|
Helmets
Nov 21, 2008 21:37:18 GMT -6
Post by jcstephens on Nov 21, 2008 21:37:18 GMT -6
The table of equipment available for purchase lists helmets separately from armor, which suggests that use of them is optional. I've seen several house rules for the consequences of fighting without one. However, I wonder if that's not making things more complicated than they need to be. Chainmail has rules for jousting, and one of the results is getting your helmet knocked off. Is it possible that helmets were included in the equipment list in order to allow for the replacement of one lost or destroyed in a jousting match?
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Helmets
Nov 22, 2008 1:08:43 GMT -6
Post by korgoth on Nov 22, 2008 1:08:43 GMT -6
I don't know about the jousting thing since I've never read Chainmail.
If you use an instant death rule like in Empire of the Petal Throne, you could allow a "helmet save" (maybe 1 in 6?). Then it's not something that is particularly likely to come up, but there is a slight advantage to wearing one.
I can think of a ton of different, simple mechanics you could use for helmets. But the bottom line is, once you introduce those mechanics you have to keep track of who is or is not wearing a helmet.
Obviously, from a realism standpoint, helmets can provide a huge benefit. You could always just go the Moldvay route and add helmet cost into the cost of the armor.
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 22, 2008 6:38:31 GMT -6
Post by snorri on Nov 22, 2008 6:38:31 GMT -6
Another way was suggested for shieds, but I can't remember in which blog (grognardia perhaps ? apologize if not): when a PC suffer from a die hit which is about to lower his hp below 0, his shield breaks instead. The same could easily apply to helmets.
It gives it a good reason to be, it's easy to track, and it fits perfectly the middle- age Knight novels of the Grail, where knights frigthing each other destry the shiled and generally the helmet (and breaks dozen of lances, provided by their squires!) before to die. And it gives PCs a little more chances to win, without changing anything to hps
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 23, 2008 9:12:57 GMT -6
Post by Finarvyn on Nov 23, 2008 9:12:57 GMT -6
Helmets were always an oddity to me.
If a character wears armor, he has a certain AC. If he adds a shield, his AC gets better. I've never allowed that bonus for a helmet, nor have I ever subtracted a point from his AC if he chooses not to wear one. Helmets have always been truly optional in my game, with no effect at all. Illogical, perhaps. That's just the way I've always played them.
I've occasionally thought about sub-dividing armor so that characters could select only certain parts, but I never followed through with this. For example, a person might opt for a chainmail shirt but no leggings, or a leather jerkin with bracers and greaves. It certainly would allow for characters to better "fit the iimage" but does add an additional layer of complexity. Not sure if that's good or bad....
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 23, 2008 9:15:35 GMT -6
Post by apeloverage on Nov 23, 2008 9:15:35 GMT -6
I read a rule somewhere that if you don't have a helmet, intelligent monsters have a chance of attacking your exposed head.
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 23, 2008 14:15:35 GMT -6
Post by blackbarn on Nov 23, 2008 14:15:35 GMT -6
In some of the D&D computer games a helmet would protect you from critical hits. I don't know where that rule originated, though.
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 23, 2008 15:01:31 GMT -6
Post by dwayanu on Nov 23, 2008 15:01:31 GMT -6
IIRC, Gygax in AD&D gave intelligent foes a 1/6 chance of striking at a less-protected head. I rather like that.
Hearing and field of vision might be much better without a helmet (or with a raised visor), and the heavier sorts were certainly stuffy; the close-fitting Corinthian model was designed to be pushed back on the head to get some air when out of battle.
One might assume that a suit of armor comes with appropriate headgear, granting the general AC when worn (e.g., a great helm with Plate but just a simple and light skull protector with Leather). Replacements in that case should vary in price and encumbrance along with protective value.
This is related to the question of how to handle attacks versus a monster with some locations notably more vulnerable than others -- e.g., the Beholder in Supplement I.
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 24, 2008 22:03:36 GMT -6
Post by Ghul on Nov 24, 2008 22:03:36 GMT -6
Helmets were always an oddity to me. If a character wears armor, he has a certain AC. If he adds a shield, his AC gets better. I've never allowed that bonus for a helmet, nor have I ever subtracted a point from his AC if he chooses not to wear one. Helmets have always been truly optional in my game, with no effect at all. Illogical, perhaps. That's just the way I've always played them. Throughout most of my DMing years, regardless of system, I have taken this same approach. More recently, however, I've come up with some situations where the helmet (or lack thereof) could prove instrumental. For example, passing under a murder hole through which an orc is shooting a missile -- the helmed PC will gain an AC bonus. Climbing up a pit or shaft, and an enemy tries to spear you, the helm can be of help. At the base of a machicolated tower and hot oil is dropped on you? The helm might save your eyes. And so on. I handle the presence or absence of a helm on a case by case basis, usually when dealing with odd examples as indicated above; otherwise, I largely ignore them as well.
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 24, 2008 22:28:28 GMT -6
Post by Random on Nov 24, 2008 22:28:28 GMT -6
The table of equipment available for purchase lists helmets separately from armor, which suggests that use of them is optional. I've seen several house rules for the consequences of fighting without one. However, I wonder if that's not making things more complicated than they need to be. Chainmail has rules for jousting, and one of the results is getting your helmet knocked off. Is it possible that helmets were included in the equipment list in order to allow for the replacement of one lost or destroyed in a jousting match? Perhaps you've answered your own question (indirectly). If jousting can cause your helmet to be knocked off, imagine what happens when you are jousting while lacking a helmet!
|
|
korgoth
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 323
|
Post by korgoth on Nov 24, 2008 22:39:04 GMT -6
The table of equipment available for purchase lists helmets separately from armor, which suggests that use of them is optional. I've seen several house rules for the consequences of fighting without one. However, I wonder if that's not making things more complicated than they need to be. Chainmail has rules for jousting, and one of the results is getting your helmet knocked off. Is it possible that helmets were included in the equipment list in order to allow for the replacement of one lost or destroyed in a jousting match? Perhaps you've answered your own question (indirectly). If jousting can cause your helmet to be knocked off, imagine what happens when you are jousting while lacking a helmet! When jousting, always wear your helmet and shouldermapads. Otherwise you'll get your head knocked clean off!
|
|
|
Helmets
Nov 24, 2008 22:56:19 GMT -6
Post by Random on Nov 24, 2008 22:56:19 GMT -6
Perhaps you've answered your own question (indirectly). If jousting can cause your helmet to be knocked off, imagine what happens when you are jousting while lacking a helmet! When jousting, always wear your helmet and shouldermapads. Otherwise you'll get your head knocked clean off! Indeed, you wear your helmet when doing dangerous stuff like jousting, else face the consequences. I'd rule a chance for severe head injury to helmet-lacking characters in appropriate situations, like falling from a mount or from a height.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Cias on Dec 10, 2008 15:06:02 GMT -6
This is my take on helmets.
Basically, when it comes to helmets there are three possibilities: 1) The helmet offers protection comparable to the armor worn. 2) The helmet offers supperior protection compared to the armor worn (i.e. a great helm worn with leather armor). 3) The helmet (or lack thereof) provides inferior protection as compared to the armor worn.
For the first situation (which is the assumed default unless the player indicates otherwise) no special rules are needed. Proceed with combat as normal.
In case #2, the character has the advantage of the better AC vs. any attack which is determined to strike at the head. These can include, but are not limited to, attacks from above (e.g. piercers), an attack against a character who is peeking his head out from behind solid cover, or any other attack that due to special effect or circumstance must strike the head. Secondly, in normal combat situations, if an attack roll hits the character's normal AC but fails to hit the AC of the helmet then the weapon damage is halved (any damage bonuses apply as normal).
For situation 3 any attacks which are determined to strike specifically at the head (see #2 above) roll against the head's inferior AC. An intelligent opponent attacking from behind with surprise may attack the more vulnerable head, and unintelligent monsters likewise attacking from behind with surprise attack vs. the lesser AC 1/3 of the time. This of course assumes the attacking creature is physically capable of reaching the character's head. Lastly, any attack roll that succeeds by 20% or more (vs. the normal armor AC) is determined to have struck the unprotected head and automatically causes maximum damage +1d4.
In addition to the above, helmets or the lack thereof may provide saving throw bonuses or penalties in some situations.
|
|
|
Helmets
Dec 10, 2008 16:13:03 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Dec 10, 2008 16:13:03 GMT -6
That's a beautiful set of house rules for helmets, Lord Cias! Consider them swiped.
|
|
|
Helmets
Dec 10, 2008 16:30:23 GMT -6
Post by Falconer on Dec 10, 2008 16:30:23 GMT -6
Hit location is not figured into standard D&D combat. Assume that your foe will attack you where you are vulnerable. So your AC is equal to the AC of your most vulnerable point. A bareheaded adventurer is always AC 9 (worst). A helmeted adventurer has an AC of 2 (best) on their head, so their AC is then equal to whatever their armor gives them (2-9).
I believe this is more or less how the DMG later explains it (of course it's 2-10 in AD&D). Regards.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 11, 2009 13:03:00 GMT -6
Post by cadriel on Jan 11, 2009 13:03:00 GMT -6
My house rule for this is simple:
In normal combat, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a foe’s attack will be at the character’s head. If the character is not wearing a helmet, he is treated as effectively AC 9 for that attack.
So for characters with no helmet, there is a 1 in 6 chance that opponents will be rolling against AC 9 rather than their armored AC - I figure it'll have the actual effect of making people choose to use helmets pretty frequently.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 11, 2009 14:16:06 GMT -6
Post by Random on Jan 11, 2009 14:16:06 GMT -6
My house rule for this is simple: In normal combat, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a foe’s attack will be at the character’s head. If the character is not wearing a helmet, he is treated as effectively AC 9 for that attack. So for characters with no helmet, there is a 1 in 6 chance that opponents will be rolling against AC 9 rather than their armored AC - I figure it'll have the actual effect of making people choose to use helmets pretty frequently. You could simplify the effort by always rolling the damage die along with the to hit roll (everyone does this already, right?). A six on the damage die indicates a head strike, so use the helmet AC instead of the usual. That and all of the obvious situations mentioned, like sticking only your head through a portal.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 5:49:09 GMT -6
Post by dwayanu on Jan 12, 2009 5:49:09 GMT -6
That's splendid, so long as one wants all head hits to do maximum damage.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 9:46:58 GMT -6
Post by Random on Jan 12, 2009 9:46:58 GMT -6
That's splendid, so long as one wants all head hits to do maximum damage. Pick another number then. Perhaps all head hits deal 4 damage. I like cutting out rolls when I can. I just can't see myself rolling an additional d6 for every single attack just to worry about helmets.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 16:37:35 GMT -6
Post by dwayanu on Jan 12, 2009 16:37:35 GMT -6
It was not a complaint, just an observation; we're of a mind when it comes to cutting out rolls!
Of course, one could use two dice of different colors, rolled at once.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 19:02:15 GMT -6
Post by Random on Jan 12, 2009 19:02:15 GMT -6
Of course, one could use two dice of different colors, rolled at once. I have a red and a blue d6 that I do this for to make a d12. I simply don't own a d12 small enough to fit well with my other tiny dice. I also don't bother carrying a d4 around most of the time since d8s are easier to roll. But yes, that would work too.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 19:17:50 GMT -6
Post by dwayanu on Jan 12, 2009 19:17:50 GMT -6
It would be more worthwhile if more special considerations than absence of a helmet might be covered by that added die. Is someone risking "friendly fire," trying a shield bash, or bringing some other stratagem into play? Give the outcomes so many chances in six, and look at the Cube of Color!
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 12, 2009 20:02:01 GMT -6
Post by Random on Jan 12, 2009 20:02:01 GMT -6
Sounds easy and fun! What's even better is that (since the players will always be rolling two dice) you don't have to tell them about such certain circumstances.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 13, 2009 0:11:32 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Jan 13, 2009 0:11:32 GMT -6
They make a clear, hollow d6 that contains a much smaller d6, so you could actually make both rolls with only one die, so to speak. Not sure how that would fit in with your tiny dice scheme, though -- the outside one is fairly big.
I agree about the d4, though. But I wish I had a d8 that was just numbered 1-4 twice.
As far as the actual topic is concerned, I'm not sure a specific rule is needed. I like to keep things loose, and assume that a fighter is going to put on a helmet (It's just a good idea!). And if they don't, I'll go ahead and slap them around -- they're asking for trouble.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 13, 2009 0:21:26 GMT -6
Post by dwayanu on Jan 13, 2009 0:21:26 GMT -6
If you remember jargon from board-wargame days, maybe a Cube of Chrome would be most appropriate.
On the other hand, I not long ago went through a session in which we were begging a comrade not to use again his "lucky" silver-hued die !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Helmets
Jan 13, 2009 8:57:47 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2009 8:57:47 GMT -6
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 13, 2009 14:27:24 GMT -6
Post by coffee on Jan 13, 2009 14:27:24 GMT -6
Sweet! Next time I'm down at my friendly local game store, I'm going to look for those.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Helmets
Jan 20, 2009 11:47:01 GMT -6
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2009 11:47:01 GMT -6
My rule is that any creature rolling a critical against a helmet wearing individual must confirm the critical by rolling to hit against the target's armor class. If successful, maximum damage is inflicted. If the confirmation roll is failed, normal damage is inflicted.
|
|
|
Helmets
Jan 21, 2009 15:23:21 GMT -6
Post by Ghul on Jan 21, 2009 15:23:21 GMT -6
My house rule for this is simple: In normal combat, there is a 1 in 6 chance that a foe’s attack will be at the character’s head. If the character is not wearing a helmet, he is treated as effectively AC 9 for that attack. So for characters with no helmet, there is a 1 in 6 chance that opponents will be rolling against AC 9 rather than their armored AC - I figure it'll have the actual effect of making people choose to use helmets pretty frequently. Do you find that this slows down combat at all? I tried something similar to it a while ago (well, years ago) and ran into the following problems: #1. slowing down combat with additional die rolls. #2. determining (consistently) which creatures do and do not qualify for a potential head shot. #3. the player characters being subject to such rules and facing greater mortality as a result. Do you run into any of these issues? Best, Jeff T.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 18, 2017 15:35:26 GMT -6
REF: A green slime slops onto you from above!
PC: I'm wearing plate mail, I'll just take the armor off.
REF: And your helmet too?
PC: Pff, I told you, helmets are too expens - ooohhh nooo...
|
|
|
Post by Scott Anderson on Jul 18, 2017 18:52:31 GMT -6
REF: A green slime slops onto you from above! PC: I'm wearing plate mail, I'll just take the armor off. REF: And your helmet too? PC: Pff, I told you, helmets are too expens - ooohhh nooo... This is absolutely what a helmet is for. You don't need a rule. You make a ruling!
|
|