Helmets: Under-Used but Over-Important

[GMMichael]

Finally a system where shields are one of the most important items you can have in combat. A helmet is a must, and spears are arguably better than swords. It's the only game I have encountered where the reality of real life melee combat seems to be the basis of the combat engine.

This thread has me thinking of two house rules for helmets. I'm not going for full-real-life, just enough to add more grit to systems that give a nod to shields but not to helmets:

- Add a hit location die to attack rolls. On a head hit, compare damage of attack to table of head-wounds (incapacitated, temporary stun, blind, or deaf). The shape of the helmet protects from each type of head wound, but the ability to detect (scan the battlefield) goes down as protection goes up.

- Helmets provide overall protection (damage reduction or AC), and provide the same amount of penalty on attack and defense rolls.

I know that this is about helmets, but I'm thinking guns. God, there is little that annoys me more than a game with detailed rules for fire arms and listening to a bunch of players who have never held or shot a firearm argue about the rules and what they can do. And of course, I don't want to be "that guy" to crap all over the rules and the players' silly notions about how firearms work...

GM: The whole party is on the ground bleeding, except for you, Headblock. The displacer ogre stands up from tackling Klum, and its image slides to the side as it focuses on you.

HB: I fix my spear in the ground, preparing for its charge. I can do quadruple damage against a charge.

GM: Um, you're in the desert. The sand won't hold the spear fast.

HB: All I have to do is put my foot on it. It'll be fine.

GM: Have you ever held a spear? I've been to SCA, they don't even fix spears if they're on roads...

KL: Here we go. Can I check my phone?

Two things. I'm definitely not after detailed rules for helmets, and clearly, neither are the AAA game designers. The other: the above isn't fully a rules-issue. It's a social contract-issue. When a player argues with the GM, he's ignoring Rule Zero. When a GM argues with a player, she risks breaking the contract: we're all here for fun. The tricky part of the latter is enforcing the rules or story enough for everyone's enjoyment, not just that of the few.

 

[Bilharzia]

Off-topic for the thread but I thought I'd ask the grogs with shield+weapon melee experience:
Question: Assuming a 5 second round what are your thoughts on switching between a fairly static shield-ward position where you are blocking attacks from a particular angle of attack and an active shield-parry attitude where you are using your shield to parry incoming attacks from any possible angle. Also assuming a shield that's suited to both.
1. How quickly could you switch from one to another?
2. Would you allow starting the round with a Ward, then at some point switching to active within the round?
3. Could you just decide to switch from the Ward to an active parry depending on an attack you respond to?
4. Would you allow switching from an active parry attitude to a Ward within the round?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Off-topic for the thread but I thought I'd ask the grogs with shield+weapon melee experience:
Question: Assuming a 5 second round what are your thoughts on switching between a fairly static shield-ward position where you are blocking attacks from a particular angle of attack and an active shield-parry attitude where you are using your shield to parry incoming attacks from any possible angle. Also assuming a shield that's suited to both.
1. How quickly could you switch from one to another?
2. Would you allow starting the round with a Ward, then at some point switching to active within the round?
3. Could you just decide to switch from the Ward to an active parry depending on an attack you respond to?
4. Would you allow switching from an active parry attitude to a Ward within the round?

Yes!

 

[Bilharzia]

Yes!

Hah thanks Zarion! Reeeeaally useful!

 

[zarionofarabel]

Hah thanks Zarion! Reeeeaally useful!

I'm not sure how it works in real life cause I just watch peeps fight on TV's Knight Fight or in YouTube videos of melee combat. In Mythras the Combat Action Ward Location is considered a Free Action within the Combat Round timeframe of 5 seconds.

 

[Bilharzia]

I'm not sure how it works in real life cause I just watch peeps fight on TV's Knight Fight or in YouTube videos of melee combat. In Mythras the Combat Action Ward Location is considered a Free Action within the Combat Round timeframe of 5 seconds.

Yep, I know but I'm asking more specific questions to see what response, if any, there is to these questions from people with combat experience. I already have some answers from HEMA and SCA people, but would be interested in some from here. There are some nuances which are not answered or spelled out in the rules, I have my own house rule interpretation, but I'd like more info just for interest.

Knight Fight is especially egregious

 

[zarionofarabel]

Knight Fight is especially egregious

They should have called it Knight Really Bad Wrestling Match!

 

[Shiroiken]

It really depends on the game system and how they handle armor. For example, D&D treats helmets as part of the armor type, so some have helmets while others don't. Systems that have hit locations, however, have helmets as armor to protect the head (either as damage reduction or AC equivalent). I'm not really sure about historical accuracy, but there were a lot of types that gave a variable amount of protection with an inverse amount visibility and comfort.

 

[GMMichael]

It really depends on the game system and how they handle armor. For example, D&D treats helmets as part of the armor type, so some have helmets while others don't. Systems that have hit locations, however, have helmets as armor to protect the head (either as damage reduction or AC equivalent).

I doubt that there's a (successful) armor type that doesn't include a helmet. For purposes of this thread, we know D&D 5e doesn't use hit locations, so why bother with shield rules? Shouldn't those be part of the armor type too?

Yep, I know but I'm asking more specific questions to see what response, if any, there is to these questions from people with combat experience. . .

Knight Fight is especially egregious

I recommend starting a new thread. Call it "Shield Fight," so this thread's participants know where to help.

Knight Fight is a good video reference for this thread though. Each time you think, "ouch! Didn't he see that coming?" The answer is probably, "no, because he was occupied and wearing a helmet."

 

[pemerton]

I doubt that there's a (successful) armor type that doesn't include a helmet. For purposes of this thread, we know D&D 5e doesn't use hit locations, so why bother with shield rules? Shouldn't those be part of the armor type too?

Well, as far as their defensive function is concerned they largely are part of armour.

They also factor into the rules for holding things, which in turn interacts with damage dice for weapons and related matters.

If you want to create a new subsystem for helmets that interact with the rules for noticing things (eg +1 AC for a heavy helm that => disadvantage on Perception checks) that seems pretty straightforward.