D&D 5E helmets?

[ClearlyTough69]

I'd house rule it. If you're not wearing a helmet, you don't get the full effect of the armor. So if they aren't wearing a helmet, reduce the AC from that armor by 1.

You could go further and impose disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on hearing.


[EDIT] I've just discovered that several people have said this already - my apologies for not reading the full thread and for any trodden-on toes.

 

[akr71]

You could go further and impose disadvantage on Perception checks that rely on hearing.

Hmm, that is an interesting idea. I might go so far to say anyone one (proficient or not) in heavy armor has disadvantage on hearing and site based Perception checks unless they specifically state that they are standing still or taking of the helmet to mitigate the clanking and/or blinders.

If I were to implement this, I would probably add [MENTION=284]Caliban[/MENTION] crit negating house rule too.

 

[Wulffolk]

If my opponent critted, they roll a d20 again if I had on a helmet and have to get 10 + 18 (my AC) + 3 (my Con mod) or 31?

How it works is 10 + armor bonus (for example +2 for leather) + CON bonus (for example +2) = DC 14 for the opponent to confirm it's crit

If the same person was not wearing head protection then the DC would be 10 + CON bonus, which would be 12 in the example above.

 

[Hriston]

Is there some sort of precedent for the idea that a crit represents a blow to the head? As a DM and player, I think I would find that sort of thing very confining.

 

[Caliban]

Is there some sort of precedent for the idea that a crit represents a blow to the head? As a DM and player, I think I would find that sort of thing very confining.

Crits represent a hit on a vulnerable spot - they hit a chink in your armor, or hit an internal organ that you care about rather than skin or muscle, opened a vein, etc. Armor is specifically designed to cover your vulnerable bits. If you aren't wearing a helm then your head is the most exposed and vulnerable portion of your anatomy.

But if a crit always being a head seems unlikely, that is why I also suggested an option for a 1 in 6 chance of the helmet to block the crit. It's still very abstract and oversimplified, but if you divide a human into 4 limbs, a torso, and head - then a crit can theoretically hit any of them, and a D6 roll is a simple way of checking to see if they hit the head, which the helmet specifically protects.

 

[Barolo]

Just beware that negating crits is the only benefit of adamantine armor, so adding crit negation to helmet use would make adamantine armor obsolete.

 

[Caliban]

Just beware that negating crits is the only benefit of adamantine armor, so adding crit negation to helmet use would make adamantine armor obsolete.

That's why I suggested the helmet only have a one-shot crit negation, then it's broken. If you think that's still too good, say it can't negate crits from magic weapons or spells.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Helmets have never come up in my games. After reading this thread I hope it stays that way.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I think this leads to a mess of rules.

Do you change the unarmed attack rule to account for a character wearing, or not wearing, heavy gauntlets? Tool proficiencies? If a character takes off their gauntlets to disarm a trap, what effect does that have on their AC when attacked? Does a shoulder pauldron give you some bonus when shoving someone? Do heavy boots affect climbing speed?

These are not necessarily bad rules, mind you. Just not rules that suit the relatively simple combat engine inside D&D.

 

[Reynard]

5E in particular is especially lite, more in line with 2E than 3E or Pathfinder. It doesn't seem like helmet rules offer much when looking at the game as a whole. I do think a "crunchier" 5E would be interesting, as a curiosity if nothing else (but I would not want to see the core rules go that way, to be clear).