Reality Check: Female Archers
- Thread starter Tornix
- Start date
Why not. I know that a fantasy setting is unrealistic in itself, but it doesn't mean things need to spiral out of control. If we take the example of the battle-armor females sometimes wear which exposes a lot of skin, sure it can be intriguing to look at but at same time one can't help to think how bad it is to use in battle especially since the purpose of armor is to protect. I guess if she confident or powerful enough to not need the full-plate armor then perhaps she should be wear something else or at least give a hint about it.Caliostro said:
Because fantasy breaks "realism" by default. I think the idea you're after is internal universe coherence... At which point, depends entirely on the universe of the fantasy. When you have a universe where the men are wearing 2 small cars worth of armor to battle, it's kinda ridiculous when the women show up wearing leather or chain mail bikinis... In a universe where people shoot magic from their hands or swing swords the size of flag poles "the boobs would get in the way of the bow string!" seems like a silly complaint.Tornix said:
Besides, it's been explained already that women with large breasts can shoot bows just the same.
I doubt that is much of a problem. Just strap 'em in tighter if they're in the way. Archery is really flippin' hard, so I think any amazonic warrior would have already mastered that little problem, along with all else.
There is a reason why crossbows came to be so popular, despite being, as pointed out, much worse than bows on paper. You didn't need to be very skilled to use them, as opposed to bows that required years of practice until your skill was anything worth taking to the battlefield. Crossbows in comparison was rather simple, you string them, load the quarrel, take aim and press the lever. Even if those too required practice, it was a far simpler weapon to learn.
I know I'd prefer a crossbow, given the choice. Perhaps it can be modified for faster reload-times.
There is a reason why crossbows came to be so popular, despite being, as pointed out, much worse than bows on paper. You didn't need to be very skilled to use them, as opposed to bows that required years of practice until your skill was anything worth taking to the battlefield. Crossbows in comparison was rather simple, you string them, load the quarrel, take aim and press the lever. Even if those too required practice, it was a far simpler weapon to learn.
I know I'd prefer a crossbow, given the choice. Perhaps it can be modified for faster reload-times.
Sorry to interfere, but dragons =/= lack of gravity or oxygen in the air.Caliostro said:
Fantasy worlds stretch reality and realism. They don't break them by default.
Yes it is silly, as it silly when people throws a hissy fit when a character from a book/comic isn't accurately depicted in the movie like the case of Heimdall in Thor the movie.Caliostro said:
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/lotr_nerd.jpg
You are speaking to a guy who tries to have magic somewhat logically and rationally explained. So in that sense I'm that I'm silly, but I don't mind.
