Helmets: Under-Used but Over-Important

[GMMichael]

I just watched a video of a warrior going into a to-the-death duel. He grabs his helmet, but to take it off, not put it on.

Now I'm wondering:

Why do shields commonly get special treatment (rules) in TRPGs while helmets do not?

Should rules assume that wearing armor means wearing an appropriate helm?

For reference:

 

[Jd Smith1]

In my settings, a hit to an unprotected head does double damage.

In most Hollywood movies (other than Westerns), lead actors and heroes do not wear headgear unless it is their trademark.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I've found in Mythras that the first piece of armour peeps go for is a helmet.

They usually get a shield before a helmet, but in Mythras, shields don't work like armour, or add to the effects of wearing armour.

 

[ninjayeti]

Well at the very least using a shield occupies a hand, so there is a pretty obvious trade-off. You can't dual wield, swing a greataxe, shoot a bow, climb a rope, etc. Some characters that could use a shield choose not to.

Unless a system uses hit locations there is usually no reason to know if any particular bit of armor is being worn or not. Helmet, gauntlet, greaves, its all just armor. And if you are giving a benefit for wearing a helmet with no drawback then isn't every character just going to write it on their character sheet and forget about it. I don't think that would really add anything interesting to the game.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Well at the very least using a shield occupies a hand, so there is a pretty obvious trade-off. You can't dual wield, swing a greataxe, shoot a bow, climb a rope, etc. Some characters that could use a shield choose not to.

Unless a system uses hit locations there is usually no reason to know if any particular bit of armor is being worn or not. Helmet, gauntlet, greaves, its all just armor. And if you are giving a benefit for wearing a helmet with no drawback then isn't every character just going to write it on their character sheet and forget about it. I don't think that would really add anything interesting to the game.

Ah, but it does. It restricts hearing, and for some designs, vision. It negatively affects charisma checks. In hot weather the wearer will risk heat stroke. It is an entire class of magical items to add.

Just to name a few.

 

[zarionofarabel]

It negatively affects charisma checks.

Why? What if the person you are talking to thinks the helmet is cool looking, wouldn't that be a bonus? Or if you are trying to be intimidating and they think it's scary?

 

[Dioltach]

In the old Black Isle AD&D computer games, wearing a helmet protected you from critical hits. That would be quick and simple rule to add in. Of course with penalties to Spot and Listen checks.

 

[Bilharzia]

If you only have one item of armour, it's going to be a helmet, and before that, you will carry a shield. The helmet because a hit to the head can debilitate you in a way that a hit elsewhere might not, the shield because it can stop a hit before armour becomes a factor. If you don't model hit locations or damage absorption using armour then your system is just going around in circles, just live with the fact you are using an abstracted combat system.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Why? What if the person you are talking to thinks the helmet is cool looking, wouldn't that be a bonus? Or if you are trying to be intimidating and they think it's scary?

I was basing the penalty upon the fact that it would remove a lot of the unspoken cues common to a face-to-face conversation, thus making it harder for the wearer to bring the force of his charisma (speaking ability) to bear.

 

[GMMichael]

If you only have one item of armour, it's going to be a helmet, and before that, you will carry a shield. The helmet because a hit to the head can debilitate you in a way that a hit elsewhere might not, the shield because it can stop a hit before armour becomes a factor.

So true. I mean, haven't we all seen Gerard Butler in 300?

Well at the very least using a shield occupies a hand, so there is a pretty obvious trade-off. You can't dual wield, swing a greataxe, shoot a bow, climb a rope, etc. Some characters that could use a shield choose not to.

Unless a system uses hit locations there is usually no reason to know if any particular bit of armor is being worn or not. Helmet, gauntlet, greaves, its all just armor. And if you are giving a benefit for wearing a helmet with no drawback then isn't every character just going to write it on their character sheet and forget about it.

You're right: the shield-or-no-shield trade-off is pretty obvious. Being less obvious doesn't reduce the importance of the helmet-choice, though. I suspect that many designers who can see the clear shield-choice just haven't been hit in the head before. If they had, the helmet-choice would be obvious too.

There's a reason @Jd Smith1 uses double damage for head shots. It's the single-best place to hit your opponent. An arm can take a scratch. An eye - not so much. Even if a game doesn't use hit location, the head is so important that it merits a special rule. . . right?