The Eyes Have It: Armor Chinks

[Varyon]

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).