The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

The most recent decapitation thread (as well as the focused defenses thread) started me to thinking about the Eye and Eye Chinks hit locations.

First of all, it's never really set well with me that all hit locations (with the exception of the Torso) have the same penalty to targeting their chinks. Using Tbone's suggestions from his Combat Tweaks Pyramid article alleviates some of this by letting the targets' mobility come in to play, but I'm also thinking that, rather than the penalty being a set -10, perhaps it should be -10 or the original location -3, whichever is worse. In general this will just mean -10 for everything, but it means the Eye hit location (-9) actually has a decent reason to be targeted over the Eye Chinks location (normally -10, but -12 under my proposed system). Also, things like Joints and Arteries/Veins would use -10 as their base (otherwise there's no reason to aim at, say, Leg Chinks, when Femoral Artery Chinks have the same location penalty), except where noted otherwise under Harsh Realism: Armor Gaps.

Another thought applies to those helmets that result in the character suffering from reduced vision (with no real benefit). I'm thinking potentially-eye-protecting face masks should come in 5 varieties: open, protective, restrictive, tunneling, blinding (better names welcome). In general, the amount of material difference between these is so little as to make there be no real weight or price difference (an Open mask probably has 90+% of the weight of a Blinding one).

Class 0: These offer no protection to the eyes at all, and if otherwise a "full" face mask grant only 5/6 protection to the face. They are markedly lighter (5/6ths the weight of a full mask) than the other forms (which are effectively all the same weight as each other). Useful for sneaky types who are largely using the mask to protect their identity.

Class 1: These offer minimal protection, but fully protect the face and are typically unrestrictive. They grant half DR against Eye attacks, none against Eye Chinks attacks. They penalize Vision rolls when the GM rules peripheral vision would be important (such as when keeping an eye out for guards while sneaking about, hence thieves/assassins preferring Open), but not enough to typically make any real difference in combat.

Class 2: These offer solid protection, but restrict the user's vision markedly. They grant full DR against Eye attacks, no DR against Eye Chinks attacks. While worn, such face masks impose No Peripheral Vision on the wearer.

Class 3: These offer excellent protection, but are so restrictive as to often be liabilities. They grant full DR against Eye attacks, and half DR against Eye Chinks. While worn, such face masks impose Tunnel Vision - as a result, they are typically only found on Great Helms (that is, helmets designed to be worn over other helmets, then removed when the fight is joined).

Class 4: These may not have even existed historically, but they are Class 3 helms with extremely small eye slits. They grant full DR against Eye attacks and cannot be targeted by Eye Chinks. While worn, they impose Tunnel Vision, -4 to Vision, and -2 to DX (can't see where you're going).

Class X: These masks lack any sort of eye slits. They grant full DR against Eye attacks and lack Eye Chinks, and their Class cannot be degraded. While worn, such face masks impose Blindness.

Class nP: These masks use a "mesh" type design, allowing the user to see with a large number of very tiny eye slits. Class P is a special version of each of the above - Class 0P uses a large mesh that allows full vision, Class 1P slightly restricts peripheral, etc. Use the numeric class to determine the protection granted (and penalties imposed) by the rest of the mask. For P, there are two types - thin and thick. A thin mesh is extremely weak, offering only 1/4 normal DR for its weight, and imposes a -1 to Vision (cumulative with any penalties from the numeric class). A thick mesh, as in the pictures linked by ArmoredSaint, offers 1/2 normal DR for its weight, imposes a -2 to Vision (again, cumulative), and makes targeting hit locations harder (-1 to hit) and Deceptive Attacks against the wearer more effective (additional -1 to defense, just like Reverse Grip or similar). Thick mesh is only available for Class 0 or Class 1 helms - Class 2P and higher are Class 4.
Class P helms are treated as Class 4 for purposes of targeting Eyes and Eye Chinks.

The idea behind the above is that the majority of weapons that can target the eyes are simply too large to easily get past a face mask. Weapons that normally grant a +2 against Chinks can treat eye protection as being one level lower (against a stiletto, Class 1 offers no protection, Class 2 offers half DR or none against Chinks, Class 3 offers full DR or none against Chinks, Class 4/P offers full DR or half against Chinks). Other weapons, such as bodkin-point arrows and many bullets, would get similar treatment (some very thin weapons, like low-caliber bullets or more needle-like stilettos, may be able to downgrade two steps).

I'm suggesting two modifications above, so let's add on a third one - as I've suggested elsewhere, on a defense that fails by 1 (maybe even 2) against an attack on the Eye, the Face or Skull is struck instead. Skull may be the most likely (ducking is probably the most natural response), so perhaps the Skull is struck on a failure by 1, Face on failure by 2? Additionally, I'd say on an attack against any sort of Chink (or any other sublocation, like Joints and Arteries/Veins), failure by 1 on the defense should probably result in the location itself being struck instead. In the case of Eye Chinks, go with failure by 2 hitting the Eye, failure by 1 hitting the Skull. It may be appropriate (particularly in cinematic games) to allow characters with appropriate Targeted Attacks to buy them up above maximum, but only for the purposes of first negating the innate defense bonuses these locations enjoy (from Tbone's article) via Deceptive Attack, then negating near-miss effects (take -1; miss by 1 is treated as a miss by 2; take -2, miss by 1 is treated as a miss by 3). This would play well with my Tech! suggestion.


Questions, comments, and criticism on any or all of the above is welcome. I think it shores up a few edge cases and, combined with Tbone's article, probably makes the Eye hit location more balanced (although I fear it may go a bit too far).

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

It's been a while since I looked at the rules, but I think it IS an extra -3, to a Max of -10.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

Just a few observations, and likely mostly my interpretations rather than anything from the rules.

This would have to be adjusted if you're using the harsh realism rules, where targeting chinks in armor for the eyes reduces DR to 0 by default, and no amount of protection can help that short of something solid like your Blind protection option.

Targeting chinks in armor can already only be done with impaling, piercing or tight beam burning attacks, so that should help some with the concerns about the size of weapons getting through the armor.

I'm okay with eyes being targeted only at -1 more through eye slits. They are, by definition, going to be in such a place as to effectively guide your weapon to the individual's eyes upon a successful hit.

I would not, however, allow one to target chinks in armor and veins or joints, except in the case of the Harsh Realism rules and targeting the joints of rigid armor (inside the knee or elbow, under the arm, etc), and even then only joints could be targeted, not the veins. You can either hit the vein at full DR or you can try to reduce the DR by targeting chinks or weak areas. I would, however, allow you to randomly hit the veins/arteries like any other normal blow might.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

Per B.400, it's just a flat -8 or -10, no indication of -3 more. If it was -3 more to a max of -10, arms and legs would only be -5.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

Maybe I'm thinking of joints and arteries.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

What about this type of helm?

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections...Helmets&pos=71

http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections...elmets&pos=135

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

I see no problem in assessing a greater penalty to hit eye slits that cause such reduced vision.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

I might rule that the eye slits can't be targeted at all but I'd halve the DR for the whole face because the perforations weaken the metal. Looks like they might enable peripheral vision too.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

The perforations could be compensated for with thicker metal, but you'll have a big problem with blind spots -- if you want to see through a perforated object without blind spots, the separation between holes has to be lower than the size of your pupil, and making a strong mesh with a hole separation of less than 7mm is difficult (obviously, it works for a fencing mask, but that's DR 1 at best, and likely DR 0 vs impaling).

With the way it actually looks, you'll be able to see parts of people and things. That's probably adequate for aiming at large targets such as a torso, not so good for small targets, ranged attacks, or recognizing what an opponent's weapon is doing.

Re: The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks
 

Yep. I agree as general point. What I think has happened is combination of two things in the system.

1). -10 is pretty much the hardest singly applied penalty in the system*, so I think a "it can't get harder than that" justification has been applied.

2). -10 is obviously pretty bloody hard, so I think the argument "it's hard enough" has also been applied.

But I agree I don't think an extra -1 to targeting the eye through eye slits in general is realistic for a couple of reason.

1). not all eyes slits are equal (various helmets demonstrate this) larger gaps in helmets and visors can be nicely modelled with Dan Howard's face locations coverage rules, eye slit protection was also obviously developed over time as well to reduce eye slit penetrating attacks on top of the rest of the face being covered.

2). This is game play related but has a "realism" impact once you have a attacker who is skilled enough or has created a situation advantageous enough to seriously considering an attack with a -9 penality, I'm not sure a -10 penalty is going to make that much difference. I.e the actual increase in difficulty doesn't actually factor much in play.

My suggestion would be to class various different patterns of eye slits as being worth either -1, -2 or -3. Other effects could be done of case by case basis (like the mesh effect protecting eye but weakening overall face protection etc)

I agree that in general some eye slits are going to be less vulnerable to certain thrusting weapons, but I think that can be done with the existing rules modifying weapons. Certain narrow blades (designed for getting into these kind of chinks) already get bonuses to target chinks.

This would also seem to me to fit with the existing rules amending the value game effect of chinks in Low tech for better tailoring etc, etc.

*you can get get harder compound ones obviously.