Clothing as hindrance in combat

[neonchameleon]

Name any military commander who would agree to dress his troops in knee-crotch pants.

Given that military uniforms are a modern thing? May not be their choice.

But if you want a military commander who would agree to impractical equipment I'm going to point at the F-35. Or for clothing The Wehrmacht's clothing was pretty awful (https://eudaimonaiaclaughter.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-value-of-a-well-fitted-suit/). And then there's the whole issue with one-size-fits-all camouflage that can't hide in any terrain (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164686/How-U-S-Army-spent-5BILLION-failed-pixel-camouflage--wanted-look-cooler-Marines.html).

Asking to name a military commander who'd do certain things is a silly question.

[Donnadogsoth]

Ooooh so NOW you want things to be tested for accuracy rather than just what makes sense now that it goes AGAINST your opinion. Mk. That explains a lot.

Also, leather armor won't be punctured by a bramble bush, so it won't get caught at all. The difference between the two is EXISTANT but NOT SUFFICIENTLY LARGE to merit an entire rulesystem for clothing hindrances. Remember, your original proposition to show the necessity of this rule was that robes are flowy. After this was disproven and several other things, your argument is currently that these rules are necessary in case someone in a flowy dress ends up stuck in a bramble bush. Do you see why I now find this absurd?

So you haven't tested it, I haven't tested it, so if I rule that a dress will take a few seconds to rip free of a bramble more than leather armour will, you can't gainsay that.


The above? Yeah, though not officially. I can sprint about as fast in either case. I'm not particularly fast to begin with, though. And as I said before (and you ignored) I was able to play a dancing game that requires rapid, accurate leg movements in baggy, sagging pants and flip-flops without a noticeable dip in skill.

The below? Maybe. But now we're getting even more ridiculous to find a difference.

Let me put it in all-caps because you seem to be bad at finding it when I keep saying it.

DIFFERENCES DO INDEED EXIST, AND THE CLOTHING NOTED MAY INDEED HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT. HOWEVER, THIS IMPACT IS TOO SMALL TO RENDER WITHIN A D20 SYSTEM WITHOUT OVERINFLATING AND/OR OVERSIMPLIFYING THE PENALTY, THUS UNDOING THE ATTEMPT AT "REALISM" IN THE FIRST PLACE BY MAKING THE PENALTY NOT REALISTIC.

STOP. READ THE ABOVE AGAIN.

Ok. Do you get it NOW?

I'll grant you the dancing functions, but I'm still not sure about running. You've run in baggy pants but as baggy as I've been describing? And how long did it take to hitch them up? And I'm especially not sure about the practicality of such pants in military conditions. And how about performing a Y-kick in such pants? You know, a kick to an opponent's head.

[Donnadogsoth]

Given that military uniforms are a modern thing? May not be their choice.

But if you want a military commander who would agree to impractical equipment I'm going to point at the F-35. Or for clothing The Wehrmacht's clothing was pretty awful (https://eudaimonaiaclaughter.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/the-value-of-a-well-fitted-suit/). And then there's the whole issue with one-size-fits-all camouflage that can't hide in any terrain (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164686/How-U-S-Army-spent-5BILLION-failed-pixel-camouflage--wanted-look-cooler-Marines.html).

Asking to name a military commander who'd do certain things is a silly question.

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

[Keltest]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

Are you familiar with the armor check penalty? Restricted movement like that is already taken into account in 3.5, at least.

[neonchameleon]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?

Not in D20. You might if you were using d1000s. There is no basic task that you are going to fail one time in 20 because of that clothing. And it's unrealistic in d20 to apply penalties for anything less serious than that. As well as being bad game design.

As for the camo example, that's an example of not getting a bonus.

Edit: The Armour Check Penalty in d20 is ridiculously punishing and is bad game design. (And people still wear heavy armour in d20 because it provides bonusses). The closer a load is to your body the easier it is to carry - and there is no more form fitting armour ever made than a good suit of gothic plate, and it's designed with maximising your mobility in mind. Therefore the armour check penalties for any armour should almost without exception* be lower than the encumberance penalties for wearing a backpack of that weight. Swimming in plate armour is not recommended - but it's easier than swimming carrying just about any other 50lb weight that isn't bouyant. And it's certainly easier to cartwheel or walk across a tightrope wearing plate than carrying the same weight.

* Jousting plate was the armour people needed cranes to get on horses with. It was strictly sports-based armour and not worn to go to war because that would be silly.

[Vinyadan]

Do you give mali for wearing a thick winter jacket?

[Knaight]

Therefore the armour check penalties for any armour should almost without exception* be lower than the encumberance penalties for wearing a backpack of that weight. Swimming in plate armour is not recommended - but it's easier than swimming carrying just about any other 50lb weight that isn't bouyant. And it's certainly easier to cartwheel or walk across a tightrope wearing plate than carrying the same weight.

* Jousting plate was the armour people needed cranes to get on horses with. It was strictly sports-based armour and not worn to go to war because that would be silly.

I wouldn't make an exception even for the heavier jousting specific plates (and the ubiquity of cranes in jousting is ridiculously exaggerated). If the armor is heavy enough that you need a crane to get up on a horse, then a comparable backpack is really going to suck. The only exception that would make sense is localized armor check penalties involving leg armor and leg movement, as a heavy backpack legitimately isn't worse there than armor on the legs - there's a reason that infantry plate often had the back of legs unprotected, whereas cavalry would load up on the heavier armor.

[Satinavian]

If I'm playing a d20 Wehrmacht soldier in said uniform, do I get any penalties whatsoever?
No.
Partly because the argument against the uniform boils down to "to elaborate and expensive for simple infantry uniforms" and "backpacks are better than a belt".
Partly because a -1 would be far too much for a bad uniform.

[Herabec]

Don't really have anything to add to this discussion...

Just wanted to thank you all for an incredibly entertaining read to go along with my breakfast.

Also, why does this place smell like a den of trolls? *sniff* In fact, this entire topic smells like troll.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

(@ the "low pants" discussion)

In 5e you can interact with any 1 object as part of your move action. If a gangster wants to pull up his pants, that's how long it takes, plus he only has one hand free while running. The southern belle? That's how fast she can tear her dress, if she makes the strength check. (Failure makes it a full round action.)

If you're in situations where the PC's are wearing outfits even they consider ridiculous, work with whatever system you're using. If they want cool robes, a cape or spikes on their armor just give the realism a rest. They can ones a day end the universe at will, I'm sure they're wearing the enchanted robes of not getting underfoot.

[Donnadogsoth]

Are you familiar with the armor check penalty? Restricted movement like that is already taken into account in 3.5, at least.

No. I have 1st ed around somewhere. Is it in there? I don't remember seeing it in the DMG.

[Vinyadan]

No. I have 1st ed around somewhere. Is it in there? I don't remember seeing it in the DMG.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm

[Âmesang]

Armor Check Penalty: Player's Handbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorCheckPenalty), p.122

Carrying Capacity: Player's Handbook (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm), p.161

EDIT: Ninja'd by typing one-fingered on a tablet at a slow fast-food Wi-Fi. :smalltongue:

[ImNotTrevor]

So you haven't tested it, I haven't tested it, so if I rule that a dress will take a few seconds to rip free of a bramble more than leather armour will, you can't gainsay that.
What if it is a STR 24 Epic Level Barbarian raging in a dress? Would it still take several seconds for this person to rip free?

The entire situation is incredibly contextual and is solved in 3.5 with a Strength Check as the standard action and then a move action. Less Movement than a double-move, but meh. It has been modelled and a penalty isn't part of it. Also a flat penalty says "This cloth is sufficiently powerful that it can negatively affect even you, Dragon Disguised As A Princess." Even if the effect is negligible, the thought of a STR 40 character being forced to expend any sort of legitimate effort to extricate themselves (or even being hindered at all) is laughable. Flat Penalties deny Fictional Positioning.




I'll grant you the dancing functions, but I'm still not sure about running. You've run in baggy pants but as baggy as I've been describing? And how long did it take to hitch them up? And I'm especially not sure about the practicality of such pants in military conditions. And how about performing a Y-kick in such pants? You know, a kick to an opponent's head.
I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

As has been said multiple times, no one is arguing that the pants are practical. They aren't.

However, by the same token, the problems presented have quick fixes sufficient to nullify the 5% penalty.

To give my ACTUAL recommendation for how to handle clothes penalties? Because I do have one. A legit one.

Just use whatever already exists, and draw attention to the specifics based on the results.

"You're stuck in a bramble bush, roll a strength check"
[Player fails the roll]
"Alright, your clothes are caught, and you stumble as you try to rip yourself free."

The clothes have consequence, and cause problems. But we retain complete narrative flexibility to handle all of the fine details of the situation without just throwing in a flat penalty to every physical activity. (Depending on how caught you are, you may not be hindered at all in doing certain tasks, like firing a hand crossbow.)

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

[Donnadogsoth]

What if it is a STR 24 Epic Level Barbarian raging in a dress? Would it still take several seconds for this person to rip free?

The entire situation is incredibly contextual and is solved in 3.5 with a Strength Check as the standard action and then a move action. Less Movement than a double-move, but meh. It has been modelled and a penalty isn't part of it. Also a flat penalty says "This cloth is sufficiently powerful that it can negatively affect even you, Dragon Disguised As A Princess." Even if the effect is negligible, the thought of a STR 40 character being forced to expend any sort of legitimate effort to extricate themselves (or even being hindered at all) is laughable. Flat Penalties deny Fictional Positioning.



I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

As has been said multiple times, no one is arguing that the pants are practical. They aren't.

However, by the same token, the problems presented have quick fixes sufficient to nullify the 5% penalty.

To give my ACTUAL recommendation for how to handle clothes penalties? Because I do have one. A legit one.

Just use whatever already exists, and draw attention to the specifics based on the results.

"You're stuck in a bramble bush, roll a strength check"
[Player fails the roll]
"Alright, your clothes are caught, and you stumble as you try to rip yourself free."

The clothes have consequence, and cause problems. But we retain complete narrative flexibility to handle all of the fine details of the situation without just throwing in a flat penalty to every physical activity. (Depending on how caught you are, you may not be hindered at all in doing certain tasks, like firing a hand crossbow.)

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

That all seems fair. Thank you for convincing me.

[ImNotTrevor]

That all seems fair. Thank you for convincing me.

No problem, broski.

[Tiktakkat]

I'm incapable of performing a Y-kick in any situation.

Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)

While I do not support the concept of going overboard with rules for clothing, as someone who could kick to the head, and had issues with pants binding at the wrong moment during a kick, I must note that your analysis is incorrect on two points.

First, when clothing binds like that, you are typically unaware that it is going to bind until it actually does, at which point it is too late to adjust it before it has a negative effect. Your leg (or arm; or whatever else) has already been brought up short, hindering whatever it is you were trying to do. And such restricted motion is more than sufficient to prevent an effective defense or ruin an effective attack, even in amounts measured in fractions of an inch.

Second, 1 second is an absurdly long time in that kind of combat situation. It is more than enough of a delay for a strike to get through an attempted defense, or to allow a person to evade and counter.

Fighting your clothes is not something you want to be doing when someone is trying to hurt you.

[ImNotTrevor]

While I do not support the concept of going overboard with rules for clothing, as someone who could kick to the head, and had issues with pants binding at the wrong moment during a kick, I must note that your analysis is incorrect on two points.

First, when clothing binds like that, you are typically unaware that it is going to bind until it actually does, at which point it is too late to adjust it before it has a negative effect. Your leg (or arm; or whatever else) has already been brought up short, hindering whatever it is you were trying to do. And such restricted motion is more than sufficient to prevent an effective defense or ruin an effective attack, even in amounts measured in fractions of an inch.

Second, 1 second is an absurdly long time in that kind of combat situation. It is more than enough of a delay for a strike to get through an attempted defense, or to allow a person to evade and counter.

Fighting your clothes is not something you want to be doing when someone is trying to hurt you.

Your first example isn't part of the situation presented, nor does it argue against any points I've actually made. You can hitch up your pants and run. That's it.

For the second, you missed the "or less" on the end there. "1 second or less" is different from 1 second. And reorienting your momentum to break into a sudden sprint can be done while grabbing your pants and pulling upwards. It is amazing, but people CAN do 2 things at the same time without their brains violently exiting the skull.

In the situation presented, Pants McCrotchwaist is suddenly getting shot at. So I dealt with THAT scenario. Not a kung-fu fight in gangster pants. Which is part of why I said that such things are too contextual to boil down to a simple flat penalty. In the specific instance you're presenting, sure. You can attribute misses to clothes issues. But a flat penalty is not going to accurately represent the problem in any way.

[VoxRationis]

Problem solved, maximum narrative ability retained, and you expel 0 effort. If that doesn't sound like a good deal, I dunno what does.

Perhaps a solution that actually takes the clothing into account as more than a post facto explanation for something that would have happened without it.

[Keltest]

Perhaps a solution that actually takes the clothing into account as more than a post facto explanation for something that would have happened without it.

As a general rule, anything like that is either taken into account with the existing armor check penalties and max dex bonuses, or would be identified and corrected prior to being taken out into the field by adventurers. Unlike, say, soldiers, adventurers generally have the luxury of taking the time to personalize their armor/clothes and make sure it fits comfortably and doesn't get in the way.

[Tiktakkat]

Your first example isn't part of the situation presented, nor does it argue against any points I've actually made. You can hitch up your pants and run. That's it.

My first example is part of the situation Donnadogsoth asked about.
You didn't reply because you cannot do a kick to the head.
I could, and know the effect binding clothing has on doing such things. For that matter, I know the effect it can have on trying to kick to the stomach. Or just the knee.


For the second, you missed the "or less" on the end there. "1 second or less" is different from 1 second. And reorienting your momentum to break into a sudden sprint can be done while grabbing your pants and pulling upwards. It is amazing, but people CAN do 2 things at the same time without their brains violently exiting the skull.

And you are overlooking where I said that 1 second is an absurdly long time in combat. A fraction of a second can be an excessively long time.
Reorienting does not happen as instantly as you seem to think. And while people can do two things at the same time without their brains violently exiting their skull, that doesn't mean their body can respond and perform both tasks at the same time, or that both tasks are compatible with being done at the same time. You can be pulling your pants up and stepping, and the pulling is incomplete hindering the stepping yet again.


In the situation presented, Pants McCrotchwaist is suddenly getting shot at. So I dealt with THAT scenario. Not a kung-fu fight in gangster pants. Which is part of why I said that such things are too contextual to boil down to a simple flat penalty. In the specific instance you're presenting, sure. You can attribute misses to clothes issues. But a flat penalty is not going to accurately represent the problem in any way.

And part of what you said was to try rolling the scenarios together, as if hitching up pants was the only relevant factor.
Now you want to try and exclude consideration of any other situation away.
That is just as bad as trying to create detailed clothing rules for every action.

[Donnadogsoth]

Of course, there also the consideration of a character wearing fine clothing he doesn't want to get damaged or dirty in any way, and even upon finding himself in a filthy and perilous dungeon is enough of a prink to let this affect his combat and active abilities. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Vinyadan]

Of course, there also the consideration of a character wearing fine clothing he doesn't want to get damaged or dirty in any way, and even upon finding himself in a filthy and perilous dungeon is enough of a prink to let this affect his combat and active abilities. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

That sounds like a flaw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm).

[Âmesang]

Let's just say there's a reason my vain, conceited, selfish, self-centered, aristocratic archmage learned mending and prestidigitation.

…assuming she doesn't just fly/greater teleport/disintegrate her way free. :smalltongue: You want something done right? Even spellcasters got to do it themselves.

[Knaight]

As a general rule, anything like that is either taken into account with the existing armor check penalties and max dex bonuses, or would be identified and corrected prior to being taken out into the field by adventurers. Unlike, say, soldiers, adventurers generally have the luxury of taking the time to personalize their armor/clothes and make sure it fits comfortably and doesn't get in the way.

Anything taken onto the field by adventurers would be corrected, yes. However, we're not necessarily looking at things deliberately taken onto the field, and we're not necessarily looking at adventurers. We're looking at PCs, and while in more D&D style games that inevitably means professional adventurers that's far from a constant. If you've got a PC that is something like a civil servant who used to be a soldier 20 years ago but who has spent the interim time as a bureaucrat, and they're wearing clothes designed to symbol their rank with no eye towards practicality and they get attacked, the clothes could easily get in the way of either running or fighting. If the game is generally about a bunch of professional adventurers going through dungeons, rules for this thing is a complete waste of time. If the game is generally about tense court politics during a succession crisis, these sort of rules suddenly have a lot more value.

[Douche]

This topic made me think of Dark Souls 2 where the total weight of your gear affects your mobility in combat, and you end up having naked dudes doing backflips with greatswords cuz they wanted to minmax and not put any points into carrying capacity. AKA tryhards

[VoxRationis]

Anything taken onto the field by adventurers would be corrected, yes. However, we're not necessarily looking at things deliberately taken onto the field, and we're not necessarily looking at adventurers. We're looking at PCs, and while in more D&D style games that inevitably means professional adventurers that's far from a constant. If you've got a PC that is something like a civil servant who used to be a soldier 20 years ago but who has spent the interim time as a bureaucrat, and they're wearing clothes designed to symbol their rank with no eye towards practicality and they get attacked, the clothes could easily get in the way of either running or fighting.

I could not agree more. I'm not sure how the context of the discussion became narrowed down from "PCs with awkward clothes" to "professional adventurers with preparation and forewarning doing a dungeon crawl."

[Âmesang]

This topic made me think of Dark Souls 2 where the total weight of your gear affects your mobility in combat, and you end up having naked dudes doing backflips with greatswords cuz they wanted to minmax and not put any points into carrying capacity. AKA tryhards
To be fair that's a problem in D&D, too, since your armor counts towards your total weight carried. :smalltongue: Although instead of going naked, I just gave my Pathfinder ranger a "masterwork agile breastplate" (reduced penalty on Climb and Acrobatic [jump] checks) and a "masterwork backpack" (treat your Strength as +1 higher for the purpose of carrying capacity).

[goto124]

Anything taken onto the field by adventurers would be corrected, yes. However, we're not necessarily looking at things deliberately taken onto the field, and we're not necessarily looking at adventurers. We're looking at PCs, and while in more D&D style games that inevitably means professional adventurers that's far from a constant. If you've got a PC that is something like a civil servant who used to be a soldier 20 years ago but who has spent the interim time as a bureaucrat, and they're wearing clothes designed to symbol their rank with no eye towards practicality and they get attacked, the clothes could easily get in the way of either running or fighting. If the game is generally about a bunch of professional adventurers going through dungeons, rules for this thing is a complete waste of time. If the game is generally about tense court politics during a succession crisis, these sort of rules suddenly have a lot more value.

Now everything makes sense. "PCs" typically means "trained & prepared adventurers".

So it's a setting where... how much combat to how much social situations that ask for fancy combat-unready social clothing? Assuming we're already ruled out combat-ready clothing that's still good-looking and socially presentable (such as social clothing being social because they're combat-unread)?

[Knaight]

Now everything makes sense. "PCs" typically means "trained & prepared adventurers".
This thread is in the general RPG section, not the D&D subforum. The whole professional adventurer schtick is a D&D one, and while there's frequently still more than a little combat in most other games, there's often a lot of other stuff.


So it's a setting where... how much combat to how much social situations that ask for fancy combat-unready social clothing? Assuming we're already ruled out combat-ready clothing that's still good-looking and socially presentable (such as social clothing being social because they're combat-unread)?
There's a wide range of different settings here with a wide range of combat to social situations ratio. If it's skewed more towards combat than about 2:1 though, the rules are pretty niche case. Still, stuff in the 1:1 to 1:10 range aren't necessarily unusual.

[ImNotTrevor]

My first example is part of the situation Donnadogsoth asked about.
You didn't reply because you cannot do a kick to the head.
I could, and know the effect binding clothing has on doing such things. For that matter, I know the effect it can have on trying to kick to the stomach. Or just the knee.

Still not a point I made, nor one that I'm arguing with. Just pointing out that it's not a point I made, so trying to pin me as wrong about it is a really weird use of time.



And you are overlooking where I said that 1 second is an absurdly long time in combat. A fraction of a second can be an excessively long time.
Reorienting does not happen as instantly as you seem to think. And while people can do two things at the same time without their brains violently exiting their skull, that doesn't mean their body can respond and perform both tasks at the same time, or that both tasks are compatible with being done at the same time. You can be pulling your pants up and stepping, and the pulling is incomplete hindering the stepping yet again.

I never said reorienting is instantaneous. If you read back, you'll see that I stated that the time needed to reorient momentum in the situation presented is a lethally long amount of time against an active, prepared shooter, regardless of clothing worn. Just that the time needed to hitch up one's pants can be absorbed into the same amount of time, so doesn't add nor subtract from that time. It isn't really an additional time hindrance, just something that also uses up your hands. (But in the presented situation, you're entirely at the mercy of Initiative and accuracy, and your pants will not play a large enough role to make much of a difference except in VERY small increments, at that point.)



And part of what you said was to try rolling the scenarios together, as if hitching up pants was the only relevant factor.
Now you want to try and exclude consideration of any other situation away.
That is just as bad as trying to create detailed clothing rules for every action.
Wut.
I might need the all-caps again.

HITCHING UP ONE'S CROTCHWAIST PANTS DOES INDEED MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN MANY SITUATIONS, HOWEVER THE NUMBER OF SITUATIONS IN WHICH THIS OCCURS IS SO LIMITED AND CONTEXTUAL AS TO MAKE A BLANKET RULE IMPOSSIBLE TO PRODUCE WITHOUT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME AND EFFORT, AND WOULD NOT BE ACCURATELY REPRESENTED BY A FLAT PENALTY.

As for games that are primarily socially based, such rules are even less likely to be needed since combat will be too generalized for such nitty-gritty details to be relevant. (Unless the game has weirdly in-depth combat rules for a system that claims combat to be a non-focus.) Basically, if you want to have a game with really deep social rules, you will want to have those be priority 1, and combat to be much more abstracted. Having really deep rules for both means the system becomes incredibly heavy and longwinded, and fewer people are going to bother with it.

Basically, in a social-based game, combat will be so abstracted that clothing rules are a WORSE idea. (Or the system will be so bulky that half the rules will be ignored just to keep the game playable.)
In a combat focused d20 or 3d6 game, the effects are too contextual and/or small to be accurately modeled within d20/3d6 frameworks.

It's going to be a bad idea 99% of the time, unless you're playing Runway Model Assassins, which is a theoretical game which could really run with this idea and make it very fun, but of course it would have Assassin Fashion as a core concept that very much needs rules.

[Tiktakkat]

Still not a point I made, nor one that I'm arguing with. Just pointing out that it's not a point I made, so trying to pin me as wrong about it is a really weird use of time.

Well yeah, it is.


Just that the time needed to hitch up one's pants can be absorbed into the same amount of time, so doesn't add nor subtract from that time. It isn't really an additional time hindrance, just something that also uses up your hands.

Which is incorrect.


Wut.
I might need the all-caps again.

Bold it, underline it, italicize it, and supersize the font, it is still wrong.
Hitching up one's pants makes a difference in ALL combat situations.
That is neither limited nor contextual.

Do I need to overly highlight it for you to understand?

As for whether that is enough to merit The Complete Tailor's Handbook is another question.
I already said, and made it clear several pages back, that I do not think it does, particularly since I believe the D20 rules already have sufficient rules to account for the effects, and that more are not especially needed.

[The Fury]

Now everything makes sense. "PCs" typically means "trained & prepared adventurers".


It does? I always thought it meant "hapless dork in way over his or her head with little to no idea of what's going on."

Also, this thread is the funniest one I've seen on these forums in a long time.

[JustSomeGuy]

I was once in a military rifle shooting competition, in issued uniform (of the ill fitting and mandatory variety). One of the shoots incorporated) a standing shot followed by a squatting/kneeling shot, repeated 5 times at a distance before advancing in time (ie running) to the next exposure distances and more silliness (clambering in and out of fire trenches etc). After each squat and before each run, and also interspersed among the other exposures i had to hitch up my trousers one handed (the other holding my rifle) in the limited time available, which wasn't much because we were supposed to be under pressure as it was. I still managed to achieve this almighty feat, complete all the shoots, run adequately to make the time cutoffs, and also avoid any nefarious bushes en route, although no spinning headkicks were administered[/SERIOUS BIDNISS].

I'm not sure i could award percentage difficulty modifiers to any of these tasks without several thousand words of analysis and projections, it's all so complex

[Vinyadan]

Can't you just render these things through action economy? If you want to do [stuff] while wearing [stuff], spend [stuff time] readying your pants.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well yeah, it is.
So stop doing it. :P




Which is incorrect.

Until tested for accuracy in real life, neither of us has anything but theory. You can try using a stopwatch to find a major difference, though.



Bold it, underline it, italicize it, and supersize the font, it is still wrong.
Hitching up one's pants makes a difference in ALL combat situations.
That is neither limited nor contextual.

Reread that. It didn't say Combat Situations.
And low pants wouldn't make a difference in a situation of kneeling and firing from cover, or in a prone position, or standing still (for whatever reason that one may do so in combat) etc. Basically any situation not requiring the use of legs will be unhindered by pants (weird how that works.)




As for whether that is enough to merit The Complete Tailor's Handbook is another question.
I already said, and made it clear several pages back, that I do not think it does, particularly since I believe the D20 rules already have sufficient rules to account for the effects, and that more are not especially needed.

Which is what I've stated over and over. So why are we bothering?

[Vinyadan]

I find that a system with such regulation for clothing would make sense if it also gave extreme relevance to human relations. For example, a city with many different organized factions, where wearing the same stuff will identify you as one of them. You can't run around wearing your usual Kevlar® garb, because you would loose a lot of "membership points" (like IRL), so you have to trade between combat capabilities (and probability), long term effects and immediate effect on other people.
So it will be hard to become a successful attorney if you only want to wear electron blue sneakers, and you will be looked upon suspiciously if you want to join a rap battle in full evening dress panoply.

[Spiryt]

Clothing is hindrance in combat. Or any athletically challenging activity at all, of course.

There's reason why majority of sports are done in minimal clothing, if possible, today in specifically designed minimal clothing.

That doesn't change the fact that modeling it in most games would be 'a bit' tedious...

Some simple penalties for specialized (whether for a ball or climbing chimneys), obviously bulky clothing would likely be enough.

[Tiktakkat]

So stop doing it. :P

Stop being wrong and I'll stop pointing out your errors.


Until tested for accuracy in real life, neither of us has anything but theory. You can try using a stopwatch to find a major difference, though.

Apparently you missed where I said I have tested it out in real life. So . . . one of us has something other than theory.


Reread that. It didn't say Combat Situations.

Well actually, you did.
It was trying to hitch up your pants and run while being fired on.
You tried to exclude melee combat from that.
But that still leaves an actual, you know, combat situation.
Of course the core issue is any physical activity, and not merely combat, or not merely ranged firearm combat, so your attempt to now parse out all combat situations is pretty much going off on a complete irrelevance.


And low pants wouldn't make a difference in a situation of kneeling and firing from cover, or in a prone position, or standing still (for whatever reason that one may do so in combat) etc. Basically any situation not requiring the use of legs will be unhindered by pants (weird how that works.)

Except of course they would make a difference in any situation in which mobility is involved.
Basically, any situation involving combat, which is virtually always going to involve moving the legs. Dueling being something sort of similar to combat in that you might get killed but not really because you don't duck or anything.


Which is what I've stated over and over. So why are we bothering?

It is what I stated over and over.
We are bothering because you want to extend that to declaring that clothing is utterly irrelevant, which would result in things like the ACP being something that should be deleted.

[ImNotTrevor]

Stop being wrong and I'll stop pointing out your errors.

I think you're putting everything together as one argument whereas I never claimed anything about high kicks being unaffected. That's a thing you're pulling out of somewhere I won't describe, as far as I can tell.

[/QUOTE]
Apparently you missed where I said I have tested it out in real life. So . . . one of us has something other than theory.

Hitching pants and changing directions? With a stopwatch? Mutliple times for accuracy and with a broader group than yourself? Uhuh. Thought not.


[QUOTE]
Well actually, you did.
It was trying to hitch up your pants and run while being fired on.
You tried to exclude melee combat from that.
But that still leaves an actual, you know, combat situation.
Of course the core issue is any physical activity, and not merely combat, or not merely ranged firearm combat, so your attempt to now parse out all combat situations is pretty much going off on a complete irrelevance.

Reread the all-caps section. It doesn't limit to combat. Just Situations. What I said is actually broader than what you're accusing.



Except of course they would make a difference in any situation in which mobility is involved.
Basically, any situation involving combat, which is virtually always going to involve moving the legs. Dueling being something sort of similar to combat in that you might get killed but not really because you don't duck or anything.

Sure. When did I argue against them making a difference? They DO make a difference.

Just that in the vast majority of situations either:
A) There is a mechanic already
Or
B) The effect is too small to render via d20
Or
C) The situation is going to come up so infrequently that a dedicated rule for it is a waste of time.

Because remember, for this situation to occur the following needs to be the case:
1) The PC is alone
2) The PC is wearing crotchwaist pants
3) The PC has angered someone sufficiently to be ambushed
4) Despite this the PC is unaware and walking around in said attire without a belt
5) They are attacked by people with guns in public with no regard for subtelty, or we can assume in a back alley somewhere? If on the street, this enemy is really foolhardy or just THAT mad.

This situation is SUPER contextual and unlikely, which is what I'm talking about. The situations in which this problem will come up are so uncommon that they don't merit a rule. That's it.



It is what I stated over and over.
We are bothering because you want to extend that to declaring that clothing is utterly irrelevant, which would result in things like the ACP being something that should be deleted.

I have said nothing about armor class penalties. I've only said that Clothing Penalties don't merit being an actual rule, because the moments when they matter will either be:
A) Really, really uncommon
Or
B) The problem will be too small to model accurately in d20.

Get your words out of my mouth. I never said any of the things you're accusing me of saying unless you try to read between the lines. What you'll notice if you look between the lines is a lot of white space because I'm not saying anything about things you think I'm commenting on.

If I didn't specifically say it, then I don't prescribe to it.

[goto124]

I find that a system with such regulation for clothing would make sense if it also gave extreme relevance to human relations. For example, a city with many different organized factions, where wearing the same stuff will identify you as one of them. You can't run around wearing your usual Kevlar® garb, because you would loose a lot of "membership points" (like IRL), so you have to trade between combat capabilities (and probability), long term effects and immediate effect on other people.
So it will be hard to become a successful attorney if you only want to wear electron blue sneakers, and you will be looked upon suspiciously if you want to join a rap battle in full evening dress panoply.

But why would a successful attorney need to run around so much as to wear sneakers? Okay, maybe a thief just stole your very important documents, but how often will that happen to justify specific rules for it? Why not wear work shoes that are both good-looking and comfortable (enough) for running?

Why would someone who attends rap battles wear full evening dress panoply, and why would someone who attends fancy balls attend rap battles?

I understand that if you're an adventurer and travel to lots of places, you may have to balance between "protection from environment" and "combat readiness to protect yourself from enemies". But I can't imagine much other reasons.

[Tiktakkat]

I think you're putting everything together as one argument whereas I never claimed anything about high kicks being unaffected. That's a thing you're pulling out of somewhere I won't describe, as far as I can tell.

It is you trying to pull off limiting the discussion after being called on your error.


Hitching pants and changing directions?

Yes.


With a stopwatch?

The test is for a causal relationship, not a temporal one, so a stopwatch is not needed, just a visual assessment.


Mutliple times for accuracy

Yes.


and with a broader group than yourself?

Yes.


Uhuh. Thought not.

That is the problem - your lack of thought.


Reread the all-caps section. It doesn't limit to combat. Just Situations. What I said is actually broader than what you're accusing.

So . . . you are even more wrong.


Sure. When did I argue against them making a difference? They DO make a difference.

"Just that the time needed to hitch up one's pants can be absorbed into the same amount of time, so doesn't add nor subtract from that time. It isn't really an additional time hindrance, just something that also uses up your hands."

Gee, I guess you did argue they make a difference.


Because remember, for this situation to occur the following needs to be the case:

Except that isn't what you originally said.


This situation is SUPER contextual and unlikely, which is what I'm talking about. The situations in which this problem will come up are so uncommon that they don't merit a rule. That's it.

. . .

Get your words out of my mouth.

. . .

If I didn't specifically say it, then I don't prescribe to it.

""Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)""

That's what you said.
So you didn't "specifically say" any of the other things you want to claim for your "SUPER contextual" situation until called on it.
So get your redactions out of your mouth.
You cannot prescribe to them after the fact to cover for your error.

[ImNotTrevor]

It is you trying to pull off limiting the discussion after being called on your error.
You're having a very different conversation, then. I've been going point-by-point talking about multiple situations. You've combined it all into one. Which is real nifty, but explains the problem.




Yes.

Where's the data?



The test is for a causal relationship, not a temporal one, so a stopwatch is not needed, just a visual assessment.

Actually, if we're timing how long it takes then it is. Also, Data?



That is the problem - your lack of thought.

I really look forward to this data.



So . . . you are even more wrong.

I don't think you're actually reading what I'm writing, or are thinking that I'm defending the idea that the Pants are exactly as optimal as any other pants. Which I never said.

In fact, I said many times that they're unoptimal and a really bad idea.

But that the situation presented is one in which you're screwed unless you're wearing armor. (Quotes about that below!)

So no, I'm not defending the pants as not mattering. I'm saying that one can hitch up their pants in a pretty brief amount of time.



"Just that the time needed to hitch up one's pants can be absorbed into the same amount of time, so doesn't add nor subtract from that time. It isn't really an additional time hindrance, just something that also uses up your hands."

Gee, I guess you did argue they make a difference.

What are you even talking about here? The pants make a difference in this situation. Not so much that an already "you're screwed" situation has become any more of a "you're screwed" situation.



Except that isn't what you originally said.

I haven't needed to spell it out so specifically until now. I write to my audience.



""Hitching the pants takes exactly as long as it takes to grab the back beltloop and pull up. If especially low, to grab by two loops and pull up. This can be accomplished in approximately 1 second or less, while you get your momentum in gear. (Because in reality you can do several things at once)""
That's what you said.

If I had said .01 second or less, would this still be a problem? I feel like you're super hung up on the 1 second. It was a ballpark guesstimate.



So you didn't "specifically say" any of the other things you want to claim for your "SUPER contextual" situation until called on it.
So get your redactions out of your mouth.
You cannot prescribe to them after the fact to cover for your error.


"In all instances, your living or dying is in the hands of the shooter that ambushes you. If their gun is already out, halfway aimed, and you stumble into their sight, you are dead. It takes them less time to point in your general direction and start squeezing the trigger than it does for you to shift your entire body mass and put it any sort of significant distance away from where it currently is. So no, the fractions of a second you would get from sprinting are already lost when you reorient your momentum or fight inertia to begin movement. You're dead, kiddo." My statement about the situation presented. Pants, no pants, you're dead.

"No one is arguing that these are the optimal pants for the situation.
And, the pants prevent the use of hands. Which are very needed for things like Shooting, Throwing grenades, and etc. But crotchwaist paints will allow you to run one-handed."

"A gangster wearing baggy pants can run close enough to top speed while holding his pants up that it is not worth a 5% penalty to represent mechanically. Literally the only difference is one arm isn't pumping. This has a smaller effect than you think."

So whether it takes 1 second or .0001 second to hitch up your pants, the time it takes for you to reorient will get you killed either way against a prepared shooter.

The pants are unoptimal, no matter what.

And he was asking primarily about whether or not one could run in low jeans, not other things. I have only responded to "Can you Run in These Low Jeans?" The answer is Yes, And Without a 5% Penalty. Everything outside of that is added on ridiculousness that has little to do with the actual question presented.

If you want to have the hitching of the pants cost a Standard action (and thus take 3 seconds in 3.5!) then you certainly can. That's fine. I won't stop you. You can even have it cost a move action. Congrats.

Let's see where Don got hung up:
"I'll grant you the dancing functions, but I'm still not sure about running. "

So what was his question about, really?

So what have I been primarily focusing on as his question?

TADAAAAH!

All this other BS is you having a cow about crap I don't care about and/or never actually argued for/against or even brought up.

The situation as originally presented is incredibly contextual and so making a system of rule penalties is not going to be helpful. Wearing crotchwaist pants is not a universal hinderance in all situations. It is in many. But how often is this occurring in your campaigns? There are things about what is going on in this situation that may not be problems in a different context. If this individual is laying prone on a hill with a rifle with crotchwaist pants on, the pants won't be important because the context is different.

But once the actual question came to light, I dealt with THAT question, not necessarily the individual merits or unmerits of low-hanging jeans. Because that wasn't the question Don was concerned about.

So if you think this counts as a victory for you, take this:

Yes, crotchwaist pants suck for kicking people and may indeed take longer than an instant to pull up, and perhaps this tiny amount of time would be sufficient for an already-aiming, prepared gunman to have even more time to pump you full of bullets. (It will happen either way, but boy are you additionally screwed in this situation!)

In fact, you would not be able to do a large amount of tasks in an optimal way while wearing crotchwaist jeans, though just running is not among the ones that cause a sufficient difference to be worth a -1 penalty in a d20 system. Other things, sure.

However, even though these situations are very broad, they are very unlikely to come up often enough to be worth creating clothing rules.

You sure told me, I was so very wrong about everything I ever said in this entire thread!

You truly are the wisest among us, and we would do well to place our lips upon your flank such that some of your grandeur might slither into our beings!!

So there you go. You win this internet argument.

Feeling fulfilled yet?

[Tiktakkat]

You're having a very different conversation, then. I've been going point-by-point talking about multiple situations. You've combined it all into one. Which is real nifty, but explains the problem.

So first you want it to be only about one situation, and now you want it to be about all situations.
Uh huh.


Where's the data?

Where it belongs.


Actually, if we're timing how long it takes then it is. Also, Data?

Except we aren't measuring the specific timing, only whether it is relevant.
And the data is safe.


I really look forward to this data.

Okay:

2 hours of watching fighting per week
50 weeks per year
25 years
2 instances per hour

5,000 data points

In every one, adjusting pants has either inhibited another movement or completely superseded another movement.

For non-fighting situations, it is 8 hours per week, so 20,000 data points, and again inhibited or superseded another movement.


You sure told me, I was so very wrong about everything I ever said in this entire thread!

Clearly.


You truly are the wisest among us,

No, I just surpass you, on this particular element, of this particular topic.

[ImNotTrevor]

So first you want it to be only about one situation, and now you want it to be about all situations.
Uh huh.

No, I just surpass you, on this particular element, of this particular topic.

So this entire thing has been about kicking/melee fighting.

This whole thing.

*facepalm*

The stated, original situation with the lowered pants is NOT A MELEE FIGHT. It is RUNNING AWAY FROM A SHOOTER.

I have been talking about the latter while you insist I'm wrong about the former. I never stated JACK ****E about the former in this situation. I have only stated that the time it takes to turn and run from a shooter and to hike up one's pants are approximately the same to the degree that this action is not going to make or break your capacity to ESCAPE FROM A PERSON SHOOTING AT YOU.

I have said NOTHING about melee fighting.

You continue to not freaking listen to what I'm talking about and assume I've been talking about fighting someone in hand-to-hand combat. Which I am not. I am talking only about RUNNING AWAY, which is the main point of Donna's stated situation, meaning that I'm wrong about what?
A THING I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT.

Find and quote me saying that wearing low pants will not affect one's capacity to kick/punch/engage in melee combat. Find that SPECIFICALLY, not me stating things like "Hitching up your pants does not take long enough to bother modelling."

SPOILER: I never did.

You are arguing vehemently against (and getting smug about) a thing I NEVER SAID.

I have said repeatedly that there are situations in which these things matter, that are very contextual. And by contextual, I mean "Reliant upon the context of the situation." In terms for common to Game Design Parlance, situations that rely heavily upon Fictional Positioning.

So congrats again for defeating a point I never made. You've done well. Have a cookie.

[Tiktakkat]

You are arguing vehemently against (and getting smug about) a thing I NEVER SAID.

Well yeah, you did.
And I provided the quote.
However, since you insist on digging yourself in even deeper:

"A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison. But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time. Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull. If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk. "

[Keltest]

Well yeah, you did.
And I provided the quote.
However, since you insist on digging yourself in even deeper:

"A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison. But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time. Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull. If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk. "

I wouldn't consider getting caught on a bramble to be a melee fight, but hey. Level 1 characters need to get XP somehow I guess.

[ImNotTrevor]

Well yeah, you did.
And I provided the quote.
However, since you insist on digging yourself in even deeper:

"A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison. But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time. Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull. If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk. "

1. The quote you quoted last time was responding to the concept of running from an active shooter while wearing low pants. I have yet to comment on melee combat being a non-issue. The only person who insists I did, is you.

2. Being caught in a bramble is still not melee combat, and one's capacity to tug out of a bush has nothing to do with their capacity to fight kung-fu. I specifically even stated that comparing a southern belle to a traditional warrior-type is not an apt comparison for what will happen in most TRPGs. That argument is entirely "Pulling free from a bramble bush is easier than you make it sound."

In nothing you have found have I ever said that one's capacity to get into a hand-to-hand combat situation would be unaffected entirely by their clothing. You are quoting me distinctly not talking about those things and pretending it IS those things by reading between the lines to find the "Hidden meaning." Let me break down your more recent quote since you don't get the concept yet:

"A Southern Belle is not a combatant, really, and so not a great comparison."
Southern Belles aren't going to be trained to fight at all, so comparing their ability to handle a fight to that of a traditional PCs is not going to get you desired results. End of point.

"But if she didn't give a damn about the skirt? One quick jerk will solve the problem most of the time."
In the case that previously stated Southern Belle does not care more about the dress being damaged than her life, one sharp pull will extricate he from the bramble bush, thus solving the "bramble bush" problem. As I stated later, this would be a Strength Check as a standard/move action in most d20 systems.

"Brambles are not that grabby, and simply sprinting in the desired direction will likely pull you free when combined with a quick and solid pull."
How much the person was caught in the bush was not established yet, and so here it was assumed that a portion of the dress had snagged in the bush's brambles. By using body weight and momentum, and a tug from your arms, you can run away from danger without a major problem unless you are super weak.

"If her skirt were suddenly sewn around a tree with a good stitch job and she had no knife, then we could talk."
I present a situation in which a person is well and truly stuck due to their clothing, with no convenient or practical means of quick escape beyond disrobing, but even that may be difficult.

Now, which of these sentences implies I'm talking about their ability to engage in kung-fu fighting, and NOT their capacity to escape from the bush?

[Tiktakkat]

I wouldn't consider getting caught on a bramble to be a melee fight, but hey. Level 1 characters need to get XP somehow I guess.

Back in AD&D days, when people wanted individual xp, we always let the wizards get solo kills on the shriekers so they could level up. :smallbiggrin:




Now, which of these sentences implies I'm talking about their ability to engage in kung-fu fighting, and NOT their capacity to escape from the bush?

All of the quotes indicate that.
The topic was clothing as hindrance, including melee combat.
The original one I selected was as a general reference to the concept.
You can keep trying to exclude everything else, particularly including that you were specifically asked about melee combat even though you tried begging off out of lack of capability, but it remains that the entire topic was in play, not just your attempt to limit it after the fact to a few examples.

[ImNotTrevor]

All of the quotes indicate that.
The topic was clothing as hindrance, including melee combat.
The original one I selected was as a general reference to the concept.
You can keep trying to exclude everything else, particularly including that you were specifically asked about melee combat even though you tried begging off out of lack of capability, but it remains that the entire topic was in play, not just your attempt to limit it after the fact to a few examples.

"While answering questions about specific examples, you failed to account for the entirety of the broader topic!"

Bruh.
BRUH.
BRUUUUUUUH.
Wut r u doin

"You made no comment about the effects of baggy pants on high kicks, therefore you think there is no effect!"

Bruh.
BRUH.
BRUUUUUUUH.
Wut r u doin

Game over, thanks for playing.

[Tiktakkat]

Game over, thanks for playing.

Says the person with the strawman quotes.

But hey, you run (as it were) with that.

[ImNotTrevor]

Says the person with the strawman quotes.

But hey, you run (as it were) with that.

A summary isn't a strawman. If your point is a stupid one, then summarizing it doesn't magically make the summary a strawman any more than using wordiness to pad your crappy argument makes it a good one.
So again.
Wut r u doin

The complaint is that my specific answers to specific inquiries did not sufficiently account for things outside of the scope of the inquiry. Ie:
"Will a person be stuck if caught in a bramble by their dress?"
Answer: Not if they are in a position to tug on the stuck bit. However, in the situation where they have fallen headlong into a bramble, they are gonna have a bad time pretty much no matter what. As for "will they be able to fight back?" If it's a stereotypical Southern Belle who is unarmed and untrained against a determined assailant? Her clothing won't be helping her, but it's honestly the least of her worries. Even in armor she would be in for a bad time. Of course, again, this situation is highly dependent upon the specifics of its context. (How much of the dress is caught? Is the bush green or brittle? How far away is the assailant? What are they armed with? Etc.)

"Can you effectively run away from a shooter while wearing low pants?"
You can pull them up and run, but you're screwed in this situation, depending upon the context of the situation. (Is there cover you could dive to? Is the shooter prepared or still drawing the gun? Who goes first in the initiative order? Does the shooter have decent aim? How close are they?) The time it takes to pull up your pants and run in this situation is not significant enough to make a huge difference either way, but it IS possible to hitch up one's pants and run away without any further problem than the one shooting at you, and the lack of a hand (or two) to use.
As for engaging in melee combat with the shooter it is once again a mixed bag dependent upon the context of the situation. Most of the time it's a "Not a good idea" kind of thing. If you're close enough, and go first in the initiative order, and the gun is being drawn, then maybe you can deck them hard enough to knock them out. Maybe. But again, context is incredibly important to how this will play out.

Nothing above contradicts anything I've said unless you read it like a moron on purpose.

So just give it a rest, man. You're getting worked up about a thing I never commented on for these two situations. You've got nothing of me actually commenting on melee combat. Just paragraphs that maybe kinda sorta could possibly relate to it from sideways if you squint right.

GGWP

[goto124]

But why are you wearing Southern Belle clothes or low pants if you're getting into combat situations frequently?

These sort of problems get solved rather quickly, and should not happen often enough to require separate rules.

[ImNotTrevor]

But why are you wearing Southern Belle clothes or low pants if you're getting into combat situations frequently?

These sort of problems get solved rather quickly, and should not happen often enough to require separate rules.

That's the biggest reason why I'm not worrying about melee combat situations in such clothes. It's not going to happen often enough nor be difficult enough to work around to merit a concrete rule. (Which is why I was able to talk OP into doing it the lazy way, aka the best way.)

Except for Runway Model Assassin RPG, which I hope someone makes because I would play it.

[JustSomeGuy]

It better have the monstrous vegetation expansion, or heads will roll.

[Tiktakkat]

A summary isn't a strawman. If your point is a stupid one, then summarizing it doesn't magically make the summary a strawman any more than using wordiness to pad your crappy argument makes it a good one.

A summary posed as fake quotes is however a strawman, which is what you chose to do.

So . . . what weak excuse to justify your error will you try next?


So just give it a rest, man. You're getting worked up about a thing I never commented on for these two situations. You've got nothing of me actually commenting on melee combat. Just paragraphs that maybe kinda sorta could possibly relate to it from sideways if you squint right.

I'm not worked up at all.
You are the one contorting himself in increasingly bizarre manners in a even more desperate effort to avoid being corrected.

[ImNotTrevor]

A summary posed as fake quotes is however a strawman, which is what you chose to do.

If I was attempting to quote you, I would say so. Or place in a Quote Box. (I have yet to quote you outside of one, as a matter of fact.)

That was presented as dialogue.

But keep going with the Fallacy Fallacy. It amuses me.



So . . . what weak excuse to justify your error will you try next?

What, that hitching up one's pants makes a difference in melee combat? The thing I never said because I was only talking about running away because the presented situation called for running away? The situation I already pointed out as being a no-win situation in the a great many cases regardless of pants? The situation in which I already said the mechanics already exist to spend a standard action to hitch up the pants (or maybe a Swift Action, since it's not a 3 second expenditure of time now that I think about it) and so has been sufficiently modeled already? The situation in which, in game terms, people are standing around and waiting for each other to take 6 second turns before they go for some reason? It is within this context of figuring out relevant combat penalties that you want to get anal retentive about the realistic specifics of exactly how long it takes to hike up one's pants and the fact that someone breathed that a single second is not a period of time worth sweating over in a D20 system, when in reality IT MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE?

That error? Ok.

Pulling up your pants does indeed make you slightly more screwed when you're ambushed by a person with a gun and intent to shoot you. Not more screwed to the degree that it is worth modeling within d20s abstracted framework, but in real life it's the dofference between being shot in the spine and the lung, and being shot in the lung twice. Either way you're going to die choking on your own blood, but hey. At least Kit Kat can feel like he won an internet argument and thus achieve true happiness.



I'm not worked up at all.
You are the one contorting himself in increasingly bizarre manners in a even more desperate effort to avoid being corrected.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

How dare I defend myself from being corrected on a point I never made.

By the way, you were wrong about Squares having 5 sides.

[Tiktakkat]

If I was attempting to quote you, I would say so. Or place in a Quote Box. (I have yet to quote you outside of one, as a matter of fact.)

Or, you know, use quotes.
The way I did.
So once again, a failed excuse.

[ImNotTrevor]

Or, you know, use quotes.
The way I did.
So once again, a failed excuse.

And now you're down to nitpicking my use of quotation marks (which are used for several purposes in the english language, and it is not my job to label which one for you.)

I think we're done here.

[Tiktakkat]

I think we're done here.

I thought we were done some time ago, but you keep coming up with new excuses.
Indeed, now you are coming up with excuses for your excuses!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Would you two like a room? Because you sound like you're married. Maybe just agree to disagree on the whole clothing fallacy fallacy excuses excuses and let the topic get the lack of attention it deserves?

[ImNotTrevor]

I thought we were done some time ago, but you keep coming up with new excuses.
Indeed, now you are coming up with excuses for your excuses!

You never proved that I said anything about melee combat being unaffected. Only made inferrences. (Which aren't proof. You can infer all day but even English 101 can show you that inferrence leads to the "everyone is in purgatory!" phenomenon)

As far as I'm concerned, I've been humoring this borderline delusional belief that I said or asserted a thing I never did. Which you never actually proved except for to yourself, which obviously is really easy since you seem fine with stretching words to their absolute fecking limits to make it seem like I asserted that clothing has 0 effect on melee combat. I have e stated as far back as Page 5 of this thread (go look for yourself) that the majority of clothing effects on combat will be far too small to accurately represent in the d20 framework, and that the times when they have a bigger effect will be rare and highly influenced by their context. I covered that crap a looooong time ago, and have yet to say anything else about it since then.

What has thusfar happened in this discussion is that I have twice sarcastically given you a "victory" over being right about a topic I didn't comment on, which you then felt smug and victorious about. (A weird response, but ok)

Basically, let me break this down:

I have been spending the back half of a thread commenting on how most germans aren't Taoists. They exist, but simply being German doesn't make one a Taoist, but the times when Germans are Taoist are rare enough to not bother giving a lot of time and credence into.

Then someone (lets not name names) comes in and tells me I'm wrong, and that some germans can indeed be Bhuddists.

I never stated anything to the contrary, and was talking about something similar, but different. So I say that I never said that.

"But here, you say that most germans don't meditate! Which proves my point!" (<--- This is hypothetical dialogue, and I'm not quoting you. Just in case you continue to be confused about that.)

But, I respond, I was speaking in the context of Taoism (which I assume involves meditating? I don't actually know and it's not relevant to the example.) and was not making a comment on German Bhuddists, even though that may be a point of intersection between the two topics.

"But here, you say 'blah blah' meaning you're wronger!"(<--This is stil hypothetical dialogue)

And yet, I reply, that continues to have only tangential relation to what I'm talking about. But sure, of it makes you feel better, some germans are Bhuddists.

"Ahahaha! This is why I am so much more educated than you on this topic!"

To which I respond "wtf are you doin." (<-- Even though I did in fact say that, it still is hypothetical dialogue. Just being helpful.)


So make the German Taoists into "Clothing effects on running away" and German Bhuddists into "Clothing effects on melee combat ability" and you'll quickly figure out why I'm vaguely confused and incredibly exasperated, and rather done with trying to convince you that I said nothing about the latter. (Neither of those quotations were quoting either of us, just fyi.)

Does it make sense now why I'm somewhat agitated? Probably not, because you refuse to pay attention to anything other than "Yuss hurr durr I wuz wrong u wuz rite i R a dum"(<-- Hypothetical dialogue, not a quote) and statements that indicate me having previously talked about things tangentially related to the topic.

So while we should have been done right after "I never said anything about melee combat." (<--- Paraphrasing) we kept going for reasons I know not. Apparently my non-assertion is both non-existant and incorrect, which is very very weird.

[Tiktakkat]

Basically, let me break this down:

So . . . excuses for your excuses for your excuses?

Cool.

[Hyooz]

To summarize the entire topic:

Certain clothes will hamper certain actions in certain situations. These tend to be too specific to warrant any kind of general rule, so at best, the DM should use his/her judgment to apply situational modifiers to specific die rolls rather than bother coming up with any kind of systematized way to address it.

[ImNotTrevor]

So . . . excuses for your excuses for your excuses?

Cool.

You know, a good friend of mine once told me that arguing with an idiot is like playing chess against a pidgeon.

You can bring any strategy you want to bear against the pidgeon, but the pidgeon is going to strut around, knock over the pieces, poop on the board, and be entirely convinced that it won.

I now know exactly what he was talking about.

So I'll just be picking up my game board and going home, because rational thought has no place in this argument.

I'll just let you have this one. I realize now that it doesn't affect my life if a single person thinks I'm wrong about a thing I didn't say. And that playing chess with pidgeons is a waste of my time.

[Âmesang]

Except for Runway Model Assassin RPG, which I hope someone makes because I would play it.
d20 Charlie's Angels?

…also I'm reminded of the "chainmail bikini" from the April Fool's Errata (https://www.schadenfreudestudios.com/dnd/books/3e%20errata%20april%20fools.pdf); it inflicted 1 point of HP damage every day due to chafing. :smalltongue:

[ImNotTrevor]

d20 Charlie's Angels?

…also I'm reminded of the "chainmail bikini" from the April Fool's Errata (http://dnd.schadenfreudestudios.com/books/3rd%20ed%20errata%20april%20fools.pdf); it inflicted 1 point of HP damage every day due to chafing. :smalltongue:

I was thinking something closer to Zoolander crossed with James Bond, but a good heaping spoonful of Charlie's Angels would probably make it all the better.

I'm not sure if I want to make this game or not. Because on the one hand, I want it to exist. But on the other, I'm lazy and am already working on too many projects as it stands and would rather just have it appear in my bookshelf, ready to play.

I'll keep stewing about it for a while, probably.

[Tiktakkat]

You know, a good friend of mine once told me that arguing with an idiot is like playing chess against a pidgeon.

So now you want to quote memes like they are good friends.

How . . . quaint.

[ImNotTrevor]

So now you want to quote memes like they are good friends.

How . . . Quaint.

Gr8 b8 m8, I r8 8/8

[Straybow]

Oooo, very entertaining. Can I play?

Not in D20. You might if you were using d1000s. There is no basic task that you are going to fail one time in 20 because of [Wehrmacht] clothing. And it's unrealistic in d20 to apply penalties for anything less serious than that. As well as being bad game design.So, drawing a bow wouldn't be impeded by tailored clothing that sticks up in your face when you raise your arms level with your shoulders? I bet it would, and possibly by more than 1 in 20.


Edit: The Armour Check Penalty in d20 is ridiculously punishing and is bad game design. Which is exactly why binding and distracting awkwardness of heavy or bulky clothing would need significant penalties: verisimilitude with the rather high ACP.

[Hyooz]

Oooo, very entertaining. Can I play?
So, drawing a bow wouldn't be impeded by tailored clothing that sticks up in your face when you raise your arms level with your shoulders? I bet it would, and possibly by more than 1 in 20.


Do you have any examples of clothing that actively impedes your vision when you raise your arms above a certain level? And a good reason an archer would ever wear it?

[goto124]

Why are you even wearing such impeding clothing? After the first, say, three times of getting ambushed you'll start preparing combat-ready clothing that's also pretty. You'll also be asking the DM why you're getting ambushed so often, and all in impractical clothing.

[ImNotTrevor]

Oooo, very entertaining. Can I play?
So, drawing a bow wouldn't be impeded by tailored clothing that sticks up in your face when you raise your arms level with your shoulders? I bet it would, and possibly by more than 1 in 20.

Which is exactly why binding and distracting awkwardness of heavy or bulky clothing would need significant penalties: verisimilitude with the rather high ACP.

As has been decided already:

Do articles of clothing exist that would be worth a penalty? Certainly.

Will they come up often enough to be worth anything more complex than a quick on-the-spot ruling? No.

Your questions have been answered already within the scope of this thread.

[Vinyadan]

Do you have any examples of clothing that actively impedes your vision when you raise your arms above a certain level? And a good reason an archer would ever wear it?

The archer makes money as a part-time sandwich man.

[Hyooz]

The archer makes money as a part-time sandwich man.

Ah yes, I had completely forgotten about that particular module: Of Clowns and Kings, where the PCs all take on the role of fast food mascots.

Darker times, those.

[ImNotTrevor]

Darker times, those.

That's a weird way to spell "Best Module Ever."

[Straybow]

So, drawing a bow wouldn't be impeded by tailored clothing that sticks up in your face when you raise your arms level with your shoulders? I bet it would, and possibly by more than 1 in 20.

Do you have any examples of clothing that actively impedes your vision when you raise your arms above a certain level? And a good reason an archer would ever wear it?
Did I say "blocks vision" somewhere? No, just the annoyance of having the collar and shoulders of the blouse up in your face. To misquote Yogi Berra, "Ninety percent of shooting a bow is half mental."

I mean, if in the d20verse plate has a higher ACP than mail...

[ImNotTrevor]

Did I say "blocks vision" somewhere? No, just the annoyance of having the collar and shoulders of the blouse up in your face. To misquote Yogi Berra, "Ninety percent of shooting a bow is half mental."

I mean, if in the d20verse plate has a higher ACP than mail...

This question continues to have already been indirectly addressed.

Do articles of clothing like this exist? Certainly.

Are they going to come up often enough in most campaigns to be worth anything beyond a quick one-time judgement call? No.