D&D 5E D&D Next weekly art column!

[Yora]

Yeah, D&D is about doing adventurer things. Not about looking at other peoples characters.

 

[Hussar]

Although, to be fair, people fairly often DID wear some pretty heavy armor in the desert. After all, crusaders weren't exactly running around in loincloths.

That being said, I do get the point. Context is everything. If you've got a picture that's supposed to be some paleolithic level technology warrior, then the armor that he or she is wearing should be appropriate.

The trick, of course, is finding a happy line between the extremes.

 

[TerraDave]

Yes, I also thought of the crusaders.

(though I see another thread on this...)

 

[Dausuul]

(Cross-posted from the other thread--originally meant to put this here.)

I wholeheartedly agree with "armor should be appropriate to the environment and the culture." I'm really happy to see more elements of real-world culture being brought into the art. And I love your take on designing armor for male and female warriors that is clearly of similar purpose and origin, without necessarily being identical. The outfits of those two warriors are pefect.

All that makes me feel a little bad about bringing this up, but the poses of those same warriors bug me. They belong on the same battlefield, but the woman doesn't look like she's actually on a battlefield. The man is posed for combat. He's in a fighting crouch with his feet well apart, he's got a firm grip on his weapon, he's brandishing it ready to swing, his shield is up, he's yelling a battle cry. The woman is posed... well, she's posed. She's standing straight, smiling, her feet are tight together, and she's doing that thing where you're on the ball of one foot and the flat of the other. Her mace is loosely held and her shield is down.

It's not a huge deal, and I'm certainly not saying the female warrior is in a cheesecakey "come-hither" pose like we often saw in the Elmore days. Taken just as it is, this picture is miles better than most fantasy art. But it still bugs me, a little.

 

[Sunseeker]

The problem I see with "appropriate"armor discussions, beyond issues of cheese and beef and cake, is that it continues along the trend of punishing the fighter for simply existing. Look at some of our other disussions here about weapon types and armor tables. The fighter needs a spear for this, an axe for that, plate in some situations, mail in others. The wizard however, doesn't. He still casts his same spells, wears the same robes, regardless of environment. Rules for situational combat issues are interesting as q thought experiment, but in the end boil down to placing heavier birdens on already sub-par classes.

 

[Dausuul]

The problem I see with "appropriate"armor discussions, beyond issues of cheese and beef and cake, is that it continues along the trend of punishing the fighter for simply existing. Look at some of our other disussions here about weapon types and armor tables. The fighter needs a spear for this, an axe for that, plate in some situations, mail in others. The wizard however, doesn't. He still casts his same spells, wears the same robes, regardless of environment. Rules for situational combat issues are interesting as q thought experiment, but in the end boil down to placing heavier birdens on already sub-par classes.

What does this have to do with the game art? I don't think we were discussing rules for armor based on environment.

 

[Sunseeker]

What does this have to do with the game art? I don't think we were discussing rules for armor based on environment.

If there are no rules for armor based on environments, what's the point of worrying about the scantly-clad barbarian in the frozen wastes? Who cares about the knight in full plate in the sweltering desert?

Why are these issues for the art if they're not also issues for the game? The art doesn't exist in a void, it is a visual representation of systems, rules, points, suggestions and themes within the books.

If 5e is to be more grounded in reality in the rules, it needs to reflect that in the art.

 

[TwinBahamut]

If there are no rules for armor based on environments, what's the point of worrying about the scantly-clad barbarian in the frozen wastes? Who cares about the knight in full plate in the sweltering desert?

Why are these issues for the art if they're not also issues for the game? The art doesn't exist in a void, it is a visual representation of systems, rules, points, suggestions and themes within the books.

If 5e is to be more grounded in reality in the rules, it needs to reflect that in the art.

This actually bring up a somewhat different, but interesting point. All of this talk about appropriate armor is entirely focused on real world armor with real world problems like overheating in armor and such. But D&D is a game about people running around in magic armor. It is about digging up from a crypt a suit of armor that was blessed by a goddess a millennium ago, and wearing that armor (which magically refits itself to its new owner) as you wander into the Elemental Chaos. Environmentally and culturally appropriate armor designs would have no relevance whatsoever to that sort of armor. It has no relevance to that iconic part of the D&D experience.

 

[Dausuul]

If there are no rules for armor based on environments, what's the point of worrying about the scantly-clad barbarian in the frozen wastes? Who cares about the knight in full plate in the sweltering desert?

Because it looks stupid?

Why are these issues for the art if they're not also issues for the game?

Perhaps because the game doesn't need a billion fiddly rules for every little thing. IMO, rules for the effects of climate on armor-wearers don't pass the "worth the effort of remembering and applying them" test. Those concerns don't apply to the game art, however.

 

[Sunseeker]

Because it looks stupid?

In YOUR opinion. Not in mine. I have no issues with environmentally-unfitting outfits in the art of the game. Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Perhaps because the game doesn't need a billion fiddly rules for every little thing. IMO, rules for the effects of climate on armor don't pass the "worth the effort of remembering and applying them" test.

Alright, so aside from claiming that loin-cloth-wearing barbarians from the north "look stupid", do we have any other reason we need environmentally fitting armor art? If it's just in your opinion well that's fine, you're welcome to your opinion, but your opinion isn't reason enough that something needs to change.

I can agree with "culturally fitting" art, provided that the culture the art is fitting is one from the books, and not some misguided attempt to represent real-world cultures.