Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3 armour appearance

Ah right. Never found that in the game so it hasn't penetrated my consciousness. Yeah, pretty blatant double standard. Should go either way. Give the women pants or give the men skirts like Hector is wearing.

Definitely what I also envision for the Gith.



That armor's clearly not finished - look at the boots. That one's not in the game yet if I remember correctly.

In OP, Half Plate +1 was pictured. I can't remember if that's in the game/wearable either. Is it?

Gith should go into battle completely naked and will themselves some armour

Maybe yes maybe not, wouldn't say clearly.


Not sure, haven't found it myself.

And yet that is how actual armor looks like.
As for being slow with rigid movement....
[video:youtube][/video]

A thing with armour is, you don't wear it all day everyday.

You wear it to a riot, arena fight, or battle, and then you change back into your own clothes or workwear. So those naked germans mentioned earlier would put clothes on after the fighting, and the KiSA would take off the armour and just wear the underlying hose and gambeson or whatever.

My point is, a lot of the more extreme armours look daft if they are all your character is ever wearing regardless of what they are doing - for fights that intimidating perv armour is great, but the shopkeeper would maybe refuse to serve you (think of poor Arron, he'd be left talking to your posing pouch!), and your character would get some horrid chafeing if they tried sleeping in it!

That armor video is amazing.

I think we're playing with words muddy a bit the thread.

Simple:
Spartan Armor AND/OR centurion/roman armor, yes good - but it wasn't really the point.

But in game, for women I see legs and for the same armor on men I see full padding, why ? Is it sexist ?

Trying to rationalise that with some example where "it's okay to see legs for men too, it doesn't make them any less badass and it's more practical when walking for days as adventurer and bla .." is what, for one, I used as an attempt to make my point.

if you pull that pic with that cleric and the blue dress half naked, that is just another example to convey the point that yep it's possible on men too.

That video with the armor is a joke. Was that aluminum ? C'mon doing a back flip ?

Watch this guy here and try imagining the guy doing a back flip once he's done dressing ...



But again, we are moving away from the topic

I'm pretty certain the lack of pants for the female armor versions is just those pieces being incomplete, hence why they aren't accessibly normally. If they are really like that, it's a joke though.

@Ixal yeah no. You are not immovable in armor, true. The point is you are slower. A decently trained swordsman would kill him. Combat is more intense than light exercise. You will want you perception to match your reaction as much as possible. If you can move well in full plate armor then you don't need it. The whole point of armor is to take a blow and be able to continue. Thing is a wide variety of weapons exists of different penetration and weight excluding tech like guns. If you are talking history then it's a moot point.

@Starlights Who said anything about impossible? It is wholeheartedly less baddass. Why not just let men wear pants? Perverts. Why on gods relatively green earth are you all fighting to remove pants? You all talk about sexism but instead of advocating to give Laezel some pants, which not a single person in this 8 page topic is against from what I can tell, you want to remove men pants?

Its crazy. You all agree its a feminine style, but "you don't mind". Yeah because you aren't dudes. You want dudes to look a certain way. Sounds sexist to me. You have become your own enemy. How does it feel?

Equality my ass. When the tables are turned you do the same thing. Perverts.

Hahaha

No, that was real plate armor. You will find several videos like this on youtube. It is a very common misconception that plate armor made you slow and you could hardly move in it which obviously was not the case.
Here a compilation:

(If someone knows from where the first snipped is from I would be grateful)

@Aishaddai
No, totally wrong. Decently trained swordman are the normal opponents people in plate armor were fighting and the armor gave them a huge advantage. They are in no means slower than a lighter armed swordman (being unarmored was basically suicide) and had a very small area of where their armor can be penetrated. Basically a sword is useless against plate armor.

I don't understand how hard is it to understand that some of us just want it to be the SAME, with panths, without pants, completely irrelevant, just make it the same for both sexes.


I am a male if you must know.


No, not a certain way, just the same, which way it is, masculine or feminine, bare or covered is irrelevant.


How in the fck is wanting armors to be same for both sexes sexist? lmao


Yes, doing the SAME thing is equality. And how is that perverted?

As for sexual dimorphism, one of the two armors below was made for a woman. Can you tell which one?

No, I can't tell, I am no armor expert, I can only guess it's the first one because it's narrower.

@Kadajko Oh wow you're serious. I think you already know the answer you just don't like it. Men and Women are not the same. They are not interchangeable. They are complimentary. They are different. Each with pro's and con's. They don't compete for the same things. Men are in line with strength, women are in line with finesse. Strength is not better than finesse and finesse is not better than strength. They are simply different. They can accomplish similar things in different ways. In some situations, strength is more deadly. In others, finesse is more deadly.

A man normally has enough masculinity and testosterone for 2 people. A woman normally has enough feminity and estrogen for 2 people. Together, guess what happens. I know certain groups have been trying to push other stuff. That's their business. You are free to believe what you want. I can verify this through biology, psychology, chemistry, history, medicine, genetics, religion, philosophy, spirituality, and hell even certain math subgenres and advanced physics. Though I'll probably get banned. Hell even typing this response will probably get me banned. lol oh well. It does not matter really.

Equality is a joke because how can two different things be equal. It's a power play for subjugation.

@Ixal No I'm right. Get your nose out of Europe's butt. Speed is only relative to your opponent. As much as Europe likes you to believe, you are not a walking invincible fortress. Plate armor has weaknesses. The joints and heat exhaustion. By the time the simpletons of those days realized this and tried to fix it guns were in production. The reason joints were a weakness was so you could actually have a range of motion. You could not protect those spots. You literally had to struggle to protect your armpits, the back of your knees, the tendons on your arm near your bicep, etc.

Please learn your history. Yes, joints were a weak point of plate armor, relative to the rest. They were still protected by mail, sometimes even plate, making them impervious to swords. You would have better luck with a dagger. A less armored combatant would have 0 advantages over someone in plate because 1. plate armor is not slow, especially comapred to other forms of armor and 2. it provides a gigantic advantage over people with lesser armor or even no armor (= suicide). The idea how the agile master swashbuckler having an advantage over combatants in plate armor is a hollywood myth (Syrio Forel from GoT for example). The same way it is a myth that plate armor meant you couldn't be agile what you seem to believe. See the videos, and no those are not aluminium replicas but real plate armor.
Plate armor was bulletproof by the way for quite a long time and it took more than a century of firearm development until plate armor could not keep up any more.

I'm not a scholar of this stuff so I could be wrong but isn't it right that rapiers and the like developed as a response to armor? That it made sense to try and poke your way into the helmet or under the armpits than bash your way through the armor?

Same goes for flanges on maces? Designed to crush the breastplate so the knight couldn't breathe?

No shit? lol


In reproduction, yeah.


Each individual has pro's and con's, regardless of their sex.


Depends on what that thing is. If it's breast feeding a child then no, if it's something both can do, both can compete in that area.


Depends on the individual, regardless of their sex.


And sometimes men have less testosterone and more estrogen and women have more testosterone and less estrogen. But that is not an end all be all when it comes to developing certain characteristics and attitudes.


When mommy and daddy love each other very much? A baby.


Yeah, I'm not a part of any group.


Science is the word you are looking for. Science is good yes, though you won't be able to debunk what I said here with science.


Nah, you'll be fine.


There is a man who is a soldier and one who is a doctor and one who is a programmer, they are so different, mentally and physically, how can they be equal?

Not the rapier, that was a weapon for civilians and not intended to fight against armor, but yes, plate armor prompted the development of weapons to defeat them, either by strong blunt force like with maces or by having a pointed weapon with a lot of leverage like halberds, polaxes and warhammers.
Also small weapons like daggers were effective once the enemy way immobilized. Swords were generally not effective against plate, being more a generalist weapon which lacked the features to defeat plate armor. Thus while glorified they became backup weapons.