4e Art Direction

[Ascension]

I'm beginning to wonder if we should just agree to disagree and stop going in circles here. Seriously, the last several pages have just been repetitions of the same argument.

Look up the elven chain girl in the DMG and let her beauty soothe your feelings of rage about bad art.

[GammaPaladin]

*Ahem* :smallconfused:

I dunno. I could definitely see having a naked woman in the tomb. Could be a Succubus, or a Doppleganger, as I mentioned before, or various other things. And I like weird weapons, I almost always come up with some "special" weapon, trying to make it nothing that can be recognized for what it's mechanics are, or at least nothing that I've seen done before.

[an kobold]

Well, I was browsing through the galleries and looked at a few more things other than the dwarf women this time. I really like what they did with this warforged (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111126.jpg). It gives it the feel that whoever constructed this particular warforged was creating art while making a tool of war. However, I can only hope that this (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/112913.jpg) is not intended to be an iconic character. The leaf armor/general nature theme is pretty cool and the two rapiers or short swords fit in with it, but the face is well, meh. It's not Mialee, but that's not saying much. And while this (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111084.jpg) borders on the angsty, I think it's a really cool picture overall, capturing the physiology and hinting at the race's "damned" origin.

Also, I was wondering when the discussion would turn in this (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111128.jpg)direction.

[kpenguin]

I'm beginning to wonder if we should just agree to disagree and stop going in circles here. Seriously, the last several pages have just been repetitions of the same argument.


Clearly you've never encountered the post wars between EE and Rutee before.

Anyway, Evil Ruteest! Forum shipping FTW!

[Behold_the_Void]

I rather liked that warforged picture. The elf looks reasonably good, the face could be better but the armor motif and the weapons are rather nice and I feel it more than makes up for the weaker points of the picture.

[kpenguin]

Well, personally, I think the face looked fine. Not every elf needs to a beautiful, lithe, princess, you know!

[an kobold]

It just seemed really too masculine for a female elf to me. Actually, looking back at it, it really is mostly the angle that's causing the face to be, well, angular and thus masculine looking. Also, it might be just me, but they have really tried to soften up the other races' female faces in terms of making them clearly rounder and smoother than males (I'm looking primarily at dwarves, tieflings, and dragonborn, but it's there with the others), so seeing such a sharp female visage in 4th ed art might have taken me aback.

[Spiryt]

What's wrong with elf's face :smallconfused: ?

Also, while I generally find warforged damn stupid, I agree that this pic is indeed fine. Sword looks grand, and warforged himself kinda too.

[EvilElitest]

If you had to fight hard to get to wherever it is you are in the dungeon, and you encounter a lone individual, it is not out of the question to assume this lone individual is either formidable enough to frighten the local dungeon-dwellers into not attacking her, or somehow connected to them (And likely not much weaker then them).

what if they you know, live there? And isn't an enemy of the local foes. It is quite possible that the orcs in the cave have a cook

By the by, i love the discussion that is going on without me

from
EE

[GammaPaladin]

Anyone with any knowledge of orcs knows they don't have friends. They have people they respect because they know they would get their asses handed to them if they picked a fight with them. That's pretty much as close to a "friend" as you can be with an Orc. Therefore...

[Morty]

I have to say, I like the warforged art. I find warforged stupid, but both the robot and the sword really look like tools of war instead of toys.

[horseboy]

what if they you know, live there? And isn't an enemy of the local foes. It is quite possible that the orcs in the cave have a cook.That's true. POW does come readily to mind. Driven nutso by the brutal inhabitants. Comes at you, subdual strike, she shrugs it off without a second glance and hits you for a third your hp with a car antenna.

Yeah, then again, you've just violated the Player/GM contract. Expect player retaliation.

[Rutee]

Maybe the evil overlord has a nudist daughter who's out for a stroll? The whole situation is so ludicrous it shouldn't ever come up, anyway... I only called it metagaming because the other guy called expecting a tree stump to do bludgeoning damage metagaming.

What Evil Overlord? All we know is DUngeon + Monsters + Fighting + Nudist. I mean honestly, think ecology for a second. If you see a Bunny Rabbit in a dungeon of Epic Carnivorous Monsters (And little else, ecology wise), for a minute, is it more likely that the Bunny Rabbit is a perfectly normal bunny that is soft, fuzzy, and cute, or is it more likely that it's the Omega Hare (Which is also soft, fuzzy, and cute)?

[Bleen]

Please show me where in the rulebooks it states that your weapons' appearance is required to match it's mechanics even that much.
Rule 0.
Also known as "use common sense". Oh, and Oberoni Fallacy doesn't work on fluff, last I checked. Don't try pulling it out.

Any DM operating on such nonsensical leaps of logic, or allowing such things in his game should be shot in the face, banned from looking at the SRD and gaming sections of libraries, and have all his current sourcebooks burned.

A large tree trunk is either a club, or an improvised weapon. Depending on how you want to look at it. Not. A freaking. Greatsword.



That's a strange view to take in a world where a humanoid appearing creature can easily be something vastly more powerful in disguise.

Kind of hypocritical, if you ask me. Unless you live in a very very very high-fantasy world, above and beyond the standards of even, say, Forgotten Realms, such creatures are most likely to be rare or unheard of. Unless your character plans to make a successful Knowledge check, then assuming that it's a super-powerful creature in disguise is metagaming.

So, basically, your argument defies all logic in an attempt to prevent metagaming - which results in MORE METAGAMING, because unless your character has years and years of dungeoneering under his belt, it's unlikely he's studied the entire Monster Manual beforehand. Way to prevent players from using knowledge outside of their charcters' own minds to make choices, eh? It's only really legitimate RP unless you're playing an exceptionally paranoid character. And said paranoid character would probably be seen by my character as about as insane as the naked woman with a weird stick waist-deep in a cave full of monsters.

[Behold_the_Void]

My issue with the face in that case is it looks kind of... off. I think the angularity is what turned me off it, but the rest of the picture is pretty nice. It's entirely possible it's just the angle of the picture itself though.

[Tam_OConnor]

Well, let's see...On a cursory review of their galleries, it seems like most of the poses are more active than their 3E counterparts (I'm thinking of the countdown articles in Dragon). More dramatic flourishes and fewer poses. Course, it's probably intentional, because 'it's a new edition; we've moving! Really!'

Considering this (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111120.jpg) picture, I do believe the elf ranger in abnormally tight clothes is iconic. Well, she's better than Soveliss (I've only seen two pictures of him, though, at least in core: the ranger class and the aquatic combat picture). Her hips seem high up, but maybe it's just me.

Weapon discussions aside, I like this guy's (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111121.jpg) style. Reminds me of the Baldur's Gate portraits, for some reason...

Pretty. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/107617.jpg) That is all.

And now, (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111928.jpg) Asmodeus is a level-appropriate encounter! Can't identify his minions...I feel shame.

Please be Spelljammer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111927.jpg) Please be Spelljammer. Please be Spelljammer...

[Rutee]

Please be Spelljammer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111927.jpg) Please be Spelljammer. Please be Spelljammer...

Unpossible; That would be way too awesome of them.

[Tam_OConnor]

But...there's a ship! With wings! And exhaust! And stars!...Yeah, yeah, probably just the Astral Plane....jerks.

GIFF ME SPELLJAMMER OR GIFF ME....Luis Royo and Wayne Reynolds doing all the 4e illustrations? Actually, can I have both?

[RTGoodman]

And while this (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111084.jpg) borders on the angsty, I think it's a really cool picture overall, capturing the physiology and hinting at the race's "damned" origin.

If I remember correctly, this is labeled in Races & Classes as just a "Tiefling Body Study," so that seems more like just a "practice" run than anything that could become final art.


Weapon discussions aside, I like this guy's (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/RacesNClasses_Gallery/111121.jpg) style. Reminds me of the Baldur's Gate portraits, for some reason...

I believe that's the... Halfling Cleric? Or something? Anyway, the face looks kinda weird to me, but I like he's rockin' the dreads.


Please be Spelljammer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111927.jpg) Please be Spelljammer. Please be Spelljammer...

I don't think it's Spelljammer, though it's a possibility that they could revive the setting, I guess. I believe this is supposed to be either either the Astral Plane or the home plane of one of the gods (though I can't remember the term they use for that).

And hey, look! It's like Regdar, but with bling! Actually, it's just the examples for style in Heroic, Paragon, and Epic tiers, but it's kinda cool.

Also, I don't particularly care for Genies and whatnot, and I don't like that they're being included as a big part of the game (in fluff, anyway), but the Efreeti City of Brass or whatever it's called is pretty cool looking. I mean, who else has a river of lava (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111925.jpg)?

Oh, and I would definitely consider having this picture of the Elemental Chaos (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/107613.jpg) plane as my desktop background if I could find a bigger, better image that didn't get all fuzzy when I tried to use it.

[AslanCross]

now, (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111928.jpg) Asmodeus is a level-appropriate encounter! Can't identify his minions...I feel shame.



They look like Malebranches (http://wizards.com/dnd/images/FC2_Gallery/tn_101492_jpg.jpg) to me, though 3.5 Malebranches are Huge-sized.

[horseboy]

And now, (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111928.jpg) Asmodeus is a level-appropriate encounter! Can't identify his minions...I feel shame.All this time, and I never realized he was the key master of Gozer. :smallamused:


Please be Spelljammer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/WorldsMonsters_Gallery/111927.jpg) Please be Spelljammer. Please be Spelljammer...Okay, they bring that back and I'd actually be enthusiastic.

[ColdBrew]

Did anyone else have Neverending Story flashbacks when they saw the "spelljammer" pic?

[EvilElitest]

On that art note about weapons, when people see these weapon pics, they are going to assume that is how they look/work in game. If the weapon doesn't even make sense then we have some problems
from
EE

[ColdBrew]

On that art note about weapons, when people see these weapon pics, they are going to assume that is how they look/work in game. If the weapon doesn't even make sense then we have some problems
from
EE
Pretty sure art that explicitly depicts low level characters won't suffer from Sword of a Thousand Snags syndrome, and everything else can be handwaved away with A-Wizard-Did-It.

[EvilElitest]

Pretty sure art that explicitly depicts low level characters won't suffer from Sword of a Thousand Snags syndrome, and everything else can be handwaved away with A-Wizard-Did-It.

Thing is through, i still don't think that the weapon would work even with magic
from
EE

[CockroachTeaParty]

I haven't looked at the 4E art yet. Looks pretty cool so far, at least most of it. As for that Dragonborn's sword... Sure, it doesn't look too realistic, but if it was real, I still don't think I would want to get hit by it.
It can be fun for feral / brutal / extra evil characters to have fittingly brutal weapons. An orc barbarian with a saw-tooth greatsword has a much different feel from a human paladin wielding a straight, silvery claymore. Both weapons are mechanically the same, and visual differences in the artwork has never really bothered me.

While I'm normally in the 'rule of cool' camp, one thing does bother me: helmets don't seem to make a difference. You see just as many characters clad in full plate armor with helmets as you do without helmets, their glorious hair blowing in the wind. I suppose now it's just a matter of aesthetics, but wearing a helmet is always a good idea... Unless you have a Helm of Brilliance or similar item, there's no reason to wear a helmet. It's wise to wear thick boots (caltrops), but I can't think of any circumstances where having a helmet would be mechanically beneficial.

[EvilElitest]

I haven't looked at the 4E art yet. Looks pretty cool so far, at least most of it. As for that Dragonborn's sword... Sure, it doesn't look too realistic, but if it was real, I still don't think I would want to get hit by it.
It can be fun for feral / brutal / extra evil characters to have fittingly brutal weapons. An orc barbarian with a saw-tooth greatsword has a much different feel from a human paladin wielding a straight, silvery claymore. Both weapons are mechanically the same, and visual differences in the artwork has never really bothered me.

Oh evil races can have brutal weapons, fine by mean. However i still expect that saw toothed greatsword to make sense (which it would)

The tieflings daggers however are just sickening



While I'm normally in the 'rule of cool' camp, one thing does bother me: helmets don't seem to make a difference. You see just as many characters clad in full plate armor with helmets as you do without helmets, their glorious hair blowing in the wind. I suppose now it's just a matter of aesthetics, but wearing a helmet is always a good idea... Unless you have a Helm of Brilliance or similar item, there's no reason to wear a helmet. It's wise to wear thick boots (caltrops), but I can't think of any circumstances where having a helmet would be mechanically beneficial.

Yeah that one always confused me as well, through the fact that it is impossible to get a concussion in D&D might explain a lot.
from
EE

[tyckspoon]

While I'm normally in the 'rule of cool' camp, one thing does bother me: helmets don't seem to make a difference. You see just as many characters clad in full plate armor with helmets as you do without helmets, their glorious hair blowing in the wind. I suppose now it's just a matter of aesthetics, but wearing a helmet is always a good idea... Unless you have a Helm of Brilliance or similar item, there's no reason to wear a helmet. It's wise to wear thick boots (caltrops), but I can't think of any circumstances where having a helmet would be mechanically beneficial.

D&D doesn't do location-specific damage. That's pretty much all there is to it. Although there's probably a knockout trap written somewhere that does something like smack the average Medium sized character in the head and does say that specifically wearing a helmet offers some extra protection. There's a lot of weird one-off things in traps.

[CockroachTeaParty]

D&D doesn't do location-specific damage. That's pretty much all there is to it. Although there's probably a knockout trap written somewhere that does something like smack the average Medium sized character in the head and does say that specifically wearing a helmet offers some extra protection. There's a lot of weird one-off things in traps.

Oh, I realize why they don't make a mechanical difference, but it feels as if helmets almost were significant, then just brushed under the table. The armor descriptions in the PHB even mention if a suit of armor has helmets or not. Gauntlets can be used as weapons, heavy boots help protect against caltrops, but helmets... do nothing. Nothing at all. Maybe someday I'll houserule in a 5% chance of ignoring a critical hit if you're wearing a helmet, or something.

And wouldn't mindflayers take a little longer to eat the brain of somebody with a helmet? According to Lords of Madness they use a potent acidic enzyme to melt through the skull, so I doubt a steel helm would make much of a difference, but perhaps the Githyanki have developed a BrainSafe helm? (+1 enhancement bonus?)

[Rutee]

THE GOGGLES! THEY DO NOTHING!

It was too easy :P

[ShadowSiege]

And wouldn't mindflayers take a little longer to eat the brain of somebody with a helmet? According to Lords of Madness they use a potent acidic enzyme to melt through the skull, so I doubt a steel helm would make much of a difference, but perhaps the Githyanki have developed a BrainSafe helm? (+1 enhancement bonus?)

Actually, helmets provide no defense against the brain extraction process. In regards to the enzyme:


No material other than illithid mucus is known to resist its corrosive effects

[kamikasei]

That said, people have different aesthetic preferences and they want to see their preferences reflected in the art. I find simplicity much more aesthetically appealing than ornamentation; I like for things to appear functional and for magical exceptions to be exceptions, rather than the default.

Agreed.

What bothers me about some of the arguments in this thread (and to a lesser extent the direction of the art) is the suggestion that "Rule of Cool" doesn't allow but requires that something look unrealistic or impractical in order to be cool. I was under the impression that the Rule was "it doesn't matter if it wouldn't really work, so long as it looks cool!", not "if it looks like it could really work and/or exist, then it's boring and mundane!" I don't particularly like art and designs that try so hard to be fantastic that they cease to look like they could do the jobs they purport to be for, but it's not a big deal... a design aesthetic which is allergic to ever showing anything that just looks like an actual, real-world X, though, strikes me as frankly immature.

After all, if it's an unacceptable imposition of subjective opinion as though it were objective fact to say "that looks bloody ridiculous", isn't the same true for anyone who says "boo, that's boring"?


Long sharp metal blade? Yup. Handle? Yup. Eurocentric medieval stylings? Nope. Notice how that part isn't in the definition?

Where is this coming from? Who has said anything about Eurocentrism? Are there many Chinese or Japanese or Indian African or Australian swords which consist more of decorative protrusions than of actual blade?

[Rutee]

Agreed.

What bothers me about some of the arguments in this thread (and to a lesser extent the direction of the art) is the suggestion that "Rule of Cool" doesn't allow but requires that something look unrealistic or impractical in order to be cool. I was under the impression that the Rule was "it doesn't matter if it wouldn't really work, so long as it looks cool!", not "if it looks like it could really work and/or exist, then it's boring and mundane!" I don't particularly like art and designs that try so hard to be fantastic that they cease to look like they could do the jobs they purport to be for, but it's not a big deal... a design aesthetic which is allergic to ever showing anything that just looks like an actual, real-world X, though, strikes me as frankly immature.

After all, if it's an unacceptable imposition of subjective opinion as though it were objective fact to say "that looks bloody ridiculous", isn't the same true for anyone who says "boo, that's boring"?
You're actually entirely correct; Rule of Cool can apply, strictly speaking, to anything the player finds cool. Realistic stuff just doesn't need the help to work at all.

[horseboy]

Agreed.

What bothers me about some of the arguments in this thread (and to a lesser extent the direction of the art) is the suggestion that "Rule of Cool" doesn't allow but requires that something look unrealistic or impractical in order to be cool. I was under the impression that the Rule was "it doesn't matter if it wouldn't really work, so long as it looks cool!", not "if it looks like it could really work and/or exist, then it's boring and mundane!" I don't particularly like art and designs that try so hard to be fantastic that they cease to look like they could do the jobs they purport to be for, but it's not a big deal... a design aesthetic which is allergic to ever showing anything that just looks like an actual, real-world X, though, strikes me as frankly immature.
Agreed. 59 Cadillac (http://www.wmsbrg.com/cadillac/Richmond/images/1959_Cadillac_models.jpg) cool and clearly a car. 69 camaro (http://www.aa1car.com/blog/69_camaro_z28.jpg) ooohhh sweet. General Lee (http://www.cglfc.com/santi_general_lee.jpg) Nice car given cool ability. Batmobile (http://www.kruse.com/news/StarsCarsAubFall05/5103Batmobile.jpg) Coolest thing in an Over-the-top It's-so-bad-it's-awesome 1966 comedy. Ostentatious and gaudy bells and whistles are not what make things cool, unless you're in a comedy, or going over the top.

[an kobold]

Agreed. 59 Cadillac (http://www.wmsbrg.com/cadillac/Richmond/images/1959_Cadillac_models.jpg) cool and clearly a car. 69 camaro (http://www.aa1car.com/blog/69_camaro_z28.jpg) ooohhh sweet. General Lee (http://www.cglfc.com/santi_general_lee.jpg) Nice car given cool ability. Batmobile (http://www.kruse.com/news/StarsCarsAubFall05/5103Batmobile.jpg) Coolest thing in an Over-the-top It's-so-bad-it's-awesome 1966 comedy. Ostentatious and gaudy bells and whistles are not what make things cool, unless you're in a comedy, or going over the top.

I believe you are forgetting something (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/129/352868636_058365c33a.jpg).

[Cuddly]

Horseboy's sentiments are the same ones that have kept the martial classes languishing alongside the brutality of casters.

"But no real person could ever do that!"

Not really appropriate for D&D; at least the non-simulationist D&D most of us want to play, anyway.

[horseboy]

Horseboy's sentiments are the same ones that have kept the martial classes languishing alongside the brutality of casters
:smallconfused:
Last I checked, D&D didn't have a +gaudiness modifier.
Poorly written rules that create mechanically ineffective weapons is what keeps martial classes languishing alongside the brutality of casters.

[Cuddly]

It's the "if it doesn't make sense in the real world, it can't be done" sentiment. Exceptions going to magic, of course.

Like having your guy break his arm because he's running and weighs a lot? That's stupid. If I want to kick-flip off a wall and attack the beholder that's hovering 20' up, why shouldn't I get to do that?

If I want my sword to look cool, why can't it?

[ColdBrew]

:smallconfused:
Last I checked, D&D didn't have a +gaudiness modifier.
Poorly written rules that create mechanically ineffective weapons is what keeps martial classes languishing alongside the brutality of casters.
Correct, not the fact that some artists draw ridiculous looking weapons.

[Rutee]

He's right, Horse. You saw the melee vs. mages thread. A lot of DnD players can't figure for melee breaking the laws of reality while the magi can, for the simple point that it 'doesn't make sense'. I'm not sure if it's /solely/ responsible for melee sucking, but it's a factor.

[kamikasei]

If I want my sword to look cool, why can't it?

You know, it's possible that horseboy and others aren't opposed to things looking cool, but simply feel that something doesn't have to look outlandish, unrealistic, and not even like a sword anymore in order to do so. It's also possible that for many, depicting a weapon as so over-ornamented and encrusted with pointless gewgaws that it couldn't possibly actually do its job makes it look less cool.

[Artanis]

Where is this coming from? Who has said anything about Eurocentrism? Are there many Chinese or Japanese or Indian African or Australian swords which consist more of decorative protrusions than of actual blade?
I can think of a few weird ones. Maybe not as weird as in some of the 4e art, but you can do some really rather bizarre things with a sword (or other weapon) and still get it to work.

Examples that come to mind:

Kris
Shotel
Zanbato or Zhan ma dao
Urumi
Macuahuitl
(maybe) Francisca
Hunga Munga

[Rutee]

I thought Zanbatou were designed for anti-cavalry use?

[kamikasei]

I can think of a few weird ones. Maybe not as weird as in some of the 4e art, but you can do some really rather bizarre things with a sword (or other weapon) and still get it to work.

Examples that come to mind:

Kris

This is basically just wavy-bladed, right? I don't know of any complaints about weapons looking like that.

I haven't heard of the rest (well, I've heard of the Zanbatou, but in the ever-reliable context of Soul Calibur), so I won't comment until I've gotten a chance to look them up... but I'll be very surprised if they're even close to being as non-functional as the "this is what a greatsword should be" pic, or if the odder ones are actually meant to pass as swords rather than simply weapons which have a blade and their own idiosyncratic fighting style.

[horseboy]

It's the "if it doesn't make sense in the real world, it can't be done" sentiment. Exceptions going to magic, of course.And in the really-real world, having 4' of sharp steel shoved into your chest is very potentially lethal, however, it's not "cool" so melee sucks because of it. It's not the "It can't be done" sentiment that's prohibiting melee from being useful, it's the "It's not cool if I die in one hit" crowd. Then again, I play Rolemaster, so we all know my view on grit. :smallwink: Sorry, Rutee, couldn't resist.

Correct, not the fact that some artists draw ridiculous looking weapons.To quote myself from my first post in this thread:

Well, they do go a long way to explain the age old D&Dism of "Why aren't they dying when I hit them with this thing?" Not like those things are dangerous.It does actually explain why they're not killing people with them.
He's right, Horse. You saw the melee vs. mages thread. A lot of DnD players can't figure for melee breaking the laws of reality while the magi can, for the simple point that it 'doesn't make sense'. I'm not sure if it's /solely/ responsible for melee sucking, but it's a factor.Well, if they had effective weapons, then really the problems come down to situational instances, like jumping over the Empire State building or some such.

[Rutee]

It does actually explain why they're not killing people with them.
The PHB 3.5 'real' weapons are predominantly built for efficiency. If we assume those are representative of weapons as a whole, then you'd still be wrong; It isn't gaudy ornamentation that renders weapons ineffective.


Well, if they had effective weapons, then really the problems come down to situational instances, like jumping over the Empire State building or some such.
No, it wouldn't. The thread wasn't about effective weapons. The thread was about melee being fantastic. The central point of "Fighters should suck" was "Fighters should be unfantastic". That's similar to "Weapons shouldn't be fantastic" as well.

[Morty]

No, it wouldn't. The thread wasn't about effective weapons. The thread was about melee being fantastic. The central point of "Fighters should suck" was "Fighters should be unfantastic". That's similar to "Weapons shouldn't be fantastic" as well.

It would be true if unrealistic weapons were any more fantastic than the realistic ones or vice versa.

[Rutee]

Unrealistic weapons working is fantastic by definition; The weapons only work in fantasy.

[Artanis]

This is basically just wavy-bladed, right? I don't know of any complaints about weapons looking like that.

I haven't heard of the rest (well, I've heard of the Zanbatou, but in the ever-reliable context of Soul Calibur), so I won't comment until I've gotten a chance to look them up... but I'll be very surprised if they're even close to being as non-functional as the "this is what a greatsword should be" pic, or if the odder ones are actually meant to pass as swords rather than simply weapons which have a blade and their own idiosyncratic fighting style.
Yeah, a Kris is a wavy-bladed dagger.

The Zanbato* and Zhan ma dao were utterly gigantic swords that were designed to decapitate horses. They were shaped more or less like normal swords, but they were freakishly huge, like something out of anime or something.

The Shotel is kinda like a sickle. It's a VERY curved sword, with the blade on the inside.

Unlike the others, the Urumi IS bizarre...even more bizarre than most of the weapons in the 4e art. Imagine a Cat o' Nine Tails, except instead of whips, it has flexible sword blades that will chop somebody up.

The Macuahuitl was the Aztecs' sword. It wasn't even metal, but a big stick with chunks of obsidian. Like the Zanbato, it didn't look particularly weird, but it was freakishly effective...even the Conquistadors were wary of it. A stone weapon being so deadly that guys with plate armor and guns are scared of it is, to me, as unbelievable as dagger with a couple spikes actually being useful.

The Francisca is probably the most mundane of what I listed. It isn't covered in spikes or anything, but it's an axe that manages to be one of the most effective metal weapons EVER...without a handle.

The Hunga Munga is an African sword...dagger...thing that's shaped more like a swastika than any weapon I've ever seen. I cannot for the life of me figure out how it'd be used, but it was.



*I listed the Zhan ma dao with the Zanbato because unlike the latter, they're sure the former actually existed.

[Morty]

Unrealistic weapons working is fantastic by definition; The weapons only work in fantasy.

So unrealistic weapons only fit fantasy, but I disagree that they fit fantasy better than realistic ones. A weapon can be fantastic and look belivable.

[kamikasei]

Unrealistic weapons working is fantastic by definition; The weapons only work in fantasy.

Certainly a weapon which is a complete joke in reality but somehow functional in the game is "fantastic". A fighter who uses one is being "fantastic". But here and in your earlier post you are again engaging in the fallacy that something has to be absurd and unrealistic in order to be fantastic, and otherwise it's boring or mundane. It is not true that a fighter has to be wielding something which in the real world could not function as a weapon in order for him to be a legitimate fantasy character capable of remarkable feats. Saying that weapons should look like weapons and not decorations is not the same as saying that superhuman feats of endurance, skill or prowess are not allowed. The Three Hunters' pursuit of the orcs was an amazing feat which surpassed the limits of real-world human capability, but I'm pretty sure Anduril was still a straight, sharpened length of steel.

[Artanis]

Also, for the record, I believe that a good ol' longsword has just as much place in fantasy as a six-meter-long, spiky, axe-sword-spear-thingy.


...unless it's Exalted, but that kind of weapon is part of the point of Exalted, so it doesn't count :smalltongue:

[Rutee]

So unrealistic weapons only fit fantasy, but I disagree that they fit fantasy better than realistic ones. A weapon can be fantastic and look belivable.
Emphasis mine.

This is true, and I will not argue it. Why should I? Artanis just listed a few examples of truth being stranger then fiction. (I think... I'm not sure an Urumi would /look/ believable :P)

What I am saying is that there's a definite connection between "But he can't do that!" and "A Sword can't do that!"


Fallacy, weapons can be realistic and fantastic, etc.
No, I have not stated that only impossible weapons can be fantastic. I can see how my post would come off that way, but it wasn't the intention. My intention was as stated above.

[ZekeArgo]

edit: simu-explained by the author. useless post

[Oeryn]

The Hunga Munga is an African sword...dagger...thing that's shaped more like a swastika than any weapon I've ever seen. I cannot for the life of me figure out how it'd be used, but it was.

I could be wrong about this, since my memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm fairly certain it's a throwing knife. The random protrusions are to make it effective no matter what part of it hits. I think it also had a tendency to "hook" onto a shield and bounce over it, hitting the person behind it.

[Saph]

Agreed. Ostentatious and gaudy bells and whistles are not what make things cool, unless you're in a comedy, or going over the top.

The way I've always seen it is that incredibly big, flashy, jagged, sparkly weapons aren't a sign of a great warrior, they're a sign of someone who wants to look like a great warrior.

From Guards! Guards! by Terry Pratchett: "Real kings had shiny swords, obviously. Except, except, except maybe your real real kings of, like, days of yore, he would have a sword that didn't sparkle one bit but was bloody efficient at cutting things."

- Saph

[Artanis]

I could be wrong about this, since my memory ain't what it used to be, but I'm fairly certain it's a throwing knife.
Usually, yeah. But it was still used as a melee weapon sometimes.

[Ascension]

I seem to remember reading a scholarly article which suggested that that sort of compound "throwing" dagger was almost entirely ceremonial, but scholars can be wrong, so I'm not going to quibble. Point goes to Rutee.

That being said, it's also possible for weapon designers to make a mistake. Just because a weapon exists and is fully functional doesn't mean that it's optimal or even desirable. He who has an automatic rifle does not wish he had a flintlock pistol. In the same way, I would argue that while seemingly impractical weapons are possible, practical weapons are more desirable.

I suggest that while magic can turn your wall decoration into a functional weapon, even magic doesn't make it a fully-effective weapon. I'd cap its enhancement bonus lower than a more practical weapon, or make turning an impractical weapon into a functional weapon an enchantment in itself. I'm thinking it'd take a +1 or + 2 enhancement bonus to turn a nonweapon into a weapon.

[Rutee]

I seem to remember reading a scholarly article which suggested that that sort of compound "throwing" dagger was almost entirely ceremonial, but scholars can be wrong, so I'm not going to quibble.

That being said, it's also possible for weapon designers to make a mistake. Just because a weapon exists and is fully functional doesn't mean that it's optimal or even desirable. He who has an automatic rifle does not wish he had a flintlock pistol. In the same way, I would argue that while seemingly impractical weapons are possible, practical weapons are more desirable.

But what if a Flintlock pistol is exactly as effective as an automatic rifle? Because that ornamental-looking sword is just as good as a real sword of equivalent size and handling. It comes down to aesthetics, and we really need to be able to accept each other's aesthetic preferences on a whole. You prefer real weapons; Fien. Have them. I prefer flashier, less realistic ones. That should be fien too. It's less exclusive if we just take each other's preferences with each other.

[Ascension]

Because that ornamental-looking sword is just as good as a real sword of equivalent size and handling.

If the size and handling were equivalent, it'd be a real sword. The thing is, the handling is completely different. If you'd ever tried to actually wield a decorative blade, or even hold the thing, you'd know what I mean. I can assure you that a "pretty" sword is almost always an unbalanced sword. The true beauty lies in a well crafted, perfectly balanced blade... and there are precious few of those in the modern era. We've let ourselves forget the proper technique.

[Artanis]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen anybody mention that for the Dragonborn, that big, "impractical" sword-thing he's using may be the most optimized weapon for his inhuman physiology and capabilities.

That being said, it's also possible for weapon designers to make a mistake. Just because a weapon exists and is fully functional doesn't mean that it's optimal or even desirable. He who has an automatic rifle does not wish he had a flintlock pistol. In the same way, I would argue that while seemingly impractical weapons are possible, practical weapons are more desirable.
This is a REALLY bad analogy because there's a REALLY big difference between "impractical" and "obsolete".

Consider the big axe/sword/thing that that Dragonborn is holding. If it's made of Iron, then it WILL beat ANY Bronze weapon. Period. Even if the bronze weapon is the single greatest achievement in the history of weapon design, it will NOT be able to beat even the worst-designed chunk of sharp iron.


I suggest that while magic can turn your wall decoration into a functional weapon, even magic doesn't make it a fully-effective weapon. I'd cap its enhancement bonus lower than a more practical weapon, or make turning an impractical weapon into a functional weapon an enchantment in itself. I'm thinking it'd take a +1 or + 2 enhancement bonus to turn a nonweapon into a weapon.
I have to disagree here. When magic can turn a tree limb into a flaming lightsaber with a 5% chance of instantly decapitating anything it's swung at, I have no problem believing that enough magic can close the gap between a weird, spiky dagger and a normal one.

[SamTheCleric]

If the size and handling were equivalent, it'd be a real sword. The thing is, the handling is completely different. If you'd ever tried to actually wield a decorative blade, or even hold the thing, you'd know what I mean. I can assure you that a "pretty" sword is almost always an unbalanced sword. The true beauty lies in a well crafted, perfectly balanced blade... and there are precious few of those in the modern era. We've let ourselves forget the proper technique.

As I tried to point out 800 or so pages ago... in the game the mechanics of the sword are the same. Regardless of what artwork you use or how you want to describe the sword... the rules do not change. That is also what Rutee is saying. You may want a plain looking, perfectly balance blade. Let's say it's a long sword. It's 1d8 damage, 19-20 crit in 3e. I want the blade to actually be two separate pieces of iron loosely welded together in the center and at the tip and i want the hilt to have rediculous jewels and decoration. It's also 1d8 damage, 19-20 crit.

Game. Not real world. Gaaaaame.

[ColdBrew]

I know how to settle this. Let's go down to ye olde metal shop and make a replica of the dragonborn's sword. I'll be generous and say it's just iron. Then, let's sharpen all those little edges. THEN, people who say it's not a weapon can line up for me to take swings at, 'cause after all, it won't really hurt. It's just a decoration.

[ZekeArgo]

I think the big split is that some people want their combat to look like this: Dead Fantasy II (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/193489.html?playlist=featured)

While others want something more along the lines of... well I guess a SCA Event or some such.

While I might side with the first option, (and in a bit of frustration make disparaging remarks about people who enjoy the second), both of them can and do work together. It seems to me that it's all about level: at the lower end you have relatively mundane champions whos power and training may be near the human peak of strength/endurance/whatever but is not obviously supernatural or superhuman.

Then there are the paragon and epic levels, which I see as lending themselves to the first form of combat. Your far beyond human, doing and weilding things that would otherwise be impossible, because thats what high-powered cinematic fantasy is about, and what DnD *is* at higher levels because it does it's best to not simulate all of the gritty details.

At least thats the way I see it.

[Morty]

I think the big split is that some people want their combat to look like this: Dead Fantasy II (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/193489.html?playlist=featured)

While others want something more along the lines of... well I guess a fantasy SCA Event or some such.

While I might side with the first option, (and in a bit of frustration make disparaging remarks about people who enjoy the second), both of them can and do work together. It seems to me that it's all about level: at the lower end you have relatively mundane champions whos power and training may be near the human peak of strength/endurance/whatever but is not obviously supernatural or superhuman.

Then there are the paragon and epic levels, which I see as lending themselves to the first form of combat. Your far beyond human, doing and weilding things that would otherwise be impossible, because thats what high-powered cinematic fantasy is about, and what DnD *is* at higher levels because it does it's best to not simulate all of the gritty details.

At least thats the way I see it.

I don't think it's got anything to do with what is being "discussed" here. Realistically-looking weapons and over-the-top heroic combat aren't mutually exclusive. Nor do I have any problems with warriors performing almost supernatural feats while wielding mundane-looking weapons. At least that's how I feel about it.

[ZekeArgo]

I don't think it's got anything to do with what is being "discussed" here. Realistically-looking weapons and over-the-top heroic combat aren't mutually exclusive. Nor do I have any problems with warriors performing almost supernatural feats while wielding mundane-looking weapons. At least that's how I feel about it.

So over the top is only okay for what they do in combat, but not what they wield?! How... but that doesn't...

That makes no sense M0rt, if you can grasp and enjoy high-end combat like that then what is the harm in making allowances for a flamboyant weapon design when the mechanical stats are exactly the same?

[Rutee]

I don't think it's got anything to do with what is being "discussed" here. Realistically-looking weapons and over-the-top heroic combat aren't mutually exclusive. Nor do I have any problems with warriors performing almost supernatural feats while wielding mundane-looking weapons. At least that's how I feel about it.

Would you mind terribly if I used unrealistic looking weaponry, even if I was in the same game as you? 'cause I wouldn't mind if you used realistic looking weaponry, even if you were in the same game as me.

[Morty]

So over the top is only okay for what they do in combat, but not what they wield?! How... but that doesn't...

That makes no sense M0rt, if you can grasp and enjoy high-end combat like that then what is the harm in making allowances for a flamboyant weapon design when the mechanical stats are exactly the same?

The harm is, they look ridiculous. Sure that's purely aesthetic issue, but isn't it what we're discussing all along? The point is, I can enjoy epic over-the-top combat and simple-looking weapons. I'm all for breaking realism for the sake of better gameplay in a system like D&D -I don't mind TWF for example- but if I don't like how weapon looks anyway, why should I do it?


Would you mind terribly if I used unrealistic looking weaponry, even if I was in the same game as you? 'cause I wouldn't mind if you used realistic looking weaponry, even if you were in the same game as me.

Nope, and that's not what I said at all. What I meant was, epic fights don't imply over-the-top weapons.

[Rutee]

Nope, and that's not what I said at all. What I meant was, epic fights don't imply over-the-top weapons.

I'm not saying you said it. I just didn't know, so I ask. We're on the same page in what matters then, IMO. Disagree on aesthetics, sure, but we'll accept each other's aesthetic values.

[ZekeArgo]

The harm is, they look ridiculous. Sure that's purely aesthetic issue, but isn't it what we're discussing all along? The point is, I can enjoy epic over-the-top combat and simple-looking weapons. I'm all for breaking realism for the sake of better gameplay in a system like D&D -I don't mind TWF for example- but if I don't like how weapon looks anyway, why should I do it?

M may have been unclear, and Rutee did a far better job at decribing my thoughts than I did.

Thing is no one is forcing you to use a weapon you don't want to. Check below.


Nope, and that's not what I said at all. What I meant was, epic fights don't imply over-the-top weapons.

So now its okay for others to use those weapons... so whats your argument? That you don't want to feel forced to wield a weapon that you wouldn't have wielded anyway?

If your okay with others describing weapons as they please, since you know that there are people who *do* enjoy that kind of fantasy, then what is the problem with having art that represents that viewpoint alongside art representative of its opposite?

[Terraoblivion]

Seems like the discussion has finally reached the only stable and sensible point it can, specifically to just let people have their own preferences in peace. And really with how freaky half the art for the last several editions of D&D has been i find it hard to understand why specifically weapons can cause such a fight.

[Morty]

M may have been unclear, and Rutee did a far better job at decribing my thoughts than I did.

Thing is no one is forcing you to use a weapon you don't want to. Check below.

So now its okay for others to use those weapons... so whats your argument? That you don't want to feel forced to wield a weapon that you wouldn't have wielded anyway?

If your okay with others describing weapons as they please, since you know that there are people who *do* enjoy that kind of fantasy, then what is the problem with having art that represents that viewpoint alongside art representative of its opposite?

I'm perfectly aware noone's forcing me to give a damn about the art I don't like. I, however, disagree with the premise that epicness and extraordinary feats of martial prowess are somehow mutually exclusive with the type of art I prefer, that is realistically-looking weapons.

[ZekeArgo]

I'm perfectly aware noone's forcing me to give a damn about the art I don't like. I, however, disagree with the premise that epicness and extraordinary feats of martial prowess are somehow mutually exclusive with the type of art I prefer, that is realistically-looking weapons.

Then I apologise for making it seem like I felt it was a "one or the other" thing. You don't *have* to use oddly-designed, fantastical weapons to have a an over the top battle. But do realize that your viewpoint is more than likely a minority, as most people who enjoy that kind of cinematic wuxia-esque action could probably care less about having normal equipment, and will generally favor a flashier designed weapon.

[kamikasei]

No, I have not stated that only impossible weapons can be fantastic. I can see how my post would come off that way, but it wasn't the intention. My intention was as stated above.

Okay, so you will grant that both impossible and realistic weapons can be fantastic. So when you said:


The central point of "Fighters should suck" was "Fighters should be unfantastic". That's similar to "Weapons shouldn't be fantastic" as well.

...was the bolded portion then a reference to a claim that no one has made?

As far as "agreeing to disagree": well, the thread is about the art. And the art will be what it will be, and the same for everyone. So if the aesthetic you like and I don't is plastered all over the game, then that is a problem for me that isn't done away with by my letting you get on with liking what you like. It's hardly a serious problem, or something that's going to keep me up at night clawing my hair out, but it's annoying.

[horseboy]

I'm surprised that I haven't seen anybody mention that for the Dragonborn, that big, "impractical" sword-thing he's using may be the most optimized weapon for his inhuman physiology and capabilities.I touched on that earlier with the Dragonbait question. We haven't seen the crunch for dragonborn yet so it's certainly possible, however, given that how contrary to their design philosophy of "No penalties because of race" that it would be for dragonborn to actually have a "Suffers -1 to hits using weapons not designed for dragonborn use," would be I highly doubt it.

Then I apologise for making it seem like I felt it was a "one or the other" thing. You don't *have* to use oddly-designed, fantastical weapons to have a an over the top battle. But do realize that your viewpoint is more than likely a minority, as most people who enjoy that kind of cinematic wuxia-esque action could probably care less about having normal equipment, and will generally favor a flashier designed weapon.

No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the America public.
The Macuahuitl was the Aztecs' sword. It wasn't even metal, but a big stick with chunks of obsidian. Like the Zanbato, it didn't look particularly weird, but it was freakishly effective...even the Conquistadors were wary of it. A stone weapon being so deadly that guys with plate armor and guns are scared of it is, to me, as unbelievable as dagger with a couple spikes actually being useful.Obsidian isn't a stone. It's glass. As such it's probably sharper than the weapons the Spaniards brought. (Not sure what type of steel they were using) Also, by that time they got that far in, most weren't wearing plate armours any longer.

[Artanis]

I touched on that earlier with the Dragonbait question. We haven't seen the crunch for dragonborn yet so it's certainly possible, however, given that how contrary to their design philosophy of "No penalties because of race" that it would be for dragonborn to actually have a "Suffers -1 to hits using weapons not designed for dragonborn use," would be I highly doubt it.
I meant more like the fluff saying "Dragonborn are really big and strong, so their weapons are big and heavy" or some such.


Obsidian isn't a stone. It's glass. As such it's probably sharper than the weapons the Spaniards brought. (Not sure what type of steel they were using) Also, by that time they got that far in, most weren't wearing plate armours any longer.
Stone, glass, one way or another it's a non-metal that they dug out of the ground :smallwink:

And yeah, obsidian is really, REALLY sharp. It's actually sharper than modern surgical steel.

[Spiryt]

action could probably care less about having normal equipment, and will generally favor a flashier designed weapon.

Well, the thing that I was trying to say a bit earlier in this thread (probably frogotten of failed:smallwink: ), is that weapons can be 'flashy' and still quite reasonable. I definetly wouldn't want a game which is epic, but everybody has completely 'normal' swords.

But something like this (http://www.powning.com/jake/commish/swords3.shtml)* or hell, even this (http://www.spellowhouse.com/images_rn/img_swords_RN0018.jpg)
looks suficiently 'flashy', and not so ridiculous like something of the dragonborn. IMO.

*I know I make free adverisment to sword making companies, but it's sooo preeety [/maniac]

[Cuddly]

Aztec weapons.

Aztec weapons were really crappy vs. what the Spaniards have. The Spanish are notorious liars- their historical accounts should largely be read as one would read the historical accounts of Beowulf killing Grendel.

Ok, not that much. But they're definitely big, fat liars.

But if you look at the actual numbers, very few Spaniards ever fell in combat vs. the natives, because that's how bad the native weapons were vs. plate, steel swords, and guns.

Whole armies of natives were fielded in south america vs. a couple hundred spanish. Horses, steel, and guns crushed them.

[Terraoblivion]

Except that both the Incan and Aztec empires were dissolving just as the Spanish encountered them and that the open battles featured the Spanish leading large amounts of native rebels. Of course the technological superiority of the Spanish was still vastly important, i just thought it worth to point out that it was not just a few hundred Spanish facing strong empires on their own.

[Rutee]

...was the bolded portion then a reference to a claim that no one has made?
I'm pretty sure people have made the claim that weapons can not work in the game because of real world physics, so to further refine what I said, "Swords must look realistic" is similar to "Fighters must look realistic".

At any rate, the thread may have been about the art, but at some point it drifted off to realistic vs. non, which is why agreeing to disagree was relevant.

[Spiryt]

Except that both the Incan and Aztec empires were dissolving just as the Spanish encountered them and that the open battles featured the Spanish leading large amounts of native rebels. Of course the technological superiority of the Spanish was still vastly important, i just thought it worth to point out that it was not just a few hundred Spanish facing strong empires on their own.

Yes, and certainly Aztec weapons were quite effective (you practicaly cannot make spear ineffective. It's simple but always deadly). Those 'swords' of their certainly could deliver fatal blow easily even though they were more like maces to me. Dunno why people call it sword.

But what's more important : Aztec weapons and tactic could be ineffective, and almost certainly it WAS. Beacuse whole their culture and army was totally diferent, beacuse their mentality was different. Basically their were battling not to kill but to prove skill, and, most importatly capture captitives for sacrifices (their religion!) and for other things. Battles were kinda ritualized, and their were trying to not harm enemy to much.

When they faced people ( the bastards, most certainly) with steel e.c who fought to kill and crush... You know [/offtop]

Why were Aztec weapons argument in this thread BTW? Are thei "flashy' or "realistic and boring" :smallwink: ?

[Terraoblivion]

I agree, Spiryt. It was just to point out that it wasn't just a few hundred Spanish people with superior technology beating the entirity of the Aztec empire. There was a lot more components including rebellion among subjugated people, political instability among the aztecs themselves and the rather curious view of battle held by them. Of course the Spanish throwing their entire worldview out of order by coming from elsewhere without any warning didn't help either.

[horseboy]

I think the big split is that some people want their combat to look like this: Dead Fantasy II (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/193489.html?playlist=featured)

While others want something more along the lines of... well I guess a SCA Event or some such.There's one of the fundamental break downs. You're again assuming that it's either "boring" or "flashly." (Seriously, that trailer was bordering on tl;dw) If being a gish panty fighter is your idea of cool, that's fine. Personally I think it would have been actually cool if one of them had opened up with a 9 hit stunning combo that led to a flying kick ending with her snapping her stiletto heal off into their heart. They both look down at the cork, and the victor hits with sternum strike popping it out like cork and we get arterial spray everywhere. Now THAT would have been way cooler than anything shown there.

[Rutee]

Nitpick: Nobody was in stiletto heels. I specifically looked for that after your saying it was in there :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

There's one of the fundamental break downs. You're (ZekeArgo is) again assuming that it's either "boring" or "flashly."

Exactly.


I agree, Spiryt. It was just to point out that it wasn't just a few hundred Spanish people with superior technology beating the entirity of the Aztec empire. There was a lot more components including rebellion among subjugated people, political instability among the aztecs themselves and the rather curious view of battle held by them. Of course the Spanish throwing their entire worldview out of order by coming from elsewhere without any warning didn't help either.

Well, horses also didn't help. Anyway it tooks him more than a 5 years, and of course his 500 soldiers were only part of his army.

[Ascension]

For what it's worth, let me say that I enjoy a good forum argument just for the sake of the argument. Really, ninety-nine percent of the time your visualization of your weaponry doesn't make a hill of beans worth of difference to me. I'd really only get seriously annoyed if you were constantly flaunting it in my face.

Now I do get miffed when I see it in RPG books, but I generally just try to flip past it quickly and pretend I didn't see it (like the PHB shields... *shudder*). The reason I argued against it here was because, well, we were discussing the art in the books, the art I generally try to ignore.

That's not to say that all the art is bad. The sourcebook art is generally a lot better than the core art, and I can even enjoy a fantastic weapon every now and then. The Scout's "living" bow is pretty cool looking, and the Dungeonscape cover is about the prettiest RPG art I've ever seen.

...and then there's the elven chain girl from the DMG... :smallbiggrin:

[Rutee]

You mean Elven Chain Male, right? (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/80a9a62d.jpg) :smallbiggrin:

[Ascension]

You mean Elven Chain Male, right? (http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j227/RuteeKatreya/80a9a62d.jpg) :smallbiggrin:

If that's a guy, then we really do need to worry about the elves... :smallwink:

And any video by the creator of Haloid automatically passes my Rule of Cool test and gains the supernatural ability to use whatever ridiculous weaponry it wants to use without a word of complaint from me. There's a time for realism, and there's a time for EPIC AWESOMENESS. Cutscenes are the time for EPIC AWESOMENESS. :smallbiggrin:

I haven't played enough of the DoA games or later FF games to actually know who's doing what to whom, but whatever it is, it's pretty. And the winged girl would be a great representation of an Epic level favored soul. Improbable shield/weapon/whatever-the-heck-that-turbine-thing-was and all.

Peace?

[Rutee]

Honestly I think we've already made peace and are just talking to hear ourselves speak at this point. But sure, more Peace is good.