Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 10687" data-attributes="member: 1495">Why...your helmet of course!&lt;---<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />__________________________________________________Another tidbit from the dusty tomes...Much of my campaign has a dark ages feel with respect to the type of armor worn, yet the primary defensive items of this time are woefully under-represented in the game. The helmet is not presented at all (leaving aside its inclusion in certain armour descriptions), except as a magical item, and the shield provides minimal protection. If any others feel the same, I offer a few suggestions on how to rectify this.(Note: I've only included Helmets in this post--they seemed to get the most positive response last time around <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> )The underlying assumption being, that wearing a helmet doesn't make you any harder to hit; but when a threat is scored a disproportionate number of these will target the head, and therefore a helmet should provide a disproportionate amount of protection at these times--and not having one on at such times is a VERY bad idea indeed![code][color=red][size=4]HELMETS&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Type&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; ThreatAP's&nbsp; &nbsp; Penalty&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; SpellFailNone&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -4&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +0%&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Light&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -1&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +10%Medium&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 0&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -3&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +25%Heavy&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +2&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; -6&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +50%[/size][/color][/code]notes-Assumes values for armour given in PHB are sans helmet.ThreatAP's: added to armor class before threat roll is made to test for a critical.Penalty(proficient): applies to all checks related to vision or hearing(and perhaps smell, in the case of the heavy helm). One-half of the modifier(0/0/-1/-3) applies to archery(bows, not crossbows).Penalty(non-proficient): applies to all checks related to vision or hearing(and sometimes smell). The greater of the helmet or armor penalty applies to all attack rolls.SpellFail: applies to spells with verbal components.Well, there you have it. Let me know what you think; also, I'd be interested in seeing anyhouse rules you may have come up with to deal with these issues.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thorvald Kviksverd, post: 10687, member: 1495"] Why...your [i]helmet[/i] of course! <---;) __________________________________________________ Another tidbit from the dusty tomes... Much of my campaign has a dark ages feel with respect to the type of armor worn, yet the primary defensive items of this time are woefully under-represented in the game. The helmet is not presented at all (leaving aside its inclusion in [i]certain[/i] armour descriptions), except as a magical item, and the shield provides minimal protection. If any others feel the same, I offer a few suggestions on how to rectify this. (Note: I've only included Helmets in this post--they seemed to get the most positive response last time around ;) ) The underlying assumption being, that wearing a helmet doesn't make you any harder to hit; but when a threat is scored a disproportionate number of these will target the head, and therefore a helmet should provide a disproportionate amount of protection at these times--and not having one on at such times is a VERY bad idea indeed! [code] [color=red][size=4] HELMETS Type ThreatAP's Penalty SpellFail None -4 0 +0% Light -2 -1 +10% Medium 0 -3 +25% Heavy +2 -6 +50% [/size] [/color] [/code] notes- [b]Assumes values for armour given in PHB are [i]sans[/i] helmet.[/b] [b]ThreatAP's:[/b] added to armor class before threat roll is made to test for a critical. [b]Penalty(proficient):[/b] applies to all checks related to vision or hearing(and perhaps smell, in the case of the heavy helm). One-half of the modifier(0/0/-1/-3) applies to archery(bows, not crossbows). [b]Penalty(non-proficient):[/b] applies to all checks related to vision or hearing(and sometimes smell). The greater of the helmet or armor penalty applies to all attack rolls. [b]SpellFail:[/b] applies to spells with verbal components. Well, there you have it. Let me know what you think; also, I'd be interested in seeing any house rules you may have come up with to deal with these issues. [/QUOTE]

Verification