tiny female armors!

[Makeda]

Yeah, but everyone here is acknowledging the existence of glamour as a valid option, though. We understand it's magic that covers the actual set. You can wear a full set of armor and glamour it to make it look like a bikini, but it's not a bikini! It only looks like it (I really don't know why this is so hard to understand for some people). Is it silly? Well, in my opinion yes, but it's also the player's choice. Now try to wear the bikini alone, no glamour, the actual set. You'd get wrecked. That's the point, the game barely offers an actual bikini set and I'm fine with that.

I always figured my character actually WAS wearing a bikini, but it was magic shields that protected her...

Because...

As any heavy metal warrior standing on a field being shot at be English Longbowman or Mongolian Musketeers would have told you... that metal ain't stopping jack or jill. Arrows and bullets both would just go right through it. And the blast from a 12th through 14th century cannon wouldn't even bother to care - it's just see a tin can to crush.

It was made to protect cavalry during a charge into a line of melee or reloading musketmen. Slashing and blunt attacks, not piercing or high velocity. (actually it might have resisted the Mongolian Musketman better than it stood up against the English Longbowman - early ammunition was more like scatter shot if I recall right).

People often fail to realize that the power of a longbow arrow is greater than most bullets up until maybe WWII. It's just that it takes a lifetime to train a single archer, but you can throw 10,000 peasants into the field and give them cheaply made muskets and later rifles - and if half kill themselves from exploding equipment... it's no loss to you if you're a warmonger... there's more where those came from...

But as such... bows make quick work of metal armors. Take a highly sharpened ice pick to a sheet of metal and you can see this... and you're not even able to produce a quarter of the force with that that your medieval English longbowman had with his bow... Modern armor might be better - but we're not using that here.

[Lilseph]

Snip

He clearly didn't and I never stated such thing. Though Conan was a fighter, and I was using D&D as an example how they differenciate both types of fighter (the heavy armored one vs the one that wears none at all). One was a bag of HP, a reckless fighter and the other one a impenetrable one. As a side note, you can create a tank in games like Pathfinder, they are just not played the same way you would play a tank in an MMO. There are limitations. Have you read the feat "Antagonize" or read the class "Luring Cavalier"? (I personally consider Pathfinder a far superior game than 3.0~4th edition). They pretty much aim to catch the most of the monsters' attention.

People are constantly swinging between opposite extremes: pure reality rules (involving physics and whatnot) and going full fantasy where everything is possible. A credible fantasy setting mixes both. Yeah, in XIV you have a dragon that, if we follow the rules of our world, they would crush you by stepping on you. True. Yes, in the real world an arrow can penetrate certain parts of your armor and kill you. Yes, in a pure 100% fantasy world, you could defeat the God of Darkness with a piece of stale bread because "it's magical". But there are rules that must be followed to make it consistent and not just a box of chaos.

Let's say we're playing in a high fantasy world, and you're wearing an armor. For all intended purposes it SHOULD protect you, because you're wearing actual protection. It looks credible, because you're fully covered. No matter how big the enemy is, no matter how powerful they are. But we're in a fantasy world, it means that the armor itself should grant a higher defensive rate, way higher than the real world's counterpart, that's why it works. I think XIV follows that rule, that's why almost 99% of the sets you'll see here, would cover your body. They look heavy, they look sturdy. Now when you see a bikini set (excluding glamouring, that already has been explained several times), it makes you raise your eyebrow. That's why there are several sites that mock these types of designs. It doesn't look credible, even if we're in a fantasy setting (otherwise debates like this wouldn't exist).

I have already stated what my feelings about that particular sets are.

[Makeda]

Let's say we're playing in a high fantasy world, and you're wearing an armor. For all intended purposes it SHOULD protect you, because you're wearing actual protection. It looks credible, because you're fully covered.

That's just it though... I'm not wearing actual protection. That's a suit designed for a cavalry charge and nothing more. Field armor was typically more compositions of mail, leather, and cloth. Maybe a plate or two somewhere meant to deflect slashing blows or later a fencing thrust.

D&D is basically a bad example of ANYTHING. It is nothing more than a simulation game extracted out of table top miniature wargamming that has fantasy elements patched onto it because the first round playtesters were reading Lord of the Rings at the time. But it had very little reliance upon or understanding of armor and weaponry. You're basically only lucky that I also know D&D - because it's not the universal point of reference you might think it is. At this point in time I'd wager more people know the rules of 'World of Warcraft' than have ever played D&D. That might even be true for FFXIV as well. Sure D&D inspired both games... but it's like you're bringing up the spoken language of the Phoenicians here to talk about Greek versus Finish grammar... Ya'll gotta be an expert to get why that's relevant or understand the analogies.

And just because something 'looks good' versus doesn't look good isn't a justification either for any argument because that's really subjective. We've actually seem some pretty horrible and massive injuries since the Iraq War due to a lack of using actual proper thinking about armoring against attacks as opposed to just using what looked like good armor... (and if I am to believe my trainers when I was in Basic Training, the SAME problem was a big issue in Vietnam - using tactics and equipment that 'sounded good' or 'looked good' vs. were actually tested cost the US a lot of causalities).

As you note... in fantasy you can defeat an epic monster with a piece of stale bread.

And... in actual physics... a suit of plate mail armor is just as useful against an archer as a bikini... As in: both are completely and utterly useless. There is a reason the English were such a force for centuries even BEFORE their sailors defeated the Spanish. They were not able to conquer anyone before their naval rise, but they amounted to a pretty solid defense after the reforms of the Normans, and the gesture of holding up 2 fingers is still an extremely rude insult in both England and France because of their archers ability to just go through anything. English friends of my generation tell me that at least into the 1980s, boys where they grew up still had mandatory Archery classes as a part of centuries of tradition that had once been the Island's military advantage.

So... as long as it is fantasy... we should just throw the pretense out the window and go with what seems most magical. We might as well all just put on sailor suits, be named after constellations, carry wants, and have to do cute dances as a part of our attack routines - given the proper inspiration for games like FFIV.

The moment any one of our characters faces off against anything other than a like sized humanoid figure with both parties using slashing or bludgeoning weapons... everything is utter magic.

[Lilseph]

I think you're missing the point, because you are doing exactly what I mentioned: Touching the extremes. It's either super fantasy where everything is possible or real life where it's the opposite. I did mention that in a magical world you can kill the super entity with a piece of bread. I did mention that, if this was irl, you'd get crushed in a second. I also think I haven't mentioned anyting related to "looking good", just practical EVEN FOR A FANTASY SETTING. And, again, I think that when it comes to design proper setting, you have to balance between some irl rules to make it credible and some fantasy elements to make it entertaining.

But that leads us to the following outcome: Every fantasy world has their mixture of rules. Sailor Moon has one, Saint Seiya has one, other Final Fantasies have one, and XIV seems to lean towards the most credible ones (in my opinion), where wearing an armor would protect you: It doesn't matter if it's the god of your mom, a powerful unnamed arrow, the powerful cannon of Shang Tsung. It protects you. They are made of rare materials, some attuned to certain energies or elements. There are more powerful armors that protect you against more powerful things, and they cover your whole body. That's the reason I got impresed with this game at first, because their armor design wasn't a bag of sexual fanservice, as you can see in some games nowdays. There ARE very few exceptions, but it doesn't discredit their whole approach.

Regarding my examples with D&D, I mentioned them and explained them, the same way you make all these historical references.

[Shouko]

I said that a marathon runner still would be able to run further than a non-marathon runner (I did not mean that they would run faster, though I probably did use an ambiguous word for that). That is most certainly true, because even if they would run slower certainly (marathon runners do not run fast at all, to begin with, and an average person on a short distance will easily run faster than any marathon runner anywhere during the marathon will), they trained their body for endurance. Even halving that distance will bring their run to a number most people won't come even close to.

You're right on a marathon runner is able to do stamina but again you're talking about a marathon runner that is wearing light clothing not bulky armor that's going to weigh them down and restrict their movement, then of course if we're talking pure metal armor on a reasonably cool day but not too hot will still still get overheated faster, think about a pc in this aspect inclose it in a case without air and its going to get extremely hot. Yes a person can run in armor but we're talking about people who ran with it that wore it, a marathon runner that just slaps on the armor that's not used to it isn't going to get far regardless of how good of a marathon runner they are. A sprinter or someone not used to running marathons is still going to be able to get away faster than a marathon runner can catch up to while in armor.

You also seem to mix reality with fiction. "They are used to running/swimming without armor" doesn't mean jack squat in reality. A person that runs a marathon will have stronger legs than a person that does not. It's a fact and no matter the weight they add, it won't change things. A marathoner weighting 60kg will run further than an average Joe will run at 50kg. That same marathoner weighting 80kg will STILL run further than the average Joe weighting 50kg. You are underestimating humans ability. Current soldiers wear almost 30kg of gear on them in the field and they most certainly can run longer distances, while most couldn't run a marathon.

Modern military people are trained to run in that gear through bootcamp, the gear they wear is meant to be convenient as possible, it's not the same as wearing bulky plate armor that weighs up to at least 100 lbs plus as I already said the shield and sword or other weapons. A marathon runner and soldiers can be hand in hand but they're not exclusive, there are plenty of soldiers that aren't used to running marathon like distances and then there are soldiers that are special trained that can do that much and more, but make no mistake it's still not the same as running around in bulky metal armor. Granted a soldier is going to have a better time of it. A marathon runner by themselves aren't used to running with that bulky equipment on, a sprinter might be used to weights or resistance dragline training but we're not talking about that so it's a moot point. Get your facts straight.

As for that 100lbs gear, as I said, jousting gear was heavy. Yes, jousting gear did weight about 100lbs, so about 45kg. And yes, knights were the ones that wore it. But no, that gear was NOT taken to war. Never. It was a suicide. They were hard to wear, hard to move in. Getting on a horse without help was nigh impossible. If the squires died, such a knight was just an easy target for enemy that couldn't fight properly. Humans are smarter than to put on tin cans that make it impossible for them to move. When against wooden or rock weapons it's fine and all, but a full-strength metal-ended mace to the gut can kill you with or without armor, so it was mandatory to be able to move, and move well.

This simply isn't the case, as I said it really depends on the era and the location, some yes lancers had the heavier armor but not restricted to them. I never said anything about impossible to move I'm just talking about the strain that it would be required, stop cherry picking.

Now, swimming is another matter. A 60kg+20kg armor person is not the same as 80kg human (heck, the more a human weights the easier it is to swim). However, again. Trained professional swimmers have general fitness and strength to maintain themselves and armor afloat and...though they ain't gonna beat any record obviously...I never said otherwise. All I did was say that it is possible for a person to swim in armor and that a person in armor that is a well-trained swimmer will be able to swim further than an average Joe without armor (clearly making assumption of that average Joe weighting a reasonable amount, like 70-80kg, cause those that are heavily overweight just won't sink and can stay afloat indefinitely without having to do anything...till they die at least).

Trained swimmers aren't trained with armor on in mind, again Navy Seals and Marines are but that's again not armor but rather vests, fatigues and equipment designed to be unrestrictive as possible. I swam on my school teams for 4 years, even went on to help coach my local swim team for a few years after high school, when they needed someone to help off and on, not to mention also played lacrosse and helped coach that as well. I can tell you without a doubt that swimmers even olympic swimmers don't train with armor on, they're not used to it, now I can't say if they train with weights or not but they do resistance training which is completely different.

Look here for your "slow as all hell" comment on running...Believe it or not, but knights did give chase and run away, including against people that had nothing more than leather armor. Being unable to run fast is a good way to never win a battle...except with a Pyrrhic victory. Really...Humans have fought wars for ages. Give more credit to humans where credit is due. Unlike in water, on land the weight of armor is significantly less of a problem. It's not the same as running while holding 20-30kg's in your hands. The weight of armor is spread around your entire body and moves less than fat for obese people will. It's not without its effect on how long a person can run and maximum speed will be reduced, but a fit person will still be better at it (both distance and possibly speed-wise) than an average Joe.

Never claimed they couldn't run or swim but you're overestimating how much they really could.

https://www.livescience.com/15128-ar...ht-energy.html Here's a good example of what i'm talking about.

[kikix12]

And... in actual physics... a suit of plate mail armor is just as useful against an archer as a bikini... As in: both are completely and utterly useless.

At least be accurate when you are trying to use physics to argue against something that is not even the point of the post.

One, an arrow, to be in any way relevant for armored person, needs to have a tip made of a material of the same or higher hardness. A wooden arrow is useless against plate armor. It can't do a thing, nothing, zilch, nada. You can send a million wooden arrows against a single person and even if all of them hit, if that armor really covers the entire body, the person will be perfectly safe. That is because no bow in existence is able to give a wooden arrow enough kinetic energy at any point of its flight to pierce iron/steel plate and the iron/steel chainmail underneath it. This is the lone reason why many cultures were completely wiped out when iron and later steel armors were originally used. Heck, this is one of the large reasons why Romans were so successful in their conquest. They had bronze armor against weapons of inferior material on top of their strategies.

Two, even IF the same material is used, the arrow have no ability to pierce the armor in most cases.
1) An arrow is useless if shot in a ballistic trajectory. The speed of its fall in an arc is not high enough for it to have enough kinetic energy to pierce any metal plated armor with chain mail underneath. The massive "rains of death" that are so loved in movies thus had incredibly low success in killing knights. Basically they could do that only if they managed to hit in-between the holes in the helmet (if those had any) or other parts of the armor (if any). They were successful at wounding and sometimes killing unarmored infantry, but knights?! No. The only knights that regularly died to them were those whose horses were hit, fell down or threw their riders off, and that were trampled afterwards before being able to get up.
2) An arrow rather rapidly loses its kinetic energy. After certain distance it will be ineffective, once again, for the same reason. And an additional one which is point 3.
3) Armors were made to deflect attacks. If you shoot in a straight line at someone in armor that charges at you, you can be almost completely sure you will not pierce his armor no matter the arrow. Unless you use one of the modern bows that strengthen the force and modern arrows that are more dangerous than anyone could dream of when bows were a thing, anyway. The reason is because the force will be deflected. The arrow will simply slide off to the side as that is the easiest path available for it to take. And physics like the easiest path. It will be a bigger threat to the squire behind the knight than it could ever be to the knight himself. This is exactly why "boob shape" is a suicidal idea for an armor, cause the breasts would cause attacks to slide towards the heart instead of away from it.
4) In actual combat, most arrows were massive misses. They were shot randomly early on for easy pickings, to obstruct vision, cause panic etc. When enemies came closer in they were used as nice deterrent to less armored cavalry as horses were easy targets. Though a horse could take a few arrows, even dozens depending on the location and the horse, before it actually was stopped, and heavy cavalry had armored horses as well. In closer range no one used bows. A sword or an axe were far more likely to kill while avoiding being killed.
5) Any plate armor have three layers. The deflecting plate, the mail that is meant to both distribute its weight as well as absorb the force of piercing attacks (like arrows) by "holding" onto the blades instead of the sharp point, and a leather armor underneath to prevent abrasions from the metal part, absorb blunt trauma from blunt attacks and...stop arrows that managed to pierce the metal parts but lost plenty of their force.

In other words, arrows required a number of circumstances to pierce an armor with lethal force. These circumstances did occur in real life...but were exceedingly rare in casual skirmishes. That's why bowmen were quickly routed if they did not manage to set up for a battle and had no means of preventing approach. Add to that the tiredness of archers from both pre-battle activities as well as repeated shots and you have miserable statistics for arrow kills. Don't get me wrong. They were a staple of just about any army since their invention and for a good reason...but they were never the scary bringers of death they are made into in games...until the modern times, anyway with the mechanical bows and specialized arrows.

[Lord_Umbra]

This many pages for a FANTASY game.. people trying bring logic to a world without actual earth logic. If the game followed any logic based in our reality most of game would be non existent.

Let people have fun whole thing is choice & armours don't matter anyway when most armour we get in dungeons these days are mostly cloth with should guards or arm guards, take Skalla tank chest piece it is form fitting meaning it has f all protection outside of partial face/mouth guard & wouldn't protect us against any of bosses / regular enemies in game in a world with logic but we're not a logic world we're a magical fantasy world.

[kikix12]

(...)bulky armor that's going to weigh them down and restrict their movement(...)

That's the point I've been trying to make all this time. The armors are NOT as bulky as people think. It's a myth.

(...)then of course if we're talking pure metal armor on a reasonably cool day but not too hot will still still get overheated faster(...)

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes a person can run in armor but we're talking about people who ran with it that wore it, a marathon runner that just slaps on the armor that's not used to it isn't going to get far regardless of how good of a marathon runner they are.

Wrong. As I said, this is not a fantasy story, it's reality. It is extra weight distributed around their body reasonably evenly. Other than the first few moments to account for learning how to make the steps properly, a long distance run is most certainly something that any marathoner or otherwise avid runner will be able to do. Since you seem to nitpick on irrelevant things, assuming it is a cool/cold day.

A sprinter or someone not used to running marathons is still going to be able to get away faster than a marathon runner can catch up to while in armor.

A sprinter will always be able to run away faster than a non-sprinter can catch up. That's the concept of being a sprinter. That being said, it is again besides the point. I'm talking here purely about distance. Distance. In response to that person that I originally quoted using "or running endlessly in full armor" comment. There is no consideration for speed here.

Modern military people are trained to run in that gear through bootcamp, the gear they wear is meant to be convenient as possible(...)

You seem to repeatedly ignore what I said. Armor have its weight evenly distributed around the body. I repeat, because it's REALLY important. Armors weight is evenly distributed around the body. An armor IS made as convenient as possible.

Unlike the armor, modern gear is NOT. It is largely worn on the back. It is NOT evenly distributed around the body. Armors weight had LESS effect on how difficult it was to run than current gear. If you'll think about it for a moment you'll know why. The reason is simple. In modern times soldiers don't need to travel long distances and run all around for hours. If they do, they are specialized units, like recon, that leave their excess equipment they won't need. Other than that, they travel by cars, bikes, planes, in tanks, by boats etc.

Also...um...knights were training in armor wearing as well, you know?! You really think that random people just randomly put on an armor and went to war? Really?! Current soldiers trainings are a joke (physically) compared to what was in the past. People were trained from early childhood. In addition to training, they were doing heavy physical activity their entire lives. Now?! Soldiers start seriously training at what age?! 19, 20, 21?!

(...)bulky plate armor that weighs up to at least 100 lbs plus as I already said the shield and sword or other weapons.

Seriously...I told you. The 100lbs armors WERE NOT WORN IN BATTLES. Those were jousting armors. EVENT ARMORS. They were used only OUT of war. They weren't even part of training, really. They were at best to show prowess in the lance and shield on special occasions like a wedding in the royal family or a good hunting season. Sometimes just to compare the knights prowess here or there. THEY WERE FOR FUN. They have as much to do with battle armors as the gladiator armors do. Zero, nada, zilch.

I used "jostling" instead of "jousting" before, not sure whether in the first instance as well. But it should be obvious what I meant. If not, then maybe this is the issue here.

Never claimed they couldn't run or swim but you're overestimating how much they really could.

...Yay...And here you made all the time I spent in responses to you completely wasted...I never under or overestimated it in these posts. What I said was that it was possible to a post that put a blanket statement implying that it is not possible.

Ugh...This is seriously pointless. I won't even comment to the parts about swimming since you completely missed my point altogether.

[Fredco191]

Huh. Fair point.

[Shouko]

Snip

Read the article is all I have left to say, if you don't you will continue to remain ignorant, I've already backed up my claims with scientific proof that it's not as easy as just donning the armor and running.