Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 8132891" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Ah - I'm seeing helmet-use as a tactical decision, not action. Also, the thread is partially about the rules of the gear, so why do f20, PF2, and BRP treat shields differently...and do they have helmet rules as well, or are helmets just specialized clothing?Darn commanders and their trying-to-efficiently-train-everyone!&nbsp; They probably would have made me wear a helmet too.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f913.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":geek:" title="Geek&nbsp; &nbsp; :geek:"&nbsp; data-smilie="30"data-shortname=":geek:" />That's cool - have you tried it?&nbsp; Does it make the defensive side of combat more interesting?Hmmm...defensive side... could this be why helmets get overlooked: because defense, in general, gets glossed over?&nbsp; Take D&amp;D - a character is always defending, against every attack.&nbsp; (Yes, they made a rule so backstabbers could get around this.)&nbsp; And you don't even get hurt until you're dead, which makes me wonder why a character is able to spend so much time defending.&nbsp; Why have a helmets rule when defense itself doesn't much matter?By this idea, shields aren't important because they're essential for defense; it's because they interfere with one's offensive capabilities (weapon wielding).&nbsp; Of course, assuming that seeing and hearing are less important for offense, and that fantasy characters can't wield a shield and sword in the same hand, or wield a weapon two-handed while wearing a shield.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 8132891, member: 6685730"] Ah - I'm seeing helmet-use as a tactical [I]decision[/I], not action. Also, the thread is partially about the rules of the gear, so why do f20, PF2, and BRP treat shields differently...and do they have helmet rules as well, or are helmets just specialized clothing? Darn commanders and their trying-to-efficiently-train-everyone! They probably would have made me wear a helmet too. :geek: That's cool - have you tried it? Does it make the defensive side of combat more interesting? Hmmm...defensive side... could this be why helmets get overlooked: because defense, in general, gets glossed over? Take D&D - a character is always defending, against every attack. (Yes, they made a rule so backstabbers could get around this.) And you don't even get hurt until you're dead, which makes me wonder why a character is able to spend so much time defending. Why have a helmets rule when defense itself doesn't much matter? By this idea, shields aren't important because they're essential for defense; it's because they interfere with one's offensive capabilities (weapon wielding). Of course, assuming that seeing and hearing are less important for offense, and that fantasy characters can't wield a shield and sword in the same hand, or wield a weapon two-handed while wearing a shield. [/QUOTE]

Verification