D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Ruin Explorer]

Excusable because being able to see the actor's faces no doubt made the experience better for the audience -- just like interior helmet lights make space shows easier to follow.

The movie being "based on reality" is ultra-questionable, I suggest. It's based on a comic book based on a legend based on reality. As I was an Ancient History student, I found the general public acceptance that "this is what happened" to be a little troubling, given the fact that far more Greeks than the Spartans stood against the Persians, even the end, the Thespians made up the majority of the force (the Spartans were leading, though).

I mean, I assumed people would think "Oh, comic-book adaption", but apparently a lot of people though "Oh, actual history!". Let's not even get into how side-lined the Athenian Navy got, and how the 300 deal was only possible because of them. Or the whole "Delphic Priests were pervy traitors" deal. Ok just stopping now. Movie based on a COMIC BOOK, not on reality. Deep breaths.

I'd love to see a movie based on "what actually happened", as best we can work out, at Thermopylae. I think it'd be just as or more exciting, though perhaps not as visually striking. Taking the helmets off on that would be fine, but hopefully they could keep the breastplates on.

 

[Rechan]

I'm really not seeing the difference though. In both cases there are people who ought not be deriving an AC bonus from their outfits.

This is growing tiresome.

Why the hell would you wear it in the first place if it's not protecting you?

By that reasoning, just arm the women with big noodles. As long as you don't expect them to do damage, what does it MATTER that they're swinging noodles around?

 

[Rechan]

the Thespians made up the majority of the force

An army of actors!? No wonder they needed the Spartans.

 

[Nifft]

I know what my stance is. It's just different than yours. "Just because it's fantasy" isn't good enough.

Thing is, there are a lot of different ways to play D&D. You don't have to use ninjas, or dinosaurs, or robots, or ray-guns, but they're all in D&D, and they have been for quite some time. To claim otherwise would be delusion.

Likewise, you don't have to use silly looking dungeon punk armor.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Thing is, there are a lot of different ways to play D&D. You don't have to use ninjas, or dinosaurs, or robots, or ray-guns, but they're all in D&D, and they have been for quite some time. To claim otherwise would be delusion.

Likewise, you don't have to use silly looking dungeon punk armor.

Then why aren't the robots and ray-guns and dinosaurs and flying saucers in the art?

 

[Nifft]

This is growing tiresome.

Why the hell would you wear it in the first place if it's not protecting you?

By that reasoning, just arm the women with big noodles. As long as you don't expect them to do damage, what does it MATTER that they're swinging noodles around?

Been discussed quite productively. Do a search for "Weapons as Special Effects".

But again, if it's too much of a stretch for your game*, don't bother using it.

Cheers, -- N

PS: RAW, a Soulknife could indeed kill you with what appear to be noodles.

 

[Nifft]

I'd love to see a movie based on "what actually happened", as best we can work out, at Thermopylae. I think it'd be just as or more exciting, though perhaps not as visually striking. Taking the helmets off on that would be fine, but hopefully they could keep the breastplates on.

Agreed.

And yes, "based on" is a very stretchy phrase.

Cheers, -- N

 

[BryonD]

"Just because it's fantasy" isn't good enough.

Sucks to be out of step with the market. You either got to give in or miss out on principle. Either choice is valid and it is up to you.

But for many people "just because it's fantasy" is quite good enough. If you want to feel good about yourself by deluding yourself into thinking that makes them somehow less than you, then by all means, knock yourself out. It won't change anything, but if it helps your self image, then cool.

 

[Rel]

That's what I mean. The Design is really really tacky. I think sexy and showing skin can be done without assless chaps and panties.

MODERATOR NOTE: All chaps are assless. Otherwise they are just pants. That is all.

 

[AllisterH]

Hmm...

I'm not sure about the realism angle since it is quite possible to have half-naked males with a higher AC than a paladin wielding a large shield.

As for the blue outfit, it doesn't seem "sexy" a la the other picture. Like I said, she's showing a lot of skin, but pretty much she can tumble, swing across a ravine, etc. etc. and nothing looks like it will fall out or be inappropriate for the Superbowl. It looks more like some weird lycra fetish outfit. However, I stand by my belief that as dumb as it looks (a.k.a The "Hennet outfit"), it _IS_ more practical than the other picture.