Unp Blessed Body Fit Armors And Clothing

[Rut]

Ive been trying to experiment with something in Skyrim, but every mod such as CBBE, or any other "nude mods" have no effect on my game. I have downloaded/installed numerous mode from Nexus, but none of them have any effect whatsoever in-game. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

CBBE and UNP and all the other nude mods work, so if none of them does anything to your game, then you've probably installed them wrong. Follow the instructions on the corresponding nexus page and you should be fine.

I'm pretty sure that I've installed them correctly, it's just that (like you said) I haven't figured out how to remove the clothing, so all the npc's look the same as before I applied the mods. Any idea how to do that? Thanks!

^My question as well. If you read the description on the nexus pages then you'll learn that the nude mods doesn't actually remove all clothes, it just makes the female body models nude. If you want the armor and clothing for the females to disappear, you need some other mod that does just that.

please someone help me my boyfriends x box crashed and now Hes got me on pc trying to download nudes and I have no clue what I am doing he keeps saying he wants everyone in Skyrim to be naked well I got the females naked but I can't find a mod to get the men out of their clothes this man has had me up from 9 am till 2am for 3 days now nonstop trying I mean nonstop I quit for 20 min and he started yelling that I was too stupid to figure it out and should have known better to ask for my help ( narcissist to the max over here) I'm trying to figure this out Hes pouting and crying like a f*#@ing 5 year yelling at the top of his lungs at me that I don't know what I'm doing and that's not what he wants no s#*! sherlock besides checking my e mails and doing simple things on the pc I don't know crap and Hes over here trying to get me to code and crap I need help man ill pay someone to make this head Ack stop I mean I want to go pack up my stuff and animals and go live in my car right that's how bad of a temper tantrum Hes been throwing like legit tears this grown ass 34 year old man is crying because his character has on a cloth and not nude I'm looking for a body replacer idk Hes always played on x box and is trying to convert I've gotten really far with it I've gotten a naked misty sky who ever she is and all the females are seminude but it's not what he wants please for the love of god will someone help me be4 I jump off a F-ING cliff and for the record id leave if I could!!!

I've been creating a Paladin who uses the Defense fighting style while wielding two weapons (instead of the more common Dueling style with weapon and shield). However, I was worried that spell components would make this too difficult because the character wouldn't be able to use a shield emblazoned with a holy symbol as their spellcasting focus. I reread the section on holy symbols and it says the following:

A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield. [PHB pg. 151, emphasis added]

By my reading of this, even absent a shield, the caster does NOT need a free hand for their focus. Simply wearing it on a chain outside their armor or clothing (or even affixing it to the outside of their armor) would be sufficient.

Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in chapter 5) in place of the components specified for a spell... A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. [PHB pg. 203]

At first glance, its seems that the statements "A character can use... a spellcasting focus... in place of the components specified for a spell" and "A spellcaster must have a hand free to access these components" would logically mean that a spellcaster must have a hand free to use a spellcasting focus.

However, is this a case of "specific beats general"? Using an arcane focus requires a free hand because it follows the general rule from pg. 203, but a holy symbol doesn't as long as it's visibly worn as written in the more specific rule on pg. 151?

You're correct that "specific beats general" is in effect here. Most spellcasting focuses have to be handled, but a holy symbol specifically notes that it can also be worn visibly or emblazoned on a shield. As such, if you are wearing your holy symbol visibly, you do not need a free hand for the material components of your paladin spells.

You do still need free use of a hand to perform somatic components, unless you were to pick up the War Caster feat. However, I don't foresee this being an issue for you: if you're casting a spell, you're unable to use two-weapon fighting that turn anyway, so there's no meaningful downside to stowing one of your weapons, casting your spell, and drawing the weapon again when you need it.

Consider the fact that in the case of the shield, some contact with a hand is made with the holy symbol. The shield hand is making the somatic gestures necessary during this, as clearly stated in the Sage Advice column. The person with the holy symbol affixed to their neck therefore is not counted as using somatic components, as they are not using a free hand or an emblazoned shield to make the somatic components happen. This means that if you are using a holy symbol that is "clearly displayed on the body", but no somatic gestures are being used, somatic gestures would not count as being used, there-in making the spell fail due to the lack of all necessary requirements for the spell to activate.

The reason why the shield with the holy symbol works is because it counts as the cleric touching the material component, which allows the cleric to use somatic components with it, due to the fact that the shield would be currently counted as the material component, and the hand that's holding the material component can be used as the S as well. This is different from the holy symbol on a chain due to the fact that no hand is being used, therefore no somatic components are produced.

In short, if you have both hands full of things that can't be used as foci, you cannot cast any spells that require somatic components (unless you take the War Caster feat, but that's something specific that beats the general rule). The only use of it at that point would be to be able to use it without having to hold it (if some sort of thing that touching it with your hand is active) and using it with spells that only have V and M components, which from a quick search of a paladin's spells, are none.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell's material components -- or to hold a spellcasting focus -- but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components. [ -rules/spellcasting#MaterialM]

A cleric or paladin can use a holy symbol as a spellcasting focus, as described in chapter 10. To use the symbol in this way, the caster must hold it in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield. [PHB pg. 151]

What I gather from here is that same rule apply for paladin as well. The only difference is that you can hold the symbol in your hand, but you don't have to, where for other classes it's a requirement.

The field of arms and armor is beset with romantic legends, gory myths, and widely held misconceptions. Their origins usually are to be found in a lack of knowledge of, and experience with, genuine objects and their historical background. Most of them are utter nonsense, devoid of any historical base.

Second, it is wrong to assume that every nobleman was a knight. Knights were not born but created, by other knights, feudal lords, or sometimes priests. And, under certain conditions, people of non-noble birth could be knighted (although the knighting was often regarded as their admission into lower nobility). On some occasions, mercenaries or civilians fighting as ordinary soldiers could be knighted for exceptional displays of courage and valor, while in later times a knighthood could be bought.

Accordingly, not every piece of armor was once worn by a knight, nor can every person depicted in an artwork wearing armor be identified as a knight. A person in armor should more correctly be referred to as a man-at-arms or man in armor.

This idea may stem from the fact that much of the armor on exhibition in institutions like the Metropolitan Museum represents equipment of especially high quality, while much of the plainer arms and armor of the common man and lower nobility has been either relegated to storerooms or lost over the centuries.

At the upper end of the scale, we find examples such as a large garniture (a basic suit of armor that, through the addition of further pieces and plates, could be adapted for various purposes both on the battlefield and in different types of tournament) commissioned in 1546 by a German king (later emperor) for his son. For this commission, the court armorer Jrg Seusenhofer of Innsbruck received on completion a year later the enormous sum of more than 1,200 gold coins, equivalent to twelve times the annual salary of a senior court official.

As outlined above, most armor is neither so heavy nor inflexible as to immobilize the wearer. Most men-at-arms would have been able to simply put one foot in a stirrup and mount their horse without assistance. A stool or perhaps the help of a squire would have made the process even speedier; a crane, however, was absolutely unnecessary.

It is sometimes argued that the military salute originated during the Roman Republic, when assassinations were common and citizens were required to approach public officials with their right hand raised in order to show that they did not conceal a weapon. A more common account is that the modern military salute originated from men in armor raising the visors of their helmets before greeting their lord or comrades. This gesture would have made a person both recognizable as well as vulnerable, at the same time demonstrating that the right hand (i.e., the sword hand) did not carry a weapon, both being signs of trust and good intention.

3a8082e126