[3.5] When will helmets get the recognition they deserve?

[AxeD]

Seriously, unless it's magical (or made from adamantine?) helms are practically worthless. You'd think that it'd provide an AC bonus similar to that of a small shield.

Thoughts, opinions?

[Myou]

Helmets are included in armour.

[Mordokai]

In AD&D, even non-magical helmets provided immunity to critical hits. Needles to say, that made them quite powerful among fighter types, since they were the only ones that could use them.

Note: the above is based on my experience with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale computer games. I have never actually played AD&D in tabletop version, so somebody who did might find these information totally untrue.

[Zovc]

Seriously, unless it's magical (or made from adamantine?) helms are practically worthless. You'd think that it'd provide an AC bonus similar to that of a small shield.

Thoughts, opinions?

In Baldur's Gate (And NWN?), helmets gave you immunity to critical hits.

[Kaiyanwang]

Helmets are included in armour.

This. If you say "full plate" ad you say "+8 armor", it's because in the +8 (and in its encumberance, armor chek, and so on) there is the helmet.

[AxeD]

Helmets are included in armour.

I know that they are a part of full plate armor, but can you say, wear the same helmet with leather armour? Would it affect it at all? Could a spell caster wear a helmet without penalty? I can't imagine how it would cause arcane spell failure.

[woodenbandman]

I always thought that your heroic hair had to be free to billow in the wind if you wanted to benefit from your armor.

[Telonius]

Helmets of some variety are included in the description for the best suits of armor at each weight level. From the SRD:

Breastplate
It comes with a helmet and greaves.

Chain Shirt
A chain shirt comes with a steel cap.

Full Plate
The suit includes gauntlets, heavy leather boots, a visored helmet, and a thick layer of padding that is worn underneath the armor.

Since it's part of the armor, I'd think that the AC granted by the armor would be affected in some way by its presence. And in fact, these three sets grant the highest AC of the Medium, Light, and Heavy armors respectively.

I do think that it would make sense that if somebody wearing padded armor put on a steel cap, that would give him a bit better protection. But the rules don't really support mixing and matching different sets of armor, and don't give any indication what kind of a bump that might be. I'd be inclined to houserule a helmet as a +1 AC, +1 armor check penalty, -1 Dex Bonus (gotta worry about it flying off), 5% arcane spell failure item that can't be enchanted as though it were normal armor.

[kamikasei]

It's just a convention. People look better when you can see their heads properly, so the game doesn't penalize you for going about without your helmet. Personally I'd say it's a good convention and might as well be stuck to.

Since it's part of the armor, I'd think that the AC granted by the armor would be affected in some way by its presence. And in fact, these three sets grant the highest AC of the Medium, Light, and Heavy armors respectively.

But note that you can replace those helms with, say, a headband of intellect and take no AC or other penalty for doing so.

[JeenLeen]

I know that they are a part of full plate armor, but can you say, wear the same helmet with leather armour? Would it affect it at all? Could a spell caster wear a helmet without penalty? I can't imagine how it would cause arcane spell failure.

Same logic that an Animated Shield doesn't add to touch AC, since touching it is still the same as touching you who doesn't touch it

In other words, I agree that helmets should work. It would be mechanically difficult, though, since you'd have to divide helmet AC from armor AC, like how shield bonuses are separate. I guess you could have it be a conditional 'hemlet bonus to AC' that doesn't apply if you are wearing heavy armor.

[Grumman]

I'd be inclined to houserule a helmet as a +1 AC, +1 armor check penalty, -1 Dex Bonus (gotta worry about it flying off), 5% arcane spell failure item that can't be enchanted as though it were normal armor.

I'd suggest the same, but without the -1 Dex Bonus. Quite simply, max Dex bonuses aren't supposed to be cumulative.

[kamikasei]

It would be mechanically difficult, though, since you'd have to divide helmet AC from armor AC, like how shield bonuses are separate. I guess you could have it be a conditional 'hemlet bonus to AC' that doesn't apply if you are wearing heavy armor.

If you want that level of detail, the proper way to go about it would be to use hit locations and work out what parts of the body different armours cover. And if you want that level of detail, the proper way to go about it would be to play a different system with a halfway realistic combat mechanic. D&D is just too abstracted to support it.

[AxeD]

Helmets of some variety are included in the description for the best suits of armor at each weight level. From the SRD:



Since it's part of the armor, I'd think that the AC granted by the armor would be affected in some way by its presence. And in fact, these three sets grant the highest AC of the Medium, Light, and Heavy armors respectively.

I do think that it would make sense that if somebody wearing padded armor put on a steel cap, that would give him a bit better protection. But the rules don't really support mixing and matching different sets of armor, and don't give any indication what kind of a bump that might be. I'd be inclined to houserule a helmet as a +1 AC, +1 armor check penalty, -1 Dex Bonus (gotta worry about it flying off), 5% arcane spell failure item that can't be enchanted as though it were normal armor.

Hmm, do you think it would be acceptable for a great helm to be about: +2 AC, +2 armour check penalty, -5 to spot and listen checks?

BTW how would magic come into play? for example you get shields with AC bonus enhancements?

[Grynning]

If you want super-detailed armor rules, check out Mongoose's Conan d20 RPG. It uses armor as DR and level based AC, but it does have rules for helmets, layering various armor types, etc. It also has probably the most nitpicky and in-depth combat rules of any d20 system game, so it's definitely not meant for casual gamers, YMMV.

[Jarawara]

But note that you can replace those helms with, say, a headband of intellect and take no AC or other penalty for doing so.

Player: "I remove my helmet, and place upon my head the Headband of Intellect."

DM: "Your mind swirls with newfound intellect, and suddenly you become aware at how un-intelligent it is to remove your helmet."

Player: "oh... right."

[kamikasei]

Note that for a higher-level Factotum, for example, swapping the helmet for a headband of intellect actually increases your AC.

[Morty]

Since AC and HP are both largely abstract, I wouldn't include any additional rules for wearing a helmet from a different armor type. It'd be too much hassle to make up all those rules.

[Renegade Paladin]

I'd be inclined to houserule a helmet as a +1 AC, +1 armor check penalty, -1 Dex Bonus (gotta worry about it flying off), 5% arcane spell failure item that can't be enchanted as though it were normal armor.

Flying off? I don't know what kind of helmets you wear, but I've never encountered a combat helmet (and I've worn a few) that would just fly off. Because if it would fly off just from normal moving around if you aren't careful, it isn't going to stay on if someone hits it with a weapon.

[LibraryOgre]

In AD&D, even non-magical helmets provided immunity to critical hits. Needles to say, that made them quite powerful among fighter types, since they were the only ones that could use them.

Note: the above is based on my experience with Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale computer games. I have never actually played AD&D in tabletop version, so somebody who did might find these information totally untrue.

It is, but your caveat saves me from excoriating you about it.

Seriously, though, I rather like the idea that helms will protect you from critical hits. What I would probably rule is that they give you (depending on the helm) a +X to AC against critical confirmation. So, for example, if you have a 14 AC, and are wearing a helm which gave you a +4, the critical confirmation would have to roll against an 18 AC, not a 14... which is enough to save you once in a while.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Oh, back in AD&D helms were important - I believe they gave you defense against Head Shots (since, IIRC, you could theoretically do Called Shots back then).

In any case, WoTC D&D has moved towards simplification in terms of combat; for example, shields now give a flat AC bonus instead of the original, more complicated, rules.

Folks need to know their roots

[Matthew]

Indeed, though in first edition AD&D not wearing a helmet had a special rule that 1 in every X attacks would be directed at that unarmoured location, with results that I forget just at the moment.

[edit] Here we go:

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, Dungeon Master's Guide (1979), p. 28.

Helmets

It is assumed that an appropriate type of head armouring will be added to the suit of armour in order to allow uniform protection of the wearer. Wearing of a "great helm" adds the appropriate weight and restricts vision to the front 60° only, but it gives the head AC 1. If a helmet is not worn, 1 blow in 6 will strike at the AC 10 head, unless the opponent is intelligent, in which case 1 blow in 2 will be aimed at the AC 10 head (d6, 1-3 = head blow).

As it goes, second edition neglected to include this rule, but, as Oracle Hunter mentions above, later introduced various "called shot" mechanics.

[AxeD]

Player: "I remove my helmet, and place upon my head the Headband of Intellect."

DM: "Your mind swirls with newfound intellect, and suddenly you become aware at how un-intelligent it is to remove your helmet."

Player: "oh... right."

Nice

[bosssmiley]

• They did in OD&D (not wearing a helmet drops your AC by 1 to represent the enemy going for your delicious exposed face).
• They did in AD&D (as cited above).
• They did in the OA and Historic Reference piecemeal armour systems (helmets gave you a +1 AC, no questions asked).
• They did in my own homebrew sectional armour system derived from WFRP.

Just because the current rule sets don't, it doesn't mean the idea hasn't been explored already.

Related: super quick hit locations for D&D (borrowed from hackslash)

1: look at the digits column of the damage you just rolled.
2: compare to this chart

0 - arm
1 - arm
2 - arm
3 - leg
4 - leg
5 - body
6 - body
7 - body
8 - body
9 - head

3: glee at the fact that substantial damage = hitting vital areas.

[AxeD]

• They did in OD&D (not wearing a helmet drops your AC by 1 to represent the enemy going for your delicious exposed face).
• They did in AD&D (as cited above).
• They did in the OA and Historic Reference piecemeal armour systems (helmets gave you a +1 AC, no questions asked).
• They did in my own homebrew sectional armour system derived from WFRP.

Just because the current rule sets don't, it doesn't mean the idea hasn't been explored already.

Related: super quick hit locations for D&D (borrowed from hackslash)

1: look at the digits column of the damage you just rolled.
2: compare to this chart

0 - arm
1 - arm
2 - arm
3 - leg
4 - leg
5 - body
6 - body
7 - body
8 - body
9 - head

3: glee at the fact that substantial damage = hitting vital areas.

Cheers, I vaguely remember reading about this stuff somewhere before. I was just wondering how it impacted 3.5

[Oracle_Hunter]

Cheers, I vaguely remember reading about this stuff somewhere before. I was just wondering how it impacted 3.5

It doesn't.

WotC D&D simplified combat for a reason. Now, instead of remembering how many attacks your shield has defended against this round, you just add +1 to your AC. And instead of wondering whether or not you have a helm, you take every attack against AC.

If you're wondering about enchantment, then it's the same reason you can't wear Leather Pants +1 - extra bookkeeping for dubious reasons.

[TheThan]

It's just a convention. People look better when you can see their heads properly.. Personally I'd say it's a good convention and might as well be stuck to.

I dunno, Darth Vader looks pretty good wearing his helmet.

[Kylarra]

Helm of brilliance!

[deuxhero]

Player: "I remove my helmet, and place upon my head the Headband of Intellect."

DM: "Your mind swirls with newfound intellect, and suddenly you become aware at how un-intelligent it is to remove your helmet."

Player: "oh... right."

Player: My helm is non-magical and has no logical reason to prevent me from wearing a headband. I put my helm on over my headband.

[LibraryOgre]

Player: My helm is non-magical and has no logical reason to prevent me from wearing a headband. I put my helm on over my headband.

DM: The diamond in the headband's front keeps stabbing you in the forehead. Take -3 to Concentration.

[Draz74]

DM: The diamond in the headband's front keeps stabbing you in the forehead. Take -3 to Concentration.

What kind of incompetent armorsmith hasn't modified his helmets to be adventurer-equipment-friendly yet, and why hasn't he been driven out of business by the armorsmiths who have?