Often overlooked as a social mechanic (in D&D-likes anyway): Fashion

[KorvinStarmast]

The problem with fashion mechanics in D&D-likes is very simple: every character is actually Iron Man, demanding that they change out of their battle gear means massively reducing their personal power and severely compromising their personal safety. This was already a risk management issue in pre-industrial historical cases - European cultural mores were strongly against this, but elsewhere people got murdered at banquets or under a flag of truce distressingly often - and the incredible force multipliers tied to gear in D&D-like scenarios multiples the constraint by orders of magnitude. For one thing the traditional methods of providing VIP security - having your retinue secure literally every place you ever visit before you get there - simply isn't viable because no one a tier lower on the power scale can protect you at all.

I have a modified rule (in 5e) for unarmored Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers: if they are not wearing armor they add proficiency bonus to their armor class; which addresses some of what you allude to here, but obviously not all of it.

[Lemmy]

Rather than a hard-coded rule, this kind of thing should probably be just a case-by-case situational bonus.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's kind of how GURPS does it, it first assumes that 90% of your starting wealth is tied up in things like your living place and a full wardrobe, and then let's you buy Fashion Sense to get a bonus to reaction rolls when you can prepare your outfit (and give your allies the bonus as well if you dress them).

heh, GURPS comes through again!

[Easy e]

I have seen the GM grant advantage/disadvantage based on our clothing or attire in some social situations. For example, at a court gathering and trying to curry favor with a courtier, but dressed in our road clothing could cause disadvantage on a persuasion check.

In other (more modern and less fantasy) games I play, having the right equipment often grants a bonus to the roll. Fashion/clothing has definitely fallen into this category on many occasions to get the bonus. For example, having a "uniform" has granted a bonus on an intimidation check.

[Stonehead]

I think the problem with mechanizing fashion is that it’s such a nuanced topic that it would require a reasonably high level of complexity.

Just as a for-instance, going full spiky-Mohawk-punk will endear you to some audiences, alienate you from others, make you more intimidating to many. Even determining if it should be a bonus or penalty is a complicated question. Further, can one even have “fine” clothing in a style that celebrates torn & ragged?

So I think the only way this works is if you have a fairly generic system, one that relies heavily on GM adjudication. Like, you could totally give a character proficiency in “aristocratic clothing” as a tool in 5e, and let them apply their bonus where proper dress makes a difference: impersonating a noble, demanding your rights as an aristocrat, etc.

I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

We have equipment lists full of slightly different variations in weapons, I see no reason why it can't get a similar level of specificity in clothing. In real life, if you show up to your friend's barbecue in a full suit and tie, you'd get some weird looks. Certain outfits could give bonuses in fancy parties, or bonuses from commoners, or bonuses in certain cultures. There would have to be some DM adjudication, but in some editions Rangers get bonuses in "forests" or "swamps", so it's not unprecedented.

[Dienekes]

In reality anything about as big as longsword should prompt a guard visit and armor better than hide a friendly guard shadow. Unless your a noble.

It really depends on the setting. Even in real life. For times in the HRE wearing a sidearm like a longsword was considered a normal display of being a freeman. While during the Italian Wars where social norms got turned around pretty consistently it was just considered good sense to always be armed. There is also decent enough evidence among the early medieval Germanic and Scandinavian cultures that being armed was fairy normal. But there was also a social etiquette of leaving your weapons at the door when going into someone’s house.

But those places still didn’t often see people wearing actual armor on a normal day. That’s just weird. Though having a secret breastplate or light mail under your clothes was not unheard of. Especially in Italy.

Why do you hate martial characters and love spell casters?
(As a one time Starcraft addict, the space marine look is, to me, high fashion!)

This does bring up the point. In a setting where these restrictions exist and has magic, you better believe that there would be just as many restrictions placed upon spellcasting components and focuses.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

We have equipment lists full of slightly different variations in weapons, I see no reason why it can't get a similar level of specificity in clothing. In real life, if you show up to your friend's barbecue in a full suit and tie, you'd get some weird looks. Certain outfits could give bonuses in fancy parties, or bonuses from commoners, or bonuses in certain cultures. There would have to be some DM adjudication, but in some editions Rangers get bonuses in "forests" or "swamps", so it's not unprecedented.

I strongly disagree about having "clothing lists". Because it's so situational & setting (and even micro-setting) dependent once you get down below the most basic. For example, my current party is at a party.

One character is in armor (albeit shined up).
One is wearing a robe-adjacent getup covered in arcane symbols.
One is wearing a simple suit.
The last is wearing something like the Witcher garb minus the armor parts.

The other people are wearing one of 6 possible clothing styles (3 basic fashion trends, plus since it's all gender-based, 2 different styles of each trend). How do they all map up (ie what bonuses and penalties, etc) apply:

1. The one in armor is basically invisible, because he's in the garb of a guard. He's hired help. But he can watch anyone.
2. The arcane one gets a really really strongly negative reaction from one particular person, a "oh so unfashionable but exotic" reaction from most of the rest, and a strongly positive from a couple people.
3. The one in a suit is fairly neutral, being treated as the "country cousin". Everyone's sure someone else invited him. So he can mingle with everyone. He's the closest to being "in style" or "properly dressed".
4. The last one is there as the guest of someone no one wants to offend, so he's just seen as uncouth and barbarous. But for what he intends to do, that's a positive.

And if they went somewhere else, those same clothes would drastically change in effect. Change countries to the one next door? The arcane guy is going to be the star and no one else will be considered really odd. Go out into the colonies? The first and last are the most appropriately dressed, even at more formal occasions there.

So trying to pin it down beyond the squishy "advantage/disadvantage" and "DM adjusts how things are roleplayed/reactions appropriately" is bound to create ludonarrative dissonance.

[Willie the Duck]

It really depends on the setting. Even in real life. For times in the HRE wearing a sidearm like a longsword was considered a normal display of being a freeman.

Arming swords, rapiers, hangers, messers, and later smallswords or cavalry sabers certainly. A longsword, while wearable on the hip, would be a pretty extreme example.

I think a high level of complexity/depth could actually be a plus, not a minus. Although I admit my tastes aren't fully representative of the community as a whole.

It depends. I think an adventure where the party realizes they have a party to attend and what can they obtain to wear -- with various outfits or accessories giving various bonuses to various parts of the social effect (turn every head, not turn every head but still look very good, convincingly portray certain status or profession, increase persuasion, maintain specific image, etc.) could be fun. Doing so regularly and having to maintain a wardrobe full of different components, all to be usable in such and such a situation -- while I can see the value in that, I've tended over time to move that kind of thing to computer games (where, if you might want to use a spreadsheet to track all your build components, it is already built-in in some way).

[Vahnavoi]

Or, you could just embrace your inner 10-year-old girl and make playing with paper dolls part of the game. This isn't hard, people.

[Hytheter]

I have a modified rule (in 5e) for unarmored Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers: if they are not wearing armor they add proficiency bonus to their armor class; which addresses some of what you allude to here, but obviously not all of it.

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all?

[KorvinStarmast]

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all?

I don't know, would it? That problem has not come up.

[Hytheter]

I don't know, would it? That problem has not come up.

So none of your players have ever noticed that they could have more AC by going shirtless than while wearing studded leather?

[noob]

Wouldn't that just mean dexterity characters stop wearing armour at all?

That would happen only after they gain enough levels and dex for their proficiency+dex modifier to go over 17.
So for example 18 dex, +3 proficiency which happens at the earliest at level 5 which is a whole lot(lots of games barely reach that point or stops before).

[Hytheter]

That would happen only after they gain enough levels and dex for their proficiency+dex modifier to go over 17.
So for example 18 dex, +3 proficiency which happens at the earliest at level 5 which is a whole lot(lots of games barely reach that point or stops before).

Even a level 1 character has no need of any light armours if they are adding their proficiency to AC. A level 4 character with 18 dex would benefit only from half-plate, and that has trade-offs regarding stealth so it's not a strict upgrade (not to mention it is rather expensive).

While 'lots of games' may not reach level 5, I doubt this is true for Korvin based on my impression of his experience as a DM. Besides, a proficiency based house rule would be meaningless if he never expected proficiency to change within his games.

[Slipjig]

If you expect there to be many situations where armor is uncouth, I'd suggest the following workaround to make life easier on the martials:

Create bracers of armor that require Light/Med/Heavy Armor proficiency to wear, and make them extremely common items. Operating the bracers takes a certain amount of training, and warriors in this society spend their time learning that skill instead of how to fight in physical armor. You could also say that the Med/Heavy ones glow or hum when active, so they still have disadvantage on stealth checks.

[Alcore]

I once, sorta, used fashion in one game.


The game was Kingmaker and most of the game is set in the River Kingdoms. So the vast majority of people they fought were from there. You don’t go anywhere unarmed and anyone not working who was unarmored is suspicious.

Que the party squishies not wearing mock armor (or weapons) and were targeted first. They were unwilling to roll knowledge local until later; they were absolutely stumped on why three quarters of their peasants were armed and armored and why their softer weaker guards from more civilized lands refused to go out at night.


The ‘king’ finally started wearing armor in court and stopped getting a -2 on checks when dealing with people from the river kingdoms.

[KorvinStarmast]

So none of your players have ever noticed that they could have more AC by going shirtless than while wearing studded leather?

No, it has never come up. Maybe not all players think the way that you do.

[Anonymouswizard]

So at maximum level, assuming you've been keeping up with the gear treadmill, the difference is one point. 15+Dex for highly enchanted studded leather, 16+Dex for no armour.

Honestly I think the game might work better if AC was redesigned to use your Proficiency Bonus. Something like 8+PB+Armour Bonus(+Dex), with armour bonuses generally being smaller. Say +1 for Light, +3 for Medium but capped Dex, and +5 for Heavy. This keeps the numbers at level 1 about the same, gives defensive scaling without relying on items, and means those with Unarmoured Defence begin at the level of mundane medium armour and end at roughly enchanted heavy armour with a shield.

This also makes losing your armour less devestating for those using Light or Medium. For those in Heavy every choice has consequences.

[KorvinStarmast]

So at maximum level,

You are wrong in your assumption here. You assume maximum level. None of our campaigns (in the group where I use this modification) has lasted beyond 9. I have only applied it to situations where the PC is in a social setting, or resting, sans armor. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger only. Nobody else. (You score two internet points for understanding why those three classes). The situations where I apply this have come up less than a dozen times. The players' usual MO is to put on their armor and do their normal thing.
(Our current campaign where I DM with this group is at level 8).

Honestly I think the game might work better if AC was redesigned to use your Proficiency Bonus. Something like 8+PB+Armour Bonus (+Dex), with armour bonuses generally being smaller. Say +1 for Light, +3 for Medium but capped Dex, and +5 for Heavy. This keeps the numbers at level 1 about the same, gives defensive scaling without relying on items, and means those with Unarmoured Defence begin at the level of mundane medium armour and end at roughly enchanted heavy armour with a shield.

That's kind of where I have been headed with this, but the whole thing was brought about during the maritime portion of Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Taking off heavy armor does not make a Fighter (or a Paladin) worse at Fighting. They are ostensibly the best a Fighting, hence Fighter. (The rest of my Rant I will excise). My approach also allows for Conan the Barbarian to be a Fighter and still run about in his loin cloth.

An idea that I've been mulling over is to do this with half-proficiency (rounded down or up, I can't yet decide) for those three classes only. But the situation has not come up recently.

I've discussed this as a global mod a few times on this forum, with mixed results. The problem arises, as we have discussed it here at GiTP, with the usual Multiclassing exploits that this board is so fond of discussing.
At the moment, this modification only is available for pure, non-MC Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers at the moment.
Any MC voids this option.

And again, the situation rarely arises in play.

[Anonymouswizard]

You are wrong in your assumption here. You assume maximum level. None of our campaigns (in the group where I use this modification) has lasted beyond 9.

Poor wording on my part, I was speaking generally. Hence 'assuming you've been keeping up with the gear treadmill's, not every group does.

One point isn't anything to worry about. Four points is

I have only applied it to situations where the PC is in a social setting, or resting, sans armor. Paladin, Fighter, Ranger only. Nobody else. (You score two internet points for understanding why those three classes).

My initial guess would be 'classes primarily focused on martial arts (who don't get Unarmoured Defence)'.

That's kind of where I have been headed with this, but the whole thing was brought about during the maritime portion of Tomb of Annihilation campaign. Taking off heavy armor does not make a Fighter (or a Paladin) worse at Fighting. They are ostensibly the best a Fighting, hence Fighter. (The rest of my Rant I will excise). My approach also allows for Conan the Barbarian to be a Fighter and still run about in his loin cloth.

I thought Conan generally wore chainmail when he could?

I see no issue with making wearing armour better, I just don't think it should be the be-all and end-all of non-spell PC defence.

An idea that I've been mulling over is to do this with half-proficiency (rounded down or up, I can't yet decide) for those three classes only. But the situation has not come up recently.

I've discussed this as a global mod a few times on this forum, with mixed results. The problem arises, as we have discussed it here at GiTP, with the usual Multiclassing exploits that this board is so fond of discussing.
At the moment, this modification only is available for pure, non-MC Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers at the moment.
Any MC voids this option.

And again, the situation rarely arises in play.

I really, really dislike the way defence works in D&D. Skill doesn't matter at all, and I'm interested in working out a way to change that.

The first thing I'd do in 5e is drop or rework Unarmoured Defence.

[jjordan]

It's my opinion that fashion is insanely useful for social interaction scenarios. HOWEVER, a lot of players don't care and actively hate detailed resource management. So, in general, I try to keep it simple. Characters that stand out get noticed and that notice can convey advantages or disadvantages based on the scenario. E.G. Fully armed and equipped (backpacks?) players showing up at the ball are almost certainly going to be avoided and might even be considered a threat and asked to leave. Disadvantage on social interactions. But if they are, at the ball, attempting to convince the local lord to let them go after the goblin raiders then they might gain some advantage.

Restricting resources available to players can be very useful for some scenarios. Lower level creatures become more of a threat if you encounter them on the streets of the town while walking back to your lodgings wearing your town clothing.

Sumptuary laws provide all sorts of opportunities for role-play. Players may notice that someone is wearing the wrong style of clothing. They may take advantage of clothing styles to disguise themselves. There may be confusion caused by clothing choices ("Only entertainers and prostitutes wear striped clothing?!?") There may even be violence as a result of wearing clothing or colors of clothing. The rights to bear weapons outside of active military service may be restricted.

My settings have brief details on clothing that add brief, toss-away color and consistency to the game. The inhabitants of Eisenbourg wear wool-based clothing dyed with iron-based dyes in reds, blacks, and dark orange/browns because they have ready access to iron-oxide and they believe it offers them protection from elvish magic. I can riff on that data to have traditional inhabitants reacting negatively to people wearing other colors (whether because they are foreigners who don't know or rebellious youth the effect is the same).

And I'm not going to worry about making martials 'less effective'. That's on D&D. Players can come up with ways around that (lots of examples of decorative armor and armor as fashion to choose from) if it really matters to them or they can play the game and I'll give them points for doing so.

[Faily]

I always try to have different clothes and outfits for my characters in most games. For mediums like play-by-post, I go full in on describing clothes and appearance (often with links for visual images). Appearance matters so much for initial impressions and reactions, and can tell you a lot about a character's personality, where they're from, cultural backgrounds, etc.

Good character design often comes with the thought behind it of why a character dress the way they do, and how that fits in with the world.


Some of my long-running characters have pages worth of wardrobe because they've amassed wealth, received gifts, or stumbled upon unique clothes that are still valuable even if they're not magical (that group is just really fond of loot that is fancy even if not magical).

[Anonymouswizard]

HOWEVER, a lot of players don't care and actively hate detailed resource management.

A k.a. most players don't track arrows (or in some cases spell slots), getting them to track clean knickers is next to impossible.

Most groups are pretty much just going with characters having access to street clothes and formal wear in addition to their adventuring gear. If you're wearing the wrong kind of clothing for the situation you get a minor penalty. Keeping up with the latest fashions requires regular expenditures but provides a bonus.

Although honestly for me this is more likely to come up in CofD, where it'll mostly be 'do you have enough Wealth and/or Status, Unknown Armies, where getting the fancy clothes can very much be a session in itself, or Nobilis, where getting the latest fashion is trivial for any PC and you're going to have to try harder than that to impress people.

In D&D illusions cover a multitude of sins, and it's not implausible for experienced characters to obtain positions where their formal regalia includes armour.

[KorvinStarmast]

My initial guess would be 'classes primarily focused on martial arts (who don't get Unarmoured Defence)'.

Fighters are, by the PHB, the masters of armed combat.

I thought Conan generally wore chainmail when he could?

Not really, mostly unarmored but yes, sometimes in armor.

I see no issue with making wearing armour better, I just don't think it should be the be-all and end-all of non-spell PC defence.

If I had my 13th Age book I'd cite their example of the three kinds of defense, but I don't have it.

I really, really dislike the way defence works in D&D. Skill doesn't matter at all, and I'm interested in working out a way to change that.

I'd like some more options for the Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Yes.

The first thing I'd do in 5e is drop or rework Unarmoured Defence.

Please rework, don't drop, since I like how the Monk's UD works.

A k.a. most players don't track arrows (or in some cases spell slots), getting them to track clean knickers is next to impossible.

Heh, I track both on most of my characters. Yeah, some old habits die hard.

In D&D illusions cover a multitude of sins, and it's not implausible for experienced characters to obtain positions where their formal regalia includes armour.

I had no idea how valuable the studded leather glamour armor (+1 leather than can morph into any outfit you want it to) would be on my lore bard (5e) until I got a set and began to embrace my inner fashionista. It was an absolute hoot.

[Anonymouswizard]

Fighters are, by the PHB, the masters of armed combat.

Yep, they focus on martial arts, they aren't like monks and barbarians, diluting their focus with philosophy and bodybuilding.

Not really, mostly unarmored but yes, sometimes in armor.

So what we need is advantages to both states!

If I had my 13th Age book I'd cite their example of the three kinds of defense, but I don't have it.

I might pull mine off the shelf and check it.

I'd like some more options for the Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers. Yes.

Always more options for Fighters would be nice. I'd like to have more than like three

Please rework, don't drop, since I like how the Monk's UD works.

If I ever get around to working on it I'll have a go, but I'm not sure how to do it atm.

Heh, I track both on most of my characters. Yeah, some old habits die hard.

At some point I need to come up with a good bonus for not just cleaning clothes with Prestidigitator.

I had no idea how valuable the studded leather glamour armor (+1 leather than can morph into any outfit you want it to) would be on my lore bard (5e) until I got a set and began to embrace my inner fashionista. It was an absolute hoot.

I kind of had the same revelation when I first played a game that assumed the PCs own more than one set of clothes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I kind of had the same revelation when I first played a game that assumed the PCs own more than one set of clothes.

Not sure why I did this, but in D&D 5e I usually start out with a set of travelers clothes and then get (or buy with background money) a set of fine clothes so that I always have another set.

Depends on the DM, but if you bathe in the river / lake / stream a while before entering a town, and have put on your fine clothes while the rest of the party is in their dirty clothes/armor, you can often pass as not being a member of the party and that can lead to some interesting benefits if you are collecting intel ...

[Psyren]

Rather than a hard-coded rule, this kind of thing should probably be just a case-by-case situational bonus.

I'm with Lemmy on this one. A fashion ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like wealth, nobility, taste, factions, iconography and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - is the character's outfit helping them accomplish their goals, or hindering them? (Or neither?) And based on the answer to that, you assign a bonus/penalty (which in 5e would most likely be advantage/disadvantage), or maybe their choice of outfit has such a large impact one way or the other that it removes the need to roll at all.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm with Lemmy on this one. A fashion ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like wealth, nobility, taste, factions, iconography and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - is the character's outfit helping them accomplish their goals, or hindering them? (Or neither?) And based on the answer to that, you assign a bonus/penalty (which in 5e would most likely be advantage/disadvantage), or maybe their choice of outfit has such a large impact one way or the other that it removes the need to roll at all.

I think it's worth acknowledging the difference between not just helpful and unhelpful, but 'suited to the situation' and 'suited to the situation, while costing as much as a small business'. High level D&D characters tend to have enough WBL to splash hundreds to thousands of go on an outfit without really affecting their combat ability, which is a level that not even nobles can manage (and in something like World of Darkness PCs could very possibly be multimillionaires*).

It might also be worth doing something like Exalted/Scion's Stunting mechanics for outfits. Anything more than a bare bones description gets a small bonus, but to get a big bonus you don't just have to spend the GP, you have to describe something actually impressive.

Also, and I can't stress this enough, social penalties for putting no effort in. Encourage players to at minimum bathe and buy a good hat before meeting the queen (don't worry, there's no AC penalty for forgoing your helmet). The. Same should go for PCs, encourage them to bathe occasionally.

I'm considering trying to write a Bard's Guide to Adventuring Fashion thing for DMsGuild or the like. A mixture of rules and musings about personal presentation as an adventurer. Realistically I suspect most parties would occasionally detour to a river or stream to bathe, if only for health reasons, and would likely wash communally just to save on time. There is of course always that one member who never buys their own soap.

* I only have CofD to hand, and it tops out at 'filthy rich', so not really the 1%.

[Vahnavoi]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?)

[Anonymouswizard]

A combat ruleset or subsystem might sound interesting on paper, but I could easily see it becoming massively cumbersome in practice as you try to account for things like health, position, equipment, allegiance, terrain and many other factors, when all you really need to do is boil it down to a simple binary choice - does the character win or not? (Or neither?)

I suspect you say this at least partially in jest, but I've legitimately argued for it on occasion. Not in D&D, it's design goals ask for a crunchy combat system, but if it was a Doctor Who RPG? Fights in that show are generally fast enough that one roll and done is a more accurate simulation. You do however want fairly detailed chase rules.

Similarly you don't need detailed fashion rules until first impressions and staying ahead of trends matters. Which means you want a highly social game, and you'll be tracking your outfits and hoping you can save enough money not to be seen in last season's stockings.

For what your average D&D game actually consists of 'smelly/normal/fashionable' is probably fine. But if the designers want to be serious about social interaction being a core pillar than some more rules would be really handy, even if they boil down to "really fabulous outfits give a +6 bonus, as long as you're not delivering an academic lecture in a ballgown*'. Or rules for relationships between characters and abstracted favour trading I suppose, that would be cool. Having more than one Bond, giving them ratings, and adding those ratings as circumstance bonuses when interacting with those groups.

But something.

* If in lingerie make a save to wake up.