Are you a wizard?

Are you a jedi?

Are you a nutter?

Are you an elf?

*dies laughing*

Buy one from Argos m7

alter one of these?

http://www.surplusandadventure.com/shop/clothing/gore-tex-waterproofs/solid-colour-waterproofs/genuine-german-army-olive-waterproof-358507.html

fabric here if you want to do from scratch -> http://www.pennineoutdoor.co.uk/catalogue.asp?sID=4

>>518
OP: Do you role-play IRL, in the forest; Pagan/Druid/*; or just creepy?

None of the above. I just spend a fair amount of time hiking and like the poncho approach to weather protection.

>>526
I've got one of those and, useful though it is, it's got a few flaws. Firstly, it's plain too short as it stops roughly at knee level, making water proof trousers a must. Secondly, it's a tarp with a hood on it and while that makes it very versatile, it's awkward to wear. And, last but not least, the hood's designed to be worn over a helmet. It's so huge an effect not unlike that in the picture happens.

>>539

So you're going to walk through the hills dressed as a jedi?

Are you a druid?

>>543
See above. No.

>>566
I advise you to look at the coat thread in /poof/. While we can all understand the want to look like someone out of a film, in real life, it looks ridiculous. Find a modern equivalent and use that or go without. Sorry.

>>567
The coat thread in /poof/ was largely me and a few others arguing against one man that thought everyone that dressed a tiny bit out of the ordinary was an enormous faggot that was trying to be cool and different or was likely imitating a movie/TV/anime character.
Then some cunt came along, only read the OP, and posted a link to a shop selling movie/TV/anime replica clothing and made our side of argument look like a load of enormous faggots that were likely imitating movie/TV/anime characters.

>>568
But that's what you're doing.

>>567
I read that threat, which made me partially lose interest in this one. The only problem is that useful coats cost a fair chunk of money and lack a built-in hood (I have a wax jacket with a tack-on hood; it's would be OK on a longer cloak based on that, but adds even more to the cost). As for your closing statement: no. There is no modern equivalent (the closest match is a poncho, but see above why I'm unhappy with those) and the reason I want to make my own is precisely because of that.

>>518

What exactly is the advantage of a cloak over a coat and hat?

>>518

Buy a djellaba and cut it down from the neck. Get one of the high quality woolen ones.

>>581
A wide brimmed hat can do a fine job, too, but keeping it on your head requires straps or a tight fit; a hood can fit securely without such forceful attachments. A cloak is generally just cosier and more comfortable; it's like wearing your own personal tent. Anything with sleeves sort of feels like it separates your arms from the rest of yourself when you try and huddle up; a cloak (or poncho or similar) doesn't.

>>582
Would be fine 'cept for he sleeves.

Modern Day TV

>>588

Surely you meant to say a hat is fine too.

There is no way wearing any sort of cloak, hooded or otherwise, can ever be acceptable.

>>604

It was fine for the last 1900 years.

>>605
Yes, but now we have real clothes. You want to live like the amish, go live WITH the Amish. Otherwise accept that people are going to think you're a freak.

>>605

Just because something happened doesn't make it right. Remember Britchan?

>>604

I'm still laughing at the filename.

_{I wonder whether OP does that steepling thing with his hands.}

>>608
>>I wonder whether OP does that steepling thing with his hands.

He is seriously considering walking around in public dressed as a fucking wizard, so there is a real possbility that he does much worse things with his hands. These things may or may not involve young children.

>>610

Now now, I don't think it's fair to label every single nutcase as a paedophile, as is the trend these days. I don't have much time for kiddy fiddlers or men who think they're wizards, but the two are not mutually inclusive, and that the former is more sinister than the latter.

>>606

In 20 years, people will say the exact same thing about the clothes you're wearing right now.

A cloak has lasted a long time compared to modern shite, and it's always better made, warmer and more comfortable.

I couldn't give two flying fucks about what you think. Please go and pitch yourself into the tempest now.

>>613

Even if this is a parody it is still hilarious. 'Exact same', 'modern shite', 'tempest' - all from a cloak evangelist. Thank you.

>>614

Typical cloakless scum.

I am now rather intrigued about the doings of, shall we say, 'Cloakfag'. I can only wonder at how my own life would be altered by going about my business dressed as a wizard. How is it in real life, O Hooded One?

>>604

That picture should be enough to convince anyone to avoid this path. Looks like a twat.

>>620
warm, comfortable.

>>624

Humiliating.

>>624

Devoid of dignity.

>>626
>>625

I'm sorry that your penises shrivel up when strangers possibly laugh at you when you're not looking, I'm a manly man and just swish the women away from the skinny jeans-wearing gayboys like you.

>>632

>>633

I'd share her cloak, if you know what I mean.

Shame you can't get away with it outside of an album cover.

>>639
This is cloakfag, do not be fooled.

>>641

Yes, bueno.

>>641

I think that is a bit unfair. There is no evidence that cloakfags are in any way more likely to engage in homosexual acts.

>>643
Is wearing a cloak a homosexual act?

>>643

I would imagine after a few decades of being rejected outright by all women they'd have to find affection beneath the folds of each others capes.

>>645

I'm no expert, but I'm sure cloakfag would vehemently argue that there is a huge difference between cloaks and capes.

A cape isn't a coat. End of.

>>645

Your tender image had me spitting out my tea. Thank you. That was one to cherish

_{though not beneath a cape I might add}