AC and empty hands [Archive] - Wizards Community

AC and empty hands [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gworraent
12-22-05, 07:38 PM The only thing that really irks me about AC is that your AC doesnt go up or down depending on if you are holding something in your hand. A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC. Yeah I know there is two weapon defense, but dont you think that there should be some sort of "parry" bonus to your AC for holding something with which to block melee attacks
Helian
12-22-05, 09:00 PM Well, if you attack someone while unarmed, they get an AoO if they have a weapon in hand. That should be a good enough advantage. There is no point giving everyone that is using a weapon a +1 ac, it might make more sense that people NOT using weapons (or weaponlike abilities, spells, unarmed strike feat) should get a -1 ac as it is against the norm and less for the majority to calculate.
Again, I believe the AoO is more than enough of an advantage (or enough of a penalty for unarmed combatants)
mvincent
12-22-05, 09:15 PM A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC.While an armed commoner might be more likely to parry, an unarmed commoner is likely to be a lot more cautious (and will be dodging more, too). Plus, parries don't work against ranged attacks.

Even still, your observation is somewhat valid, but D&D uses an abstract combat system designed more for simplification and balance. I wouldn't sweat it.
Tyler Do'Urden
12-23-05, 03:53 AM Yeah, this situation is covered by the fact that anyone who doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike draws an attack of opportunity for attacking someone with a weapon. If you've got two commoners (or two of any class other than monk), one of whom has a quarterstaff, the guy with the staff is getting twice as many attacks as the unarmed guy, and dealing more damage.

The effect is actually a lot more profound than any reasonable AC penalty. In any case, the guy with the staff wins.
Vahenir
12-23-05, 04:11 AM While an armed commoner might be more likely to parry, an unarmed commoner is likely to be a lot more cautious (and will be dodging more, too).

This is the most relevant opinion, I think, and I agree with it completely.

A person with a weapon with which they can parry (and attack!) is going to 'get in there,' while a person without is going to be doing a lot more in the way of avoidance.

These factors balance out. The guy with the sword or staff can block, but needs to basically stay on his feet and facing forward to do so, putting himself in harm's way. The guy without anything to defend himself is going to be zig-zagging and falling all over himself to get out of the way of a swinging weapon, so he's going to be an exceptionally hard target to hit, but he lacks anything to deflect incoming blows with.

It evens out perfectly. No rule adjustments needed.

Actually, I would say that the guy that's totally unarmoured and weaponless should be getting the bonus to AC. Ever tried to punch a guy that was essentially tumbling all over the place and running in circles trying to avoid you? Unencumbered people are difficult to peg down.
phelanarcetus
12-23-05, 10:22 AM This is the most relevant opinion, I think, and I agree with it completely.

Actually, I would say that the guy that's totally unarmoured and weaponless should be getting the bonus to AC. Ever tried to punch a guy that was essentially tumbling all over the place and running in circles trying to avoid you? Unencumbered people are difficult to peg down.

I've been that guy. Almost all the people I sparred with had 50-100 pounds on me. Only way in hell to survive was to use my speed advantage to get a hit in, and then not be there.

Also, who says that someone skilled in fighting unarmed (presumably this means the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) isn't just as good at parrying an attack with his hands? As long as you're not stupid enough to say, grab the blade of a sword, you can parry bare-handed. Just a glove should be enough to protect your hand if you make contact with the flat, and you can also, if close enough, parry against the wielder's arm. (Swords would be the worst for this, as most other weapons have a non-dangerous part you can parry against; flails would be awkward as well.)

The mechanics are fine as they are. If a system was being devised that was based on a Defense bonus, then some sort of parry would be required. As it is, the system assumes that all characters know the rudiments of defending themselves via dodging and parrying. Those with feats such as Dodge or Combat Expertise are more trained in it.
Sluagh
12-23-05, 10:42 AM Swords aren't all that bad to parry bare handed... in fact, in many martial arts forms that include sword, unarmed defense against a sword armed opponent is standard practice/teaching. The trick is to get inside or outside of the effective range of the weapon... move past where it can realistically be used...
But, D&D rules have little in the way of attack distance and effectiveness... and I think that implementing rules to incorporate it would overcomplicate things and make combat unpleasant to deal with. That sort of thing would be important in setting up this kind of system to deal with armed vs. unarmed opponents.

As far as having something in your hand and increasing AC goes, there's always the option to fight defensively; -4 to attack to indicate active parrying, gaining +2 to AC.
Dire Celestial Bonobo
12-24-05, 02:57 AM A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC.

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant.

The assumption is that unarmed targets will come up infrequently enough and be unimportant enough that adding extra complexity to the rules to deal with them more realistically would be more trouble than it was worth. IMHO, that's a reasonable assumption.

(I'm most surprised by the fact that this is not just the facet of AC that irks you the most, it's the only part of AC that does... ;))

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gworraent 12-22-05, 07:38 PM	The only thing that really irks me about AC is that your AC doesnt go up or down depending on if you are holding something in your hand. A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC. Yeah I know there is two weapon defense, but dont you think that there should be some sort of "parry" bonus to your AC for holding something with which to block melee attacks
Helian 12-22-05, 09:00 PM	Well, if you attack someone while unarmed, they get an AoO if they have a weapon in hand. That should be a good enough advantage. There is no point giving everyone that is using a weapon a +1 ac, it might make more sense that people NOT using weapons (or weaponlike abilities, spells, unarmed strike feat) should get a -1 ac as it is against the norm and less for the majority to calculate. Again, I believe the AoO is more than enough of an advantage (or enough of a penalty for unarmed combatants)
mvincent 12-22-05, 09:15 PM	A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC.While an armed commoner might be more likely to parry, an unarmed commoner is likely to be a lot more cautious (and will be dodging more, too). Plus, parries don't work against ranged attacks. Even still, your observation is somewhat valid, but D&D uses an abstract combat system designed more for simplification and balance. I wouldn't sweat it.
Tyler Do'Urden 12-23-05, 03:53 AM	Yeah, this situation is covered by the fact that anyone who doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike draws an attack of opportunity for attacking someone with a weapon. If you've got two commoners (or two of any class other than monk), one of whom has a quarterstaff, the guy with the staff is getting twice as many attacks as the unarmed guy, and dealing more damage. The effect is actually a lot more profound than any reasonable AC penalty. In any case, the guy with the staff wins.
Vahenir 12-23-05, 04:11 AM	While an armed commoner might be more likely to parry, an unarmed commoner is likely to be a lot more cautious (and will be dodging more, too). This is the most relevant opinion, I think, and I agree with it completely. A person with a weapon with which they can parry (and attack!) is going to 'get in there,' while a person without is going to be doing a lot more in the way of avoidance. These factors balance out. The guy with the sword or staff can block, but needs to basically stay on his feet and facing forward to do so, putting himself in harm's way. The guy without anything to defend himself is going to be zig-zagging and falling all over himself to get out of the way of a swinging weapon, so he's going to be an exceptionally hard target to hit, but he lacks anything to deflect incoming blows with. It evens out perfectly. No rule adjustments needed. Actually, I would say that the guy that's totally unarmoured and weaponless should be getting the bonus to AC. Ever tried to punch a guy that was essentially tumbling all over the place and running in circles trying to avoid you? Unencumbered people are difficult to peg down.
phelanarcetus 12-23-05, 10:22 AM	This is the most relevant opinion, I think, and I agree with it completely. Actually, I would say that the guy that's totally unarmoured and weaponless should be getting the bonus to AC. Ever tried to punch a guy that was essentially tumbling all over the place and running in circles trying to avoid you? Unencumbered people are difficult to peg down. I've been that guy. Almost all the people I sparred with had 50-100 pounds on me. Only way in hell to survive was to use my speed advantage to get a hit in, and then not be there. Also, who says that someone skilled in fighting unarmed (presumably this means the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) isn't just as good at parrying an attack with his hands? As long as you're not stupid enough to say, grab the blade of a sword, you can parry bare-handed. Just a glove should be enough to protect your hand if you make contact with the flat, and you can also, if close enough, parry against the wielder's arm. (Swords would be the worst for this, as most other weapons have a non-dangerous part you can parry against; flails would be awkward as well.) The mechanics are fine as they are. If a system was being devised that was based on a Defense bonus, then some sort of parry would be required. As it is, the system assumes that all characters know the rudiments of defending themselves via dodging and parrying. Those with feats such as Dodge or Combat Expertise are more trained in it.
Sluagh 12-23-05, 10:42 AM	Swords aren't all that bad to parry bare handed... in fact, in many martial arts forms that include sword, unarmed defense against a sword armed opponent is standard practice/teaching. The trick is to get inside or outside of the effective range of the weapon... move past where it can realistically be used... But, D&D rules have little in the way of attack distance and effectiveness... and I think that implementing rules to incorporate it would overcomplicate things and make combat unpleasant to deal with. That sort of thing would be important in setting up this kind of system to deal with armed vs. unarmed opponents. As far as having something in your hand and increasing AC goes, there's always the option to fight defensively; -4 to attack to indicate active parrying, gaining +2 to AC.
Dire Celestial Bonobo 12-24-05, 02:57 AM	A commoner with a sword or staff, no armor and no dex bonus should be harder to hit than a commoner with no weapons, armor, or dex bonus to AC. Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. The assumption is that unarmed targets will come up infrequently enough and be unimportant enough that adding extra complexity to the rules to deal with them more realistically would be more trouble than it was worth. IMHO, that's a reasonable assumption. (I'm most surprised by the fact that this is not just the facet of AC that irks you the most, it's the only part of AC that does... ;))