Wielding a weapon should increase your AC

CubicsRube

Hero

• Jun 2, 2018

• #1

Many games have rules that punish you attacking an armed opponent when you are unarmed, but what if we turn it about for d&d?

I definately can't say i've had the experience, but intuition tells me that it would be much harder to attack someone with a knife, let alone a flail or a long sword.

I feel that for melee at least, this should grant a bonus. Perhaps +1 ac for short weapons and +2 for long?

To balance this i would lower the AC provided by armor by 1 point (except light armor - theyve got no where to go).

What does this do? Don't know, it's just a thought I wanted to share.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

plisnithus8

Adventurer

• Jun 2, 2018

• #2

I’m no expert, but it does seem that 2 people fighting with swords would very often use their sword to deflect the other sword.

 

S

Shiroiken

Legend

• Jun 2, 2018

• #3

The problem is this only works for melee. Shooting someone with an arrow is going to be about the same, no matter what weapon they hold, if any at all. Using this, you'd have a Melee AC and Ranged AC, adding a level of complexity without adding much to the game.

 

plisnithus8

Adventurer

• Jun 2, 2018

• #4

If a guy comes at me with a sword, and I am unarmed I probably die.
If a guy comes at me with a sword, and I have a sword I have a chance.
If I have a sword, but someone shoots an arrow at me at range I probably die.
If I have a bow, and a guy attacks me with a sword I probably die.

It seems fairly obvious, but I don’t know if the game complexity is worth. It might be.

 

jgsugden

Legend

• Jun 2, 2018

• #5

D&D is not a real world simulation, and a certain level of abstraction is necessary to make it a fun game.

If we determine that the current system is offensive to us, I'd go in the opposite different direction: Penalize unarmed folks. The 10 AC base assumes a PC has combat tools available to them and there is a penalty of 1 to AC if you are caught defenseless.

 

MarkB

Legend

• Jun 2, 2018

• #6

What about monks? Are they considered armed?

 

J

Josiah Stoll

First Post

• Jun 2, 2018

• #7

MarkB said:

What about monks? Are they considered armed?

Click to expand...

I thought they already were. It worked that way in Pathfinder, at least...

 

Umbran

Mod Squad

Staff member

Supporter

• Jun 2, 2018

• #8

CubicsRube said:

Many games have rules that punish you attacking an armed opponent when you are unarmed, but what if we turn it about for d&d?

I definately can't say i've had the experience, but intuition tells me that it would be much harder to attack someone with a knife, let alone a flail or a long sword.

Click to expand...

No. It is not harder to attack an armed person when you don't have a weapon. It is harder to do so and not get hurt - you can hit them, but they'll skewer you in the process.

So, if you want to model this - if you are not trained in unarmed combat, and you are unarmed and attack someone who wields a weapon, they get an attack of opportunity on you as you come in. In some systems, you can model this as they have a 5' reach, and you have a 0' reach.

 

Last edited: Jun 3, 2018

ad_hoc

(they/them)

• Jun 2, 2018

• #9

CubicsRube said:

What does this do? Don't know, it's just a thought I wanted to share.

Click to expand...

Probably why it isn't a rule.

5e doesn't try to be simulationist. Probably because that is impossible. Instead rules are simple, intuitive, fun, and seek to enable a fantasy action story.

I think a rule like this adds complication without gain.

 

Goblyn

Explorer

• Jun 2, 2018

• #10

Exactly the rule from 3.x and pathfinder, if I recall correctly. I was surprised not to see it in 5th, but I guess the greatly reduced ubiquity of feats in 5th would make it very rare for non-monks to overcome the danger of attacking armed opponents with unarmed strikes.