

Spoiler

Show

https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/148592467259
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/147596853377
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/146556123392
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/145259366322
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144349278835
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144251517880
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144201890056
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/144150722933
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/141260463812
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/141094613413
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/140975482492
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/140804678493
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/139606203121
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/134468340597
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/122947807272
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/118210358127
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/97065979922
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/94735313191
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/90263933675
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/146899046788
https://classicdndartwork.tumblr.com/post/145757999087

Good bit of boob plate still, but looking at the limitations of some of that artwork, I wonder if the use of that wasn't at least partially about coding the character as a woman rather than the default assumption of a man. And let's not forget what I consider to be the quintessential picture of a D&D adventuring party:

http://www.larryelmore.com/store/DRA...nd-proud-of-it

[CrackedChair]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.

[2D8HP]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.

Oh, aren't you a naughty one.

I suspect that your looking less for "armor", than for such "gems" as "The Amazon" from the original 1974 rules, and of course the "Succubus", and the DEMON Type V (Marilith, etc.) from page 19 of the 1977 Monster Manual, which don't however hold a candle to the divinities of the 1980 Deities & Demi-Gods tome, such as on pages 24, 36, 50, 52, 60, 64, 69 ("Why, how now, Hecate! You look angerly"),76, 78, 89, 95, 110 126, etc. which inspired a lifelong interest in mythology, in me when I was 12.

Get your own dang copy.

[CrackedChair]

Oh, aren't you a naughty one.

I suspect that your looking less for "armor", than for such "gems" as "The Amazon" from the original 1974 rules, and of course the "Succubus", and the DEMON Type V (Marilith, etc.) from page 19 of the 1977 Monster Manual, which don't however hold a candle to the divinities of the 1980 Deities & Demi-Gods tome, such as on pages 24, 36, 50, 52, 60, 64, 69 ("Why, how now, Hecate! You look angerly"),76, 78, 89, 95, 110 126, etc. which inspired a lifelong interest in mythology, in me when I was 12.

Get your own dang copy.

Haha, thanks but no thanks. Tis just a weird thought after my sister made a comment about armor in fantasy and how she imagined fantasy writers making it look like.

[1337 b4k4]

Well shoot. I thought D&D was a bit more lecherous in the early years when it came to armor for females, but it looks like it's not too extreme.

Oh for sure there was leching to be found, the monsters notably. Larry Elmore, the artist behind that dragon hunters party made plenty of shapely women in shapely poses or "completely impractical fantasy armor" art (like so http://www.larryelmore.com/store/CAYL/caylinns-journey and this one isn't even the most risqué), but he had a good bit of completely respectable, non-exploitive artwork, and it's a shame that a lot of that get's lost when the discussion focuses on the bad stuff that came out of the early D&D years. BTW if you can't tell I really enjoy Elmore's work and if you're not familiar with his work you're missing out even if he loves drawing the cheese cake as much as he draws the good stuff.

[Jay R]

In original D&D, the problem was solved very simply.The warrior class was named "Fighting Man".

[Satinavian]

Does that extend to absplate? I've always advocated for gender-equal unrealism.

Obviously yes. Boobplate and absplate are basically the same. Same tech level, same drawbacks, same vanity. Ignoring cultural reasons, either both should exist or neither.

Which means, absplate as part of sophisticated fullplate is as stupid as boobplate as part of sophisticated fullplate. But if your inspiration is more 6th century than 16th, both are reasonable while probably rare (most famous cultures would prefer chain).

[War_lord]

Sexy armor in fantasy is just the dumbest trend. If I wanted to see sexy people in various states of nakedness, I have the internet. If you include that kind of crap in your product as a creator, all it does is kill any qand all respect I might otherwise hold for you.

[1337 b4k4]

Sexy armor in fantasy is just the dumbest trend. If I wanted to see sexy people in various states of nakedness, I have the internet. If you include that kind of crap in your product as a creator, all it does is kill any qand all respect I might otherwise hold for you.

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

[War_lord]

It's fantasy. Being a sexy shoeless god of war has been a part of fantasy since the days of the Greeks. See also James Bond and any of the avengers. Not at all saying that TTRPG art needs to be just this side of a porn mag, (see my reference above for my image of a D&D party) but I'm not keen on this neo-puritan streak that seems to be the other side of the pendulum. Like most things in life, the key is moderation.

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

[Anonymouswizard]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor.

Are you telling me that my long haired, lithe, male half elf Barbarian clad in a tailcoat is doing it wrong? I mean, he blocks attacks with his class rather than his muscles, doesn't have enough of those to spare, but I like to think he's warrioring right.

Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

Yeah, where's the hot men in skimpy armour? Sure, we get the occasional barbarian and gladiator, but the chainmail speedo doesn't seem to have taken off anywhere near as much as it's counterpart.

(No, I am never going to apologise for being bisexual)

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

Completely true. I mean, I wouldn't mind if those out of armour had differences in clothing while still showing approximately the same amount of skin while those in armour are dressed almost identically, but it's the fact that we have to go 'yes, we do want sensible warrior woman' so loud that's annoying.

Of course, I've accepted form hugging chain and leather as a sacrifice for some artists wanting to make the gender of their characters clear, but I'm only okay with it when the chest is still fully covered.

[Max_Killjoy]

Maybe I'm just too much of a snarky curmudgeon, but whenever I look at some of the armor that female characters have been tarted up in, I think the only fantasy that it could titillate would be snuff -- because those women are going to get themselves killed.

[Satinavian]

Except the problem is that this particular "fantasy" isn't for the people it's depicting. Male warriors are always depicted as scarred muscular badasses, attired in suitably martial armor. Meanwhile you get female "warriors" with perfect hair and makeup prancing around in things like chainmail bikinis and boobplates with no backing that no woman going into battle or on an adventure would ever chose to wear. It's male fantasy, and more importantly it's a way of watering down female characters who could be powerful by presenting them as objects for cheap gratification.

But it is not "always". It is "occasionally" at best. (At least if you avoid Asian MMOs and deviantart)

5e should be praised for very consciously bucking the trend. But it's a pity that in 2017 it's something that has to be lauded, instead of just being the norm.

The majority of fantasy RPG systems has had reasonable female armor illustrations for decades. D&D5 should not be praised for finally, at last doing the very same thing. It is good that they do. But it is hardly "bucking the trend". The only trend it goes against is its own history. 3.x was... mixed at best and 4E went for more fantastical, more edgy to get attention with new customers. I like the 5E art as contrast. Reminds me of other games i have played a lot in the 90s and 00s.

[Floret]

The problem there is that trying to dress a female in the same thing that male barbarians or gladiators typically wear would get the game banned in a heartbeat.

In America, maybe. In Germany, Dark Eye (At least in 4th and a bit in 5th edition) has been doing exactly that.
To be quite honest, the barbarian woman in nothing but the kilt looks way more fitting next to her male counterparts than any attempt of a bra ever could... But that might be personal taste ;)