Monkey Grip, Not in Fourth Edition to the best of my knowledge and strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in an offhand.
Not to mention the animation issue. If people were able to transmute anything into anything, there would also be a strong desire to have consistent animation. For example, Gloaming Cut looks fine with daggers or short swords. With a rapier, it looks very strange. With a greatsword or longword, it would likely involve a lateral bisection of your character.
The right to command is earned through duty, the privilege of rank is service.
Monkey Grip, Not in Fourth Edition to the best of my knowledge and strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in an offhand.
Read the posts which spawned that comment.
I have already said how stupidly confusing it would be to have to question whether the person in plate mail is truly a tankier class or a wizard pretending to be. That would be cleric hell and shouldn't be incorporated.
Then again this thread is already in circles.
1) There are tons of mechanics/rules/etc in this game that are not edition 4 compatible. I hardly think that this would break the dam, so to speak.
2) I agree with you that it would be silly in parties in PVE. I can't imagine anyone would use that gear in those situations. It would primarily be a PVP thing, I'd imagine. Or just as a goof when soloing.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
1) There are tons of mechanics/rules/etc in this game that are not edition 4 compatible. I hardly think that this would break the dam, so to speak.
The rule has always been no offhand large weapons...
Fourth edition or not. You can't do it. Not here. Not in DDO. Not in NWN.
Not in Pen and Paper, unless you're DM completely ignores the rules which is fine as long as everybody agrees. That's just outlandish sillyness though and would have me quit in a heartbeat though. That's not adjusting the rules for the better it's adjusting it because you think it's cool to be able to do something completely impossible with no explanation at all.
The fact this game is based on D&D doesn't mean toss out common sense. With that logic they should add laser beens and make wizard implements minature death stars. You're really doing nothing more than clawing for excuses to make outlandish sillyness in a game which is largely realistic.
And "but magic" doesn't count because magic has no effect on the martial arts in D&D. If you want an unrealistic magic game feel free to play one. There's plenty of them which makes completely disproportionate animations.
2) I agree with you that it would be silly in parties in PVE. I can't imagine anyone would use that gear in those situations. It would primarily be a PVP thing, I'd imagine. Or just as a goof when soloing.
It would be even worse in PvP. Being able to identify what class a person is determines the strategy against them and especially in PvP the main means of identifying people is by looking at their armor. If you see a person in plate mail and don't notice an implement it'd be really hard to predict an entangling force.
The rule has always been no offhand large weapons...
Fourth edition or not. You can't do it. Not here. Not in DDO. Not in NWN.
Not in Pen and Paper, unless you're DM completely ignores the rules which is fine as long as everybody agrees. That's just outlandish sillyness though and would have me quit in a heartbeat though. That's not adjusting the rules for the better it's adjusting it because you think it's cool to be able to do something completely impossible with no explanation at all.
The fact this game is based on D&D doesn't mean toss out common sense. With that logic they should add laser beens and make wizard implements minature death stars. You're really doing nothing more than clawing for excuses to make outlandish sillyness in a game which is largely realistic.
And "but magic" doesn't count because magic has no effect on the martial arts in D&D. If you want an unrealistic magic game feel free to play one. There's plenty of them which makes completely disproportionate animations.
It would be even worse in PvP. Being able to identify what class a person is determines the strategy against them and especially in PvP the main means of identifying people is by looking at their armor. If you see a person in plate mail and don't notice an implement it'd be really hard to predict an entangling force.
You're ignoring the larger point which is YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY OFFHANDING A TWO-HANDED WEAPON!. It's still just a shield/dagger/CW or DC offhand or whatever, you've merely altered its appearance. How realism enters into it is not relevant. It's not realistic that I can transmute the appearance of my daggers into shortswords. No Blacksmith (outside of a mystical one) could achieve this, but I can do it in this game. When you are talking about magic, realism is no longer on the table.
To the PVP comment, that would be the whole point of doing it! You would gain a slight advantage while your opponent figures out what class you really are...It costs a substantial amount of AD to transmute items. It's just an interesting idea that would actually justify the costs of transmutation outside of cosmetics.
And "but magic" doesn't count because magic has no effect on the martial arts in D&D. If you want an unrealistic magic game feel free to play one. There's plenty of them which makes completely disproportionate animations.
Sorry to belabor this, but this is so untrue to DnD that it's funny that you'd even post it. A +3 sword is "martially" preferable to an unenchanted one. Magic has martial effects.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited September 2013
And you're ignoring the fact that transmutations aren't there as magical.
It's there so you don't like or dislike an item and base your willingness to use it based on it's appearance.
It exists so that you can use the item that fits your needs best without thinking "that item is so much better but I really don't want to use a longsword."
It's not there to subvert the rulebook. It's not there to make the impossible possible. It's not there as an illusion.
It's there so you can equip your character and customize your appearance within D&D limitations.
Sorry to belabor this, but this is so untrue to DnD that it's funny that you'd even post it. A +3 sword is "martially" preferable to an unenchanted one. Magic has martial effects.
Magically enchanted weapons are completely different.
Magic does not make a one handed weapon a two handed weapon. If you can find a single official source in which an item which a large weapon had a magical effect which read "This Large Weapon acts as a Medium Weapon" or something similar then you might have an argument...
My point is, and remains, unless magic directly states to change the physical laws they are unchanged.
A two handed weapon is a two handed weapon. The only thing which changes this is Monkey Grip and that strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in a players offhand.
Find an Official Case where this wasn't law otherwise no "but magic" argument has any meaning.
P.S. - There have been weapons which granted the feat Monkey Grip. Again, that weapon could not be used in an Off Hand. That may as well be a law unless somebody can show a single source where a large weapon could be used in an off hand other than "But magic makes anything possible!"
You can make up whatever you want in your basement. Official D&D isn't in your basement though.
And you're ignoring the fact that transmutations aren't there as magical.
It's there so you don't like or dislike an item and base your willingness to use it based on it's appearance.
It exists so that you can use the item that fits your needs best without thinking "that item is so much better but I really don't want to use a longsword."
It's not there to subvert the rulebook. It's not there to make the impossible possible. It's not there as an illusion.
It's there so you can equip your character and customize your appearance within D&D limitations.
So call it "Illusory Transmutation". Charge more for it. Separate it from regular transmutation if it makes you feel better, but saying "but it's not DnD" doesn't fly. Illusion is clearly part of DnD. Might not be part of this game, but if you're using DnD as the backbone for your argument, then you lose.
My point is, and remains, unless magic directly states to change the physical laws they are unchanged.
A two handed weapon is a two handed weapon. The only thing which changes this is Monkey Grip and that strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in a players offhand.
Find an Official Case where this wasn't law otherwise no "but magic" argument has any meaning.
P.S. - There have been weapons which granted the feat Monkey Grip. Again, that weapon could not be used in an Off Hand. That may as well be a law unless somebody can show a single source where a large weapon could be used in an off hand.
You keep moving the goalposts here. I believe there was one poster upthread who suggested actually offhanding a two-handed weapon. I'm not suggesting that. I merely like the OP's premise of being able to alter your armor (and perhaps even weaps) to look like those of other classes. Not to actually function as such.
Just saying, my halfling CW really wants a miniature Death Star now.
Anyway, since somebody talked about transmuting being "unrealistic," my two cents: Being someone who doesn't know anything about DnD outside of this game, it still seems to me that transmuting is not really an actual magical enchantment / illusion. It's a game mechanic that allows your TR to dual-wield hatchets if he/she wants to but carry the stats of a superior weapon. It has nothing to do with magic and has no place in any RP context as being such; it really doesn't have any place in an RP context at all. It's just a way to transfer stats to a specific weapon / armor / etc. appearance that you like better than the thing you have but without sacrificing the stats you want. For all RP purposes you're holding a regular unmagical hatchet; the game just calculates your attacks using the stats of a dagger. There is nothing unrealistic about dual-wielding small hatchets (not so for dual-wielding greatswords, unless maybe you're a giant which you're not if you're playing this), and the numbers don't care what your weapons look like.
That's how I've always thought of it, but again, I don't know much of anything so my point of view probably doesn't count for much.
It's there so you can equip your character and customize your appearance within D&D limitations.
Eh, but of a gap there. Since within limitations includes fighters and most clerics wearing any armor they want. So we could have GF's, GWF's, and DC's wearing plate, mail, leather, and robes. Which could be kind of cool.
The right to command is earned through duty, the privilege of rank is service.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
Eh, but of a gap there. Since within limitations includes fighters and most clerics wearing any armor they want. So we could have GF's, GWF's, and DC's wearing plate, mail, leather, and robes. Which could be kind of cool.
There actually are some "lighter" Guardian Fighter Gear. Somebody had posted some pictures of their Guardian Fighter which was basically in leather armor.
Clerics no longer get to wear plate armor, though. It now requires a feat to wear plate which has quite a hefty cost and prereq.
It's still possible but really not done by most clerics anymore hence why the NW clerics wear chainmail.
However, yes, I do agree with making a larger of variety of gear each class could transmute to. My opposition is to the desire to transmute weapons and armor without bounds as there are rules to which a class can and can not wear and abell39's interpretation of the transmute system is 100% in line with my view of it.
And with that view wizards have no place transmuting into armor just as rangers and clerics (half true) have no place transmuting into plate.
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
edited September 2013
What they should do is to provide a system where, when you transmute a piece of gear to look like another, that appearance becomes one in a list in a drop-down menu. So, for instance, let's say I transmute my wizard's orb to look like the festival flower. I could now right click the orb on my character sheet and select whether I want it to look like the flower or the original model. Now I go ahead and also transmute it to look like the skull from the orc assault call to arms event. I could bring up the same menu and have the original model, the flower, or the skull, and I could switch between their appearances at any time, and for no cost.
This would greatly increase the flexibility in appearances, and people may be more accepting of the higher transmutation cost *if* they also got to switch back to the original appearance at any time, and for no additional cost...
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
What they should do is to provide a system where, when you transmute a piece of gear to look like another, that appearance becomes one in a list in a drop-down menu. So, for instance, let's say I transmute my wizard's orb to look like the festival flower. I could now right click the orb on my character sheet and select whether I want it to look like the flower or the original model. Now I go ahead and also transmute it to look like the skull from the orc assault call to arms event. I could bring up the same menu and have the original model, the flower, or the skull, and I could switch between their appearances at any time, and for no cost.
This would greatly increase the flexibility in appearances, and people may be more accepting of the higher transmutation cost *if* they also got to switch back to the original appearance at any time, and for no additional cost...
I dont know where this keeps going into weapons.
As thats just not feasible.
But I am with the OP and the other people that are talking about altering the appearance of ARMOUR, despite the classes restriction.
It being confusing doesnt truly matter, its the same as someone in any fashion item. Despite all that, you will see what weapon they have.
Its actually less confusing than the fashion items. In that regard, because your weapon is shown all the time.
When in fashion items, your weapon is hidden until its used.
You will always know a wizard when you see one (Floating orb around them)
You will always know a GWF when you see one (big *** sword/axe on thier back)
You will always know a Rogue when you see one. (daggers, but thats a bit harder, but you can tell how they run)
You will always know a GF when you see one. (Big shield and sword,mace,axe )
You will always know a Cleric when you see one. (Running holding out thier Relic on display so everyone can see)
So the confusion argument is invalid. As its more confusing paying with people with fashion items than this would be.
You will always know a Rogue when you see one. (daggers, but thats a bit harder, but you can tell how they run)
You will always know a Cleric when you see one. (Running holding out thier Relic on display so everyone can see)
Your weapons are put away whenever you're not in combat (unless you're a DC channeling divinity). In terms of posture and movement, a TR is basically identical to a DC (if DC is not channeling). Only difference is DCs have a weapon on one side of their waists where TRs have weapons on both sides. You will not be able to tell the two apart if they wear each other's armor.
The difference with fashion is that fashion gear always looks completely different from other classes' clothing, so you know to be cautious since you can't tell what class a character is. If classes wear each other's clothing, it becomes outright deception and it will be harder to strategize for it.
I reiterate what I said about DCs looking like TRs and vice versa, then. It would not take much for a TR to masquerade as a DC while unstealthed to lure people into their attack range and then go invisible the rest of the time. Nobody wants TRs to have another trick up their slippery little sleeves, do they?
I think thats a pretty impressive tactic for a TR to take up, and worth the cost they paid for that masqurade.
And if someone falls for that, they can only fall for something like that one time.
And thats exclusive for rogues, since they have small weapons, and difficult to actually point out.
0
reagenlionel1Member, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
I have to agree with Fallenhawk here.
It is really not difficult to make other classes out. And if not, you will find out after one meeting. its a 5 vs 5 in pvp. You have a very likely chance you'll face said person again.
in gauntlgrym. Your most likely in groups anyway. So you'll see when/what is coming at you when they are infront of you.
In anycase, this is very welcomed thing, and theres very little viable reasoning why class restrictions should be in place for transmutations.
And once again to reiterate. This topic is excluding weapons.
First of all a greatsword is a two handed weapon. Can you swing a greatsword IRL in each hand?
Thought not.
I can, but I am also 6'3 and work in construction.
I would like to see a more relax armor class. I would like to see some of the GF armor skins on my GWF. It isn't out of the realm of lore. GWF should be able to wearing plate. Yeah, blah blah blah, only knights got to wear it and it cost a lot, blah. Not like the game really follows LORE. ALSO, this would help with DC get gear that isn't always molded around GWF. I would be happy with changing my peasant gear costume into a plate costume
0
ravisanaMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited September 2013
I am now picturing a giant with overalls and a big yellow hard hat wielding greatswrods...
Can't even get them to activate the item change option on the Ancient necklace my character uses or make shirt and pants have the invisible option so I wouldn't hold your breath on cross class transmutation...
I am now picturing a giant with overalls and a big yellow hard hat wielding greatswrods...
Close, no overalls and the hardhat is metal.
I have to agree with Imsmithy. Would be nice to hide pant and shirt. The only think about the pants is, maybe add some some kind of shorts or undies. Is that making sense?
0
bioshrikeMember, NW M9 PlaytestPosts: 4,729Arc User
I have to agree with Imsmithy. Would be nice to hide pant and shirt. The only think about the pants is, maybe add some some kind of shorts or undies. Is that making sense?
If you're talking about the armor shirt & pants, there is already a graphic in case you don't have one equipped - so you could just revert to that if you choose to hide their visuals.
As for great weapons, swords, and daggers - what if the models would scale up or down based upon what they were transmuted into - like a greatsword would become tiny, (but retain the same look), if transmuted to a dagger.
<::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::::)xxxo <::::::::::::)xxxxxxxx(:::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> oxxx(::::::::::::::> "Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Nope, he means the undershirts and pants (i.e. the kind you can craft with professioning), which you can't disable visuals on. Certain wizard robes actually can look better without an undershirt because of the sleeves, so I would totally understand wanting to disable undershirt visuals on those. Some upper-level shirts and pants grant significant stats, too, so just unequipping them isn't really a solution.
Comments
Not to mention the animation issue. If people were able to transmute anything into anything, there would also be a strong desire to have consistent animation. For example, Gloaming Cut looks fine with daggers or short swords. With a rapier, it looks very strange. With a greatsword or longword, it would likely involve a lateral bisection of your character.
1) There are tons of mechanics/rules/etc in this game that are not edition 4 compatible. I hardly think that this would break the dam, so to speak.
2) I agree with you that it would be silly in parties in PVE. I can't imagine anyone would use that gear in those situations. It would primarily be a PVP thing, I'd imagine. Or just as a goof when soloing.
The rule has always been no offhand large weapons...
Fourth edition or not. You can't do it. Not here. Not in DDO. Not in NWN.
Not in Pen and Paper, unless you're DM completely ignores the rules which is fine as long as everybody agrees. That's just outlandish sillyness though and would have me quit in a heartbeat though. That's not adjusting the rules for the better it's adjusting it because you think it's cool to be able to do something completely impossible with no explanation at all.
The fact this game is based on D&D doesn't mean toss out common sense. With that logic they should add laser beens and make wizard implements minature death stars. You're really doing nothing more than clawing for excuses to make outlandish sillyness in a game which is largely realistic.
And "but magic" doesn't count because magic has no effect on the martial arts in D&D. If you want an unrealistic magic game feel free to play one. There's plenty of them which makes completely disproportionate animations.
It would be even worse in PvP. Being able to identify what class a person is determines the strategy against them and especially in PvP the main means of identifying people is by looking at their armor. If you see a person in plate mail and don't notice an implement it'd be really hard to predict an entangling force.
You're ignoring the larger point which is YOU'RE NOT ACTUALLY OFFHANDING A TWO-HANDED WEAPON!. It's still just a shield/dagger/CW or DC offhand or whatever, you've merely altered its appearance. How realism enters into it is not relevant. It's not realistic that I can transmute the appearance of my daggers into shortswords. No Blacksmith (outside of a mystical one) could achieve this, but I can do it in this game. When you are talking about magic, realism is no longer on the table.
To the PVP comment, that would be the whole point of doing it! You would gain a slight advantage while your opponent figures out what class you really are...It costs a substantial amount of AD to transmute items. It's just an interesting idea that would actually justify the costs of transmutation outside of cosmetics.
Sorry to belabor this, but this is so untrue to DnD that it's funny that you'd even post it. A +3 sword is "martially" preferable to an unenchanted one. Magic has martial effects.
It's there so you don't like or dislike an item and base your willingness to use it based on it's appearance.
It exists so that you can use the item that fits your needs best without thinking "that item is so much better but I really don't want to use a longsword."
It's not there to subvert the rulebook. It's not there to make the impossible possible.
It's not there as an illusion.
It's there so you can equip your character and customize your appearance within D&D limitations.
Magically enchanted weapons are completely different.
Magic does not make a one handed weapon a two handed weapon. If you can find a single official source in which an item which a large weapon had a magical effect which read "This Large Weapon acts as a Medium Weapon" or something similar then you might have an argument...
My point is, and remains, unless magic directly states to change the physical laws they are unchanged.
A two handed weapon is a two handed weapon. The only thing which changes this is Monkey Grip and that strictly prohibited the use of a large weapon in a players offhand.
Find an Official Case where this wasn't law otherwise no "but magic" argument has any meaning.
P.S. - There have been weapons which granted the feat Monkey Grip. Again, that weapon could not be used in an Off Hand. That may as well be a law unless somebody can show a single source where a large weapon could be used in an off hand other than "But magic makes anything possible!"
You can make up whatever you want in your basement. Official D&D isn't in your basement though.
So call it "Illusory Transmutation". Charge more for it. Separate it from regular transmutation if it makes you feel better, but saying "but it's not DnD" doesn't fly. Illusion is clearly part of DnD. Might not be part of this game, but if you're using DnD as the backbone for your argument, then you lose.
You keep moving the goalposts here. I believe there was one poster upthread who suggested actually offhanding a two-handed weapon. I'm not suggesting that. I merely like the OP's premise of being able to alter your armor (and perhaps even weaps) to look like those of other classes. Not to actually function as such.
Just saying, my halfling CW really wants a miniature Death Star now.
Anyway, since somebody talked about transmuting being "unrealistic," my two cents: Being someone who doesn't know anything about DnD outside of this game, it still seems to me that transmuting is not really an actual magical enchantment / illusion. It's a game mechanic that allows your TR to dual-wield hatchets if he/she wants to but carry the stats of a superior weapon. It has nothing to do with magic and has no place in any RP context as being such; it really doesn't have any place in an RP context at all. It's just a way to transfer stats to a specific weapon / armor / etc. appearance that you like better than the thing you have but without sacrificing the stats you want. For all RP purposes you're holding a regular unmagical hatchet; the game just calculates your attacks using the stats of a dagger. There is nothing unrealistic about dual-wielding small hatchets (not so for dual-wielding greatswords, unless maybe you're a giant which you're not if you're playing this), and the numbers don't care what your weapons look like.
That's how I've always thought of it, but again, I don't know much of anything so my point of view probably doesn't count for much.
Kaylee Krankenwagen, level 60 GF | Tavandruil Wayfinder, level 49 GWF | Aldith Langley, level 51 HR
Eh, but of a gap there. Since within limitations includes fighters and most clerics wearing any armor they want. So we could have GF's, GWF's, and DC's wearing plate, mail, leather, and robes. Which could be kind of cool.
There actually are some "lighter" Guardian Fighter Gear. Somebody had posted some pictures of their Guardian Fighter which was basically in leather armor.
Clerics no longer get to wear plate armor, though. It now requires a feat to wear plate which has quite a hefty cost and prereq.
It's still possible but really not done by most clerics anymore hence why the NW clerics wear chainmail.
However, yes, I do agree with making a larger of variety of gear each class could transmute to. My opposition is to the desire to transmute weapons and armor without bounds as there are rules to which a class can and can not wear and abell39's interpretation of the transmute system is 100% in line with my view of it.
And with that view wizards have no place transmuting into armor just as rangers and clerics (half true) have no place transmuting into plate.
This would greatly increase the flexibility in appearances, and people may be more accepting of the higher transmutation cost *if* they also got to switch back to the original appearance at any time, and for no additional cost...
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
THAT...is a fantastic idea.
As thats just not feasible.
But I am with the OP and the other people that are talking about altering the appearance of ARMOUR, despite the classes restriction.
It being confusing doesnt truly matter, its the same as someone in any fashion item. Despite all that, you will see what weapon they have.
Its actually less confusing than the fashion items. In that regard, because your weapon is shown all the time.
When in fashion items, your weapon is hidden until its used.
You will always know a wizard when you see one (Floating orb around them)
You will always know a GWF when you see one (big *** sword/axe on thier back)
You will always know a Rogue when you see one. (daggers, but thats a bit harder, but you can tell how they run)
You will always know a GF when you see one. (Big shield and sword,mace,axe )
You will always know a Cleric when you see one. (Running holding out thier Relic on display so everyone can see)
So the confusion argument is invalid. As its more confusing paying with people with fashion items than this would be.
Your weapons are put away whenever you're not in combat (unless you're a DC channeling divinity). In terms of posture and movement, a TR is basically identical to a DC (if DC is not channeling). Only difference is DCs have a weapon on one side of their waists where TRs have weapons on both sides. You will not be able to tell the two apart if they wear each other's armor.
The difference with fashion is that fashion gear always looks completely different from other classes' clothing, so you know to be cautious since you can't tell what class a character is. If classes wear each other's clothing, it becomes outright deception and it will be harder to strategize for it.
Kaylee Krankenwagen, level 60 GF | Tavandruil Wayfinder, level 49 GWF | Aldith Langley, level 51 HR
I can still move.
I can still fight.
I will never give up!
Kaylee Krankenwagen, level 60 GF | Tavandruil Wayfinder, level 49 GWF | Aldith Langley, level 51 HR
I can still move.
I can still fight.
I will never give up!
I reiterate what I said about DCs looking like TRs and vice versa, then. It would not take much for a TR to masquerade as a DC while unstealthed to lure people into their attack range and then go invisible the rest of the time. Nobody wants TRs to have another trick up their slippery little sleeves, do they?
Kaylee Krankenwagen, level 60 GF | Tavandruil Wayfinder, level 49 GWF | Aldith Langley, level 51 HR
And if someone falls for that, they can only fall for something like that one time.
And thats exclusive for rogues, since they have small weapons, and difficult to actually point out.
It is really not difficult to make other classes out. And if not, you will find out after one meeting. its a 5 vs 5 in pvp. You have a very likely chance you'll face said person again.
in gauntlgrym. Your most likely in groups anyway. So you'll see when/what is coming at you when they are infront of you.
In anycase, this is very welcomed thing, and theres very little viable reasoning why class restrictions should be in place for transmutations.
And once again to reiterate. This topic is excluding weapons.
I can, but I am also 6'3 and work in construction.
I would like to see a more relax armor class. I would like to see some of the GF armor skins on my GWF. It isn't out of the realm of lore. GWF should be able to wearing plate. Yeah, blah blah blah, only knights got to wear it and it cost a lot, blah. Not like the game really follows LORE. ALSO, this would help with DC get gear that isn't always molded around GWF. I would be happy with changing my peasant gear costume into a plate costume
I have to agree with Imsmithy. Would be nice to hide pant and shirt. The only think about the pants is, maybe add some some kind of shorts or undies. Is that making sense?
If you're talking about the armor shirt & pants, there is already a graphic in case you don't have one equipped - so you could just revert to that if you choose to hide their visuals.
As for great weapons, swords, and daggers - what if the models would scale up or down based upon what they were transmuted into - like a greatsword would become tiny, (but retain the same look), if transmuted to a dagger.
"Is it better to be feared or respected? I say, is it too much to ask for both?" -Tony Stark
Official NW_Legit_Community Forums
Kaylee Krankenwagen, level 60 GF | Tavandruil Wayfinder, level 49 GWF | Aldith Langley, level 51 HR
The armor however is and the class restriction should be lifted.