People love to go on how historically accurate armor is so important

>>54434864
You're thinking of D&D and D&D is like anti-realism.

nerds enjoy obsessing over minutiae

Its entirely stupid argument because most people didn't walk around in armour during these periods.

File: images (29).jpg (25KB, 381x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 381x386px

>>54434864
You are right OP.
From now on I will only play games where I nees to pick up individual armour pieces.

>>54435082
Each piece gives +1 ac except the breastplate which gives 2

A knight in full plate armor has an AC of 31 + 1 dex modifier.

Honestly that seems fair. Then again you could give the poor cucked martials literally anything and it'd be fair

>>54434864
Dodging is important, yes.

In fantasy games, realism is an argument people use when they can't come up with a valid reason for not liking something and lack the resolve to just say "I just don't like it and there's not much reason behind it."

File: 1464593105319.jpg (183KB, 800x611px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 800x611px

>>54434864
What if I told you that there were plenty of historical periods in which people went around mostly or partly naked, even during combat? And that sometimes the naked people even won victories against the un-naked people? And that all this shit depends on a lot of cultural context that dosn't have to apply to a fantasy game where you are allowed to explore other possibilities? And that while some of those possibilities are based on particular eras of history, they don't have to be if you don't want them to?

File: d84dab2e041a9db055db5313692133f1.jpg (19KB, 236x332px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 236x332px

>>54435138
I'd honestly give the helmet a bigger bonus than the breastplate. Historically people were more likely to wear helmets than any other form of armor, and this is true pretty much anywhere and any era.

>>54434864
Yes. It's particularly true for spellcasters, because they often don't wear armor, so they might as well be naked as far as protection is concerned.

>>54437889
>What if I told you that there were plenty of historical periods in which people went around mostly or partly naked, even during combat?
I'd say that's pretty hot.

>>54434864
It'd be easier to fight naked than with some of the boobplate designs I've seen.

>>54437927

Makes sense. A shield pretty much covers the torso, so all you would need is a helmet in terms of basic "I need to cut this guy and kill him" combat.

>>54435082
>>54435138
That's how the first Song of Ice and Fire RPG by Guardians of Order did it. It was okay.

>>54434864

Most RPGs don't capture how much harder it is to rely on nimbleness to not get cut instead of "lol steel"

>>54435138
this.

>>54437889
>Picts spot a group of roman soldiers
>Immediately undress for battle
The Celts were some crazy-ass motherfuckers.

>>54443989
Picts were more proto indo European / Gael mixes than celts.

But yeah, a lot of them fought buck naked. It's actually safer if you just have clothes. A naked person is hard to grab, and while a wound in battle might be survivable if you're naked, most outside of battle deaths weren't due to blood loss or shock, but due to scraps of clothing being forced into the body, leading to the infection of what would otherwise be a survivable wound. Back in the heyday of dueling, a doctor showed up to a duel naked because he understood this, and his opponent called off the duel because he was so weirded out.

>>54434864
If your gonna do something do it right Gonna wear armor? Wear real armor.

Gonna be a whore? Wear whore clothes.