View Full Version : Pointless AC means that we should have pointless armor!

04-17-2011, 12:21 PM
I've read a few threads, most fairly old, where someone says we should have more fashionable armor. And then the Devs and players jump foward and say that the armor should look like it actually protects and has some use. And we other "shallow" players shouldn't be allowed to see our characters bulging muscles or even our ankles. . . (Always interesting watching NPCs swim around a spa in full clothing or in a bathing suit with shoulder armor. . . )

Now in PnP D&D AC actually meant something and so appropriate armor would cover the character from head to toe. But in DDO, armor provides no protection whatsoever unless you're at low level or have gimped your character by focusing your entire character on a high AC. (I guess there might be a need for a raid tank to have one. . .) The "protection" the armor provides is usually secondary, like resistance,a small DR, or some similar bonus.

So if my +5 breastplate doesn't stop a single arrow from hitting my character on normal setting, why should it look like it's protecting my character and therefore giving me a false sense of security. It makes no sense. It should really just cover my chest, maybe the upper-part of my leg. That's it. That would make better sense and better describe the protection the armor is giving.

Others argue that Turbine wants to have a "high moral values". Give me a break. Half-naked succubi wander the marketplace giving characters "head in the clouds". "Scantily-clad" women appear throughout their advertisements, splash screens, and intro movies. And all of a suddent they have to cover the character toons from the top of the neck to tip of their toes?

I know the armor kits are making things a little better, but it still seems as though someone at DDO, Hasbro, or wherever is telling the artists, "You gotta be very conservative." I can't find armor that even shows off my calves. My Half-orc probably has good ones. . .