Pretty sure we didn't have the cover yet, right?
The Cover of Martial was hidden in the new fansite materials, so I put it up on my site - check it out here http://4espoilers.blogspot.com/2009/08/martial-power-2-cover-and-fansite.html
Pretty sure we didn't have the cover yet, right?
WOW!!
That is a GORGEOUS cover!!! Best cover so far for a 4E Hardcover book.Edit: woops now that I enlarge the cover I see that its a bow and arrow she is holding, not a staff.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
(C) What's with the axe she has hanging from her inner thigh?
Poor Martial Controller-nobody loves you.
I really hope it's a fake, because it looks terrible.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
(C) What's with the axe she has hanging from her inner thigh?
(A) I've seen grossly more inappropriate cleavage than that, have you seen some of the latest clothing styles?
(B) She's an elf. In every depiction of an elf, whether male or female, their arms are lithe and muscular
(C) The Axe is hanging from the belt, zoom in and you will notice the ring attached to the belt near the axe head, it only looks like its strapped to and dangling from the inner thigh due to positioning of the body.
WotC does not release fake images that I am aware of - except those that appeared in the April Fools jokes and this does not appear to be an april fools joke.
I really hope it's a fake, because it looks terrible.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
(C) What's with the axe she has hanging from her inner thigh?
Why is the cleavage a problem, her arms are not skinny and the axe is hanging from her belt on the front.
(A) I've seen grossly more inappropriate cleavage than that, have you seen some of the latest clothing styles?
Which are meant for casual settings or upscale events, not life-threatening adventures. To be honest, I wouldn't be so completely opposed to it except for the fact that we get very few picture of attractive men showing off flesh in D&D. It's really not fair.
(B) She's an elf. In every depiction of an elf, whether male or female, their arms are lithe and muscular
That's my complaint. Her arms aren't muscular at all. They're just scrawny. They aren't even appropriate for an elf is how bad they are.
(C) The Axe is hanging from the belt, zoom in and you will notice the ring attached to the belt near the axe head, it only looks like its strapped to and dangling from the inner thigh due to positioning of the body.
So it is, my bad. However, that's still a silly place to hang an axe so that it hangs like that.
Why is the cleavage a problem
Context.
her arms are not skinny
Surely you jest.
the axe is hanging from her belt on the front.
That's still not a reasonable place to hang an axe. It just looks silly and impractical.
EDIT: Or if you really prefer, because I'm not ready to have a debate about it or anything, then just pretend I said:
I just don't like it. It looks silly.
To be honest, I wouldn't be so completely opposed to it except for the fact that we get very few picture of attractive men showing off flesh in D&D. It's really not fair.
Would LOVE to see some more attractive men in the books instead of unattractive male dwarves
No new Martial classes listed there.
Poor Martial Controller-nobody loves you.
Well duh, no X Power books have new classes. :P
Context.
So, she's a little reckless. She likes feeling sexy. Lots of women do.
Surely you jest.
Using that smiley does not make what I said any more ridiculous. It makes you look like someone who refuses to believe he might be wrong. Her arms are lean, but they definitely look powerful.
That's still not a reasonable place to hang an axe. It just looks silly and impractical.
An axe hanging from a belt will either get in the way or be hard to draw. It's a matter of choice.
If you don't want to discuss, don't criticize.
I don't see at all how that's at all a reasonable position to take, but I I'll roll with it for now...
So, she's a little reckless. She likes feeling sexy. Lots of women do.
That's my point, that's the very poor excuse for quite a lot of the art of women in D&D. Yet, men can be reckless too, can't they? Men also like feeling sexy, don't they? But do we get much art like this of men in D&D? No. It seems like in D&D art, women are the only ones who are reckless and like to feel sexy.
Again, it wouldn't be so bad if there were more similar art of men, but this sort of thing just starts to look sexist after a while. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of good pieces of artwork in D&D featuring women. I'm just saying that this isn't the kind of thing I want to see on the cover of a book. This is a book about expert martial adventurer characters, so I'd like to see somebody on the cover who actually looks like they know what they're doing.
Her arms are lean, but they definitely look powerful.
How? They look like twigs. It's ridiculous. I expect some skinnier women in real life who've never experienced combat to have arms that thin. For an adventurer who is apparently an experienced archer, it just doesn't look appropriate to me. It looks ridiculously unrealistic, and I don't like it.
An axe hanging from a belt will either get in the way or be hard to draw.
While that may be true, when you hang something off you belt that you expect to be going into life-threatening battle with, the last thing you should be doing is putting it somewhere that it's going to be in the way of your movements, especially your leg movements when you're supposed to be a very mobile character.
No new Martial classes listed there.
Poor Martial Controller-nobody loves you.
I know man its bs.
The cover doesn't even look good wizard needs to start over, throw it in the shredder and mulligan.
She's obviously an elf or an eladrin, and a ranger at that. Lithe and pretty come with that territory. Realistic? Not at all. In real life, archers tend to have muscular arms. In real life, you cannot possibly do the things that high level D&D rangers can. Without even going into the impossibilities of some armor displayed in D&D art, the acceptance must be made that this is fantasy art and some suspension of disbelief and the presence of certain tropes and stereotypes are just assumed.
That isn't to say that it shouldn't be an equal opportunity exploitation, as far as gender is concerned. There are plenty of pieces featuring shirtless barbarian beefcakes and pretty man-elves. Lighten up, people.
I seriously can't believe I'm about to say this, but here goes:
She's obviously an elf or an eladrin, and a ranger at that. Lithe and pretty come with that territory. Realistic? Not at all. In real life, archers tend to have muscular arms. In real life, you cannot possibly do the things that high level D&D rangers can. Without even going into the impossibilities of some armor displayed in D&D art, the acceptance must be made that this is fantasy art and some suspension of disbelief and the presence of certain tropes and stereotypes are just assumed.
That isn't to say that it shouldn't be an equal opportunity exploitation, as far as gender is concerned. There are plenty of pieces featuring shirtless barbarian beefcakes and pretty man-elves. Lighten up, people.
Seconded.
Lithe and pretty come with that territory.
I made no complains about her being lithe or pretty. :P
...the presence of certain tropes and stereotypes are just assumed.
Just because they're assumed doesn't mean that they're a good thing or that they should continue or that I have to like them.
There are plenty of pieces featuring shirtless barbarian beefcakes and pretty man-elves.
Where?
I know that they exist, but they're so few and far between that I can't even think of a good one of the top of my head. Nowhere near as many as there are of women in either case.
I'm not saying I'm against this piece of art existing. It's not like it's the worst thing I've ever seen in D&D art. I just don't like it on the cover where I really have to look at it all the time is all...
I just don't like it on the cover where I really have to look at it all the time is all...
Book cover. Fifty cents. Wal-Mart. Problem solved.
Book cover. Fifty cents. Wal-Mart. Problem solved.
That not being on the cover. Free. No effort. Problem solved better. :P
Mine's bigger.
NO! My laptop! Damn you; you made soda shoot out my nose!
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
Natalia Erdyniyeva, 11th world seed in women's archery and competitor in the 2008 Olympics (where she was narrowly beaten by the eventual gold medal winner and similarly slender Chinese woman Zhang Juan Juan), begs to differ.
This woman, doesn't.
She does, however, have a glowing arrow thing which may be done of her own accord as it's glowing without being placed in the bow and this may indicate some kind of Arcane Archer PP.
Her Legs are weird though, I think it's the belt though, it hides her waist and rear and makes her legs look odd, like she has scrawny legs attached to a giant behind (like a Chicken).
Her boobs are weird too. She also appears to be looking at them with a face that could be thinking (I should really cut these off, they just get in the way).
I do quite like the picture overall, but not up close.
Highly muscled arms will help for sure especially with high pound bows, but they are not a prerequisite to using a bow, your shoulders are.
If you can't learn how to swallow under duress, you'll never make it in show business.
bam! critical hit.
also, neat cover. arcane archer would be an interesting pp. i hope, they will add some good options for eladrin rogues. there are not many useful racial feats for eladrin rogues or rangers. most of them tend to support wizard/fighter or paladin classes, since they are so much focused on longswords and spears.
fey gambit was the only useful feat for eladrin rogues in mp1 and longsword findesse just stinks as it is.
and i was really disappointed in the racial pp, since its pretty cool, but all the powers are relying on int. so no good for rogues or rangers, while other racial paragon pathes are focused on both main stats.
That's because they have nifty composite bows that do the pulling for you.
I assume you're talking about compound bows rather than composites. And no, they don't "do the pulling for you". They just store the energy more efficiently so you can hold the bow at full draw for longer while you aim.
Here is the South Korean team who won the gold medal for Women's Team Archery in both the '04 and '08 Olympics. As you can see, they're using composite bows rather than compound bows, with no levers and pulleys, so there's no doubt that all the necessary draw power is coming from their muscles.
They're wearing long sleeves there, of course, but here is Park Sung-Hyun (the middle archer in the previous picture) without long sleeves (at her wedding to that very lucky young man there, who is also an olympic archer).
No, you don't need huge muscles to use a bow effectively. The bows actually used in Olympic competition have a pretty pathetic draw weight, but that's not necessarily what modern-day archers practice with and it's certainly not the top end of what weight of bow experienced modern archers can use, even if their arms are as slender as those of the eladrin in the MP2 picture.
Well duh, no X Power books have new classes. :P
Feline meant that since there are no new martial classes listed there, that no new martial classes are coming out before then, not that we should expect to see a new class debuted in the book.
Feline meant that since there are no new martial classes listed there, that no new martial classes are coming out before then, not that we should expect to see a new class debuted in the book.
Yes.
Before this book, we wont get any new Martial Classes.
This applies to men too.
okay.
fine.
here is hopping that they start providing ways to customize your characters class!
things like: take your fighter class- remove heavy shield, remove light shield, remove scale mail, remove chain mail, remove hide armor....
gain 5 "zagnarts" to exchange for other abilities/feats.
alternately: a non-ninja rogue. swaping shuriken prof, and rogue weapon bonuses for: rapier prof, backstaber feat, weapon expertise-rapier...
or, "gasp", an option that allows the elf rogue to use their bow prof with all those stupid theif powers that require a "hand crossbow"...
why oh why, oprah, did the game design team handicap the rogue's weapon choices? what is wrong with a rogue that uses a bow and sword?
********************************
is it because a certian MMO does it too?
hmm?
maybe?
hmm?
Should they really release another martial power book so when psionic and (maybe) shadow even come out. Won't it make them a few build options behind. Will PHB 3 maybe include more options per class then others have. Is it perhaps to make up for designers not knowing the territory as well when they built the first 2 PHB?
Any opinions?
* well, since we are all just going to hate on her....
:P (* for thse who don't know already- this post is just pure sarcasm.)
her eyes are wrong... she looks to be interested in killing that gnat hovering within 6 inches of her fore head.
why is she wearing a stop sign on her forehead?
why does her chin seem to be where her ears start- noting the lines travelling up the sides of her face...
why all the "floating hair" is she done twirling about? "oh sailor moon, save me!"
speaking of hair...
why does it look like her eyebrows stick out through her bangs?
is she supposed ta "be shome sort of elf" like a W.o.W. "sin_bored_I"?
why does her gear look like it came from the art rejections bin for W.O.W. ?
WHY DOES SHE HAVE BLOOMIN TWIGGS GROWING OUT OF HER HEAD !?!
doesn't anybody know what "dramatic foreshortening" is anymore?
The foreshortening on her left leg would be fine it her legs were proportionate with the rest of her. Her front leg is twice the size of her front arm and her back arm isn't foreshortened at all, its the same size or longer.
Besides a few oddplaced weapons and mismatched upper/lower body, its a good picture.
I'm all for the sexual objectification of women*. I hate it because it looks silly. :P
* And before you have a cow, I'm all for the sexual objectification of men too, so there. :D
Ah ha, the Gene Roddenberry approach!
(Old farts who've heard the Inside Star Trek record will know what I'm referring to).
she appears to have; two daggers, a battle axe, and a quiver of arrows.
half of this gear is tucked into the belt, the rest dangles from the belt...
having been in combat, I know one thing. Mobility is survival.
So if she had to drop prone or tumble forward (combat roll) the axe would be a big problem. weapons should be sheathed and those sheaths should be placed flat against a flat part of the body, not against a joint, the belly, or accross the spine... a pair of flat short swords crossed over your hips on your back might hurt a bit if you tumble with them sheathed, but I guarentee that they will hurt much less than trying to tumble with a pair of warhammers or morning stars crossed on your back.
...the "pretty girl haters"...
Who? Does anybody in this thread hate pretty girls?
I think a part of me just died a little Anywway.....
Wow .... uh, doesn't this conversation belong in Astrid's Parlor? Can somebody move this post or can we get back on topic? This kind of post is EXACTLY why I never go to that part of the forums.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Lord Dreadman
Saying that you think a cover looks silly, in a thread about that very same cover, is not off topic. Sorry, but “I think armour cleavage looks silly” should be every bit as valid and non-controversial as “I think giant shoulder pads look silly”. The fact that it is not, and that certain posters feel the need to accuse a guy (and every single woman in the world, apparently
) of being insanely jealous of the beauty of a fictional portrait, a hater, and so ugly he needs plastic surgery, shows a real problem with the tolerance and maturity of the community, and that wont be solved by claiming it's a gender issue, instead of just a silly issue, and shoving it away on Astrid's.The problem is going to show up again the next time a poster, with little knowledge about the weird issues of the community, comes along and expresses the honest opinion that a piece of art looks silly, and subsequently gets personally attacked and accused of all sorts of things, just because the piece of artwork happens to portray a couple of boobs.
So, in the spirit of staying on topic :D : I like the cover overall, but I don't care much for the cleavage armour :P I think it looks silly and un-armour like, and I'm a little annoyed we haven't seen more skinny and pretty boys, and more tough looking women on the covers. I also think her arms look a bit skinny compared to the torso (archer or not), but it's a minor detail. I like the bow and the details on her armour too. Does anyone know who the artist is?
trust me on that, concerto.
In combat, would I want to wear an IOTV with a big wide hole going from my neck down to the middle of my sturnum? Heck no!
That is just a huge "kill me here" sign. However, this is a fantasy game, complete with double bladed swords and manuevers that cause fire to leap out of the blade edge...
If the sorceress can get by with a few semi-translucent silken veils/sashes, a thong, a spaghetti bikini top, more power to her!
as a man, I say, "MORE BOOBS" not whine about seeing them...
it is fantasy art, for a fantasy game, that has silly events occur durring game play...
Do I care that the art isn't a realistic reflection of a bomb demo suit?
nope.
Do I contemplate how such a character would care for her 18 foot long hair train as a dungeon exploring adventurer?
nope.
or do I wonder where she keeps her; bed roll, 50 ft of rope, grapnel, torches, rations, waterskin, and accumilated treasures?
nope...
or that you can not tell what direction the wind is blowing in?
that the arrow "smoke" if drifting one way, while her cloak, sashes, and hair is whipping in different dirrections?
is the picture "silly"? meh. redonkulous? meh. sexy? meh.
something to cry about? AAAAWWWWWW HECK NO!
Erato,
it is fantasy art, for a fantasy game, that has silly events occur durring game play...
Do I care that the art isn't a realistic reflection of a bomb demo suit?
nope.
Do I contemplate how such a character would care for her 18 foot long hair train as a dungeon exploring adventurer?
nope.
or do I wonder where she keeps her; bed roll, 50 ft of rope, grapnel, torches, rations, waterskin, and accumilated treasures?
nope...
or that you can not tell what direction the wind is blowing in?
that the arrow "smoke" if drifting one way, while her cloak, sashes, and hair is whipping in different dirrections?
But some people prefer different aesthetics than you do. I've pretty much seen it all:
Show
People don't like large shoulder pads, people don't like over-dimensioned weapons, people don't like when a bow isn't bent enough (when drawn), people don't like anthropomorphic animals, people don't like the huge but useless tails on tieflings, people don't like the nose-horn on the green dragon, people prefer watercolours, people like Wayne Reynolds, people think Wayne Reynolds sucks, people think O'Connor is great, people think he's great but should stop trying to draw boobs (he's known as 'Mr. Pancake Boobs' around Astrid's because of his utter failure in this regard), people prefer a gritty and realistic style, people prefer an over-the-top style, people hate it when a female isn't pretty enough, people don't like when male characters are too pretty, people adore the dungeonpunk style of newer D&D products (which other people hate), people look back wistfully at the art of Dragonlance in the 80s (which other people think are epic fail), etc., etc.. And yes, some people don't like the look of cleavage armour.
Matukal and LietUnderwood, are you for real. Seriously
Self-aggrandization through putting others down is pathetic behavior. So yes, I'm for real when I say that anybody who assaults a female model by telling others she isn't "real" deserves no respect for it. Do you honestly believe behaving like that is even close to acceptable?
So yes, I'm for real when I say that anybody who assaults a female model by telling others she isn't "real" deserves no respect for it.
But, she isn't
She's a picture. Of an elf.I was speaking in generalities.
And why were these generalities necessary to talk about here? Maybe that's why people act so aggressively whenever someone mentions skimpy armour. They have so many issues they want out. LietUnderwood has this opinion about women that he wants to talk about, you find it disgusting when people use the term 'real women' and want others to know etc. But the problem is, if people keep doing it every time the issue of oversexed women (and undersexed men) in D&D shows up, with little relation to what's actually being said, you're making the issue (which isn't related to what you want to say) much more controversial than it should be, and that hurts other posters.
For instance, I really didn't need to hear LietUnderwood's opinions about women and their alleged motivations (although the fact they were expressed in relation to a man makes them rather easy not to take seriously :P ), let alone experience how accepting people are of this attitude. Just like I have a couple of theories about men, that I'm sure you and others really don't want to hear ;) I don't know if C_C felt worse about having those personal accusations levelled against him, but I doubt he felt better. And at least one poster has already complained about how the opinion that skimpy armour isn't cool belong in Astrid's, based, not on the actual comment about it, but the replies to it. So if these things need to be brought up, there ought to be a reason besides “someone claimed the imaginary elf female didn't look like real women”, or whatever it is.
Does anyone know who the artist is?
I'm pretty sure it's Ralph Horsley's work.
Any woman who says "Real women..." and adds something she does or does not do should be ignored. ... anybody who assaults a female model by telling others she isn't "real" deserves no respect for it.
But did anyone actually do that in this thread?
Crimson claimed that a competent archer couldn't have arms that thin. He's wrong*, but he never said anything about "real women", just "real archers".
* - Purely on that one point. His other complaints were presented as his aesthetic opinion rather than objective fact, and I actually agree with him on those points.
If you were just speaking "in general" and not in response to anything anyone else actually said in this thread, then how is your post even on-topic?
I don't actually even disagree with your words as quoted above. I'm just puzzled as to who you thought you were arguing with (originally, I mean - it's obvious who you're arguing with now). It looks like you've either misinterpreted Crimson's original post in this thread, or you just pitched in to support LietUnderwood (who seemed to have misinterpreted Crimson's post himself).
Are you going to do this every time a thread discusses a piece of artwork with a female character in it, in the name of pre-empting this "fallacy" you seem to believe will inevitably pop up in such a thread? If so, you'll save yourself a lot of effort by just putting it in your sig instead.
But did anyone actually do that in this thread?
Crimson claimed that a competent archer couldn't have arms that thin. He's wrong*, but he never said anything about "real women", just "real archers".
It applies to archers too. It applies to "real X," where X can be anything.
The Cover of Martial was hidden in the new fansite materials, so I put it up on my site - check it out here http://4espoilers.blogspot.com/2009/08/martial-power-2-cover-and-fansite.html
Pretty sure we didn't have the cover yet, right?
Looks great, thanks for posting and nice find!
I really hope it's a fake, because it looks terrible.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
(C) What's with the axe she has hanging from her inner thigh?
A. No such thing.:D
B. Magic makes anything possible. Magical bow or other gear.
c. That's actually a eberron familiar named chuck.:P
Originally posted by Crimson_Concerto
Which are meant for casual settings or upscale events, not life-threatening adventures. To be honest, I wouldn't be so completely opposed to it except for the fact that we get very few picture of attractive men showing off flesh in D&D. It's really not fair.
Thanks and praise be to the lady of pain and the raven queen for THAT! But I'll end my comment there before this is taken the wrong way or becomes something its not.;)
I seriously can't believe I'm about to say this, but here goes:
She's obviously an elf or an eladrin, and a ranger at that. Lithe and pretty come with that territory. Realistic? Not at all. In real life, archers tend to have muscular arms. In real life, you cannot possibly do the things that high level D&D rangers can. Without even going into the impossibilities of some armor displayed in D&D art, the acceptance must be made that this is fantasy art and some suspension of disbelief and the presence of certain tropes and stereotypes are just assumed.
That isn't to say that it shouldn't be an equal opportunity exploitation, as far as gender is concerned. There are plenty of pieces featuring shirtless barbarian beefcakes and pretty man-elves. Lighten up, people.
I lol'd. Seriously, people are now complaining about teh sexies or lack of moobs? I seriously need more beer for this.
It applies to archers too. It applies to "real X," where X can be anything.
Huh?
So, if I said "real spiders have eight legs", you'd be obliged to take issue with that? Surely not every statement that starts "real X..." is automatically objectionable?
I'm still not really understanding what point you were trying to make.
some people don't like "whatever", some people do....
in astrid's parlour, there are atleast three threads "filled to de gills" (*figurative, not litteral) of posters (*of any gender that the faceless posters on the internet care to manufacture because they are safely hidden from view*) who ARE commenting solely about "what they hate" in D&D art regarding realism and sexism. *I didn't want that happening here.
My motive, as misguided as it was, was to try to keep that from continuing or happening here.
I find it hillarious that the same piece of art can be touted as exceptional on one thread and yet demonized in another. I find it hillarious that males covered in; scars, grime, bloody sores, scabs, whiskers, moles, tattoos, piercings, bald head, smashed noses, possibly a ruined eye, Demonic figgures/faces/trophy skins emblazonded on armor and/or shield (*covered in wonky spikes and horns no less*) can be called sexy, heroic looking, and appropriate for battle...
yet an extreme view is taken towards female characters who aren't pretty enough (*mia lee of 3.5 for example) or are too pretty...
but since we all are expressing our opinions here. none of this really matters anyway. not like there is a hideous double standard being expressed, or that the ideal of beauty is also a horrific double standard...topics for somewhere else.
anywho, I just wanted to avoid the whole "THIS ART IS STUPID BECAUSE THE FEMALE REPRESENTED HERE IS PHYSICALLY INADEQUATE/OVERLY ENDOWED" B.S. that I feel is way off topic for this board and this thread.
my bad.
appology given
Huh?
So, if I said "real spiders have eight legs", you'd be obliged to take issue with that? Surely not every statement that starts "real X..." is automatically objectionable?
No, not every statement. If you told me that "real triangles" have three angles, I would not consider that objectionable because that's what a triangle is: a geometric shape with three angles and three sides. If you told me that a spider with 7 legs was not a "real spider," yes. There's a lot more to being a spider than having 8 legs. Just like there's a lot more to being a woman. The definition of a real woman is not behaving like some nutjob decides she must behave. That's my point.
My motive, as misguided as it was, was to try to keep that from continuing or happening here.
Right. Because calling anyone not loving the picture to death or who might have a negative opinion on extravagant cleavage stupid evil feminazis is a great way to forestall heated debate?
Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
Huh?
So, if I said "real spiders have eight legs", you'd be obliged to take issue with that? Surely not every statement that starts "real X..." is automatically objectionable?
I'm still not really understanding what point you were trying to make.
I am of a mind to believe that his issue was that concerto had made a sweeping generalized statement regarding female archers with thin arms, real or otherwise... no need to drag that through the horse carcass we just got done beating. again.
so looking at his post from an algerabic standpoint, where a variable i.e. a Letter such as "X,Y,Z" can be used to represent an unkown quanity (* not neccesarilly a quality in this case*) a number or value that can express infinite varriation in sum. We can infere a "word problem" (*another math concept) from concerto's original statement.
wasn't it something akin to, NOT A DIRECT QUOTE, "all archer's should have powerfully muscled arms".
ergo, non sum quails eram, especially when evidence to the contrary is given regarding his hypothesis (*as it was presented as a theory and/or personal view- aka a personal bias and by a far reaching extension, possibly inferable sexism towards females- the original poster in this instance did not specify fictional or not- the poster's generalization is decleared to be wrong).
"All adventures should have well muscled frames" is a generalization that would be wrong.
for example, one could cite the young man who treked and hiked his way into iraq durring the height of the war. his story was on CNN I recollect. A high ranking spokesman was asked what he thought about the young man and his obviously dangerous actions. the spokesman replied something along the lines, that he would like to recruit the young man into the special forces because he showed exceptional resourcefulness, skills, and endurance.the picture of the young man was of a thin gangly teen...
I would argue that the young man had quite the adventure, despite not being a clone of a comic book superhero/ real world body builder/ wwe wrestler... nor even being particularly "Buff".
so now do you get it? "archers" in the above case was the "X" in question.
Right. Because calling anyone not loving the picture to death or who might have a negative opinion on extravagant cleavage stupid evil feminazis is a great way to forestall heated debate?
Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.
the best offense is the best form of defense. Peace through, (admited pun regarding this thread) strength of arms.
It isn't about "loving" nor even "liking" the picture. (*The cleavage shown in this picture is hardly appropriate, as it isn't big enough for my tastes. Opps. That last was a joke pointed at you. Don't hurt yourself trying to figgure it out. In fact this bit is in parenthese because I intend for it to not be taken seriously. I am merely trying to turn you on your own ear, because of your own post. that has to be the thinest veil for a trolling attempt since I read the 3.x psionics message boards).
Seriously, I admitted to "jumping" all over the poster for his generalizations as an attempt to stall a continuation of the astrid palour threads.
flame on!
********************************
is it because a certian MMO does it too?
hmm?
maybe?
hmm?
What MMO did that? If you're saying WoW I'm going to smite you. I played a rogue that wielded unreasonably big one-handed swords and used a bow for ranged combat where necessary.
What MMO did that? If you're saying WoW I'm going to smite you. I played a rogue that wielded unreasonably big one-handed swords and used a bow for ranged combat where necessary.
Off topic: City of Heroes and Guildwars both are guilty of the stereotypical sexies. CoH the most though. Also World of Warcraft and Dungeons and Dragons have nothing on Anime, where weapons get bigger and bigger every show.:P Warhammer also does BIG weapons.
Its nothing new.
Back on topic: I got nothing. Cya.
What MMO did that? If you're saying WoW I'm going to smite you. I played a rogue that wielded unreasonably big one-handed swords and used a bow for ranged combat where necessary.
Whoa now. Stay your hand. I play a rogue too. I started enjoying wow over a year ago. as a noob at the time, it was a long time for me to level my character as I am a role player who plays for fun. At the time, in stormwind one could go see the weapon master "woo ping" with ease as storm wind is pretty much adjacent to the noob zone of north shire abbey. however, at the time, learning a signle weapon skill cost one gold. I did not understand the use of the action house, and vendored all of my unused loot.
in short, it took me to level 10 to start using two knives, and it wasn't untill level 20 until I could purchase the training to use a sword.
I had to make a night elf hunter to begin to learn how the game dealt with bows, arrows and quivers... let alone to find where the weapons trainer was who could teach my human rogue how to use a bow...
Having done so, I admit my error regarding the generalization that "all rogues of a certain MMo are restricted to daggers" and thrown weapons. Conversely, from my perspective it is very reasonable to ask why a a rogue character can not be created in said mmo knowing how to use a sword and two weapon fighting in the first place, at first level.
Yes, a lot of weapons in wow are unwieldable, as are the characters appearances in my opinon. absurdly fantastic physiques that can not be explained by "medival lifestyle"...
In DnD rules, you can be a fully capable archer with a Strength of 8. It never comes up. Admittedly, I'm aware that in real life, strength is important for archery because a good bow string is difficult to pull back; it does have an impact. But similarly, in swordfighting, a high Dexterity would result in much more accuracy than a high Strength. If you really wanted to simulate reality for things like that, Dexterity would always be used to hit with weapons, and strength would always be for damage, regardless of melee or ranged categories. In fact, for a ranged weapon (especially heavy thrown), range would be determined by your strength score. But it's not, because DnD is a game.
So, in summation: Real-life archers might need strong arms, but my elf archer ranger sure as hell doesn't.
in astrid's parlour, there are atleast three threads ... commenting solely about "what they hate" in D&D art regarding realism and sexism.
Yes, there are threads like that there. And there are a more or less equal number of threads commenting on art that, in the posters' opinion "gets it right". Astrid's is for topics relating primarily to issues of gender in gaming. That doesn't mean that posters are forbidden from offering opinions on art that happen to touch on gender issues elsewhere.
Objecting to unrealistic armour on a supposedly martial character is not necessarily primarily a gender issue, IMO.
I find it hillarious that the same piece of art can be touted as exceptional on one thread and yet demonized in another.
Different people have different opinions on things. That's a good thing, otherwise discussion forums would be really, really boring.
Disagreeing with someone else's opinion and respectfully offering an alternative opinion = good.
Shouting down other opinions, claiming those opinions are not appropriate to be expressed here or mocking people for holding those opinions = not good.
You did actually make a good and thought-provoking point about how some (many? most?) people are far more critical of portrayals of female subjects in fantasy art than they are of portrayals of male subjects. It might be worthwhile to start a discussion of that in Astrid's, if you're brave enough to venture in there. ;)
No, not every statement. If you told me that "real triangles" have three angles, I would not consider that objectionable because that's what a triangle is: a geometric shape with three angles and three sides. If you told me that a spider with 7 legs was not a "real spider," yes. There's a lot more to being a spider than having 8 legs.
I concede that spiders were a bad example, since a spider wouldn't stop being a spider just because something ate one of its legs...
Just like there's a lot more to being a woman. The definition of a real woman is not behaving like some nutjob decides she must behave. That's my point.
...but you seem to be trying to have it both ways here. You said last time that you weren't talking exclusively about 'real women' (since Crimson was talking about 'real archers') and was just using 'women' as an example. Now you're saying you were.
Anyway, I actually agree with the point you claim you were making. But I still don't see that it really had anything to do with what Crimson said. He never said anything about 'real women'. He just made an incorrect statement about archery and offered his opinion that gratuitous cleavage adds nothing to a piece of artwork.
I am of a mind to believe that his issue was that concerto had made a sweeping generalized statement regarding female archers with thin arms, real or otherwise...
Crimson did not connect femaleness to arm thinness. He made two unconnected statements: one about archers requiring thicker arms than the artwork showed (and I've already shown why he was wrong about that) and another about gratuitous cleavage on female subjects in fantasy art.
You and Matukal then conflated the two statements and misinterpreted (presumably unintentionally) Crimson's complaint as an attack on the woman in the art for being 'too pretty'. At least, that appeared to be what the two of you were getting at.
That's all I have taken issue with and I assume that's what Erato was getting at as well, with her 'are you two for real?' comment.
(*as it was presented as a theory and/or personal view- aka a personal bias and by a far reaching extension, possibly inferable sexism towards females- the original poster in this instance did not specify fictional or not- the poster's generalization is decleared to be wrong).
OK, I agree with this bit except that I think it was unwarranted to imply sexism on Crimson's part. He never implied that women could not be competent archers.
This had nothing to do with algebra, though. I've no idea what that was all about.
so now do you get it? "archers" in the above case was the "X" in question.
Which would be fine, except that Matukal's original post makes no sense with 'archers' as the 'X'. If he meant 'archers', why did he say 'women' instead?
So, in summation: Real-life archers might need strong arms, but my elf archer ranger sure as hell doesn't.
Quite right. But, even in real life, a competent archer doesn't need a huge amount of physical strength (and certainly not bulging biceps), depending on what kind of bow he's using. Some mediaeval English longbows had something like a 200lb draw weight, but they're very much the exception (this is one reason why I don't consider them especially good as bows go - they're hideously energy-inefficient). The Mongols produced probably the finest bow in history (its only drawbacks being that it takes a long time to construct one and it doesn't handle damp weather very well) and the modern-day people of Mongolia still use it, including plenty of petite, slender-armed women!
I made no complains about her being lithe or pretty. :P
Just because they're assumed doesn't mean that they're a good thing or that they should continue or that I have to like them.
Where?
I know that they exist, but they're so few and far between that I can't even think of a good one of the top of my head. Nowhere near as many as there are of women in either case.
I'm not saying I'm against this piece of art existing. It's not like it's the worst thing I've ever seen in D&D art. I just don't like it on the cover where I really have to look at it all the time is all...
You're a dude right? (I thought you mentioned that somewhere). Well, unless your gay (nothing wrong with that before anyone jumps on me) then that's why no hot guy pictures jump to the top of your head: you take more notice of the women.
And yes there are more hot sexed up women in the art but that's for two reasons:
1) the players and creators of D&D, and the artists who do the illustrations for it are mostly male (or at least a majority). Guy's like looking at/drawing hot women. It's fun.
2) It's hard to sex up a guy. shirt off is about all you can do. There is no way to tease with his package (you can't show testicle cleavage or anything) and its my understanding that most girls aren't particualarlly fond of looking at packages anyway. And no one really thinks bulging hairy legs are picture worthy either. That leaves no sleeves and no shirt at all as the only options for sexing up men. Which they do. And there are plenty of attaractive males in there. The half-elf's male racial portrait comes to mind. I don't know about you, but If he existed I wouldn't tell my girlfreind:D .
It applies to archers too. It applies to "real X," where X can be anything.
He meant real as in 'not fake'. You know as in 'actually existing' In no way was there anything elitest about it. His impression was that: 'in real life archers need....'
So, everybody, can we stop arguing about nothing?
Unless real discussion about this cover artpicks up, its going to make this a waste of a post.
I'm pretty sure nipping that fallacy in the bud made the subject less controversial, not more.
This is getting ridiculous
Sure, supporting a guy who's just made sweeping, unflattering (and untrue) generalisations about women, by making your own sweeping generalisation about women (“Any woman who says.... bla, bla, bla, should be ignored, bla, bla, bla, don't have any respect for themselves bla, bla, bla, why should anyone else respect them”), is the perfect way to cool things down
I'm sure every female here feels much better for knowing that males like you and LietUnderwood are doing the community a service by firmly establishing the true nature of women, and how they're to be treated, while any woman (or gay guy, because you know, they're exactly the same ) who tries to do likewise needs to be shut up immediately.
It's sad that you're more interested in championing a fictional image, than letting LietUnderwood know that acting is such an, in lack of a better word, gender extremist way (immediately assuming someone is female just for having a specific opinion, and immediate accuse said 'woman' for being motivated by her own ugliness, as if every woman's life revolved around her appearance) against actual people, is unacceptable.
Interestingly enough, you also seem to want to defend pretty and sexy girls from the the evil plain looking women who can't deal with their own lack of beauty, but you actually end up using one of the most common excuses for assaulting sexy girls (“girls who flaunt their body like that don't have any respect for themselves, so why should anyone else respect them?”).
No, I definitely don't think your remarks about women made the subject (which wasn't about women to begin with, but mostly about armours, archers, and a lack of men showing flesh) less controversial, quite the contrary.
I'm going to second Darkdiashi about this one. It's pretty common to remark that real don't look a certain way, and I haven't seen you object to it before. Unless it's actually not true (“real women are all very empathic”), and offensive against a group of real (as in, actually existing outside fiction) people, I don't see the problem. If I posted a picture of a zebra-striped rhinoceros, and people talked about what it was, and someone said “It must be a fantasy creature, because real rhinos don't look like that”, I'd be very surprised to see you start lecturing about how women like that have no self respect. But it'd be fun to try, are you game?
I'm sure every female here feels much better for knowing that males like you and LietUnderwood are doing the community a service by firmly establishing the true nature of women, and how they're to be treated, while any woman (or gay guy, because you know, they're exactly the same
) who tries to do likewise needs to be shut up immediately.It's sad that you're more interested in championing a fictional image, than letting LietUnderwood know that acting is such an, in lack of a better word, gender extremist way (immediately assuming someone is female just for having a specific opinion, and immediate accuse said 'woman' for being motivated by her own ugliness, as if every woman's life revolved around her appearance) against actual people, is unacceptable.
Interestingly enough, you also seem to want to defend pretty and sexy girls from the the evil plain looking women who can't deal with their own lack of beauty, but you actually end up using one of the most common excuses for assaulting sexy girls (“girls who flaunt their body like that don't have any respect for themselves, so why should anyone else respect them?”).
No, I definitely don't think your remarks about women made the subject (which wasn't about women to begin with, but mostly about armours, archers, and a lack of men showing flesh) less controversial, quite the contrary.
It applies to archers too. It applies to "real X," where X can be anything.
I'm going to second Darkdiashi about this one. It's pretty common to remark that real don't look a certain way, and I haven't seen you object to it before. Unless it's actually not true (“real women are all very empathic”), and offensive against a group of real (as in, actually existing outside fiction) people, I don't see the problem. If I posted a picture of a zebra-striped rhinoceros, and people talked about what it was, and someone said “It must be a fantasy creature, because real rhinos don't look like that”, I'd be very surprised to see you start lecturing about how women like that have no self respect. But it'd be fun to try, are you game?
Thanks and praise be to the lady of pain and the raven queen for THAT! But I'll end my comment there before this is taken the wrong way or becomes something its not.;)
Sure, supporting a guy who's just made sweeping, unflattering (and untrue) generalisations about women, by making your own sweeping generalisation about women (“Any woman who says.... bla, bla, bla, should be ignored, bla, bla, bla, don't have any respect for themselves bla, bla, bla, why should anyone else respect them”), is the perfect way to cool things down
Did I somewhere say I support LietUnderwood? I was addressing a fallacy I thought I saw being utilized and decided to respond to it. Whatever drug you've been using that makes you think I'm just here to support whoever I agree with (Hint: It's not LietUnderwood), you might want to give it up.
good grief.
anywho, I just wanted to avoid the whole "THIS ART IS STUPID BECAUSE THE FEMALE REPRESENTED HERE IS PHYSICALLY INADEQUATE/OVERLY ENDOWED" B.S. that I feel is way off topic for this board and this thread.
my bad.
appology given
quoting myself because people do not read.
real (<- lord I hope I can get away with saying 'real' here)
Grow up.
The facial expression makes her look stupid.
All of the limbs are too skinny. I mean this proportionally. I agree thin arms can pull a bow.
The cape is stupid. It's twice as long as she is. She's just one rolling bolder or distracted on a conveyer belt trap away from being blood and guts (What do Indiana Jones movies have with that kind of trap anyway? both examples sprung to mind from those movies...)
The only upside to the armor is the cleavage. Its just crappy looking armor. And as much as I wouldn't mind seeing a pair of boobs like that on the cover of my book, they are far too exposed to make the armor beliveable, unless its a magically enchanted anti-pop-out set of armor.
They don't need to show breasts to sell books. There are plenty of hot pictures in the books that aren't revealing at all. Pg 258 of the PHB. Hottest half-elf I think I've ever seen. Fully clothed right down to the stockings (which are actually something I don't find attractive but she pulls them off). It also ties with the cover of PHB3 for most real looking artwork. They could jump right off the page.
All the knives and axes are unneccessary, and further detract from believability. Plus they don't even look like something an archer would use.
The bow and arrow are pretty cool though.
All told I'd rather they put something else on the cover. This seems like a rush job, a first draft that they said "No just color it, Its good enough."
quoting myself because people do not read.
You apologized andstopped at least. I was more talking to Matukal. I should have out that in my original post. My turn for apologies.
I was also under the impression that you were supporting lietunderwood, or at the vary least teaming up with him to clog this thread with nonsense. Whomever you support, the rest of us would appreciate it if we could get back to the real (<- lord I hope I can get away with saying 'real' here) topic of the post.
Hey, I have been in agreement for quite some time now.
no one noticed my posts regarding possible book content?
well seeing as how "character options" is presented for the martial characters I can not wait for this book to come out.
in my opinion, (*oh lord, here we go again*) ahem, in my opinion martial characters are designed in 4th ed with mechanical straight jackets.
does a fighter automatically need heavy armors? not in my opinion. in my opinion an unarmored fighter such as a swashbuckler, pirate, fencing blade duelist, etc can be just as exciting. however, at present there is no swashbuckler class for 4th ed, and designing one for play can be pointless if your D.M. insists that characters can only be generated with the character builder.
there currently is no "option" to play an unarmored fighter variant.
likewise, many rogue powers reprint the rogue class weapon list...
making the bow using rogue impossible/impractical in 4th ed.
like wise, rogue weapon talents are a straight jacket if I ever saw one.
(+1 to hit with daggers? daggers? what happened to short swords?)
(increased damage dice with shuriken, yes, shuriken... throwing stars)
why not allow options that allow you as a player to change these "straight jackets" into something more appropriate for your own style of play and homebrew campaign settings... where ninjas don't roam accross a pre-industrial england, but a certain "Robin of the Hood" might.
You apologized andstopped at least. I was more talking to Matukal. I should have out that in my original post. My turn for apologies.
I pointed out the fallacy in a single post, so why didn't you just take note, shut the hell up about it and quit wasting my time?
Hey, I have been in agreement for quite some time now.no one noticed my posts regarding possible book content?well seeing as how "character options" is presented for the martial characters I can not wait for this book to come out. in my opinion, (*oh lord, here we go again*) ahem, in my opinion martial characters are designed in 4th ed with mechanical straight jackets.does a fighter automatically need heavy armors? not in my opinion. in my opinion an unarmored fighter such as a swashbuckler, pirate, fencing blade duelist, etc can be just as exciting. however, at present there is no swashbuckler class for 4th ed, and designing one for play can be pointless if your D.M. insists that characters can only be generated with the character builder.there currently is no "option" to play an unarmored fighter variant.likewise, many rogue powers reprint the rogue class weapon list...making the bow using rogue impossible/impractical in 4th ed.like wise, rogue weapon talents are a straight jacket if I ever saw one.(+1 to hit with daggers? daggers? what happened to short swords?)(increased damage dice with shuriken, yes, shuriken... throwing stars)why not allow options that allow you as a player to change these "straight jackets" into something more appropriate for your own style of play and homebrew campaign settings... where ninjas don't roam accross a pre-industrial england, but a certain "Robin of the Hood" might.
I agree that an unarmored fighter should be viable. They'd have to be a high (really high) Dex Build and would be almost forced to take a defensive weapon or light sheild. Perhaps both. A defensive property sabre would be a cool new weapon to put out for it, and perfect for a pirate build. Are you talking cloth armor or regular clothing? Not really any difference but I was wondering just the same.
As for the rogue, yeah thier weapon talent should have applied to all thier weapons list weapons or shouldn't have existed at all. Also with all the hubbub about assasins being a shadow rogue and nothing more, they should have saved the shuriken for it, and not given it to the rogue. Daggers for one, throwing stars for the other, keep some differences going.
By the way I have heard that the historical robin hood, if there was one, would have worn leather or perhaps even chainmail. Just throwing that out there.
but "robin hood" could be looked on as a kind of rogue, not always a ranger.
and hey, look at that...
a rogue known for his "exploits" with a bow!
4th ed however doesn't allow this, at this time. my preachy face :embarrass
4th ed has no answer.
************
Please keep your posts polite, respectful, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
************
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Rodgers, on the other hand, actually envisions his character as a fighter though, and experiments with a hybrid build to cobble something closer to his vision... but this option still handicaps his character concept in some ways.
argh. 4th ed again.
before everyone jumps me for disliking 4th ed, I do not dislike it. I just want more options for my players to create what they want.
if a player wants to do things that 3.x would allow, such as a 1st level human swashbuckler with improved disarm, and improved trip... well, how could 4th ed provide it?
it can't, and it won't. the why seems to be a "take a number" ticket vendor that has excuses instead of numbers printed on the tickets.
good grief.
some people don't like "whatever", some people do....
Yes, and people shouldn't be attacked the way you attacked C_C just for preferring a different aesthetic than you.
in astrid's parlour, there are atleast three threads "filled to de gills" (*figurative, not litteral) of posters (*of any gender that the faceless posters on the internet care to manufacture because they are safely hidden from view*) who ARE commenting solely about "what they hate" in D&D art regarding realism and sexism. *I didn't want that happening here.
My motive, as misguided as it was, was to try to keep that from continuing or happening here.
Yeah, that's totally what it is
I just looked there. The very first thread was “What Art Gets It Right? Pt 2!!” which is, according to the OP “another hippy-dippy, happy huggy, love everything thread” where even posting negative remarks are forbidden. There has been people like you trying to derail it, such as by making negative comments (complaining about how the art posted wasn't sexy enough, and accusing the women there of not liking to be women), or deliberately posting art they knew the alleged 'feminists' didn't like, in the hopes of provoking people to make negative replies. But the off-topic remarks got deleted by the mods, and the 'feminists' didn't take take the bait, so despite the attempts of people like you to get the thread derailed into negativity, it's become the supreme most popular thread on the whole board, so much that it's the first thread there to ever get a part 2 because it had gotten too long.
The next thread dealing with art is “What art gets it wrong?”, which, despite the title is not about complaining, but about a guy asking what the limit of 'acceptable' art is. Most people have already told him it's impossible to find any definitive line, so instead, he's posted a lot of pictures and asked people what they thought about it. A lot of those pictures have been widely praised, including some of very pretty girls (yeah, I know this doesn't fit your fundamentalist view of gender, where everyone who don't like skimpy armour, must be a woman who don't like it because it's worn by fictional creatures prettier than she is, but among sane people in the real world, it's actually far from uncommon, among both sexes, to dislike armour with holes in, but have absolutely no problem with beautiful women), so ironically enough, despite being about wrongness, the thread is actually quite positive.
The next thread about images, is about attractive men. A similar thread had to be closed because some guys had an issue with it (unlike what you seem to believe, there's actually a much greater amount of hatred directed at pretty males by other males, than there is against pretty women by women, but because this attitude is so accepted, and since pretty males are so rarely depicted anyway, people like you tend to spill out all your bile on women instead), but since people like you started to mostly stay out of Astrid's (which we're grateful for, since I drastically decreases the amount of hatred there) threads like that have been possible. And it's quite positive too, with lots of images getting praised.
Then there's thread about a comeliness stat, which, admittedly, seems to have been received with quite a bit of negativity. But since the subject is also received that way when it's brought up everywhere else on the boards, it's hardly surprising.
There's also a thread with guy complaining about why there are no nymphs in the 4E MM, and another where a guy rants about how ugly half-orcs are portrayed. Interestingly enough, he seems to be under the misconception that it's the female half-orcs that needs to be prettified the most. Thinking about, despite WotC clearly prioritising pretty (and skinny) females and ugly (and bulky) males more than the reverse, most complaints are about the females not being pretty enough.
Again, I have to ask if you're for real I don't know if this is another one of your weird gender fundamentalist assumptions about women, that they're all supposed to be the same, and if any to women (or any two men in a place that's frequented by women) have different taste, it means they're ridiculous. But come on, you're in a thread where the same picture is both considered to be awesome and to suck. In the same thread. Remarking about how another place is ridiculous, for working in the same way as the place you're in yourself, is beyond pathetic.
I find it sad. And it's one of the things many posters (especially females) don't like either. But the women who think those men look awesome and sexy usually also think women like that look awesome. Some men do too. But the people who wish to see more women with scars, tattoos, and similar characteristics, because they think it looks cool and add character to an image (and possibly sexiness too), are not the ones setting the standards. People like you are. The guys who think pretty women are above critique, and who'll eagerly attack anyone wishing for a new variety of female on the cover of a WotC. Like you did.
Sorry, but if the double standards bother you, you're not exactly helping matters by spewing hate against the people who'd like to see them go. Of course, I think you're quite fond of those stereotypes, which makes your accusation of sexism in others seem so ridiculous.
or are too pretty...
The next thread dealing with art is “What art gets it wrong?”, which, despite the title is not about complaining, but about a guy asking what the limit of 'acceptable' art is. Most people have already told him it's impossible to find any definitive line, so instead, he's posted a lot of pictures and asked people what they thought about it. A lot of those pictures have been widely praised, including some of very pretty girls (yeah, I know this doesn't fit your fundamentalist view of gender, where everyone who don't like skimpy armour, must be a woman who don't like it because it's worn by fictional creatures prettier than she is, but among sane people in the real world, it's actually far from uncommon, among both sexes, to dislike armour with holes in, but have absolutely no problem with beautiful women), so ironically enough, despite being about wrongness, the thread is actually quite positive.
The next thread about images, is about attractive men. A similar thread had to be closed because some guys had an issue with it (unlike what you seem to believe, there's actually a much greater amount of hatred directed at pretty males by other males, than there is against pretty women by women, but because this attitude is so accepted, and since pretty males are so rarely depicted anyway, people like you tend to spill out all your bile on women instead), but since people like you started to mostly stay out of Astrid's (which we're grateful for, since I drastically decreases the amount of hatred there) threads like that have been possible. And it's quite positive too, with lots of images getting praised.
Then there's thread about a comeliness stat, which, admittedly, seems to have been received with quite a bit of negativity. But since the subject is also received that way when it's brought up everywhere else on the boards, it's hardly surprising.
There's also a thread with guy complaining about why there are no nymphs in the 4E MM, and another where a guy rants about how ugly half-orcs are portrayed. Interestingly enough, he seems to be under the misconception that it's the female half-orcs that needs to be prettified the most. Thinking about, despite WotC clearly prioritising pretty (and skinny) females and ugly (and bulky) males more than the reverse, most complaints are about the females not being pretty enough.
I find it hillarious that the same piece of art can be touted as exceptional on one thread and yet demonized in another.
Again, I have to ask if you're for real
I don't know if this is another one of your weird gender fundamentalist assumptions about women, that they're all supposed to be the same, and if any to women (or any two men in a place that's frequented by women) have different taste, it means they're ridiculous. But come on, you're in a thread where the same picture is both considered to be awesome and to suck. In the same thread. Remarking about how another place is ridiculous, for working in the same way as the place you're in yourself, is beyond pathetic.I find it hillarious that males covered in; scars, grime, bloody sores, scabs, whiskers, moles, tattoos, piercings, bald head, smashed noses, possibly a ruined eye, Demonic figgures/faces/trophy skins emblazonded on armor and/or shield (*covered in wonky spikes and horns no less*) can be called sexy, heroic looking, and appropriate for battle...
yet an extreme view is taken towards female characters who aren't pretty enough (*mia lee of 3.5 for example)
I find it sad. And it's one of the things many posters (especially females) don't like either. But the women who think those men look awesome and sexy usually also think women like that look awesome. Some men do too. But the people who wish to see more women with scars, tattoos, and similar characteristics, because they think it looks cool and add character to an image (and possibly sexiness too), are not the ones setting the standards. People like you are. The guys who think pretty women are above critique, and who'll eagerly attack anyone wishing for a new variety of female on the cover of a WotC. Like you did.
Sorry, but if the double standards bother you, you're not exactly helping matters by spewing hate against the people who'd like to see them go. Of course, I think you're quite fond of those stereotypes, which makes your accusation of sexism in others seem so ridiculous.
or are too pretty...
I haven't heard a single person complain about a woman being too pretty. On the other hand, I have heard a lot of complaints about males being too pretty
What I have seen a lot of, is people liking variety. If the picture of a female elf looks like a babe with big boobs, the picture of a female human looks like an elf babe with round ears and big boobs, the picture of a female orc looks like a green elf babe with big boobs, the picture of a female halfling looks like a small elf babe with big boobs, the picture of a female tiefling looks like an elf babe with horns, tail, and big boobs, and the picture of a female dragonborn looks like a scaly elf babe with big boobs, certain people will complain. But they wont do it because they hate the existence of prettiness in females (the way some guys hate it in males), they'll do it because they like the existence of variety.
If it doesn't matter, why were you making such a big deal out of itanywho, I just wanted to avoid the whole "THIS ART IS STUPID BECAUSE THE FEMALE REPRESENTED HERE IS PHYSICALLY INADEQUATE/OVERLY ENDOWED" B.S. that I feel is way off topic for this board and this thread.
You have no justification for assuming anyone who dislike a picture of girl you find pretty are automatically against pretty girls. Especially not when they clearly state they have a problem with the armour, the lack of musculature, and the fact that it follows the same gender stereotypes as most (but, to be fair, not all) of WotC art. Adding all that negative stuff about girls didn't help either. I doubt a woman could have gotten away with saying so much **** about men here.
You and others seem to have a serious issue with Astrid's, but if Astrid's is really as hateful a place as you make it out to be, it's only because certain of the posters there act like you did.
I really hope it's a fake, because it looks terrible.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
(B) Competent archers cannot have arms that skinny.
(C) What's with the axe she has hanging from her inner thigh?
It's in the 2010 product guide as well.
rogue weapon talents are a straight jacket if I ever saw one.
(+1 to hit with daggers? daggers? what happened to short swords?)
(increased damage dice with shuriken, yes, shuriken... throwing stars)
If Rogues had the same to-hit with daggers and short swords, they would never use daggers. Shurikens get the damage boost to make them competitive with daggers.
Yes, and people shouldn't be attacked the way you attacked C_C just for preferring a different aesthetic than you.Try to keep that in mind before jumping on people for not liking the cover.
I snipped out of your post because it was an obvious trolling attempt.
I felt that C_C's post was bordering on inviting a total derailment of this thread. After all, I didn't post till page 2. I had been reading before I started posting. hmm, try that some time.
Last but not least, I never even once posted in those threads in astrid's palour. I am not "one of those" posters, good or bad in that part of the board. I do agree that the gamer stero type needs to be changed from the overweight, acne ridden, anti-hygine, antisocial, male, whimp, after all 120 million americans nor identify themselves as "gamers" of some sort.
Again, I did not want people to change this thread to arguing about the appearance of the female elf archer. Such arguments are superficial and vapid to me, and especially, are not on topic.
Again, I did not want people to change this thread to arguing about the appearance of the female elf archer. Such arguments are superficial and vapid to me, and especially, are not on topic.
Of course they're on topic. She's the main image of the cover. People talking about the cover will talk about what she looks like, it's only natural. You might not be interested in how someone looks, but if that's the issue, try finding a thread where people discuss the contents of Martial Power, not the cover of the book, instead of claiming everybody else are off topic.
I felt that C_C's post was bordering on inviting a total derailment of this thread. After all, I didn't post till page 2. I had been reading before I started posting. hmm, try that some time.
I did. The conclusions you drew from that post were not akin to anything he said. And you continued constantly referring to pretty girls. If the image had been of a male with similarly skinny arms, and someone said those arms looked like twigs and couldn't realistically handle a bow, I bet you wouldn't have reacted so aggressively. So I pointed out that the behaviour you claimed to despise (acting needlessly hateful towards other people, and making sexist remarks), was actually identical to what you did yourself.
The vast majority of vitriol in Astrid's didn't actually come from posters expressing their dissatisfaction with a product, but from posters saying “I like the pose, but the armour is too skimpy” or “It's an OK adventure, but why are all the NPCs male?” and being met with “SHUT UP SHUT SHUT UP SHUT UP! You're a stupid prude who's probably ugly in real life!”. I was commenting on the futility of trying to stop this thread from becoming Astrid's Parlor, by doing the very same things disruptive posters in Astrid's Parlor have been doing.
But since you seem to have ceased doing that, I'll cease this futile conversation, and return some time in the future to talk more about the cover.
does a fighter automatically need heavy armors? not in my opinion. in my opinion an unarmored fighter such as a swashbuckler, pirate, fencing blade duelist, etc can be just as exciting. however, at present there is no swashbuckler class for 4th ed, and designing one for play can be pointless if your D.M. insists that characters can only be generated with the character builder.
there currently is no "option" to play an unarmored fighter variant.
It sounds to me like you're describing a rogue with a Rapier. That's easy to do; you just take 1 feat and *BAM*, Pirate.
likewise, many rogue powers reprint the rogue class weapon list...
making the bow using rogue impossible/impractical in 4th ed.
like wise, rogue weapon talents are a straight jacket if I ever saw one.
(+1 to hit with daggers? daggers? what happened to short swords?)
(increased damage dice with shuriken, yes, shuriken... throwing stars)
The rogue weapon talent is there to make Daggers a viable option at all. Without it, They have nothing aside from the ranged capability on Short Swords; you'd just carry a short sword and a dagger, and never use the dagger for anything but ranged. The weapon talent is there so that rogues can pick between Short sword for 1 more damage, or Dagger for 1 more accuracy.
why not allow options that allow you as a player to change these "straight jackets" into something more appropriate for your own style of play and homebrew campaign settings... where ninjas don't roam accross a pre-industrial england, but a certain "Robin of the Hood" might.
Robin Hood is a ranger, plain and simple. He may not be a huge tree-hugger, but that's not what rangers are neccisarily.
The classes can easily work fine with whatever you want, you just have to be prepared to understand that it's not always what you expect. Maybe when you think of "pirate", you think Fighter. Sure, you could describe one as a fighter. But as for classes, it fits the "rogue" class better than it does "fighter".
You might describe Robin Hood as a rogue, a vagrant, or a thief. He is all of these things. But in mechanical play, he lends himself better to the "Ranger" class than he does "Rogue". You can easily get around anything you don't like about it with a simple Skill Training in whatever you feel you're lacking.
And as for the actual insides of the book, based on what's on the cover? I have no idea. But I bet it'll be interesting. Maybe another STR based rogue.
It sounds to me like you're describing a rogue with a Rapier. That's easy to do; you just take 1 feat and *BAM*, Pirate.
The rogue weapon talent is there to make Daggers a viable option at all. Without it, They have nothing aside from the ranged capability on Short Swords; you'd just carry a short sword and a dagger, and never use the dagger for anything but ranged. The weapon talent is there so that rogues can pick between Short sword for 1 more damage, or Dagger for 1 more accuracy.
Robin Hood is a ranger, plain and simple. He may not be a huge tree-hugger, but that's not what rangers are neccisarily.
The classes can easily work fine with whatever you want, you just have to be prepared to understand that it's not always what you expect. Maybe when you think of "pirate", you think Fighter. Sure, you could describe one as a fighter. But as for classes, it fits the "rogue" class better than it does "fighter".
You might describe Robin Hood as a rogue, a vagrant, or a thief. He is all of these things. But in mechanical play, he lends himself better to the "Ranger" class than he does "Rogue". You can easily get around anything you don't like about it with a simple Skill Training in whatever you feel you're lacking.
And as for the actual insides of the book, based on what's on the cover? I have no idea. But I bet it'll be interesting. Maybe another STR based rogue.
Really.. Just because you can cobblemesh a handful of things together it doesn't make a rogue into a pirate or a ranger into a rogue.
Like a square peg in a round hole, It is possible to cram that sucker into it, but it did NOT make the square peg a round peg. It made it a square peg forcefully crammed into a round hole.
For an example, I want to make a character who uses a whip and leather armor. But as of right now, there is NOT a single martial class that has attacks that could use the whip and rely on dex.
Every fighter power requires str, any melee attack from the ranger uses str. Warlord mostly uses str, rogues can't use a whip with their attacks. Thus it puts me at a huge disadvantage at even attempted to cobblestone my whipmaster.
Even if there was feats available that would allow me to, that means i have to spend more feats on getting the character to the starting point of the "class" I'm trying to cobblestone together. That is fewer feats i can actually use to cause true dominance over the whip and my enemies.
Lets take the leather wearing whippersnapper. There could be a fighter build in martial power that ither lets you use Dex instead of Str for fighter attack and damage rolls or that intorduces a new line of powers that do take advantage of your Dex and reach capabilities. Alternatly make it a paragon path, though that makes you suck till level 11.
does a fighter automatically need heavy armors? not in my opinion. in my opinion an unarmored fighter such as a swashbuckler, pirate, fencing blade duelist, etc can be just as exciting. however, at present there is no swashbuckler class for 4th ed, and designing one for play can be pointless if your D.M. insists that characters can only be generated with the character builder.
there currently is no "option" to play an unarmored fighter variant.
Well if you consider cloth armor unarmored then you just got your wish.
http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/2009August
Now, a tempest fighter using a rapier (the most thematically appropritae weapon available for swashbuckiling and piracy right now) has a sweet paragon path called bladestorm duelist that lets you be effective.
Sacrafice some wisdom and put it ino dex and grab the Agile superiority feat for major goodness. Your only loss is that the wisdom modifier bonus to initiative suffers, but it is still useful. Your less quick and more agile(agile=hard to hit)
Or, focus on wisdom by taking from Dex, using the +2 to Ac and Reflex to compensate. Take the wary fighter and focused superiority feats to switch initiative over to wisdom, and allow you to add wis mod to damage rolls of Opprotunity attacks. Your easier to hit, but fatser and stronger this way.
Both should take the mobile challenge feats allowing for a free shift to go with Combat superiority. Both should also choose a defensive weapon for thier off hand, simply for precautionary measures. And all of the feats mentioned above are heroic. A useful paragon tier feat (plunging blade) allows you to get a Crit on a natural roll of 19 or 20 with light blades on opprotunity attacks retrain to the epic all the time version later of course.
Class acts just made piracy my new favorite pasttime...
but as of now, according to the rules, I have to atain a paragon class to play the character I am looking for?
Ouch. As the "whipmaster" poster suggests, ( I do vehemently and most stridently agree) there is room for a dex based fighter class, with dex based powers, such a character could still be a "defender" or a "leader" role, not just another 'striker' to add to that growing list.
going hybrid doesn't solve this issue, neither does multiclassing feats, it seems clear to me that a whole new martial class deserves to be.
also there is room for an "options" rule system that will allow an elf rogue to use their racial proficiency with a bow with rogue ranged powers... or a player to make a swashbuckler build for the rogue that does not rely on tiny sized toys, opps weapons. The ability to swap out handcrossbow for a bow and have the rogue's powers work with it. The ability to swap out shuriken prof for a rapier prof and to change a rogue's weapon tallents from a +1 to daggers and an increase in damage dice size with shuriken to feats that would benefit the use of the rapier (say, weapon expertise-rapier, backstaber feats). seems only fair to me.
certainly this *might* make for woodland scouts and pirate/duelists without having to get a D.M. to bend the rules for you.
You're a dude right?
Yup.
Well, unless your gay...
I am indeed. ;)
then that's why no hot guy pictures jump to the top of your head: you take more notice of the women.
Nope. :P
Wasn't a bad theory though.
2) It's hard to sex up a guy.
I beg to differ.
That leaves no sleeves and no shirt at all as the only options for sexing up men. Which they do.
No, a guy showing off his chest or arms isn't automatically sexy just like a woman showing off her legs or cleavage isn't automatically sexy. There's more to it than that, like the context of the art, the pose the character is in, the apparent attitude of the character, and this is all before considering that a hot body with an ugly face just ruins the whole thing.
There's also one part of the male body you seem to have completely forgotten about: the butt. :D
Most girls and gay guys I know love a tight, round, muscular butt. Of course, most art is drawn from the character's front, making this unfortunately difficult to exploit.
And there are plenty of attaractive males in there. The half-elf's male racial portrait comes to mind.
Meh, I suppose he's not bad.
Just because a picture happens to portray a (to your eyes) pretty female, doesn't mean all criticism directed at it is about the prettiness.
This. Seriously. Duskweaver had it right too. I complained about the unnecessary cleavage and then I was complaining about the skinny arms on an archer. These aren't connected to each other any more than they are connected to my third complaint about that axe being very awkwardly positioned. And again, I never many any complaint that she's sexy, because I don't see any reason to complain about that.
Granted that my comment about the thickness of archer arms was mistaken, I still think it looks silly in proportion to the rest of her body, and that's not the only part of the image I took issue with, so there.
Granted that my comment about the thickness of archer arms was mistaken, I still think it looks silly in proportion to the rest of her body, and that's not the only part of the image I took issue with, so there.
Its not the thickness of the archer's arms that bothers me, its that fact that the one looks mangled as hell. Really, i don't understand how the artist can do such a skillful and artistic rendering without basic knowledge of anatomy.
Lets take the leather wearing whippersnapper. There could be a fighter build in martial power that ither lets you use Dex instead of Str for fighter attack and damage rolls or that intorduces a new line of powers that do take advantage of your Dex and reach capabilities. Alternatly make it a paragon path, though that makes you suck till level 11.
While I do think that Martial Power 1 was too much of a Constitution-fest, I don't think turning Fighters into a V-shaped class is the answer. There should be more Powers and Paragon Paths in Martial Power 2 that support non-Tempest Dex-prioritising Fighters.
I'd prefer to see someone who looks like a one woman (or man) army.
(A) Oh goody, more inappropriate cleavage.
Cleavage is never inappropriate. Never. Ever.
Cleavage is never inappropriate. Never. Ever.
Seriously?
Cleavage is never inappropriate. Never. Ever.
Oh, I am so tempted to post a photo of a plumber's 'rear view' in response to this. :P
Its not the thickness of the archer's arms that bothers me, its that fact that the one looks mangled as hell. Really, i don't understand how the artist can do such a skillful and artistic rendering without basic knowledge of anatomy.
I think the artist (I'm pretty sure it's Ralph Horsley) got a photo of a female bodybuilder's arm and then just reduced the thickness, without adjusting for proportion. I assume he was going for a 'muscular but clearly non-human' look, but it failed miserably.
It might have worked better without the exposed cleavage, actually, since it's the obvious discrepancy between the arms (with absolutely no fat to soften the lines of the musculature) and the bust (quite a significant 'endowment' of fatty tissue) that makes her look so bizarre. Well, that and the fact that she appears to have badly dislocated her left hip.
It's just not a very good piece of art, and that's me speaking as someone who actually likes eladrin to look 'obviously non-human'. Ten out of ten for what the artist was trying to do. Minus several million for the execution.
Back On Topic: Do people think the cover picture is hinting at an arcane archer paragon path? Or is that glowing arrow just a piece of magic ammunition from AV2? :P
I think WotC has implied or even outright stated previously that they were going to avoid having playable classes and paragon paths that shared a name with any monster and, since we have an eladrin arcane archer in MM2, that might mean we won't be getting it as a PP. Although that doesn't rule out the same concept appearing under a different name, I guess.
I did initially think that they'd never have a PP called 'arcane archer' in a book called 'Martial Power'. But, after all, they could hardly put it in Arcane Power 2, since it would pretty much have to be a ranger PP. Its powers will presumably be arcane, but we already have the horizon walker, so that's nothing unusual.
Seriously?
yes, seriously :D
and this whole thread was appalling.
I need to go clean my eyes now.
No new Martial classes listed there.
Poor Martial Controller-nobody loves you.
There is a Martial Controller??
Edit: Looking again, that might be a bit of an exaggeration. But you could at least fold her upper arm and shoulder into one of those things.
Seriously?
Oh yes. I am being quite serious about that. It is never inappropriate.
Oh, I am so tempted to post a photo of a plumber's 'rear view' in response to this. :P
Yeah, btu that is NOT cleavage. Nonononono. And for the record, plumber's crack doesn't look good on a woman either, no matter how attractive she is. Plumber's Crack != Cleavage.
Yeah, btu that is NOT cleavage. Nonononono. And for the record, plumber's crack doesn't look good on a woman either, no matter how attractive she is. Plumber's Crack != Cleavage.
on a side note, an american olympic swimmer had a wardrobe malfunction that showed "cleavage" i was going to send that imagie but didn't want to offend crimson. but did want to prive a point in equal oppertunity cleavage. lol:D