|
Would there be any benefit to counting helmets as separate piece of armor as far as calculating AC is concerned?
Something along the lines of:
metal cap = +1, light armor
open-faced helmet = +2, medium armor
helm with visor = +3 but -2 to Perception, heavy armor
I know they are supposedly already included in some armor types, but what happens when you add one to something like leather armor, or wear plate mail without one (as in most of the pictures of heroes that I see)?
Just a thought.
I want to see this, but we need a hard ruling on what stacks in terms of magic enhancements. If the AC bonus from a helmet is a Helmet Bonus and not an Armor Bonus, we'll be fine. If it's all just an Armor Bonus, then we're back to the "Does my +2 helmet of fire resistance stack with my +3 breastplate?" headache we have with the armored kilt...
Would there be any benefit to counting helmets as separate piece of armor as far as calculating AC is concerned?
I'd like to see helmets have a mechanical benefit.
To be fair, since most suits of armor assume a helmet is included, I'd almost say it would be more logical to say that your AC drops if you have your helmet off than to give a bonus for it.
On the other hand, you could make a ruling that if your armor normally has a helmet, and you aren't wearing it, opponents gain a +2 bonus on confirming criticals on you if you have your helmet off.
To be fair, since most suits of armor assume a helmet is included, I'd almost say it would be more logical to say that your AC drops if you have your helmet off than to give a bonus for it.
On the other hand, you could make a ruling that if your armor normally has a helmet, and you aren't wearing it, opponents gain a +2 bonus on confirming criticals on you if you have your helmet off.
... Or go the other direction. A helmet could grant bonuses against critical confirmation.
Director of Games
|
Yes, I do, but unfortunately this sort of change is beyond my current scope.. I think. There is definitely room to do some cool things with helmets, but this is a blind spot in the current rules set and if I fill it in, it adds more questions than one GM should have to answer during a quick conversion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Yes, I do, but unfortunately this sort of change is beyond my current scope.. I think. There is definitely room to do some cool things with helmets, but this is a blind spot in the current rules set and if I fill it in, it adds more questions than one GM should have to answer during a quick conversion.
So, does that mean that this will be discussed at a later date, put into a houserule "Unearther Arcana"-style book, or shelved indefinitely?
|
... this is a blind spot in the current rules set ...
HAH Hah hah! Blind spot! Helmets! You're hilarious! :)
Seriously, if helmets were to be made separate armour bonus (or helmet bonus), then it should take up the head slot for magic items regardless of whether it's magic or not. Gotta have a trade off if you're granting another armour option. Just IMO and I could be quite mad. Mad, I tell ya!
Actually, it's not that hard to have a backwards compatible helmet rule.
Let's see, if you wear the helmet you got with the armor, you'll get what you've always gotten.
If you take the helmet off, your AC should go down, but you should get bonuses like freeing up your head slot, getting a bonus to perception checks, and maybe a bonus to cha-skills.
Let's say, light armor doesn't usually come with a helmet, medium armor does, and the helmet is part of the existing armor bonus (+1). Heavy armor is the same, but it's +2.
Plate mail - helmet = +6
Plate mail w/ helmet = +8 (math checks out)
And, if for whatever reason, you needed to wear leather armor and a helmet, you would get a +2 for the armor, and +2 for the helmet, for a total of +4.
In a similar fashion, you could decide what proportion of the spell failure came from the helmet, and what from the the rest of the outfit.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Yes, I do, but unfortunately this sort of change is beyond my current scope.. I think. There is definitely room to do some cool things with helmets, but this is a blind spot in the current rules set and if I fill it in, it adds more questions than one GM should have to answer during a quick conversion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I don't know that it requires any serious retrofitting. If you add helmets as a new armor piece, we can simply assume that NPCs in previously published adventures don't have them.
If the DM wants to add them he/she can, and if not, not.
Simple helmet rule:
Open Helm (requires Medium Armor proficiency)
+1 helmet bonus to AC. Can be enchanted as magic armor.
-1 armor check penalty (also applies to Perception checks).
Weight 3 lbs.
Great Helm (requires Heavy Armor proficiency)
+2 helmet bonus to AC. Can be enchanted as magic armor.
-2 armor check penalty (also applies to Perception checks).
Weight 10 lbs.
Personally, I think light armor already has plenty of advantages, so I don't think I would bother with making a helmet that was unique to it (mail coif, skullcap, etc.). Whether you wanted to make helmets count as "not light armor" for stuff like evasion, ranger weapon style, etc., that's up to you. I could see it, but could be more nuance than you want to add.
Honestly, I think it is a big help to the heavy-armored character model in terms of being able to load up on AC (a need discussed ad nauseum in the endless "lightly armored characters have the best AC" thread), because they can triple-dip with enhancement bonuses to armor, shield, and helmet, which is a nice catch-up mechanism for martial characters at high level.
|
Yes, I do, but unfortunately this sort of change is beyond my current scope.. I think. There is definitely room to do some cool things with helmets, but this is a blind spot in the current rules set and if I fill it in, it adds more questions than one GM should have to answer during a quick conversion.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
While I think helmest with AC is cool, I do not really see a problem in the game this fixes. In fact it presents more problems. If a helmet gets an AC bonus, then what about arm armor, or leg armor? Shouldn't they have individual AC bonuses as well?
It would make sense to use helmets, arms, and legs for AC if we were using a hit loaction system for combat, like GURPS. But since AC is a generic location system, I'd say this causes more problems than it fixes.
That's not to say it isn't cool- which it is. I just don't see the mechanics problem to begin with.
While I think helmest with AC is cool, I do not really see a problem in the game this fixes. In fact it presents more problems. If a helmet gets an AC bonus, then what about arm armor, or leg armor? Shouldn't they have individual AC bonuses as well?
It would make sense to use helmets, arms, and legs for AC if we were using a hit loaction system for combat, like GURPS. But since AC is a generic location system, I'd say this causes more problems than it fixes.
That's not to say it isn't cool- which it is. I just don't see the mechanics problem to begin with.
I agree. And my "fix" above was more about saying that if you must have a mechanical definition of what happens when someone doesn't wear a helmet, that definition would be limited to confirming criticals, so that it isn't a constant headache and works pretty within the existing rules. But its not strictly needed. If anything, there are rules for "hastily donned armor," which you could assume covers not putting your helmet on to cap off the armor you are wearing.
Would it be too odd to have helmets add AC for the purpose of critical confirmation only?
That way, a light helmet could add +1 Helmet Bonus to AC to crit confirmation rolls, medium or open helmet could add +2 AC to crit confirmation, up to full helms at +3, and maybe great helms at +4.
I don't know if there should be enchantment slots for helmet through Craft Arms and Armor, though.
|
|
The only problem I see with having helmets add or subtract AC for crit confirmation is when you roll against the orc to confirm your crit. You roll an 18 which has always hit before and you get excited, then the GM says "nope didn't score cause he is wearing a helmet."
Or the GM is rolling against you and he gets that crit and starts rolling all those dice for damage and then the player remembers he has a helmet so it wasn't a crit afterall.
Reducing the number is better since it does not really affect the results like above. If you would have crit before you will crit without a helmet.
But honestly, it is just one more step to consider, more bookkeeping, and more stuff to track in combat.
I have been using separate helmets for 2 months with no problem.
Most of the baddies in Runelords still hit the helmeted paladin very often, and he fights defensively a lot. If there was any concern that this would drive ACs up too high, I think we can put those to rest. The Sorcerer/Monk in the party far outdoes the Pally on AC without much effort.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Would it be too odd to have helmets add AC for the purpose of critical confirmation only?
That way, a light helmet could add +1 Helmet Bonus to AC to crit confirmation rolls, medium or open helmet could add +2 AC to crit confirmation, up to full helms at +3, and maybe great helms at +4.
I don't know if there should be enchantment slots for helmet through Craft Arms and Armor, though.
I implemented a rule almost identical to this in my most recent campaign, but I wouldn't call it a success for 2 reasons:
1. Only 1 or 2 characters bothered wearing a helmet, cuz it was a party mostly comprised of light types.
2. Nobody (including me) remembered to use the rule.
#1 above is an issue of the particualr circumstance of the campaign. Since it was a warm-weather Al-Qadim game, not a lot of heavy armor was worn.
#2 is the bigger issue; 3.5 is such a rules-intensive game that special rules that only apply sometimes are hard to implement because if they're not "ON" all the time, people forget about them.
I still think it's a good idea, but I'd have to try a little harder to 'sell' it in my next campaign.
|
Rather than boosting AC, I'd like to see helms introduce specialist protections from things such as blinding or stunning. The helm is already subsumed in the armour class.
A visored helm may add some protection from glitterdust blindness or slashing criticals (the new high level ones). A mirrored visor could protect against gaze attacks or attacks that work by bliding flashes etc.
Any helm should protect against stunning effects from physical blows, as they protect the head from being overly jostled or concussed.
Penalties could be for perception, intimidate and other charsima based skills (at least for full faced helms). Possibly interfere with spell casting too.
I think you need to be careful with adding too many items for AC advantage, or tying in critical hit chances etc. If you do this, you run into issues of always trying to work out where you were hit (like Warhammer roleplay). There's already enough dice rolling in this game.
Cheers
While I think helmest with AC is cool, I do not really see a problem in the game this fixes. In fact it presents more problems. If a helmet gets an AC bonus, then what about arm armor, or leg armor? Shouldn't they have individual AC bonuses as well?
Aaah...that brings back memories of playing "Aftermath" where your character could have a titanium-and-kevlar athletic supporter, if you wanted.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Rather than boosting AC, I'd like to see helms introduce specialist protections from things such as blinding or stunning. The helm is already subsumed in the armour class.
A visored helm may add some protection from glitterdust blindness or slashing criticals (the new high level ones). A mirrored visor could protect against gaze attacks or attacks that work by bliding flashes etc.
Any helm should protect against stunning effects from physical blows, as they protect the head from being overly jostled or concussed.
Penalties could be for perception, intimidate and other charsima based skills (at least for full faced helms). Possibly interfere with spell casting too.
I think you need to be careful with adding too many items for AC advantage, or tying in critical hit chances etc. If you do this, you run into issues of always trying to work out where you were hit (like Warhammer roleplay). There's already enough dice rolling in this game.
Cheers
I disagree here, because it's still just an abstracted AC bonus. You don't care where the hit comes. The helmet doesn't provide AC to your head; it adds to your total package of AC. Same thing with critical hit chances. You don't need to know anything about hit location. The helmet is just a game-mechanical placeholder of a thing that you wear that adds to your overall abstract defense, AC vs. crit confirmation rolls.
Also, I would fall on the side of it being useful to add a few more things that add to AC; there are already PLENTY that add to attacks.
Would it be too odd to have helmets add AC for the purpose of critical confirmation only?
That way, a light helmet could add +1 Helmet Bonus to AC to crit confirmation rolls, medium or open helmet could add +2 AC to crit confirmation, up to full helms at +3, and maybe great helms at +4.
I don't know if there should be enchantment slots for helmet through Craft Arms and Armor, though.
This is pretty much how it works HERE
Peace,
tfad
I'd rather not. I like Exalted's approach to the helmet, and agree with it fully for my RPGs...
Something like "In fantasy, a helmet is just a substitute for a cool hairstyle."
I think this thought is a bit retro and outdated personally. Back when I learned to play D&D using a basic set we all had AC bonuses from helmets... and don't forget the extra shield for your back! That +1 or +2 AC from behind was important against backstabs! LOL!
Seriously, piecemealing armor is just asking for problems and complications, but I suppose that is pretty much what Jason B. said above. I would also rather not see this added.
I would like rules on piecemeal armor. Helmet is just another example. We also have Dastanas and Armored Kilts now. The rules should cover how the armor stacks, how the magical bonuses stack and how the magical abilities stack. Else we will continue to see abuse. I think I would save thousands of gold by making buying Dastanas with fire resisitance, a breast plate with invulnerability and an armored kilt with some other power. I joked about it in a diffent thread, but I bet some 3PP has Greaves in a book somewhere as piecemeal armor.
And someone else has an excellent threads on balancing animal skin versus metal armor (due to the effects of mithral). Even if you do not publish piecemeal armor rules as part of PfRPG, it might help to figure it out the rules for the next supplement. Don't publish the rules yet, just figure it out.
|
|
I am obviously late to the conversation, but I had an idea that would add helmets without making them a) overpowered and b) overcomplicated.
Have helmets available, but have the helmet AC bonus only apply to critical confirmation, which would be when they would realistically would come into play.
In other words, any bonus only applies when you are rolling to confirm a critical. This could be slid into the current head slot without too much complexity being added, as it is an infrequent roll.
Just an idea.
|
I am obviously late to the conversation, but I had an idea that would add helmets without making them a) overpowered and b) overcomplicated.
Have helmets available, but have the helmet AC bonus only apply to critical confirmation, which would be when they would realistically would come into play.
In other words, any bonus only applies when you are rolling to confirm a critical. This could be slid into the current head slot without too much complexity being added, as it is an infrequent roll.
Just an idea.
Thats a really good idea...
The helmet bonus itself has no say unless you are going to get hit by a critical...
*changes a few things for next months quest*
I am obviously late to the conversation, but I had an idea that would add helmets without making them a) overpowered and b) overcomplicated.
Have helmets available, but have the helmet AC bonus only apply to critical confirmation, which would be when they would realistically would come into play.
Excellent idea!
I'd rather not. I like Exalted's approach to the helmet, and agree with it fully for my RPGs...
Something like "In fantasy, a helmet is just a substitute for a cool hairstyle."
I like that. ^_^ It's simple, and more importantly - it sounds catchy and has a nice ring to it!
I like that. ^_^ It's simple, and more importantly - it sounds catchy and has a nice ring to it!I'd rather not. I like Exalted's approach to the helmet, and agree with it fully for my RPGs...
Something like "In fantasy, a helmet is just a substitute for a cool hairstyle."
Wish I could say it was my idea, but it was one of the cooler statements Exalted made about its mechanics, IMHO.
|
|
I know everyone is going to hate this but let me throw it out anyway. Assume helmets are already part of most armors (or armours if you prefer) and if you loose yours you take a -1 penalty to your ac and get a +1 bonus to your max dex? Maybe even throw in a change on the spell chance due to you not wearing one.
I know everyone is going to hate this but let me throw it out anyway. Assume helmets are already part of most armors (or armours if you prefer) and if you loose yours you take a -1 penalty to your ac and get a +1 bonus to your max dex? Maybe even throw in a change on the spell chance due to you not wearing one.
Personally, I'd rather see any accessory as an extra as opposed to an assumed inclusion in the armour package. By accessory, I include gantlets, helmets, thick leather boots etc. The reason behind this is simple and does not make much sense historically or realistically speaking, but here it is: the looks.
Both as a player and a DM, I know that I get inspired from art, and I don't think I am the only one. Characters in art are portrayed differently, but it usually comes down to a matter of pure aesthetics. While I don't say that the game system should follow the rules of aestheticism, I find it more fun when the system facilitate the fantasy genre rather than works against it.
This fighter that I got my character inspired from doesn't wear a helmet; then it'd be nice not to be penalized for that. Similarly, this barbarian is half naked yet wears a horned helm; give it a little something for his pure bad-ass attitude.
I think helmets should have something done about critical. After all, there's a good chance that if you received a critical, that's because you got hit on the head. I have helmets work similarly as armour fortification in my game, but a confirmation modifier could work as well.
'findel
|
|
The Full plate Helmet would actually be +1 for the Chainmail Coif, and +1 for the helm that goes over it. Each stacking perception penalties.
A maximillian style full helm with just a vision slit would provide maybe +3 Armor, but the Perception penalty would be HUGE. These helms were designed for jousting...not warfare.
But where do you draw the line with piecemeal armor? greaves, pauldrons, gorgets.
Once you start including piecemeal systems you need a hit location chart. Or lots of special rules, gladiators had very specialized forms of armor. Imagine having a massively armored left arm, a full helmet, and light leather over the rest of you, not to mention the short leather skirt.
Honestly, piecemeal armor does not appeal to me at all. I see it as a very slippery slope for the game, and entirely unnecessary. AC is an abstraction, and piecemeal armor just makes it all the more complicated for little real benefit.
Agreed with Disciple.
Also if helmets start having their own AC benefit, what about all those magical headpieces already available? Will my Headband of Mental Supiority + 4 give me + 4 AC too? What about that helmet of comphrend magic/languages? What type of helmet is it?
I don't mind the basic idea, but these are issues that will come up.
|
|
I'd concur that adding in the helm into standard Ac is more of a headache than it is worth. I'd assume the helm is included in the abstract system of AC. Granted that is a bit of a cop out but not a huge one. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a more robust AC system in an Unearthed Arcana style book, one that does get into the nitty gritty of different armour pieces and such. Also the Conan style with AC as DR and parrying is quite effective. However, for a normal D&D game I'd say the quick and easy abstract method works fine.
I did like the piecemail tables available in second edition through Dark Sun and the complete gladiator books, however I believe that belongs in an "extra rules" book like others have already said.
In my game, I had helmets, greaves, bracers and other bits of specialized armor increase AC against critical strike confirmation rolls, instead of AC. This gives the helmet some benefit while not just becoming another AC buff. You could also just have them grant fortification-like bonuses against criticals (say a 20% chance to negate criticals) if you don't use confirmation rolls.
Another alternative is to reduce the AC of armor by 1 on medium armors and maybe by 2 on heavy armors if your not wearing a helmet. The good? Grant a similar bonus to Perception checks without the helmet.
The problem with allowing helmets or other armor bits to add to AC is that they can be enchanted, which can screw with the balance of the AC system. If you don't mind someone toting around a +5 helmet, +5 shield, +5 full plate, +5 vambraces, +5 greaves, +5 bracers, +5 paldrons, and the like, go ahead.
|
|
The problem with allowing helmets or other armor bits to add to AC is that they can be enchanted, which can screw with the balance of the AC system. If you don't mind someone toting around a +5 helmet, +5 shield, +5 full plate, +5 vambraces, +5 greaves, +5 bracers, +5 paldrons, and the like, go ahead.
I totally get the potential for a whole raft of piecemeal armor +5, but I do think helmets have a bit more history (in real history and in literature) as separate items. Lots of magic helmets in mythology and stories. Not so many magic vambraces. Me? I'd be okay with +5 helmet, +5 shield and +5 armor, partly because most folks would never get above +2 or +3 in each. But, yeah, it could potentially shift tanks' AC up quite a bit and might unbalance things a bit.
I'd also be okay with the idea that if you aren't wearing a helmet, you deduct a point or two from AC. Giving a Perception bonus for taking off your helmet would be weird, though, because that'd be better than someone who never had a helmet to take off. You'd have to add a penalty to Perception checks while wearing normal armor, just like the regular armor check penalties (probably more like 1/2 the normal armor check penalty).
The idea of having a different AC for confirming crits seems strange to me but a lot of folks have said it works.
In the end, helmet ACs will probably have to just be something I house rule, or maybe that shows up somewhere as an optional rule, maybe for low magic campaigns.
Considering the number of people crying "AC IS GIMP!" I could almost go for this to spite that... but I still think anything dealing with piecemeal armor should go into a supplament. Maybe (to keep the enchanement part of it simple) you just average the magical bonus from each peice to get the magical enchanement bonus for the "suit" of armor as a whole?
|
|
Considering the number of people crying "AC IS GIMP!" I could almost go for this to spite that... but I still think anything dealing with piecemeal armor should go into a supplament. Maybe (to keep the enchanement part of it simple) you just average the magical bonus from each peice to get the magical enchanement bonus for the "suit" of armor as a whole?
Or say that certain pieces can only hold up to a certain magic charge - greaves up to +1, bracers +1, breastplate +2, etc. Ideally, these would add up to +5 so that it would have the same net effect as a +5 suit of plate mail or whatever the pieces add up to.
I agree though, any rules about this would definitely appear in a supplement.
To answer the original question, no, I would not like to see helmets work like shields.
I don't know, I and several others have shown that AC does exactly what it is supposed to do: Prevent others from hitting you for HP damage, and force them to use other means of hurting you.
Assuming it should do anything else is silly.
Most of the "non-armored" builds that have high AC that I've seen floated around here rely on one of two things:
1. Impossible stats.
2. Incorrect understanding of stacking rules, and spell rules.
|
|
Why not add a specific helmet, Say Chelexian coif that gives a 10% (or -2)miss chance on critical confirmation. Backwards compatible = yes. Gives a reason to wear it = yes. you could have 2 or 3 different types and with each one you have a corresponding disadvantage such as increased spell penalty or penalties on perception ect..
I'd say the easiest thing would be to increase the chances of a crit if they don't wear a helmet. After all, if you're covered in magically glowing plate armor except for your head... guess where someone's going to try and whack you? The easiest way to simulate this in an abstact system like D&D's is to increase the chances of a critical hit. This avoids adding another piece of armor that can be enchanted raising AC and raising the specter of piecemeal AC ratings... difficult to do in a system in which plate gives a total bonus of +7 or 8 spread among so many pieces... I can see the arguements over the value of the breastplate v. the vambraces, etc. now...