The /list isn't the real problem...

[E-Queue]

The real problem is SKs wearing plate.

Think about it:
Paladin = warrior (plate) + cleric (plate). Thus paladins can wear plate.
Ranger = warrior (plate) + druid (leather). Thus rangers can wear chain, which is in between plate and leather.
Shadow Knight = warrior (plate) + necro (cloth). Thus SKs should get chain at best or leather. I actually think leather makes the most sense to even out the number of classes in each tier. We'd had 4 plate, 3 chain, 3 leather, 4 cloth.

Devs, please fix this massive oversight.

[Thugnuts]

Sympathy bump.

[Danth]

Rangers don't wear chain because Druids wear leather (chain is still metallic, so it has the same objection to a Druid that plate armor has), they wear chain because it's easier to put on and take off and hence it's more suited to loners who travel out in the wild a lot. The Knights wear plate harnesses because they're (dismounted) cavalry and expect to partake in battle mostly in the presence of allies who can help with little things like buckling all those hard-to-reach straps. Warriors are heavy infantry and wear the best armor for the same reason. Clerics wear full armor because they derive ultimately from fanciful depictions of "battle priests" such as Cardinal Richelieu showing up on the battlefield wearing armor. It probably wasn't real, but that even late middle age minds thought it'd have been pretty cool is enough to justify it in a fantasy video game.

I don't know why Bards wear full armor, realistically they're the ones who should've been another chain-type class. I guess they like the fashion and having the large flat surfaces to paint in bright colors.

If you want to be REALLY pedantic, probably no-one should be wearing full plate armor because it hadn't been developed yet during the high medieval technological period that Norrath basically simulates. The advent of full armor was contemporary with other late medieval advances such as the gradual adoption of gunpowder weapons. It started appearing towards the end of the 1300's and really came into its own during the 1400's and beyond--age of exploration era, basically. In the high medieval period, think 1100's or 1200's, you'd be looking at mail armor or at best a coat-of-plates.

Leather armor shouldn't exist either, as it has virtually no historic counterpart. Studded leather is basically a fantasy invention created because the folks who made D&D didn't realize what brigandine armor was and mistook it for "studded leather" rather than the riveted plate it really is. Light armor took the form of gambesons or similar garments. "Banded" armor may not have existed either, the term crops up once or twice in period sources.

There's today's useless trivia.

Danth

[whitebandit]

Rangers don't wear chain because Druids wear leather (chain is still metallic, so it has the same objection to a Druid that plate armor has), they wear chain because it's easier to put on and take off and hence it's more suited to loners who travel out in the wild a lot. The Knights wear plate harnesses because they're (dismounted) cavalry and expect to partake in battle mostly in the presence of allies who can help with little things like buckling all those hard-to-reach straps. Warriors are heavy infantry and wear the best armor for the same reason. Clerics wear full armor because they derive ultimately from fanciful depictions of "battle priests" such as Cardinal Richelieu showing up on the battlefield wearing armor. It probably wasn't real, but that even late middle age minds thought it'd have been pretty cool is enough to justify it in a fantasy video game.

I don't know why Bards wear full armor, realistically they're the ones who should've been another chain-type class. I guess they like the fashion and having the large flat surfaces to paint in bright colors.

If you want to be REALLY pedantic, probably no-one should be wearing full plate armor because it hadn't been developed yet during the high medieval technological period that Norrath basically simulates. The advent of full armor was contemporary with other late medieval advances such as the gradual adoption of gunpowder weapons. It started appearing towards the end of the 1300's and really came into its own during the 1400's and beyond--age of exploration era, basically. In the high medieval period, think 1100's or 1200's, you'd be looking at mail armor or at best a coat-of-plates.

Leather armor shouldn't exist either, as it has virtually no historic counterpart. Studded leather is basically a fantasy invention created because the folks who made D&D didn't realize what brigandine armor was and mistook it for "studded leather" rather than the riveted plate it really is. Light armor took the form of gambesons or similar garments. "Banded" armor may not have existed either, the term crops up once or twice in period sources.

There's today's useless trivia.

Danth


please explain akanon if plate and semi modern metalworking doesnt exist...

[Danth]

Gnomish technology seems to be portrayed as based on some combination of magic and clockwork/gear-based mechanisms, the physical part of which (gears/etc) existed VERY far back. Check out the "Antikythera mechanism" for some interesting reading if you find that sort of thing interesting.

Plate armor in the conventional sense of the term differs from individual solid metal armor sections such as cuirasses, which also existed very far back. The full plate harness is articulated and largely self-supporting. As with numerous other technologies (including, say, steam engines), the physical materials needed to craft it were available for many centuries before it was finally developed.

Rather than being truly medieval, our fantasy games are based more on later-era sources (renaissance era, often enough) that had a tendency to portray medieval characters wearing anachronistic plate armor, like Arthurian legend or the stories of Charlemagne's Paladins (Roland, etc).

Danth

[bubur]

so eq is just one massive lie then? :(

[bum3]

Rangers don't wear chain because Druids wear leather (chain is still metallic, so it has the same objection to a Druid that plate armor has), they wear chain because it's easier to put on and take off and hence it's more suited to loners who travel out in the wild a lot. The Knights wear plate harnesses because they're (dismounted) cavalry and expect to partake in battle mostly in the presence of allies who can help with little things like buckling all those hard-to-reach straps. Warriors are heavy infantry and wear the best armor for the same reason. Clerics wear full armor because they derive ultimately from fanciful depictions of "battle priests" such as Cardinal Richelieu showing up on the battlefield wearing armor. It probably wasn't real, but that even late middle age minds thought it'd have been pretty cool is enough to justify it in a fantasy video game.

I don't know why Bards wear full armor, realistically they're the ones who should've been another chain-type class. I guess they like the fashion and having the large flat surfaces to paint in bright colors.

If you want to be REALLY pedantic, probably no-one should be wearing full plate armor because it hadn't been developed yet during the high medieval technological period that Norrath basically simulates. The advent of full armor was contemporary with other late medieval advances such as the gradual adoption of gunpowder weapons. It started appearing towards the end of the 1300's and really came into its own during the 1400's and beyond--age of exploration era, basically. In the high medieval period, think 1100's or 1200's, you'd be looking at mail armor or at best a coat-of-plates.

Leather armor shouldn't exist either, as it has virtually no historic counterpart. Studded leather is basically a fantasy invention created because the folks who made D&D didn't realize what brigandine armor was and mistook it for "studded leather" rather than the riveted plate it really is. Light armor took the form of gambesons or similar garments. "Banded" armor may not have existed either, the term crops up once or twice in period sources.

There's today's useless trivia.

Danth


Except there are no mountable beasts... so unless they are riding Centaurs... then i'm all in.

[Danth]

I think the draft animals of Norrath are assumed, even if not visible in-game (probably for performance reasons). Something's pulling those big wheeled gypsy wagons, after all. That being said, the notion of Centaur cavalry is too good to pass up!

Danth

[bum3]

I think the draft animals of Norrath are assumed, even if not visible in-game (probably for performance reasons). Something's pulling those big wheeled gypsy wagons, after all. That being said, the notion of Centaur cavalry is too good to pass up!

Danth

I assumed they hired ogres/trolls with their endless plats.

[Jimjam]

Leather armour was technically possible, but not in practice. The reason being few beasts produced leather thick enough for use as armour.

In a fantasy world we can handwage the shortage of thick leather away. Clearly Norrathian beasts have much thicker skins. Or all store bought leather is made of orc :o.

[TheRusty]

Leather armor DID exist. Just not in the supple "jacket and leather pants" type we see in fantasy games. instead it was boiled and formed, sometimes molded (as in cuir bouilli armor.)

And plate armor's old, going at least back to the myceneans; what is a (contextually speaking) new style are the fully-articulated whole-body suits of armor.

As for the hybrids, gotta remember that "hybrid" is just a handy term for classes with melee and spellcasting powers, not strictly speaking that they are combinations of two distinct classes. Each is its own entity, and is not limited by the abilities of non-hybrid classes with similar kits. Paladins don't wear plate because Warriors and Clerics wear plate - Paladins wear plate because Paladins wear plate.