Get Your Helmets On!

[waysoftheearth]

[Posted in this thread because Combat is explained in U&WA]


I've been thinking about helmets.

The helmet is arguably the single most important piece of protection in the history of conflict, but is reduced to a mere fashion accessory in D&D. Why would any D&D player fork out good coin for a helmet? Why should helmets even be listed for sale at all?

Well... this is what it says in Volume 2 (under the Helm of Reading Magic and Languages, p 37);

It does not protect in the same way as Magic Armor, so if it is worn in combat any hit upon its wearer should be given a 10% chance of striking the helm and smashing it.

(the blue word was added by me).


Other magical helms described on the same page specify:

Treat as non-protective helm if worn in melee.

Well now, because a distinction is made between "protective" and "non-protective" helms we must assume that regular helmets are intended to be of the "protective" sort. I.e., they protect.

But how do they protect?


The text goes on to tell us that there is a 10% chance that any hit should be a head hit (a neat way to resolve this without any further rolling is to allow any attack roll of 19 or 20 to be a head hit -- but that mechanism is not the point of this particular post).

Finally, we are told that a head hit will smash a helm if one is worn in melee.


So. A regular helm protects. And a helmet is smashed if it is hit in melee. One might very readily interpret all this as meaning:

A head hit will smash a helm if one is worn OR deal 1-6 hit points of damage if no helm is worn.


In other words, a protective helm will ablate one head hit by being smashed. And a non-protective helm is smashed without ablating any damage.


Further more, because the text specifies that helms are smashed if hit in melee one might be prepared to argue that missile hits do not smash helmets, and thus helms would deflect arrows without being smashed!


This is why every fighter should have a helm.

[Azafuse]

Nice thought.

Anyway, protective helms usually should have a downside: danger awareness gets worst, because head is almost fully encased.

[Professor P]

Apr 8, 2012 4:20:26 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

...The text goes on to tell us that there is a 10% chance that any hit should be a head hit (a neat way to resolve this without any further rolling is to allow any attack roll of 19 or 20 to be a head hit -- but that mechanism is not the point of this particular post).

This reminds me of the advantage of wearing a helm in the crpg Baldur's Gate, which uses AD&D 2e rules. Helmets prevent critical hits (on a natural 20).

[talysman]

I just say "helms shall be splintered!" in the same way that shields can be. Also, if I'm going to treat helms as (1) normally assumed to be part of the AC, and (2) equivalent to a shield, then if you aren't wearing a helm, there's a 1 in 6 chance that an attack that normally would just barely miss actually hit instead. I'd handle it this way:

• roll d20 for attack as normal;
  
• if roll is 1 point away from being a hit, roll damage;
  
• on a 6+, the attack hits the unprotected head; otherwise, damage is ignored.
  

[Zenopus]

The role of helms is an interesting puzzle. A few thoughts:

Finally, we are told that a head hit will smash a helm if one is worn in melee.

I'm not sure if all of the rules for the Helm of Telepathy can necessarily be extrapolated to non-magical helms. The 10% head hit rule sounds reasonable, but my take is that this particular magical helm is more fragile (perhaps necessitated by its function) than non-magical helms, which can take repeated hits to the head. Looking at it another way, why would a single head hit smash a normal helm whereas the rest of the armor and shields can take repeated (unlimited) hits?

The text goes on to tell us that there is a 10% chance that any hit should be a head hit (a neat way to resolve this without any further rolling is to allow any attack roll of 19 or 20 to be a head hit -- but that mechanism is not the point of this particular post).

10% of all hits is generally far less than 19 or 20 on a d20 roll.
A 19 or 20 would equal 10% of all hits if a character hits on a 1-20.
A first level character requires a 17 or higher to AC 2, which equals 20% of the rolls (17, 18, 19 or 20). They would only hit the head on 10% of these hits, or 2% of all dice rolls (2 in 100 attack rolls). You'd really need a separate d% roll to determine the 10% of hits that are head hits.

However, you could roughly simulate ~10% by saying that a damage roll of 1 on a d6 (~16%) is a head hit. Then perhaps if a character is not wearing a helm they instead take maximal damage for a head hit (6 points).

Alternately, have helmets knocked off the head on a head hit rather than destroyed (Chainmail has a chance of helmets being knocked off in the jousting rules). The character would be penalized the rest of that combat but not afterward. As player, this might be fun as it would make certain fights more frightening but not penalize you the remainder of the adventure. The character might lose the helmet in certain situations (e.g., fighting near a cliff or river, etc). You could go further and give the helmet hit points and when it's knocked off 6 times, then it's destroyed, or some such.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 8, 2012 15:13:05 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

10% of all hits is generally far less than 19 or 20 on a d20 roll.

Ah, true Zenopus. My suggested method gives you 10% of attacks, not 10% of hits. I didn't think that one through in my eagerness

With that in mind, I think I then prefer a damage roll of 6 indicating a head hit. Still no need to roll an extra die, and the high damage score is indicative of a hit to a vulnerable spot.

I also like the notion that helms could be knocked off instead of destroyed. They are still limited to one "use" per combat, but are tougher. The "smashed" rule applies only then to delicate crowns, tiaras, coronets and so on.

[cooper]

I think the intended interpretation of the text is 10% of attacks, reason being is that I figured said attack is against AC 9. I do like some of these interpetations however.

On the subject of helm of telepathy, I don't think this jeweled and delicate helm is meant to indicate a blanket rule, rather it seems to be telling magic users that they don't get an AC 3 on their head--or if they do, it's only until the helmet gets hit for the first time!

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 8, 2012 20:15:30 GMT -6 cooper said:

On the subject of helm of telepathy, I don't think this jeweled and delicate helm is meant to indicate a blanket rule, rather it seems to be telling magic users that they don't get an AC 3 on their head--or if they do, it's only until the helmet gets hit for the first time!

I don't believe it was "intended" as a blanket rule either. But it is interesting to take what is written literally.

In this case, if we completely ignore the entry for the Helm of Reading Magic and Languages, then we are still left with various other helms which are described as "non-protective if worn in melee." Therefore we must assume that regular helms are protective if worn in melee. Then we hunt for clues as to what this might mean... all for fun, of course


Where does the AC 3 on the head come from?

[cooper]

Plate helm would be AC 3, Chain coif AC 5, leather cap AC 7, robe hood AC 9.

Certainly for every class but Mu, there is a definite trade-off implied by using a magical hat.

[aldarron]

Well, it's a cool subject for sure, but just as a reminder, we did talk about his a bit in this thread

odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=workshop&thread=5577&page=1

I do still apply the rule in the manner I mentioned there as it seems to work well. Basically, that's characters not wearing helmets or helmets of a lesser AC than thier body armor face a % roll every time they are attacked. If 10 or less comes up then the attack roll is against whatever AC thier head is - AC9 if no helmet is worn.

For missle weapons, I can't see making helmets impervious to them - that doesn't seem a likely intention or particularly realistic IMHO.

[Thorulfr]

Apr 8, 2012 4:20:26 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

The helmet is arguably the single most important piece of protection in the history of conflict, but is reduced to a mere fashion accessory in D&D.

Perhaps a bit off topic, but useful to keep in mind: the story goes that when the British introduced the "Brodie" helmet in WWI (a pattern based on a medieval design, by the way), forward aid stations noticed an increase in the number of casualties being brought in with head wounds. This was very puzzling...
...until they realized that without the helmets, most soldiers with head wounds hadn't survived long enough to reach the aid station.

[Harbinger]

It's too bad I don't have my old 0-9,0-9 d20s anymore. Then if one of the PCs is not wearing a helm, I just roll two d20s, with one of them the designated 'helmet hit' roll. If it comes up '0' then I resolve the second die against AC9.

[Morandir]

...I have one of those, and that's a brilliant idea. I'm going to try that next week and see how it works!

[Zenopus]

Apr 9, 2012 20:57:26 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I do still apply the rule in the manner I mentioned there as it seems to work well. Basically, that's characters not wearing helmets or helmets of a lesser AC than thier body armor face a % roll every time they are attacked. If 10 or less comes up then the attack roll is against whatever AC thier head is - AC9 if no helmet is worn.

EPT has a helmet rule, and it's basically the same as this but with 1 in 6 (~16%) chance of a head shot:

"If the defender's armour is not all of the same magical defensive class, a special die roll is needed. A suit of armour includes a breast- and back-plate, arm guards, shoulder epaullettes, metal-backed gauntlets, greaves, metal-tipped boots, and a kilt sewn with metal strips. If this is enchanted to + 1, and if the character's helmet is NOT + 1, the referee then rolls to determine whether the attacker's blow strikes the enchanted armour (roughly five out of six chances) or whether it strikes the helmet (roughly one out of six chances). Using the example in the preceding paragraph, thus, a 20 would be needed if the blow struck the armour, while only a 19 would be required if the same blow struck the helmet (assuming that the helmet is steel - a Chlen-hide helmet would need only an 18 to hit)" (pg 83)

Is this also in the pre-TSR EPT manuscript, or was it added for the TSR version?

[Harbinger]

Apr 10, 2012 18:19:03 GMT -6 Morandir said:

...I have one of those, and that's a brilliant idea. I'm going to try that next week and see how it works!

I'd like to think that is why 10% was chosen.

BTW, I tried this with my group and now everyone wears a helmet.

[aldarron]

Apr 10, 2012 18:45:26 GMT -6 Zenopus said:

Apr 9, 2012 20:57:26 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I do still apply the rule in the manner I mentioned there as it seems to work well. Basically, that's characters not wearing helmets or helmets of a lesser AC than thier body armor face a % roll every time they are attacked. If 10 or less comes up then the attack roll is against whatever AC thier head is - AC9 if no helmet is worn.

EPT has a helmet rule, and it's basically the same as this but with 1 in 6 (~16%) chance of a head shot:

"If the defender's armour is not all of the same magical defensive class, a special die roll is needed. A suit of armour includes a breast- and back-plate, arm guards, shoulder epaullettes, metal-backed gauntlets, greaves, metal-tipped boots, and a kilt sewn with metal strips. If this is enchanted to + 1, and if the character's helmet is NOT + 1, the referee then rolls to determine whether the attacker's blow strikes the enchanted armour (roughly five out of six chances) or whether it strikes the helmet (roughly one out of six chances). Using the example in the preceding paragraph, thus, a 20 would be needed if the blow struck the armour, while only a 19 would be required if the same blow struck the helmet (assuming that the helmet is steel - a Chlen-hide helmet would need only an 18 to hit)" (pg 83)

Is this also in the pre-TSR EPT manuscript, or was it added for the TSR version?

Wow, totally missed that. Very cool. As far as I can tell using word searches, the pre TSR EPT does not have that rule, but there are plenty of references to helmets.

[Deleted]

Someplace... I do NOT remember where, I don't have my materials... but SOMEPLACE I thought there was a reference to "If the character is not wearing a helmet, intelligent monsters will concentrate attacks on the head" or some such. In other words, if you're covered in ironmongery except for your noggin, you betcha that's what I'm aiming for.

[James Maliszewski]

Apr 16, 2012 11:52:16 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Someplace... I do NOT remember where

While I can't rule out the possibility that this is referenced somewhere in OD&D, I do know that such a passage exists in the Dungeon Masters Guide -- page 28 to be precise.

[waysoftheearth]

All very interesting stuff.

Personally, I don't like the "overhead" of having to make an additional roll in combat. It doesn't sound like much, but when you are the ref and you have, say, 40 Orcs and 6 Trolls to run, that's a lot of extra fuss that just slows the game down.

FWIW, I'm going to trial this method...

Any damage roll of a 6 is a head hit (excepting that area attacks are never head hits). If a protective helm is worn, it will be knocked off with no damage sustained.


Thus, 1 in 6 hits will be a head hit from man-types, and whoever else rolls a single damage die.

Large monsters can roll multiple damage dice. If any one or more of these results in a 6, they too are head hits. At most one of these damage rolls of 6 can be ablated by the helmet.


On the downside, listening at doors in a helmet gives a player only 1 in 6 chance of hearing what is on the other side. If he removes his helmet, he will instead have 2 chances in 6 of hearing anything on the other side.

[aldarron]

Apr 16, 2012 17:47:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

All very interesting stuff.

Personally, I don't like the "overhead" of having to make an additional roll in combat. It doesn't sound like much, but when you are the ref and you have, say, 40 Orcs and 6 Trolls to run, that's a lot of extra fuss that just slows the game down.

FWIW, I'm going to trial this method...

Any damage roll of a 6 is a head hit (excepting that area attacks are never head hits). If a protective helm is worn, it will be knocked off with no damage sustained.

I like the symmetry of what you are trying to do there, but that will mean you are "stealing" a successful hit 16% of the time and effectively reducing the possible damage range to 1-5 for anyone wearing a helmet when they do get hit.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 16, 2012 20:28:44 GMT -6 aldarron said:

I like the symmetry of what you are trying to do there, but that will mean you are "stealing" a successful hit 16% of the time and effectively reducing the possible damage range to 1-5 for anyone wearing a helmet when they do get hit.

Yes. For exactly one hit, after which they are no longer wearing a helmet.

This should still be sufficient motivation for most fighters to purchase and wear one.

[aldarron]

Apr 17, 2012 17:10:14 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Yes. For exactly one hit, after which they are no longer wearing a helmet.

This should still be sufficient motivation for most fighters to purchase and wear one.

No doubt., but what are you ruling in regards to retrieving the helmet, time wise? I mean can't they just grab it and put it back on thier head or do they need a roll to do that succesfully or is a knocked off helmet now useless?

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 17, 2012 20:26:17 GMT -6 aldarron said:

No doubt., but what are you ruling in regards to retrieving the helmet, time wise? I mean can't they just grab it and put it back on thier head or do they need a roll to do that succesfully or is a knocked off helmet now useless?

It would be up to the individual referee to describe the action. In my game, if a man or orc knocked your helmet off it might fall somewhere nearby, whereas if a giant were to knock it off the helm might sail 60ft through the air, and possibly go down a rabbit hole (simultaneously inventing the game of golf).

Assuming a dislodged helm was reachable, I would rule that retrieving and refitting a helm would take up a (roughly one minute long) melee round (i.e., you couldn't do that and attack), and your opponent (or opponents), if any, would attack you at an advantage while you were distracted. I.e., they would enjoy flank attacks, or similar.

If a player did go to this bother, then I might even roll an item saving throw to see whether the helmet was damaged or not.

FWIW -- I've never once rolled an item saving throw in all my decades of gaming, but this seems like a good spot to use one

[Deleted]

Apr 16, 2012 17:47:56 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

Any damage roll of a 6 is a head hit (excepting that area attacks are never head hits). If a protective helm is worn, it will be knocked off with no damage sustained.

Based on surviving examples and period illustrations, helms and helmets were almost invariably attached with chin straps. Some were even buckled to the breastplate or attached by a short chain (for carrying, not to replace the chin strap.)

EDIT:
Guard chains
Chains which affixed the sword, dagger, and helm to the breastplate, to prevent them from being lost in battle. These seem to be popular only in the 14th Century.

www.arador.com/construction/glossary.html#G

[JMiskimen]

I've simply added an armor class bonus of 1 for anyone (except Magic-Users) wearing a helmet in my games. It seems to work pretty well so far, for both PCs and Humanoid opponents.

But then I've also house ruled armor a bit differently, allowing for bracers (-1, usable by anyone) and heavier shields (-2, usable by Fighting Men only,) which add to encumbrance and reduce movement rates.

[verhaden]

I worry that even adding a separate effect for helmets beyond Armor Class adds a narrative granularity to combat I'm not comfortable with.

For one, not ever hit will knock a helmet off or lose (i.e. downward thrust of a mace to your crown). Many hits would probably dent or smash the helmet in such a way that would impart a fair share of damage or impair visibility. Do I then rule the character gets a -2 to AC? Or maybe a -2 to their attacks until they remove the helmet?

What, then, is to keep players from demanding % chances to crush arm joints on armor and the like?

ways, I think your Hinterlands approach is a far better solution--dividing armor class up into component parts is an easier solution to run with.

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 25, 2012 14:42:44 GMT -6 verhaden said:

ways, I think your Hinterlands approach is a far better solution--dividing armor class up into component parts is an easier solution to run with.

I agree that it (1 pip of AC for wearing a helm, factored out of the basic ACs for armour) is simpler, and more in line with the "abstract" nature of combat.

I know it can work quite well that way -- in fact that's exactly what I've been doing for a number of years now. To a certain extent this thread is a case of wondering (hypothetically) what else might work?

The issue (in my mind) is, and always has been, that low level PCs are arguably too vulnerable for some players' tastes. My "Hinterlands method" of factoring helms out of the base ACs does not really help players in this regard -- instead penalising players who do not purchase a helm.

On the other hand, the "shields shall be splintered" house rule goes a long way toward helping out. The "helms shall be knocked orf" house rule under discussion here could plausibly assist the low level PC in much the same manner as the similar shields house rule.

Well, it's just a thought experiment at this stage seeing as I'm still yet to actually trial it in a game. But I'm still planning to give it a go when time permits

[waysoftheearth]

Apr 25, 2012 10:40:30 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Guard chains
Chains which affixed the sword, dagger, and helm to the breastplate, to prevent them from being lost in battle. These seem to be popular only in the 14th Century.

www.arador.com/construction/glossary.html#G

Very cool site! Assuming a player wanted to purchase guard chains I'd probably charge 10gp extra, and rule that they would prevent a helmet or sword or whatever being knocked out our reach -- but a helm would still require a round to be refitted.

Combat is abstract enough that individual fighting prowess and frequency of "cinematic" events tend to be exaggerated in any case, so I don't have any problem with shields being splintered and helms being knocked off. It happens all the time film and fiction, it's dramatic, and besides which -- it's fun!

[verhaden]

Don't let me discourage you I'm on board with most of your insights.

[vargr1105]

If I may contribute...

I am not experienced in any way with OD&D. My background is more EPT/BD&D. But once I came up with a few rulings about helmets when I was developing a system to give those games a more "swords and sorcery" feel, where a warrior need not have full plate to get a decent AC.


From what I remember, in what pertains to helms, it went something like this:

* Suits of armor equal or better than Chainmail have headgear as a basic component (helmet, skullcap, horned helm, etc). If the headgear is not used AC worsens by 1

* Suits of armor equal or better than Plate have a Great Helm as a basic component (a fully enclosed headpiece, usually with a visor that can be lifted). If the Great Helm is not used AC worsens by 1. Donning a normal helm (as above) makes no difference to AC.

* Using a Great Helm with any armor worse than Plate improves AC by 1

* Using a helm while unarmored (AC 9) improves AC to 8. A Great Helm improves AC to 7.


I also had Large Shields (-2 to AC) in this system and interpreted "Padded Armor" to mean anything from a leather jacket to a Barsoomian harness.

And I toyed with the idea of having the AC of unarmored characters in a duel be calculated as 20-DEX.