Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 6302897" data-attributes="member: 58197">You're not going to see an adventurer, in an adventuring situation (combat, dungeon exploration, traveling in the wilderness), going out of her way to "remind the world" of her attractiveness. Or his attractiveness, for that matter. Let's not pretend it's realistic.Now, D&D is a role-playing game, and the player may enjoy having a character who shows off his/her attractiveness even if it doesn't make a lot of sense. And I think it's fair to make some allowances for that in the art. Female knights get breastplates with an identifiable bulge over the breasts, even though no one would wear such a breastplate in real life (breastplates are designed to deflect blows, which means a smooth convex curve, not a body-hugging one). Male barbarians swagger around bare-chested under scorching desert suns, somehow avoiding the murderous sunburn that ought to result.What's going too far is when the art puts emphasis on the sexy appearance of the character over other concerns, like being a heroic adventurer. In the past we've most often seen this in the form of ridiculous pinup outfits on female characters, but you also see it with female characters in strange poses that no one would ever assume unless trying to look sexy.However, now that I've had a look at a good high-res image of the cover art, I don't agree that the 5E PHB woman is so portrayed. Her pose is the standard "Superman at rest" pose; it's how Superman hovers when he's not going someplace. See below. There's no arch to the back that I can see, or any of the other usual "look at my T&A!" positioning. Her clothing is sensible, practical, and covers her from head to toe. What does that leave? The lighting? That's really reaching, IMO.[ATTACH]61737[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

Verification