Helmets: Under-Used but Over-Important

[Benjamin Olson]

They are not. A great helm is laced on from the outside, and even ordinary helms generally had to be tied on, as buckles that small were expensive. If a helm is worn unlaced, a hit can twist it, leaving the wearer blind and possibly with impaired breathing.

Hence the "generally" qualifier, which was intended precisely to avoid nitpicking over whatever the most finicky helmet was versus the most painless to doff and don rest of the kit.

 

[Bilharzia]

Hence the "generally" qualifier, which was intended precisely to avoid nitpicking over whatever the most finicky helmet was versus the most painless to doff and don rest of the kit.

Right, but the analogy doesn't really work, helmets, any kind of helmet, is not like a shield.

 

[Flamestrike]

If you only have one item of armour, it's going to be a helmet, and before that, you will carry a shield.

In modern warfare, a Plate carrier is preferred over a helmet.

 

[Bilharzia]

In modern warfare, a Plate carrier is preferred over a helmet.

Next you'll be saying peltast shields and javelins have gone out of fashion.

 

[GMMichael]

Why? In film, TV and Plays, it's about recognition of the actor by face.
In novels, it's got many reasons, including some authors simply being utterly ignorant of the physics of melee combat.

Should they? Yes, absolutely. With a shield, you're most likely to get hit near the knee or above the jawline, with a significant chance of in the buttocks or back of the thighs.
A helm isn't as important if you aren't using a shield, as you then are actively parrying or dodging.

So TRPGs are trying to emulate TV shows and plays? I'm not so sure, since in a TRPG, a helmet (usually) doesn't conceal someone's identity.

It's fair for rules to assume that a helm is included in a suit of armor, but I was more interested in the "appropriate" part - does full plate assume a greathelm? Does leather armor assume a skullcap, or no helm? If so, lightly-armored characters have a much greater chance of disfigurement than heavily-armored characters do. But they can probably see and hear much better.

Re: other posts...
I've never heard someone say, "I use my action to ready my shield." So I suspect that if helmet rules were more common, there wouldn't be requirements to don helmets, either. The armored fighter could clank along quietly in the dark, listening and watching without her lid, and throw it on once combat begins, right? (Personally, I'd require actions for these things.) So if a helmet doesn't require the use of a hand like a shield does, what's the cost of using a helmet? The value of seeing and hearing in combat shouldn't be minimized, here.

Sight - combatants need to track enemies, see their weapons and stances, see the battlefield, and see their footing. It's easier to get "flanked" when you have limited vision, and worst case, an enemy could use hiding/concealment rules against you if your visor is exceptionally thick, or say, covered in mud.

Hearing - key for communication with comrades, but also for preventing flanks, and gathering info about what you can't see. Ear/head safety contributes to balance.

A helmet might just be "another piece of armor," but it's not protecting just another body part. You could say that wearing a helmet is an important choice for a player, even if attacks don't/can't target the head. A helm, given the head's importance, could, for example, provide a defensive bump similar to that of some shields, with a cost of losing some ability to locate enemies, to call for healing, and/or to execute some maneuvers (if the helm is bulky).

 

[Grogg of the North]

I've always just assumed that your character has a helmet. But, I've also been laid back as a GM. It's your character. You tell me what s/he looks like!

I recall a, now dead, webcomic where, after seeing the critical hit table, helmets became the party's main goal for questing. I think it was Once Upon A Table. Something like that.

 

[zarionofarabel]

How come everyone thinks most helmets conceal ones identity? Most helmet designs I know of do not cover the face. Also, in most cases warriors in the era of sword fighting and such, WANT to be identifiable. After all, if you are renowned so-and-so with a reputation for being a badass, you want people to know.

 

[pemerton]

This is something which is very system-dependent, I think.

In Prince Valiant, for example, there are three categories of armour: light, medium and heavy.

Light armour is "a shield, usually combined with a light helmet and a few bits of leather or cloth armor".

Medium armour is "a partial suit of metal armor, usually consisting of an open helmet and a breastplate or mail hauberk . . .the typical late Roman infantryman’s style of equipment, and also the Arab knight’s costume".

Heavy armour is "a full suit of chainmail, scale armor or Roman plate armor . . . which covers arms and legs as well as the torso and head. Usually a massive helmet covering the face is a part of this ponderous and extremely expensive equipage."

An attempt to gain an advantage by (say) ripping off or knocking off an opponent's helm would be resolved using the general framework for gaining bonuses or inflicting penalties. There is no mechanical state in the game of being in heavy armour but unhelmeted.

Compared to Prince Valiant, Burning Wheel is far more granular in its treatment of armour - it has six categories (leather/quilted; plated leather; light mail; heavy mail; plated mail; full plate) and four body locations (torso; arms - which can be half-armoured; legs - which can be half-armoured; and head). Wearing a helmet grants the appropriate armour dice to the head, but if it is anything more than a skull cap or hood (the helmet type that corresponds to leather/quilted armour) then it inflicts a penalty to perception/observation checks.

In AD&D's AC system, I would suggest a possible change is to assume that 1 point of AC in armour types between leather and scale comes from a helmet (so that taking it off reduces AC by 1) and that 2 points of AC in armour types between chain and plate comes from a great helm (so that taking it off reduces AC by 1, and replacing it with a lighter helm reduces AC by 1). A great helm can be rated for bulk like other armour in the system, though exactly how this interacts with the rules for DEX, surprise, initiative etc is pretty opaque (though there are some hints in the PHB and DMG).

There would be no point worrying about helmets in 4e D&D's armour system. 5e's system is similar to 4e's and so probably the same thought applies.

 

[Bilharzia]

So TRPGs are trying to emulate TV shows and plays? I'm not so sure, since in a TRPG, a helmet (usually) doesn't conceal someone's identity.

It's fair for rules to assume that a helm is included in a suit of armor, but I was more interested in the "appropriate" part - does full plate assume a greathelm? Does leather armor assume a skullcap, or no helm? If so, lightly-armored characters have a much greater chance of disfigurement than heavily-armored characters do. But they can probably see and hear much better.

Re: other posts...
I've never heard someone say, "I use my action to ready my shield." So I suspect that if helmet rules were more common, there wouldn't be requirements to don helmets, either. The armored fighter could clank along quietly in the dark, listening and watching without her lid, and throw it on once combat begins, right? (Personally, I'd require actions for these things.) So if a helmet doesn't require the use of a hand like a shield does, what's the cost of using a helmet? The value of seeing and hearing in combat shouldn't be minimized, here.

Sight - combatants need to track enemies, see their weapons and stances, see the battlefield, and see their footing. It's easier to get "flanked" when you have limited vision, and worst case, an enemy could use hiding/concealment rules against you if your visor is exceptionally thick, or say, covered in mud.

Hearing - key for communication with comrades, but also for preventing flanks, and gathering info about what you can't see. Ear/head safety contributes to balance.

A helmet might just be "another piece of armor," but it's not protecting just another body part. You could say that wearing a helmet is an important choice for a player, even if attacks don't/can't target the head. A helm, given the head's importance, could, for example, provide a defensive bump similar to that of some shields, with a cost of losing some ability to locate enemies, to call for healing, and/or to execute some maneuvers (if the helm is bulky).

As Zarion has just illustrated, there are plenty helmets that do not limit vision and yet are incredibly study, if lacking in protection for the face, or full protection if they have a movable visor. You could build in all that variability into your game if you really wanted to, say if you're running an obsessively detailed GURPS historical game, but I can't imagine many players or even GMs would maintain that much interest in fiddling about with this stuff especially if your underlying game system is already abstracting armour and hp already, ie. d&d and the like.

I don't get why you're connecting shields with helmets, I don't see how or why you are relating the two. A shield is effectively a specialised weapon which is primarily defensive - it's incredibly easy to parry with it, compared to other types of weapons, it covers a very large area, which can be adjusted very quickly, some shields are so large you can even crouch behind it for full cover, it's an effective defence against virtually any kind of weapon attack, including ranged attacks, it can be used offensively in pushes or bashes, and it's also one of the very few "dual wielding" weapon combinations that actually make sense and work well together.

Helmets are largely static pieces of armour with a lot of variants. Some late medieval helmets had moveable visors which allowed the wearer to tradeoff overheating and restricted vision with cooler, freer breathing and better sight, that's about as dynamic as it gets. I can't see that once you've decided to wear a helmet that you are taking it off/putting it back on inside a combat. I suppose you could be punitive about the very highest level of protection but I'm not sure there's much else to it.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't get why you're connecting shields with helmets, I don't see how or why you are relating the two. A shield is effectively a specialised weapon which is primarily defensive - it's incredibly easy to parry with it, compared to other types of weapons, it covers a very large area, which can be adjusted very quickly, some shields are so large you can even crouch behind it for full cover, it's an effective defence against virtually any kind of weapon attack, including ranged attacks, it can be used offensively in pushes or bashes, and it's also one of the very few "dual wielding" weapon combinations that actually make sense and work well together.

Shield use is complicated, and it's not terribly easy.
You appear to have conflated parry and block, two different technique sets.
You appear to ignore the passive effect of shields.

In a block, you're using mass to prevent a hit by simply putting that mass in the way, usually just elevation or rotation of the shield, without extension. You're letting the opponent hit your shield.
In a parry, you're using movement to prevent a hit by active redirection of the incoming weapon.
The passive effect is that attacks that hit the shield without needing to block nor parry simply don't do much because the mass of the shield prevents rapid accelerations...

Smaller shields, and especially bucklers and small round shields, are usually used to parry -you use it to force the opponent's weapon out of your attack's way.
Larger shields tend to be used to block, not to parry - a quick rotation at the shoulder or elbow to let the attack come in on intended angle, but to have the shield in the way. Essentially, simply stopping the attack by mass.

Good blocking skills can blend blocks and parries, especially snap-rotations to pop the corner up and allow the attack to go over one's head; pulling that off has been a challenge for many a Historical European Martial Art enthusiast (whether HEMA member or SCA member, or other recrudescence group). The tendency is to hide one's head and lose sight of the opponent...

The reason a helmet is important with a shield is this: Many basic shield blocks will turn a high shot from a would-be shoulder hit into a side of head hit. The passive position is, for visibility reasons, with head exposed over the shield, ideally covering the chin or even nose. This puts the high shots often being guided right into the hit on the ear.