Feminine clothes and gear?

[⎛⎝ Kupo ⎠⎞]

Is there any?
I prefer to play female characters and also am not a ♥♥♥ when devs just slap male clothing on female characters and call it a day.
I also prefer to play spellcasters as you have more freedom with it there imo, but all that I've seen from screenshots has just been gear and clothing clearly designed for male characters that female characters have to wear too?
I am just tired of bulky leather and shapeless generic medieval armor.
I want some other options if there are any...

Like this is a setting where women are supposed to be normal as adventurers and soldiers etc, and yet it doesn't seem to show at all and usually doesn't in games like these.
As if women had no say in it at all or didn't bling out their clothes and gear the same way that men do.

( Refrain from trolling please, it's a genuine question and my personal preference in games I am not interested in being lectured about it. )

Edit: I NEVER SAID SKIMPY ARMOR I SAID FEMININE.

[Moringa]

Haven't read the whole thread but would like to add a few things about the breast plate discussion for women: While there's some armor designed especially for women (in Asia there was a time period where it wasn't rare to see female soldiers), female armor usually is exactly the same as the male counterpart. There's really no real need to add breast cups.

In the middle ages, women most likely didn't have huge perky breasts. People were generally smaller and working class or soldiers probably didn't have the nutrition from birth. And in the case breasts were really restricting, you could easily keep them in shape with band or a corset or whatever. Given that the overall body frame of women is smaller and breastplates were not designed to be perfect fits for men anyway (at least for the common soldier), most women would probably just be able to wear male armor without any problems resulting from different body shapes.

[UnholyDentist]

Originalmente postado por pandariuskairos:

Originalmente postado por Jaeger Pilot:

It absolutely IS less effective. When you start dividing metal up into various shapes instead of making it into one big shape, the most deflective shape known to man (that can also fit on a chest), basic physics should tell you that it has to be less effective, even if it's just 1% or whatever, when made with the same material and thickness.

I haven't watched the Shad video yet. I will when I have the time, but I can guarantee you already that a lot of people have written long articles debunking most of his points. If not, I will come back and apologize later.

Sigh. It's not less effective.

The reason given for being less effective is that the cups could potentially deflect a strike into the center of the armor. The problem with this is that even IF it does happen then the primary strike is against the cup first which absorbs the majority of the force in the strike and then strikes the center of the breastplate with significantly reduced force. It's a secondary 'glancing' blow a worst, as the cup has already taken the brunt of the hit.

And that doesn't even take into consideration that the center is just as strong as any other part.

A more realistic concern is deflecting a strike upwards into the face - however, I've been watching videos on arrow hits to breastplates recorded with high speed cameras, and this issue isn't solved or made any worse by the presence of breast cups, but rather plate armors would add a "V" of steel below the neck that could catch any strike that angled upwards and deflect them away from the head.

In short, breast cups make no difference one way or another to the protection of the wearer. They don't make plate less effective, and nor do they offer any advantages that merit their use, either.

So, would anyone do it? Well, it depends on whether or not women are the kind of warriors who would decorate their armor that way. We do know, from history, that men absolutely did that sort of thing (there's even a boob plate example - made for a man - from India), with cod pieces, ab armor (ancient Greek) and so on. Men loved recreating anatomy in their armor. But would women do the same? I don't know.

I do know that boob plate is just as effective as any other plate. The addition of boob cups literally makes no difference to the effectiveness of the armor. It's a purely aesthetic consideration.

What me and many others have meant (but you've automatically ignored to process in your brain), is that when the edge of a thrust weapon such as sword or spear is redirected to a concave area such as the side of boobed area on the breastplate, then it will assist the direction of motive force and concentrate it right into that point, this will assist chance of penetration. If this wasn't a concern then engineers and their blacksmith artisans would've never would've designed any armour for deflection. But they sure have, and there were many improvements made over several centuries. Strikes from arrows and two handed thrusting weapons were the main concern, swords were only secondary weapons, and shields were designed against arrows, not melee range weapons, and became obsolete as soon as full plate armour became a standard. On those armours, gaps and concave areas were reduced to minimal as possible for the same reason above. One handed swords really weren't effective against full plate armour at all, the best chance to win was to find a gap around the joints of limbs and attempt to enter that area with the edge of the sword.

I do agree though, it is purely a visual enhancement, and the same goes for actual armour made with visual muscle features integrated into the surface to appear as an actual muscular male torso. However your idea of it being just as effective as a piece of armour designed for medieval warfare, is wrong. Any concave area will assist arrows and thrusts from melee weapons to penetrate with sufficient amount of force. But you and that guy in the linked video, you practice sword play, you aren't trying to kill each other. If you were, like those who actually fought, wouldn't even consider poking each other with one handed swords wearing full plate armour...

[Aesthier]

It's a fantasy game. My suggestion is to find Mods that will add the portions of your fantasy that the game does not.

[ღSnowiiieღ]

❤️

[RealDealBreaker]

Originalmente postado por Thelis:

On thing im sad, NO fantasy game has even tried yet (that i've found at least) is RUNE skin tattoo's as armor.. that way males/females/slugs can show as much skin as they want, but the rune tattoo's act like armor.. so they can swing as free as the day is long.. sadly only game that even came close to this was the shade class, in anarchy online.

Technically not true. In Diablo 3, the early/low tier armors for the chest slot for the barbarian are just war paint. They provide some armor value despite the fact that simply putting pain on ones chest doesn't actually provide protection. So one would have to conclude that the protection provided by the war paint is magical/supernatural in nature. But to your larger point, it would be neat to see magical war paints/tattoos implemented more often into games.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originalmente postado por Jaeger Pilot:

Originalmente postado por pandariuskairos:

D&D used to have size rules. If the armor was too big or too small for you, you couldn't wear it. Maybe it still does, but it doesn't appear to be present in BG3.

I think they removed it for 3.0 or something because it was too much of a hassle, and I agree.

armor size rules remain in 5e as an variant rule: "The cost for such work [modifying clothing, armor] varies from 10 to 40 percent of the market price of the item. The DM can either roll 1d4 x 10 or determine the cost based on the extent of the alterations required." (p. 144 "Variant: Equipment Sizes" box)

edit: admittedly, it isn't much of a rule, but that is the trend in 5e: rulings over rules. Some like it, some want more hard coded rules.

[RealDealBreaker]

Originalmente postado por pandariuskairos:

Originalmente postado por RealDealBreaker:

armor size rules remain in 5e as an variant rule: "The cost for such work [modifying clothing, armor] varies from 10 to 40 percent of the market price of the item. The DM can either roll 1d4 x 10 or determine the cost based on the extent of the alterations required." (p. 144 "Variant: Equipment Sizes" box)

edit: admittedly, it isn't much of a rule, but that is the trend in 5e: rulings over rules. Some like it, some want more hard coded rules.

I don't think players would have an issue so much with the cost (there's so little to spend money on currently anyway), but rather finding an armorer and not being able to immediately equip what you find.

Obviously that depends on how 'tight' the DM is with currency based rewards/loot. By the guidelines/rolling tables in the DMG (that I personally have never used) I believe you are correct that cost isn't an issue.

In the games I run for my friend though the cost can be an issue becasue I don't give out a lot of coins - most humanoid NPC/enemies carry little on and 'hoards' or chests or generic money piles are usually lots of copper and silver, some gold, and if they really take their time and/or search well some platinum and gems. I also play on Fantasy Grounds so we automatically track carry weight so how much they can carry actually matters. "Quest rewards" tend to be small-ish bounties if any currency but tend to be favors/titles especially at later levels, and I also give my players things like fortresses or other home bases to spend money on. This kind of game won't work for every group but I recommend experimenting with these kinds of things especially if you have a regular group and you have good communication so it is easy to find out what is working and what isn't in the quest for the perfect game style for your group.

[UnholyDentist]

Originalmente postado por pandariuskairos:

Originalmente postado por UnholyDentist:

What me and many others have meant (but you've automatically ignored to process in your brain), is that when the edge of a thrust weapon such as sword or spear is redirected to a concave area such as the side of boobed area on the breastplate, then it will assist the direction of motive force and concentrate it right into that point, this will assist chance of penetration. If this wasn't a concern then engineers and their blacksmith artisans would've never would've designed any armour for deflection. But they sure have, and there were many improvements made over several centuries. Strikes from arrows and two handed thrusting weapons were the main concern, swords were only secondary weapons, and shields were designed against arrows, not melee range weapons, and became obsolete as soon as full plate armour became a standard. On those armours, gaps and concave areas were reduced to minimal as possible for the same reason above. One handed swords really weren't effective against full plate armour at all, the best chance to win was to find a gap around the joints of limbs and attempt to enter that area with the edge of the sword.

I do agree though, it is purely a visual enhancement, and the same goes for actual armour made with visual muscle features integrated into the surface to appear as an actual muscular male torso. However your idea of it being just as effective as a piece of armour designed for medieval warfare, is wrong. Any concave area will assist arrows and thrusts from melee weapons to penetrate with sufficient amount of force. But you and that guy in the linked video, you practice sword play, you aren't trying to kill each other. If you were, like those who actually fought, wouldn't even consider poking each other with one handed swords wearing full plate armour...

I've addressed that multiple times and it's also addressed in the first video I posted. This idea is being overblown.

It's not a big issue.

Le me link you to (with time stamp) to the exact place in the video where this is addressed:

https://youtu.be/6KHz0qWQA9I?t=195

There is no scientific proof to any of what that guy talks about, he only applies his own logic to it and makes a video about the subject then also pushes his humour into it to get more views. You haven't processed any of what I wrote, yet another time. There is no point to argue with you, because all you do is click the reply and link Youtube crap with zero argumentative value to the subject. A guy's subjective point of view to deter doubts about pop culture based stuff fashionable in modern media, which is in this case boob plate, does not serve as any proof neither does work as contradiction. The only good point both of you and this Youtube guy have, is that women were barely enlisted or even allowed to participate in war, so they never even had a chance to get, let alone customise their own armour.

However, this whole farce about boob plate and feminine armour is none else but a misconception that arose from modern media desperately trying to integrate more sex into their product, that's why we often encounter females in fantasy or sci-fi games/movies, wearing armour that emphasises their feminine features to visually satisfy a broader audience thus generate more profits.

You can argue about your intellectual nonsense for all I care, I made my point here, and since you don't process anything I say, there is no point to further debate with you.

[Hobocop]

To me, it wouldn't make much sense to invest time and resources on boobplate for armor intended for warfare when a very minor modification of the breastplate at most will do the job.

[Dorok]

The realism aspect is out of topic for the game, it's D&D. D&D has boob armors so BG3 could have them.

For me, boob plate armor or plate armor, I don't care, if I was bored by DOS1 ugly auto censorship on feminized but also suggestive clothes, but it wasn't for plate armors. Boob or not it's tin can and the gender aspect is minimal and not fun. I really wonder how it can be important.

For mages or even leather armors, D&D has cute feminized armor/cloth, that's what Larian shouldn't auto censorship once more. Stop this absurdity, movies and series don't do that crap, Larian shouldn't either, video games never been the cutting edge on that and will never be.

[Hex]

This is the WoTC of 2020, every woman must be dressed like a nun.

Whatever you do, do NOT google "neverwinter nights Aribeth" picture search. In the "current year" we pretend like games in the 90s and early 00s don't exist.

[Egro]

Yup, WoTC go totally woke with a lot cringe ♥♥♥♥ over the year. No wonder no one like 'em any more. At least players and GM can still do whatever they want with their game. Wooo! still can have my naked monk deflecting blades left and right.

[Dorok]

OMG Really? I know already what my main character will be, a Monk godess.

More seriously, so the video games industry wants learn to kids to throw rotten potatoes to women weared with cloths a bit too suggestive?

Thye won't win against movies and series industries, no chance.

[mC]

Well if you are expecting a visually fashion game, maybe you should play another one, or wait for mods.

[JiruoXD]

There will be Mods for all this stuff no matter your taste.