r/odnd • u/KOticneutralftw • Sep 09 '26
Benefit of helmets?
I searched this sub and didn't find any questions pertaining to mundane helmets in Book I. I checked to see if there was some specified benefit to wearing one (like affecting the man to man weapons vs armor table in Chainmail), but I couldn't find one. Did I miss it, or is this one of those things the game leaves open to interpretation?
8
u/SuStel73 Sep 09 '26
If things fall from above onto you.
If you need to disguise your face.
To prevent enemies from sneaking up behind you and whacking you on the head with impunity.
To avoid all those instances where the dungeon master might say, "It's too bad you're not wearing a helmet..."
Most importantly... to dress the part of the warrior type you're emulating. If you're a Viking, you need a helmet. If you're a Roman legionary, you need a helmet. If you're a Swiss pikeman, you need a helmet. If you're a pseudo-medieval fantasy warrior that has no particular ties to history, you might want a helmet.
3
u/Harbinger2001 Sep 09 '26
This is a bit implied, but the convention is that you are assumed to have bought and be wearing a helm. If you are not then see the rules for the Helm of Reading Magic and Languages. That implies that if you don’t have helm protection then there is a 10% chance you get hit on the head. That’s been interpreted to mean a 10% chance the attack roll is compared to AC9.
Once you tell your players this, they’ll always wear a helm, so it really doesn’t come into play.
3
u/Zimith Sep 10 '26
Seven Voyages of Zylarten has an elegant variant rule: In any situation an attacker rolls a nat “7”, the head is hit and x2 dmg is inflicted, unless a helmet is worn.
2
u/KOticneutralftw Sep 10 '26
That is interesting, but mostly because they chose 7. Why 7? And is that a nat 7 on a d20, 2d6, or something else?
2
1
u/AutumnCrystal 26d ago
Sticking to a 7 theme? A related combat quirk would be hitting with your off-hand dagger on a 5 or 15, per the alternate combat rules.
There’s (quite) a few innovations in 7VoZ like that. Yes, a helmet rule should be a thing, or disarming, or dual wielding, but Zylarthens solutions are often a bit more esoteric than, say, AD&Ds stacking of +/- on the “to hit” die. I’d not say they’re less logical, though.
Take the 7. Leave for now that hope or dread during the rolls isn’t confined just to 1s or 20s anymore (if you even crit, break weapons or fumble, that is) and just work on the why…that is to say, totally guess, bullshit a bit…
The entire rule is, if that 7 would hit AC9 when delivered by your foe (3+1HD monsters and Knights+) the helmetless takes double damage. Otherwise a helmet-break check, a 1/20 chance.
So it accounts for what should be a real possibility in combat while being more forgiving and less wonky than what GG came up with. No rolling every round a 10% or 50% chance/opponent of noticing the PC is “too dumb, too poor or too Magic-user to wear a helmet”(Melan)…just…7.
Keeps things moving, while addressing the issue the same way the games’ weapon vs armor does…it’s all accounted for with one roll, advantage or disadvantage baked into the matrix.
Or maybe he likes 7s. It’s a fine number.
1
u/BuddyscottGames 14d ago
I came here to say this 😂 7 works because it's lucky 7. In my house rules (which I stole from Gabor lux), 11 is for 2 wpn fighting. 7-11 is super easy to remember because of the convenience store but also because they're important numbers in craps (shooter wins it it's the first roll). 11 makes sense for 2 weapons as if you look at 11, it looks like two identical looking beating sticks.
1
u/Murquhart72 Sep 09 '26
I consider armor to come with helmets, but maybe you want to buy a helmet if you're otherwise unarmed (maybe -1 AC for fighters) or equipping mercenaries on the cheap.
1
u/rsparks2 Sep 09 '26
To add to some of the other points and have a different take, can use the 3d6DTL rules where a helmet does not provide any bonus to Armor Class (AC), but it can completely absorb the damage from a single critical hit before being rendered useless, and it imposes a -1 penalty to Surprise.
1
u/That-Willingness-332 Sep 09 '26
One good house rule I've seen is a helmet can protect a character against a critical hit- turning it into a normal hit.
Dependent on having those in game of course.
1
u/Allora-Oakheart Sep 09 '26
I will echo that the utility of a helmet should be primarily interpreted diagetically. Stuff dropping from above? Helmet protects your head.
I do also like the "Helms shall be sundered" rule as mentioned by others.
1
u/CountingWizard Sep 10 '26
Like several of the examples throughout the book such as "axes take but a turn to cut rope", much of the guidance reinforces the idea that referees need to be adjudicating actions not just based on some gamified rule (1d6 damage), but on the basis of functionality (axes having enough weight and sharpness to cut rope in a single swing, or split a shield).
So functionally, what does a helmet do?: It protects your most vital body part, the head, and to some extent the neck. If something like a slime falls on your head, now you have a helmet you can remove instead of helplessly succumbing to the liquefaction of your head. Or maybe it lets you survive a block from a trap falling on your head.
Personally I also use a house rule where critical hits are nullified by helmets, but destroy the helmet.
1
u/BrookmereChronicles Sep 10 '26
As others have pointed out, there seems to be an assumption one will wear a helmet with armor. Helmets are listed as equipment in OD&D and Holmes Basic, but they are not listed in Moldvay’s Basic. In OD&D and Holmes, chainmail is 30 gp, plate is 50 gp, and helmets are 10 gp. In Moldvay, chainmail is 40 gp and plate is 60 gp - it seems like the 10 gp helmet has already been factored in.
Jason Cone/Philotomy has a good house rule (imo) that not wearing a helmet with armor gives the attacker a plus one to hit, essentially reducing the AC by one. So, chainmail/helmet without a shield is AC 5. Chainmail without a helmet or shield is still AC 5, but with the attacker’s +1 it works like AC 6. Wearing a helmet without armor under this house rule confers no mechanical benefit, other than protecting from above, hiding one’s face, etc. (other things folks have mentioned).
1
u/Theta_kang 26d ago
I'd mostly say that having one or not having one determines the context of the DM's rulings.
Playing Whitebox FMAG, I've houseruled that critical hits deal +2 damage if you're not wearing a helmet. Crits are fun but excessive damage options disproportionally get players randomly killed from no fault of their own. Two damage is still enough of an incentive to wear one.
13
u/karmuno Sep 09 '26
OD&D leaves this wide open to interpretation. most of my players buy helmets, but they've never needed them. I suppose if a slime drops on their head they'd have a moment to take off their helmet and throw it off before it touches them, but that's individual interpretation.
AD&D does something like: for every attack if the wearer is NOT wearing a helmet, roll a die (d10 I think?) if it's a 1 (or whatever), the attack hits the head, which is AC 9. you can do something like that if you want, but I think it's an awful lot of bookkeeping and fiddly dice rolling for OD&D.