Idea: +X AC When Armed

[RSP]

So I had an idea for a house rule I wanted to run by the Playground:

+1 or +2 AC when wielding a weapon the character is proficient with.

This would represent normal parrying a proficient combat would do in combat. It’s always bothered me that an unarmed combatant is just as hard to hit as an armed one, when that shouldn’t be the case.

+2 seems right, numbers-wise, however, I’m leaning towards +1 so a weapon isn’t as good as a shield. I figure Monks would receive the benefit as part of Martial Arts.

Thoughts?

[Yora]

How often do you expect fights with combatants that have no weapons?
I can't recall that situation ever coming up in 22 years.

I think it would be much easier to just give attackers advantage on their attack roll if the defenders are defending only with their bare hands.

[Amnestic]

When are characters not wielding weapons they're proficient with?

[Jerrykhor]

Its just one of those things that don't make sense if you think about it, but actually trying to fix it is kind of pointless and difficult. Your fix is just going to give free +AC across the board.

This reminds me of a DM who thought that its weird that helmets have no benefit in 5e, so he asked us what do we think of giving all helmets +1 AC. We said sure, nice idea, and proceed to enjoy the free +1 AC.

And does 1h+shield builds still get the bonus AC? If not, then its going to make shield more pointless.

My suggestion is to allow all weapon users a Parry ability like some NPCs have, a +2 AC to a single attack that hits using your reaction.

[NaughtyTiger]

Are your players taking too many hits during combat?

Cuz past level 6, I have the opposite problem.

[Arkhios]

When are characters not wielding weapons they're proficient with?

Pretty much all the time if you're a wizard 😅

...I mean, they're proficient with weapons, but hardly use them unless they have ran out of meaningful spells (very unlikely considering cantrips are at-will)

[Dienekes]

At a specific table, this is harmless. Makes your heroes a big tankier than expected, maybe let the GM throw more difficult encounters at them.

But I would ask, what is this trying to accomplish? If it’s trying to do something because you think it gets the physical act of fighting wrong, well, so does every other mechanic in the game.

If it is because you want parrying to be a thing represented in game for more than just one subclass, then I would probably say that when the players I play with say they want to Parry, if means they want to take some action so that they can actually see their hero doing something. A flat +2 doesn’t really do that. So it won’t actually make people feel like they’re parrying anyway.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Pretty much all the time if you're a wizard 😅

...I mean, they're proficient with weapons, but hardly use them unless they have ran out of meaningful spells (very unlikely considering cantrips are at-will)

All you do is switch to staff for your arcane focus, a staff is functional as a quarterstaff. At the very least, most magical staff can if you decide that mundane ones can't.

[Amnestic]

Pretty much all the time if you're a wizard 😅

...I mean, they're proficient with weapons, but hardly use them unless they have ran out of meaningful spells (very unlikely considering cantrips are at-will)

You should still have a weapon in hand for the rare opportunity you get to OA. Better to do 1d4+dex than 1+str (aka 0) damage, after all, and it's not like your hands are being spent on anything else. Even if you've got a shield you can just do the classic drop weapon->cast spell->pick up weapon on your turn.

[Arkhios]

You should still have a weapon in hand for the rare opportunity you get to OA. Better to do 1d4+dex than 1+str (aka 0) damage, after all, and it's not like your hands are being spent on anything else. Even if you've got a shield you can just do the classic drop weapon->cast spell->pick up weapon on your turn.

Why so serious? (jk)

Jokes aside, if a wizard is close enough to be ready to make an opportunity attack with a weapon, something is oh so terribly wrong.

Granted, a staff is actually quite probable one they might have at hand almost at all times, so I'll stand corrected.

[diplomancer]

So I had an idea for a house rule I wanted to run by the Playground:

+1 or +2 AC when wielding a weapon the character is proficient with.

This would represent normal parrying a proficient combat would do in combat. It’s always bothered me that an unarmed combatant is just as hard to hit as an armed one, when that shouldn’t be the case.

+2 seems right, numbers-wise, however, I’m leaning towards +1 so a weapon isn’t as good as a shield. I figure Monks would receive the benefit as part of Martial Arts.

Thoughts?

IF I wanted to do that for the sake of realism, I'd do it as a penalty for being unarmed (monks and people with unarmed fighting style excepted, naturally); this would be to discourage the casters who run around with a shield in one hand and an empty hand in the other, so as to be able to cast freely without "paying" with Warcaster, which is not only too good with little cost, but also looks very silly.

[Witty Username]

Its just one of those things that don't make sense if you think about it, but actually trying to fix it is kind of pointless and difficult. Your fix is just going to give free +AC across the board.

This reminds me of a DM who thought that its weird that helmets have no benefit in 5e, so he asked us what do we think of giving all helmets +1 AC. We said sure, nice idea, and proceed to enjoy the free +1 AC.

And does 1h+shield builds still get the bonus AC? If not, then its going to make shield more pointless.

My suggestion is to allow all weapon users a Parry ability like some NPCs have, a +2 AC to a single attack that hits using your reaction.

I think AD&D had a fun/(probably bad) solution for helmets, I you weren't wearing a helmet then enemies had a 50/50 chance of a headshot which would use the character's unarmored AC (So 10+dex effectively). Not wearing a helmet meant the game tried to smite you.

I would say this is a fix for a non-issue, the situation doesn't come up enough and leads to concerns, I would probably lean more toward giving advantage for attacking an unarmed opponent if it came up during play.

[RSP]

How often do you expect fights with combatants that have no weapons?
I can't recall that situation ever coming up in 22 years.

I think it would be much easier to just give attackers advantage on their attack roll if the defenders are defending only with their bare hands.

It can absolutely come up, particularly in RP social settings, though, yeah, if PCs are always armed to the teeth, 24 hours a day; you might not see it as much.

These situations also lead to Pact of Blade and EK weapon summoning abilities being useful.

I think you’re right and Advantage against unarmed is probably the better way to handle, just to keep numbers in check.

[Yakk]

When you attack a foe in melee, you can do so unguarded.

Doing so permits the foe to attack you first with advantage, unless they are unarmed (don't deal dice of damage with their unarmed attack).

If they hit, your attack has disadvantage; if they don't, your attack has advantage.

There, a simple "you are no threat to me" option.

[arnin77]

So I had an idea for a house rule I wanted to run by the Playground:

+1 or +2 AC when wielding a weapon the character is proficient with.

This would represent normal parrying a proficient combat would do in combat. It’s always bothered me that an unarmed combatant is just as hard to hit as an armed one, when that shouldn’t be the case.

+2 seems right, numbers-wise, however, I’m leaning towards +1 so a weapon isn’t as good as a shield. I figure Monks would receive the benefit as part of Martial Arts.

Thoughts?

You can kind of do this with the feats Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder and I think Swords Bard?

[Saelethil]

So I had an idea for a house rule I wanted to run by the Playground:

+1 or +2 AC when wielding a weapon the character is proficient with.

This would represent normal parrying a proficient combat would do in combat. It’s always bothered me that an unarmed combatant is just as hard to hit as an armed one, when that shouldn’t be the case.

+2 seems right, numbers-wise, however, I’m leaning towards +1 so a weapon isn’t as good as a shield. I figure Monks would receive the benefit as part of Martial Arts.

Thoughts?

What if, as a bonus action while wielding a melee weapon, Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins could take up a defensive stance to increase their AC by half their PB (rounded down)? I wouldn’t give this to full casters because I generally like them being a little squishier but classes that are expected to be able to take more hits usually have less to do with their ba anyway.

[RSP]

You can kind of do this with the feats Defensive Duelist, Dual Wielder and I think Swords Bard?

BM has the Parry maneuver as well, but I’m more concerned with basic defense one would have from learning a weapon (being Proficient in game terms), not special maneuvers one can excel at (which is what I would call the others).


What if, as a bonus action while wielding a melee weapon, Fighers, Rogues, Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, and Paladins could take up a defensive stance to increase their AC by half their PB (rounded down)? I wouldn’t give this to full casters because I generally like them being a little squishier but classes that are expected to be able to take more hits usually have less to do with their ba anyway.

I wouldn’t mind more options in combat like this.

[Schwann145]

You've stumbled into the core flaw of 5e combat - it's boring, there's nothing to do, and half the time (or more) it doesn't make sense.

For a game that is 80% combat, you'd think this would be better addressed, but alas, feedback has very clearly shown that they have to design to the lowest common denominator. :(