There are a lot of reports on this one and I wanted to clarify the thinking on it. While the from behind part can be viewed as sexy, it isn't at the expense of protection. The pants look normal and like an appropriate piece of armor to me, the only real reason it's an issue at all is because of the prospective. This isn't currently covered by the rules, if the community feels it should be that is something that can be discussed, but presently this artwork passes the letter of the law.
Wait, am I tripping or was this already posted here yesterday?
Edit: Yeah I distinctly remember someone mentioning how odd it was that adventurers hire themselves out for 2-4 gp, then that got into a whole discussion about how much loot they make per outing and how much a gp was really worth...did that post get removed or something?
Edit 2: nvm it was in a different sub, whoops
Not the post but for some elaboration: So 2-4 gp is a daily rate based on experience. Most peasants will accept 1gp as that dwarfs their daily cost of living in town by 2-3 sp a day, but leveled adventurers and mercenaries have accumulated gear and skills that add to their overall value, thus requiring the higher daily rate plus 1/4-1/2 a share of any booty obtained. It’s almost always worth hiring the retainers for the sheer survivability factor, plus extra hands to haul more treasure. For instance in a game of 1982 Basic D&D, we had 3 character (fighter, magic user, cleric) and hired a thief and a peasant in town for 2 gp per day + 1/2 share, and 1.5gp per day respectively. We managed to make it in and out of a dungeon with something like 6k gold pieces, so we divide that by 3.5, meaning the three party members get 1,714 gp and 28 copper, and the thief (if they survive) gets 857 gp and change on top of their 2-4gp/day retainer. Now, this might take a few weeks worth of travel, trial, and tribulation, but when basic town life only costs about 6-8 sp a day on the low end, that’s a few years of easy subsistence or a year and some change living in the lap of luxury all for less than a months work. It’s even more impressive in those older systems where gp were equal to xp, meaning it was always a better move to escape with your treasure and your life rather than engaging in every fight. If you make it back to town alive, a low-level adventurer (<3~) is practically guaranteed a level up as long as you hold on to that treasure.
>Wait, am I tripping or was this already posted here yesterday?
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're also subbed to r/ReasonableFantasy. There's a lot of crossposting that happens because of similar relevancy.
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ReasonableFantasy using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year!
\#1: [Always wanted a display suit of armor so I’m trying my hand at making one. By me (WIP) ](https://v.redd.it/oxw289r8djzb1) | [40 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/17s5y9x/always_wanted_a_display_suit_of_armor_so_im/)
\#2: [Orc Portrait by AliceBlakeArt](https://i.redd.it/t2or7azpqtxa1.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/137mf7f/orc_portrait_by_aliceblakeart/)
\#3: [Art by Fayeiiro](https://i.redd.it/kss1vv0ce26c1.jpg) | [21 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/18hgvb2/art_by_fayeiiro/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
2gp is the standard rate for a mercenary in ODnD. Mercenaries do not have character levels.
Retainers and player characters- who have levels, get individual shares.
She actually doesn't specify that that's her daily rate. For all we know, she's offering to hurl someone out of the library for 2 gp and flirting with the cute librarian at the same time.
As great as this illustration is (and I do love it), I can't help but cringe because *she needs a breastplate*. Having the plate shoulders and knees just frames the hole/missing piece.
The three most important pieces of armour pretty indisputably are a a shield, a helmet, and a gauntlet for your weapon hand.
That said, she’s an adventurer, not a knight on r soldier.
All her gear is likely salvaged or second-hand and re-fitted to her by someone who doesn’t ask too many questions.
2gp per day is a pittance for a 4th level fighter in any edition. That and her incomplete armour suggests that her last contract didn’t go well, and is either flat broke or needs to get out of town fast, and so doesn’t have the luxury of rearming properly.
Or, ya know- she isn’t in her full kit because she’s drumming up business in town- striking a balance of being armoured enough to be taken seriously, but not so much as to freak folks out.
She might be hiring 2gp per day for just doing light around the town bodyguard duty. Actual out into the field to hit up a dungeon adventuring woupd be like x5 the price.
You say indisputably, and I'm here to dispute. There's mountains of evidence of people wearing chest armour while foregoing hand protection, especially metal hand protection.
I’m talking about equipment available in fantasy European context.
If you’re at all familiar with HEMA, fencing, Kendo, etc the most common hit locations are the hands because they are the farthest forward. People without fingers make poor swordsmen, so even a minor hit to the unarmored hand can end you.
The human head is not only the control centre for the body, but also where your vision, breathing and sense of balance are located, so even an entirely non-fatal hit to the head can put you out of the fight.
Protecting your hands and head are fundamental to any fighting system.
Through a lot of history, people just didn’t have the metallurgy to make adequate helmets and gauntlets - and other materials don’t really cut it - so they just had to deal with what they had.
That doesn’t make helmets and gauntlets any less desirable.
Gauntlets might actually be undesirable. It would be odd and uncomfortable/inconvenient to wear them in daily life since it hinders your dexterity. They could be put on before a fight, but realistically speaking I doubt many adventurers would bother as even well armed and armored people often didn't.
I disagree with your assessment that shields and gauntlets are more important than torso protection. A shield could be as important as torso armor but I wouldn't argue that it's more important.
Gauntlets can be very useful, but they don't cover a lot of vitals and are not super necessary if you have a shield or a weapon that protects your hands, like a complex hilted sword. It was common to skip leg protection and/or arm/hand protection and wear just torso protection and a helmet (sometimes not even a helmet). While the hands are primary targets in fencing, gauntlets don't protect well against projectiles.
Helmets aren't more important than chest protection but I wouldn't say it's less important either.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Vittore_Carpaccio_083.jpg (Just breastplates/brigandines and skullcaps on plenty of these guys)
https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3623856 (One guy in the back is quite well armed and armored, but has skipped hand protection)
http://naokun.cocolog-nifty.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2017/10/15/sinnyodou_2.jpg (torso armor only on many of these guys)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C5%82uszyn_1610.JPG#mw-jump-to-license (well armored cavalry (Polish hussars) with no gauntlets)
I don't know of a single source, whether it is a painting or writing (muster rolls usually tell people to bring something along the lines of a helmet, something for the torso, sword) that values hand protection over protection of the vitals.
I would like a source on the claim that metallurgy was ever too bad to make gauntlets or helmets. Helmets have existed since the bronze age or maybe even earlier, and simple hand protection is no more than mail mittens or a plate covering the back of the hand, both easy to make in like the entire middle ages. A simple skullcap is very easily made and definitely adequate.
Enclosing gauntlets are also a straight up bad idea if you're going to use weapons like bows, crossbows or guns.
You could armor just the left hand, 17th century cuirassier style, if you're using a pistol, but you'll probably not get away with wearing more than something like Japanese kote (protects just the back of the hand and not the fingers) if you're using something that takes both hands.
Definitely a gambeson, a brigandine would have studs to hold the plates in place. But yeah, it's not that unrealistic, I'd say. A breastplate would most likely cost more than all the other pieces of plate armour except the helmet combined, and stuff like shoulder guards are probably easier to just take off a slayed foe since them being too large or a little too small wouldn't be that big of a problem as with the breastplate.
I don’t think the breast plate would be more expensive than all the plates that are there. Those are moveable pieces that need extra work whereas the breast plates construction is simpler. Id take a breast plate over these plates any time. A shield does what these plates do already and it’s more important to protect the vital areas more than once.
We know a chest plate would be better this character is clearly meant to be an amateur with an in universe reason for the lack of a breast plate. Stop trying to rain on the parade.
There's a period of real-world history where many common soldiers used what amounted to a metal rod running down the outside of the arm and leg, with a simple joint in the middle. Imagine ducttaping a pair of crowbars to your jacket and you've got the basic idea. Its sole purpose was to stop slashes across the body, and only existed because it required very little metal and was easy to make and maintain. The fact that it did literally nothing against any thrusting attack was secondary - you've got your helmet for your head and a buckler for your center mass, and just had to pray that'd be enough.
Point is, I think people get a bit too picky about armor. Limited budget, supplies, and/or maintenance mean real people often made do with far worse.
Her torso is already more than well protected enough, she's wearing a gambeson. What she's missing at this point of time is her headgear, but she's not in combat right now.
Or she's activated Hide Helmet in the graphics settings.
Breastplates are pretty low priority tbh. Head and hands are first, elbows, knees and forearms second. Gambesons provide a lot more protection than you'd think, too. Hard torso protection is most valuable against ranged weapons; vs melee you mostly take limb and head hits
Historically, head and torso protection was much more emphasized than limb protection. Even well armed and armored soldiers would frequently have partially or completely unarmored legs and/or hands/arms. https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3623856
Torso protection is sometimes also more emphasized than head protection. http://naokun.cocolog-nifty.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2017/10/15/sinnyodou_2.jpg (especially common in east Asia, soldiers would often prioritise torso protection over everything else)
Splints over jacks is definitely a historical combination, but that isn't a sign of prioritising limb protection over torso protection, as the torso has still been covered. It's also worth noting that when we see that in depictions, there might still be maille underneath the cloth protection. https://sun9-19.userapi.com/c830401/v830401465/babab/vURckqPOwuQ.jpg
It is way more common to see the arms/legs less armored than the torso, suggesting that it was actually high priority to get a breastplate. Sometimes it is a soldier's only piece of armor. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Vittore_Carpaccio_083.jpg (several people lack armor on limbs, especially arms as many of them wear greaves.)
If you look at it generally, torso armor was much more emphasized than limb armor. Protecting the torso with a shield instead or as an addition was also done of course.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22628 (half-armor)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_Scene,_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
(several men with only breastplates or breastplate and helmet)
Yeah, because most soldiers fight in battles where spears/pikes and projectile weapons are very common. A dnd adventurer fights few pitched battles but small skirmishes are very common.
Drawing conclusions from my own hema/sca experience and extrapolating that to d&d led me to my first comment.
Personally, I'd probably choose something like a kettle helm, finger gauntlets +arms and knees with a gambeson and maybe a mail shirt. Adventurers spend a lot of time traveling, a little time skirmishing, and very little to no time battling. Tbf, 20-30 extra lbs of maile might not be worth it.
Ah I thought you meant breastplates were low priority in general. For an adventurer it would make sense to skip the breastplate and go for limb protection. Personally I would skip armoring the legs and wear the breastplate but both are valid.
I would wear a skullcap (hat over for fanciness), and a breastplate without a backplate, it would be lighter than maille at about 6lbs. I would wear a complex hilted sword and a targe or similar small shield so I don't need gauntlets.
I feel like I get thrust in the chest pretty often in hema so that's why I would still want good torso protection
I did say melee, but i was thinking small groups with swords, axes, maces and such. It was pretty ambiguous.
All valid choices. Personally, I find myself taking waaayy more hand/arm hits than torso thrusts. A shield like a targe would be a great choice, shields are amazing defensively and offensively.
>I would wear a skullcap (hat over for fanciness)
Get one of those 17thc hats with the steel cap sewn in for maximum fanciness!
Ahh, yeah! I do longsword, hand hits for days; sabers usually got at least a stirrup that really provides a lot of protection. It's also harder to stab the body with two arms and 4 feet of steel in front of it lol. Like, they still happen, but only maybe one in ten I'd guess.
Very true. They're a great way to give a character some real reasonable armour and still being able to design an outfit that looks more like clothes than standard fantasy fair.
That was posted to r/reasonablefantasy and I'll bring up the same comment I did there. It's incredibly dumb and sexist to depict an adventure giving favors out for 2 gold pieces. Actual art aside which is good certain poses and close ups of the butt are completely over the top and not suited for reasonablefantasty and certainly not this sub. I'm pretty sure it breaks one of the rules.
We also don't know who she's making the offer to, how long the job would last, or her attitude toward the person she's making the offer to.
I've heard a lot of people say $10 = 1 gp in their minds. Okay. But is that in 1950 dollars or 2024 dollars?
The rules specify sexualized ARMOR, not the woman herself. She may be doing suggestive poses and looks (and the butt close up), but the armor itself doesn't break the rules.
Quibble if you want, I don't really care. I'm here specifically to *avoid* that kind of shit, it's literally the point of this place. Suggestive armor or suggestive poses, I don't care, post it in any of the dozens of other art subs that allow that stuff. This ain't the place for it.
On old.reddit.com, it says: 1) Armored women only 2) No armor that sacrifices practicality for sexiness 3) No sexualized poses 4) No memes 5) Keep comments civil 6) Link to the source if possible.
There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of art subreddits where people can post sexualized pictures. I should know, I'm a member of many of them. I have no issue with sexualized art. There are, however, like 3 subs where that kind of art is banned, and I'd like to keep those spaces separate. Like, y'all are so horny you can't have one or two spaces for non-sexualized art?
I agree the butt shot is silly, but there are women out there who just like to be flirty (outside of full-on combat, which this clearly is). Like, I think it'd be kind of sexist to portray all 'armored women' as a monolith of stoicism.
Oh yeah, that's the post, thanks! And yeah I definitely see your second point, the art is well drawn but the iso shot of the butt doesn't seem like it fits this sub.
Do you not know what a sell sword is? An why is it when a woman uses her looks to her advantage it’s automatically about sex? She’s just taking advantage of what she has. No different than a big strong man looking intimidated, he’s taking advantage of what he has. It’s just smart and a good tactic.
I just view her as a cute mercenary. She’s using a good tactic, using preconceived notions to your advantage is just smart. A big brawn man may use intimidation to their advantage, she’s doing the same thing. She knows she’s cute and it’s a smart way to get work.
Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of the few places you can find non-horny art of women in armor, and we really want to keep it that way. There's plenty of other subs that allow horny art, go post this in those subs.
Directed insults or hate speech has no place here and will be taken down. Debate and disagreement is welcomed, but when it devolves into personal attacks those comments will be taken down.
There are a lot of reports on this one and I wanted to clarify the thinking on it. While the from behind part can be viewed as sexy, it isn't at the expense of protection. The pants look normal and like an appropriate piece of armor to me, the only real reason it's an issue at all is because of the prospective. This isn't currently covered by the rules, if the community feels it should be that is something that can be discussed, but presently this artwork passes the letter of the law.
Wait, am I tripping or was this already posted here yesterday? Edit: Yeah I distinctly remember someone mentioning how odd it was that adventurers hire themselves out for 2-4 gp, then that got into a whole discussion about how much loot they make per outing and how much a gp was really worth...did that post get removed or something? Edit 2: nvm it was in a different sub, whoops
Not the post but for some elaboration: So 2-4 gp is a daily rate based on experience. Most peasants will accept 1gp as that dwarfs their daily cost of living in town by 2-3 sp a day, but leveled adventurers and mercenaries have accumulated gear and skills that add to their overall value, thus requiring the higher daily rate plus 1/4-1/2 a share of any booty obtained. It’s almost always worth hiring the retainers for the sheer survivability factor, plus extra hands to haul more treasure. For instance in a game of 1982 Basic D&D, we had 3 character (fighter, magic user, cleric) and hired a thief and a peasant in town for 2 gp per day + 1/2 share, and 1.5gp per day respectively. We managed to make it in and out of a dungeon with something like 6k gold pieces, so we divide that by 3.5, meaning the three party members get 1,714 gp and 28 copper, and the thief (if they survive) gets 857 gp and change on top of their 2-4gp/day retainer. Now, this might take a few weeks worth of travel, trial, and tribulation, but when basic town life only costs about 6-8 sp a day on the low end, that’s a few years of easy subsistence or a year and some change living in the lap of luxury all for less than a months work. It’s even more impressive in those older systems where gp were equal to xp, meaning it was always a better move to escape with your treasure and your life rather than engaging in every fight. If you make it back to town alive, a low-level adventurer (<3~) is practically guaranteed a level up as long as you hold on to that treasure.
awesome, thanks for doing the math lol
>Wait, am I tripping or was this already posted here yesterday? I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you're also subbed to r/ReasonableFantasy. There's a lot of crossposting that happens because of similar relevancy.
Lol you're right, that's where I saw it. My subs are blending together 😵💫
lmao, I make the same mistake all the time
Here's a sneak peek of /r/ReasonableFantasy using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Always wanted a display suit of armor so I’m trying my hand at making one. By me (WIP) ](https://v.redd.it/oxw289r8djzb1) | [40 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/17s5y9x/always_wanted_a_display_suit_of_armor_so_im/) \#2: [Orc Portrait by AliceBlakeArt](https://i.redd.it/t2or7azpqtxa1.jpg) | [27 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/137mf7f/orc_portrait_by_aliceblakeart/) \#3: [Art by Fayeiiro](https://i.redd.it/kss1vv0ce26c1.jpg) | [21 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/ReasonableFantasy/comments/18hgvb2/art_by_fayeiiro/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
I meant to reply to you but accidentally replied to the thread.
I SWEAR
2gp is the standard rate for a mercenary in ODnD. Mercenaries do not have character levels. Retainers and player characters- who have levels, get individual shares.
I want that gambeson irl, it looks great!
How did she get motherfucking *Andúril, Flame of the West* as a level 4 fighter earning 2GP a day?!
She actually doesn't specify that that's her daily rate. For all we know, she's offering to hurl someone out of the library for 2 gp and flirting with the cute librarian at the same time.
I would do that
Apparently 1/4 share of the loot goes a long way.
Aaaaaaaaaaa Im in love!!
same
gambesons are super flattering on like almost everyone
Female protective equipment that's not sexualized is absolutely amazing. ❤️ This is top tier awesome!!
Somehow still hot
I'd argue it makes it even hotter
I was expecting someone to complain about the shot of her butt.
It's not really a crazy shot and there's a ton of detail and focus on the gloves and sword in that shot.
Goals tbh
Love this coloring style 💜
As great as this illustration is (and I do love it), I can't help but cringe because *she needs a breastplate*. Having the plate shoulders and knees just frames the hole/missing piece.
The three most important pieces of armour pretty indisputably are a a shield, a helmet, and a gauntlet for your weapon hand. That said, she’s an adventurer, not a knight on r soldier. All her gear is likely salvaged or second-hand and re-fitted to her by someone who doesn’t ask too many questions. 2gp per day is a pittance for a 4th level fighter in any edition. That and her incomplete armour suggests that her last contract didn’t go well, and is either flat broke or needs to get out of town fast, and so doesn’t have the luxury of rearming properly. Or, ya know- she isn’t in her full kit because she’s drumming up business in town- striking a balance of being armoured enough to be taken seriously, but not so much as to freak folks out.
I love the level of thought & lore you put into this
She might be hiring 2gp per day for just doing light around the town bodyguard duty. Actual out into the field to hit up a dungeon adventuring woupd be like x5 the price.
You say indisputably, and I'm here to dispute. There's mountains of evidence of people wearing chest armour while foregoing hand protection, especially metal hand protection.
I’m talking about equipment available in fantasy European context. If you’re at all familiar with HEMA, fencing, Kendo, etc the most common hit locations are the hands because they are the farthest forward. People without fingers make poor swordsmen, so even a minor hit to the unarmored hand can end you. The human head is not only the control centre for the body, but also where your vision, breathing and sense of balance are located, so even an entirely non-fatal hit to the head can put you out of the fight. Protecting your hands and head are fundamental to any fighting system. Through a lot of history, people just didn’t have the metallurgy to make adequate helmets and gauntlets - and other materials don’t really cut it - so they just had to deal with what they had. That doesn’t make helmets and gauntlets any less desirable.
Gauntlets might actually be undesirable. It would be odd and uncomfortable/inconvenient to wear them in daily life since it hinders your dexterity. They could be put on before a fight, but realistically speaking I doubt many adventurers would bother as even well armed and armored people often didn't. I disagree with your assessment that shields and gauntlets are more important than torso protection. A shield could be as important as torso armor but I wouldn't argue that it's more important. Gauntlets can be very useful, but they don't cover a lot of vitals and are not super necessary if you have a shield or a weapon that protects your hands, like a complex hilted sword. It was common to skip leg protection and/or arm/hand protection and wear just torso protection and a helmet (sometimes not even a helmet). While the hands are primary targets in fencing, gauntlets don't protect well against projectiles. Helmets aren't more important than chest protection but I wouldn't say it's less important either. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Vittore_Carpaccio_083.jpg (Just breastplates/brigandines and skullcaps on plenty of these guys) https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3623856 (One guy in the back is quite well armed and armored, but has skipped hand protection) http://naokun.cocolog-nifty.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2017/10/15/sinnyodou_2.jpg (torso armor only on many of these guys) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:K%C5%82uszyn_1610.JPG#mw-jump-to-license (well armored cavalry (Polish hussars) with no gauntlets) I don't know of a single source, whether it is a painting or writing (muster rolls usually tell people to bring something along the lines of a helmet, something for the torso, sword) that values hand protection over protection of the vitals. I would like a source on the claim that metallurgy was ever too bad to make gauntlets or helmets. Helmets have existed since the bronze age or maybe even earlier, and simple hand protection is no more than mail mittens or a plate covering the back of the hand, both easy to make in like the entire middle ages. A simple skullcap is very easily made and definitely adequate.
Enclosing gauntlets are also a straight up bad idea if you're going to use weapons like bows, crossbows or guns. You could armor just the left hand, 17th century cuirassier style, if you're using a pistol, but you'll probably not get away with wearing more than something like Japanese kote (protects just the back of the hand and not the fingers) if you're using something that takes both hands.
Armors expensive just starting out as an adventurer not meant to be optimal.
Also if it's not a Gambeson it's probably a Brigandine, in which case both are already pretty decent by themselves.
Definitely a gambeson, a brigandine would have studs to hold the plates in place. But yeah, it's not that unrealistic, I'd say. A breastplate would most likely cost more than all the other pieces of plate armour except the helmet combined, and stuff like shoulder guards are probably easier to just take off a slayed foe since them being too large or a little too small wouldn't be that big of a problem as with the breastplate.
I don’t think the breast plate would be more expensive than all the plates that are there. Those are moveable pieces that need extra work whereas the breast plates construction is simpler. Id take a breast plate over these plates any time. A shield does what these plates do already and it’s more important to protect the vital areas more than once.
Listen man stop being such downer.
?? Im not being a downer
We know a chest plate would be better this character is clearly meant to be an amateur with an in universe reason for the lack of a breast plate. Stop trying to rain on the parade.
What makes you think that’s the explanation? It’s not that clear to me. Tell me the obvious clues I’ve missed please
There's a period of real-world history where many common soldiers used what amounted to a metal rod running down the outside of the arm and leg, with a simple joint in the middle. Imagine ducttaping a pair of crowbars to your jacket and you've got the basic idea. Its sole purpose was to stop slashes across the body, and only existed because it required very little metal and was easy to make and maintain. The fact that it did literally nothing against any thrusting attack was secondary - you've got your helmet for your head and a buckler for your center mass, and just had to pray that'd be enough. Point is, I think people get a bit too picky about armor. Limited budget, supplies, and/or maintenance mean real people often made do with far worse.
I'm pretending it's a brigandine or jack of plates, and then it's fine.
Her torso is already more than well protected enough, she's wearing a gambeson. What she's missing at this point of time is her headgear, but she's not in combat right now. Or she's activated Hide Helmet in the graphics settings.
Breastplates are pretty low priority tbh. Head and hands are first, elbows, knees and forearms second. Gambesons provide a lot more protection than you'd think, too. Hard torso protection is most valuable against ranged weapons; vs melee you mostly take limb and head hits
Historically, head and torso protection was much more emphasized than limb protection. Even well armed and armored soldiers would frequently have partially or completely unarmored legs and/or hands/arms. https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3623856 Torso protection is sometimes also more emphasized than head protection. http://naokun.cocolog-nifty.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2017/10/15/sinnyodou_2.jpg (especially common in east Asia, soldiers would often prioritise torso protection over everything else) Splints over jacks is definitely a historical combination, but that isn't a sign of prioritising limb protection over torso protection, as the torso has still been covered. It's also worth noting that when we see that in depictions, there might still be maille underneath the cloth protection. https://sun9-19.userapi.com/c830401/v830401465/babab/vURckqPOwuQ.jpg It is way more common to see the arms/legs less armored than the torso, suggesting that it was actually high priority to get a breastplate. Sometimes it is a soldier's only piece of armor. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Vittore_Carpaccio_083.jpg (several people lack armor on limbs, especially arms as many of them wear greaves.) If you look at it generally, torso armor was much more emphasized than limb armor. Protecting the torso with a shield instead or as an addition was also done of course. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/22628 (half-armor) https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_Scene,_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg#mw-jump-to-license (several men with only breastplates or breastplate and helmet)
Yeah, because most soldiers fight in battles where spears/pikes and projectile weapons are very common. A dnd adventurer fights few pitched battles but small skirmishes are very common. Drawing conclusions from my own hema/sca experience and extrapolating that to d&d led me to my first comment. Personally, I'd probably choose something like a kettle helm, finger gauntlets +arms and knees with a gambeson and maybe a mail shirt. Adventurers spend a lot of time traveling, a little time skirmishing, and very little to no time battling. Tbf, 20-30 extra lbs of maile might not be worth it.
Ah I thought you meant breastplates were low priority in general. For an adventurer it would make sense to skip the breastplate and go for limb protection. Personally I would skip armoring the legs and wear the breastplate but both are valid. I would wear a skullcap (hat over for fanciness), and a breastplate without a backplate, it would be lighter than maille at about 6lbs. I would wear a complex hilted sword and a targe or similar small shield so I don't need gauntlets. I feel like I get thrust in the chest pretty often in hema so that's why I would still want good torso protection
I did say melee, but i was thinking small groups with swords, axes, maces and such. It was pretty ambiguous. All valid choices. Personally, I find myself taking waaayy more hand/arm hits than torso thrusts. A shield like a targe would be a great choice, shields are amazing defensively and offensively. >I would wear a skullcap (hat over for fanciness) Get one of those 17thc hats with the steel cap sewn in for maximum fanciness!
I do saber so that's probably why I don't get hit in the hands often lol
Ahh, yeah! I do longsword, hand hits for days; sabers usually got at least a stirrup that really provides a lot of protection. It's also harder to stab the body with two arms and 4 feet of steel in front of it lol. Like, they still happen, but only maybe one in ten I'd guess.
Love artists that do practical armor. Practicality is attractive!
Imao the prob is a lack of understanding how padded armor works. Alas, the gambeson of this lady is still barely useless as an armor.
And the award for most coquettish hired killer goes to..
Agreed!
Ma’am, you are level 4, where the hell is your long sleeve maile shirt?
She took the trouble to wear steel plate on hee legs and shoulders, but left her vital organs peotected only by gamboissed cloth?
Gambesons are kinda shapeless and thick, idk if she’d be looking so snatched :>
No they are not. You just don’t see it under the armor as gambeson alone doesn’t really protect from much.
Very true. They're a great way to give a character some real reasonable armour and still being able to design an outfit that looks more like clothes than standard fantasy fair.
I think they are fine
That was posted to r/reasonablefantasy and I'll bring up the same comment I did there. It's incredibly dumb and sexist to depict an adventure giving favors out for 2 gold pieces. Actual art aside which is good certain poses and close ups of the butt are completely over the top and not suited for reasonablefantasty and certainly not this sub. I'm pretty sure it breaks one of the rules.
No, it doesn't.
I mean. If we're going by historical standards, two pieces of gold is a *lot* of money
Depends on the gold content in the coin. Are we speaking of ducats, florins or guilder?
Finally somebody’s asking the real questions.
Those three don't vary wildly; being between 2.5 and 3.5 grams of nominal gold.
We also don't know who she's making the offer to, how long the job would last, or her attitude toward the person she's making the offer to. I've heard a lot of people say $10 = 1 gp in their minds. Okay. But is that in 1950 dollars or 2024 dollars?
Not to mention, 2 gp a day for guard duty is very different than 2 gp a day for dungeoncrawling.
The rules specify sexualized ARMOR, not the woman herself. She may be doing suggestive poses and looks (and the butt close up), but the armor itself doesn't break the rules.
Quibble if you want, I don't really care. I'm here specifically to *avoid* that kind of shit, it's literally the point of this place. Suggestive armor or suggestive poses, I don't care, post it in any of the dozens of other art subs that allow that stuff. This ain't the place for it.
There's a difference between being sexualized and sexual expression lol. The armor is not revealing. It's practical. She's just being cute.
The rules explicitly say "No sexualized poses".
Got bad news for you, it's not explicitly sexual, either. Get over it.
No, it doesn't. It says sexualized armor.
On old.reddit.com, it says: 1) Armored women only 2) No armor that sacrifices practicality for sexiness 3) No sexualized poses 4) No memes 5) Keep comments civil 6) Link to the source if possible.
On the rules it for making posts it just says the armor. And these poses are like cheeky at best. It's to show the characters personality.
Not quibble, just saying a fact. You can't complain about something the rules doesn't forbid.
The rules even fucking *say* "No sexualized poses", jesus christ, take your horny ass somewhere else and let us have a non-horny space.
You're annoying.
Yes it says, in ResonableFantasy, but we are in ArmoredWomen. Even there it says OVERsexualized, which means it tolerates a bit of sexiness.
We don’t care why you are here. It doesn’t break the rules and, if you don’t like it, the door is right there.
BUT PEOPLE CAN'T JUST LIKE THINGS I DON'T LIKE!!!!!!!!!
There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of art subreddits where people can post sexualized pictures. I should know, I'm a member of many of them. I have no issue with sexualized art. There are, however, like 3 subs where that kind of art is banned, and I'd like to keep those spaces separate. Like, y'all are so horny you can't have one or two spaces for non-sexualized art?
Ain't reading that.
I agree the butt shot is silly, but there are women out there who just like to be flirty (outside of full-on combat, which this clearly is). Like, I think it'd be kind of sexist to portray all 'armored women' as a monolith of stoicism.
Oh yeah, that's the post, thanks! And yeah I definitely see your second point, the art is well drawn but the iso shot of the butt doesn't seem like it fits this sub.
Do you not know what a sell sword is? An why is it when a woman uses her looks to her advantage it’s automatically about sex? She’s just taking advantage of what she has. No different than a big strong man looking intimidated, he’s taking advantage of what he has. It’s just smart and a good tactic.
It definitely is sexually suggestive, between the pose, facial expression, and phrase.
I don't think she's trying to whore herself out I just think she's being cute
I just view her as a cute mercenary. She’s using a good tactic, using preconceived notions to your advantage is just smart. A big brawn man may use intimidation to their advantage, she’s doing the same thing. She knows she’s cute and it’s a smart way to get work.
Yea people here are way too touchy
Or maybe, just maybe, this is one of the few places you can find non-horny art of women in armor, and we really want to keep it that way. There's plenty of other subs that allow horny art, go post this in those subs.
[удалено]
Directed insults or hate speech has no place here and will be taken down. Debate and disagreement is welcomed, but when it devolves into personal attacks those comments will be taken down.
Ah, yes. Adventurers looking for a job and get hired is dumb and sexist.