Being easier to hit

[Dalebert]

It occurs to me there are times when you might WANT to get hit. Some characters how retributive powers like Hellish Rebuke or the power of Tempest Clerics, the details of which evades me. But you get the idea. Those are reasons off the top of my head. There may be others. I don't think there's a mechanic for making yourself easier to hit but it certainly seems absurd that you couldn't.

Seems easy enough to at least decide not to evade the attack. Thus you should be able to remove your dex bonus to AC. It seems a monk should be able to remove their wisdom bonus to AC as well. Not so sure about a barbarian's con bonus. That just seems like a general toughness thing. I don't know if you can "turn off" your health. I suppose you might even be able to not raise your shield and not get that bonus. If you wanted to stay in the spirit of 5e, you could just grant advantage to your opponent to simplify things, not that I think the math is that hard to deduct those modifiers. I have it memorized for most of my characters.

What do you think?

[Citan]

It occurs to me there are times when you might WANT to get hit. Some characters how retributive powers like Hellish Rebuke or the power of Tempest Clerics, the details of which evades me. But you get the idea. Those are reasons off the top of my head. There may be others. I don't think there's a mechanic for making yourself easier to hit but it certainly seems absurd that you couldn't.

Seems easy enough to at least decide not to evade the attack. Thus you should be able to remove your dex bonus to AC. It seems a monk should be able to remove their wisdom bonus to AC as well. Not so sure about a barbarian's con bonus. That just seems like a general toughness thing. I don't know if you can "turn off" your health. I suppose you might even be able to not raise your shield and not get that bonus. If you wanted to stay in the spirit of 5e, you could just grant advantage to your opponent to simplify things, not that I think the math is that hard to deduct those modifiers. I have it memorized for most of my characters.

What do you think?
There are many ways to go at this. Problem is, if as a DM you would allow the player to choose on any basis when he wants to be surely hit and when he wants to try and evade, it could open the way to some annoying powergaming.

So, as a DM, I'd probably allow this from time to time, but making the character spending a resource. Either...
- You use a reaction to give the attacker advantage on his attack (prevents the use of many things, but a few spells such as Armor of Agathys still work).
- You use your action to Ready to receive the next attack (and thus you are guaranteed to be hit by the next attack).

But maybe I'm overthinking about it and there is no real risk of cheese... I lack experience with all the related abilities to project my mind. ^^ I just feel that this would be giving a stronger control of the battle than any player is supposed to have both ways (at least when he's not spending resources such as Cutting Words or Lucky).

[Daishain]

So far as I'm aware, there's no reason to deny a character that actually wants to be hit the privilege. From either a fluff or a game balance perspective.

Off the top of my head, there's only Misty Escape, wrath of the storm, and Hellish rebuke as reasons to do this. Minor reaction damage options and a short range teleport. None are game breaking, all consume resources already, in addition to the damage taken in the process.

Of course, the main reason I don't think this is a game balance issue is I'd doubt the reasoning of anyone that actually want's to do this. Character's get hit often enough already, and guaranteeing damage on yourself is a poor bargain.

[BW022]

...
What do you think?

I would treat as Paralyzed except that the creature can react.

A paralyzed creature is incapacitated (see the condition) and can’t move or speak.
The creature automatically fails Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attack rolls against the creature have advantage.
Any Attack that hits the creature is a critical hit if the attacker is within 5 feet of the creature.


Except they aren't incapacitated. However, I'm pretty sure most players would immediately complain that they would move to actively avoid an attack the moment I describe their opponent putting their arm around your neck, the blade to your throat, and pushing the blade into their neck... or the opponent starts casting a spell at you... or multiple creatures start attacking you. I don't think any creature can willingly not move somewhat when someone is lining a shot up directly at you.

Finally, I have never found this is a useful tactic. I've played a tempest cleric/warlock with heavy armor, domain ability, armor of agathys, and massive constitution... and still you don't want to be hit. Trading blows in this way rarely works. Warlocks also don't have a lot of spell slots and most healers really dislike this strategy... you do 3d10 damage in exchange for a spell slot, taking X damage, and likely having a healer blow a spell slot to heal you (possibly in combat) or needing to rest to use your hit dice to heal. Far better that most creatures don't hit you, but if they do, then use such abilities.

[Gastronomie]

Seems easy enough to at least decide not to evade the attack. Thus you should be able to remove your dex bonus to AC. It seems a monk should be able to remove their wisdom bonus to AC as well. Not so sure about a barbarian's con bonus. That just seems like a general toughness thing. I don't know if you can "turn off" your health. I suppose you might even be able to not raise your shield and not get that bonus. If you wanted to stay in the spirit of 5e, you could just grant advantage to your opponent to simplify things, not that I think the math is that hard to deduct those modifiers. I have it memorized for most of my characters.I would rule the same. First ignore the bonuses given from DEX (as well as WIS for Monks) or from shields, and proceed to give the attack advantage.

Even in this case, certain enemeis may fail the attack. This will be interpreted as "his attack simply missed because he was in too much of a hurry" or "his attack hit but couldn't damage you over your Plate armor".

This makes it easier for DEX based characters with light/mid armor to get themselves hit on purpose compared to STR based characters with heavy armor. This is on purpose. Even if someone wearing heavy armor wanted to get damaged, it's actually pretty difficult...

[Slipperychicken]

I'd just consider the character to be paralyzed: advantage to hit, and all hits are automatic criticals. That's because the guy's standing perfectly still and an attacker can hit highly vulnerable parts of the body like the neck and eyes.


If I was struck by some masochistic urge to avoid the advantage mechanic and make myself do math, then it would work like this: Reduce your dexterity to 1 for the purpose of armor class (i.e. the dex modifier changes from whatever it was to -5), you don't benefit from your shield or any other armor class bonuses that are implied to arise from the character's ability to evade or respond to attacks (such as a monk's wisdom bonus to AC, the AC bonus from the haste spell, or any parry options), attacks against you are automatic criticals if made from within melee range, and if you are willing a character with an appropriate weapon in melee range may simply slay you with a single action without rolling to hit (i.e. cutting your throat, snapping your neck, shooting an arrow through your eye into your brain, etc).

I would also give the option for characters to remove their helmets to decrease the AC bonus from their armor by 1. This is because head protection is an essential part of any armor set. This AC reduction would apply any time a character is wearing armor without a helmet.

[Dalebert]

Auto-crit seems absurdly harsh. Think about it like this. You might want to appear more vulnerable in order to take heat off of another character who actually is vulnerable. In fact, I've heard barbarians state that this is part of the appeal of reckless attack. Yes, you want advantage but it also makes you a preferred target which is actually the point of being a tank. Then if you have a retributive action, you can do some damage at the same time.

It's not necessarily the goal to BE hit, but as the title says, to be easier to hit, i.e. a preferred target. At the very least, I think it should be possible to essentially attack recklessly but not gain the class feature of barbarians. Thus you pay the price but do not get the benefit--enemies have advantage against you but you don't gain advantage with your attacks.

In the long run, it's not sustainable. If you do retributive damage, that makes you less appealing of a target. "Ouch! I might get electrocuted if I attack that guy again!"

[Slipperychicken]

Auto-crit seems absurdly harsh. Think about it like this. You might want to appear more vulnerable in order to take heat off of another character who actually is vulnerable. In fact, I've heard barbarians state that this is part of the appeal of reckless attack. Yes, you want advantage but it also makes you a preferred target which is actually the point of being a tank. Then if you have a retributive action, you can do some damage at the same time.


Oh, I thought the goal here was to simulate a character choosing to not defend himself.


If it's about the character making himself slightly easier to hit, then I'd just have him give enemies free advantage against him. If we get to the point where there's too much advantage and disadvantage going around, then I'd allow him to reduce his dexterity bonus to AC (down to the minimum of -5, indicating the character is not even trying to dodge).

[Safety Sword]

Oh, I thought the goal here was to simulate a character choosing to not defend himself.


If it's about the character making himself slightly easier to hit, then I'd just have him give enemies free advantage against him. If we get to the point where there's too much advantage and disadvantage going around, then I'd allow him to reduce his dexterity bonus to AC (down to the minimum of -5, indicating the character is not even trying to dodge).

You're either trying not to get hit, or you're letting yourself get it.

There shouldn't be a choice to "get hit just a little bit"

[Dalebert]

There shouldn't be a choice to "get hit just a little bit"

"I... am not left-handed."

"I'm not left-handed either."

[Grod_The_Giant]

You're either trying not to get hit, or you're letting yourself get it.

There shouldn't be a choice to "get hit just a little bit"
There is a difference between "intentionally dropping your guard" and "standing perfectly still." Humans have more than two speeds, especially highly trained warriors like PCs.

[R.Shackleford]

This is one of my problems with AC and Hits as shown in D&D and other games.

A hit doesn't always mean you made contact and a miss doesn't always mean you didn't make contact.

So a lot of these features should be "when you are hit or missed", "when you are targeted by X", or "whenever you take damage" to stay consistent with the game and the game's ideology of hits and damage.

Cause right now you could have a DM that describes a miss as the attack rolling off your shield or armor and causing no damage... However you were hit by fluff but you can't use your feature? Other times a DM could describe a powerful, gargantuan, claw swipping at the PC. The claw doesn't come in contact with the PC but as the PC dodged the claw, it tired them out and took HP off... Now you could use Hellish Rebuke?

Seems a bit fiddly to me.

[Dalebert]

The claw doesn't come in contact with the PC but as the PC dodged the claw, it tired them out and took HP off... Now you could use Hellish Rebuke?

What? I've never heard of this. Maybe this is described in teh fluff somewhere but I missed it.

I do understand an attack hitting your armor but not doing damage but I wasn't aware of the reverse--that an attack could fail to make contact at all and yet do damage. My understanding was something wasn't considered a hit unless it penetrated your armor. Hence, there is no longer a touch attack that's different for certain spells or effects.

[R.Shackleford]

What? I've never heard of this. Maybe this is described in teh fluff somewhere but I missed it.

I do understand an attack hitting your armor but not doing damage but I wasn't aware of the reverse--that an attack could fail to make contact at all and yet do damage. My understanding was something wasn't considered a hit unless it penetrated your armor. Hence, there is no longer a touch attack that's different for certain spells or effects.

HP is a combination of meat, endurance, luck, and plot armor, and will to live. Fun times.

"Hit Points

Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.

A creature’s current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature’s hit point maximum down to 0. This number changes frequently as a creature takes damage or receives healing.

Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points. The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points."

"Attack Rolls

When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits. The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."

Nothing in this actually says you have to make physical contact. Hitting just means your attack is successful.

Technically, with how hp is described by RAW, a Fear effect should deal HP damage as it could cause you to lower your will to live.

Fun stuff!

This leads to a DM able to fluff things in drastically different ways than just "it made physical contact/it didn't make physical contact".

And really, from what I recall, HP has always been this way.

[Slipperychicken]

What? I've never heard of this. Maybe this is described in teh fluff somewhere but I missed it.

I do understand an attack hitting your armor but not doing damage but I wasn't aware of the reverse--that an attack could fail to make contact at all and yet do damage. My understanding was something wasn't considered a hit unless it penetrated your armor. Hence, there is no longer a touch attack that's different for certain spells or effects.

Personally, I've always thought that was nonsense. To model attacks which do not hit, we already have misses and parries for that; a miss is indicated by an attack roll not meeting the armor class of the target. A hit, however, is a hit that physically damages the PC, and the extent to which it physically hurts (that is, the proportion of hp lost) is modified in part by the character's ability to do things like roll with punches, get hit in a less-vulnerable area, and ignore pain.

[R.Shackleford]

Personally, I've always thought that was nonsense. A hit is a hit that physically damages the PC, and the extent to which it physically hurts (that is, the proportion of hp lost) is modified in part by the character's ability to do things like roll with punches, get hit in a less-vulnerable area, and ignore pain.

Which, if you ever played sports or perform physical combat, you will know that this is nonsense.

The ability to keep going, pain, and damage isn't just a meat thing. Will to live, will to succeed, and inspiration is a huge part of competition and combat.

[Slipperychicken]

The ability to keep going, pain, and damage isn't just a meat thing. Will to live, will to succeed, and inspiration is a huge part of competition and combat.

Yes. That's why I mentioned rolling with punches and ignoring pain, even before my ninja-edits.

[Dalebert]

HP is a combination of meat, endurance, luck, and plot armor, and will to live. Fun times.

If that's all you're going off of to extrapolate that getting tired from dodging an unsuccessful attack can cause hp damage, then that's on you and your bizarre fluff. Don't blame the book for being weird about hp. Luck can explain a glancing blow rather than a solid one or an arrow bouncing off a coin in a front pocket and just bruising you instead of actually piercing you. You don't have to leap to the notion that a complete non-hit is still doing damage. That's quite a reach from the text quoted. Endurance can mean that the same nasty bruise on you isn't going to cause you to pass out as quickly as it will on a flimsy wizard. Your pain tolerance may be higher. None of that fluff necessarily implies that a non-hit can do hp damage.


To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. If the total of the roll plus modifiers equals or exceeds the target’s Armor Class (AC), the attack hits.

"The attack hits" is pretty clear language.


The loss of hit points has no effect on a creature’s capabilities until the creature drops to 0 hit points."

Thus exhaustion is a completely different mechanic than hp and exhaustion DOES affect your abilities.


Technically, with how hp is described by RAW, a Fear effect should deal HP damage as it could cause you to lower your will to live.

And yet it definitely doesn't so maybe this should call your logic into question.


This leads to a DM able to fluff things in drastically different ways...

DMs can fluff things all kinds of ways, but if you choose to do that, the weirdness is on you. The book describes a hit in very straight-forward terms.

[R.Shackleford]

If that's all you're going off of to extrapolate that getting tired from dodging an unsuccessful attack can cause hp damage, then that's on you and your bizarre fluff. Don't blame the book for being weird about hp. Luck can explain a glancing blow rather than a solid one or an arrow bouncing off a coin in a front pocket and just bruising you instead of actually piercing you. You don't have to leap to the notion that a complete non-hit is still doing damage. That's quite a reach from the text quoted. Endurance can mean that the same nasty bruise on you isn't going to cause you to pass out as quickly as it will on a flimsy wizard. Your pain tolerance may be higher. None of that fluff necessarily implies that a non-hit can do hp damage.



"The attack hits" is pretty clear language.



Thus exhaustion is a completely different mechanic than hp and exhaustion DOES affect your abilities.



And yet it definitely doesn't so maybe this should call your logic into question.



DMs can fluff things all kinds of ways, but if you choose to do that, the weirdness is on you. The book describes a hit in very straight-forward terms.

The disconnect you are having is there is a difference between hitting the difficulty class, AC, and physically hitting a character.

This has always been an issue in D&D because they continue to use simular terms.

Hitting Arumor Class doesn't always equate to physically touching anything. How do you physically touch "luck" or "will to live"?

WotC needs to make this less fiddly.

"If your attack roll is equal to or greater than a target's AC then your attack is successful."

This brings the terminology in line with what HP is and stops the use of hit and hit as two separate things.

You hit the target number =/= you physically hit the target.

[Grod_The_Giant]

HP is a combination of meat, endurance, luck, and plot armor, and will to live. Fun times.
D&D always says this, in a single line or two buried somewhere in the PHB where no-one really looks, but then proceeds to promptly ignore it and write the rest of the game as if HP was meat. Attempts to pretend to the contrary lead to the sort of weirdness you mentioned earlier, where a "hit" isn't always a hit and a "miss" sometimes bounces off armor. You see it in the way healing is always magical, in the slow recovery of hit points... The main exception is 4e, with the potential for nonmagical healing, Bloodied representing an actual wound, healing surges representing fighting spirit, but even then my memory is that it was largely a one-off fluff line that sometimes worked and sometimes made no sense.

Really, I've seen very few games that do a good job of representing the fighting-spirit-vs-meat divide, and none of them are really D&D.

Fate does decently, with everything explicitly being either "near miss" or "defeated," and injuries being an option to reduce the "spirit" damage and keep from being taken out.
Mutants and Masterminds took a weird but genre-appropriate balance, where hits were definitely hits with some consequence (largely reducing your ability to take more hits, and occasionally stunning you), but you could easily shrug off the bruises with a quick breather.
Exalted 3e is I think the best example, odd as that sometimes feels to say, with an explicit divide between attacks that sap "fighting spirit" and ones that target meat. It also manages to make "fighting spirit" more interesting than just a hit point pool to chew through, which I found very clever. (Normal attacks essentially steal initiative, and your damage with a killing blow is based on your current initiative-- it winds up being a measure of your control of the fight more than reaction time)

[R.Shackleford]

D&D always says this, in a single line or two buried somewhere in the PHB where no-one really looks, but then proceeds to promptly ignore it and write the rest of the game as if HP was meat. Attempts to pretend to the contrary lead to the sort of weirdness you mentioned earlier, where a "hit" isn't always a hit and a "miss" sometimes bounces off armor. You see it in the way healing is always magical, in the slow recovery of hit points... The main exception is 4e, with the potential for nonmagical healing, Bloodied representing an actual wound, healing surges representing fighting spirit, but even then my memory is that it was largely a one-off fluff line that sometimes worked and sometimes made no sense.

Really, I've seen very few games that do a good job of representing the fighting-spirit-vs-meat divide, and none of them are really D&D.

Fate does decently, with everything explicitly being either "near miss" or "defeated," and injuries being an option to reduce the "spirit" damage and keep from being taken out.
Mutants and Masterminds took a weird but genre-appropriate balance, where hits were definitely hits with some consequence (largely reducing your ability to take more hits, and occasionally stunning you), but you could easily shrug off the bruises with a quick breather.
Exalted 3e is I think the best example, odd as that sometimes feels to say, with an explicit divide between attacks that sap "fighting spirit" and ones that target meat. It also manages to make "fighting spirit" more interesting than just a hit point pool to chew through, which I found very clever. (Normal attacks essentially steal initiative, and your damage with a killing blow is based on your current initiative-- it winds up being a measure of your control of the fight more than reaction time)


There is nothing weird about being hurt by an attack that didn't physically touch you.

Ever here your body to fast and hurt yourself?

Ever dodge something a run into a wall?

Ever dodge something and feel like you are going to lose?

All of these are a reduction of HP where the attacker didn't touch you, but you still got "hurt".

Just because WotC and many DMs are too lazy to describe attacks and hits as anything g other than meat... Doesnt mean that its weird to do so. That's on them being lazy and one dimensional.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Just because WotC and many DMs are too lazy to describe attacks and hits as anything g other than meat... Doesnt mean that its weird to do so. That's on them being lazy and one dimensional.
I was referring to this sort of thing:

Cause right now you could have a DM that describes a miss as the attack rolling off your shield or armor and causing no damage... However you were hit by fluff but you can't use your feature? Other times a DM could describe a powerful, gargantuan, claw swipping at the PC. The claw doesn't come in contact with the PC but as the PC dodged the claw, it tired them out and took HP off... Now you could use Hellish Rebuke?