[D&D 3.5] Helms, Helmets, and Headpieces rumors

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe armor peices take up the same slots as magic items?

Just speculating.

 

[Gez]

For that matter, why not divide armor into Mail (body), Helm (head) and Gauntlet/Bracer (Arms), like Final Fantasy does? Then divide the full suit's AC bonus accordingly. A +8 Suit of Full Plate, for exemple, would have +5 or +6 come from the mail, +1 from the Helm and +1 or +2 from the gauntlets. Helms and Gauntlets would penalize sight/listen checks and "fine touch" type skills, respectivly.

Opinions?

Too simple. Do it the Morrowind Way:

Helmet 10%
Cuirass 40%
Left Pauldron 5%
Right Pauldron 5%
Left Bracer 5%
Right Bracer 5%
Greaves 10%
Boots 10%
Shield 10%

Each piece of armor has its value multiplied by the % value, and your average armor is the sum.

Note also that it would open the way to munchkinism yet unknown: mithril bracers and pauldrons of nimbleness, so as to not suffer from high arcane spell failure, adamantine cuirass of fortification, etc. You'll tailor each piece of armor for a different bonus.

On the other hand, that would be much, much more expensive, since you'd have to enchant each component separately -- 1000 gp is enough to have a whole suit of full plate become magical +1 in D&D, but with such a system, you'd need 9000 gp.


Then you have to include a hit location system, and keep track of armor and weapon damage.

Simple and straightforward. And it makes running a combat such a breeze...

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

They should give varying AC bonuses on types of helm, each of which should correspond to the type of armour proficiency required.

Light= little to none
Medium= +1AC, -1 spot or listen
Heavy= +2AC, -1 spot and listen

Then you could describe all the various shapes and styles within each of the categories.

BTW, the above favours heavy armour which imo is not favoured enough.

 

[Stalker0]

They should give varying AC bonuses on types of helm, each of which should correspond to the type of armour proficiency required.

Light= little to none
Medium= +1AC, -1 spot or listen
Heavy= +2AC, -1 spot and listen

If we equate +1 AC to a feat, do to dodge, then you are trading a feat for a couple of skill points. Its going to need to be a bigger penalty if your going to allow AC.

I still think adding AC against crits is the best idea I've heard.

 

[hong]

I still think adding AC against crits is the best idea I've heard.

I think instead of adding to AC for explicitly using a helm, if anything there should be a _penalty_ to AC for explicitly _not_ using a helm. Most suits of armour are already assumed to have some sort of head protection built in. There's no need to give out more bonuses for something that's already being used.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think instead of adding to AC for explicitly using a helm, if anything there should be a _penalty_ to AC for explicitly _not_ using a helm. Most suits of armour are already assumed to have some sort of head protection built in. There's no need to give out more bonuses for something that's already being used.

yep.

joe b.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I think instead of adding to AC for explicitly using a helm, if anything there should be a _penalty_ to AC for explicitly _not_ using a helm. Most suits of armour are already assumed to have some sort of head protection built in. There's no need to give out more bonuses for something that's already being used.

I assumed all armours were sans helmet for my system (see link above).

The problem, for me, with merely penalizing AC for not wearing an included helmet, would be that there is currently no corresponding benefit to help offset the penalty--and therefore little reason (besides the catchall roleplaying one) for not wearing one.

It also limits you to the type of helmet specified for a given AC. What if you want to wear a close-faced helmet with leather--similar to a gladiator or hoplite?

As I mentioned above, the actual modification to the Threat APs can vary according to taste. If you don't want any benefit beyond what is currently available--but don't mind penalizing some of the current armour classes to a greater extent--you could instead use values along the lines of the following...

None: -3 Threat APs

Light: -2 Threat APs

Medium: -1 Threat AP

Heavy: -0 Threat APs

 

[Silly Orc]

If they put helms in 3.5 they will probably work some what liken to the "dastana" (large bracers) from the "Oriental Adventures" and "Arms and Equipment Guide" books.

 

[KnowTheToe]

I don't think they will do this. Why needlessly complicate combat? There seems no benefit to the game. 10 to 1 odds this is a bogus rumor or an option listed in a side bar.