The rules don't offer further insight on when to choose between AC calculation methods whatsoever. A DM can certainly make the ruling that an AC calculation method must be chosen at anytime, or before an attack is made, even at the beginning of a turn, round, combat, minute, hour or even day. Like i said i'd be more concerned of the why then the when in this case.
thats fair, my friends on discord came up with this and i think its the best solution,
you make the choice at the begining of your turn because yes you can choose but i dont want to have to deal with having to give you the choice every attack and its combat i want it to run smoother not more clunky.
rule of cool? you drop your guard and take 10, your AC is 10 which accounts for the attack wiffing because they miss not because you avoid.
There is no real RAW answer because this particular scenario is never addressed, and attempting to shoehorn the presence of the word choice into the context of instantaneous modularity is really stretching the letter of the rules to a breaking point. As has been said, the designers had no real reason to expect people to want less than the max possible AC, so it wasn’t considered. My read of the RAI is that you cannot attempt to use this as a loophole exploit to maintain Rage, particularly when you’re making the deliberate decision to not attack after not having taken damage over the previous turn. The combat chapter and your features describe what choices are available to you in combat, the absence of text expressly forbidding another particular action does not automatically make it valid. Someone else might feel differently, but this much turn your head and squint for a player to be able to dodge minor consequence of an informed choice is a no-go per RAI by my read.
An attack targets you, it is compared against your AC. You have more than one AC. You pick which AC.
I agree with you, its implicit in the making an attack. for me, thats how i read it. i think its the correct way and nothing anyone has brought up points to the rules saying otherwise.
but its not explicit in the AC calculations that you have multiple base AC calculations other than the words "you can choose". alot of people seem to think this choice happens at different times based on the comments in this threat.
you and me agree that it happens what the AC is called for in the making an attack action.
alot of people dont think thats the case and im trying to figure out if they have a good reason to think that RAW or RAI
They're welcome to "don't think" that's the case all they want. Until they can provide rules backing up their assertions the matter is pretty clearly settled. "You choose which AC to use" means exactly what it sounds like.
Your AC is only ever "used" when you're attacked. So when you're attacked is when you "use" it. And when you use it, you choose which AC to use.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
There is no real RAW answer because this particular scenario is never addressed, and attempting to shoehorn the presence of the word choice into the context of instantaneous modularity is really stretching the letter of the rules to a breaking point. As has been said, the designers had no real reason to expect people to want less than the max possible AC, so it wasn’t considered. My read of the RAI is that you cannot attempt to use this as a loophole exploit to maintain Rage, particularly when you’re making the deliberate decision to not attack after not having taken damage over the previous turn. The combat chapter and your features describe what choices are available to you in combat, the absence of text expressly forbidding another particular action does not automatically make it valid. Someone else might feel differently, but this much turn your head and squint for a player to be able to dodge minor consequence of an informed choice is a no-go per RAI by my read.
RAW RAI is clear in that you get to choose.... So choosing when it benefits you is part of the game and not an exploit. It's not breaking the game to use a rule to choose your ac calculation? In no way does that break the game even if it benefits you.
Your opinion that it's somehow trying to skirt the rules and exploit them has no base in the rules that I can see other than your own preconceived notions of what you do and how you see it? Even rule of cool back me up here your opinion to be is just not fun? But that's my opinion and not a rules discussion.
I'm not looking for personal opinion I'm looking for a rules discussion about how they can be put into play. Which means back your personal opinions up with rules.
I agree with you, its implicit in the making an attack. for me, thats how i read it. i think its the correct way and nothing anyone has brought up points to the rules saying otherwise.
but its not explicit in the AC calculations that you have multiple base AC calculations other than the words "you can choose". alot of people seem to think this choice happens at different times based on the comments in this threat.
you and me agree that it happens what the AC is called for in the making an attack action.
alot of people dont think thats the case and im trying to figure out if they have a good reason to think that RAW or RAI
They're welcome to "don't think" that's the case all they want. Until they can provide rules backing up their assertions the matter is pretty clearly settled. "You choose which AC to use" means exactly what it sounds like.
Your AC is only ever "used" when you're attacked. So when you're attacked is when you "use" it. And when you use it, you choose which AC to use.
i love the straight forward nature of your affirmation backed up by the general wording not being overridden by any specific wording.
i wish everyone looked at the RAW and came away going "it says i can choose" when do i choose? well only time i need to know my AC is when i get attacked so thats when i choose.
its where i have stood since i first read the rules.
I’m sure someone probably mentioned this already, I haven’t read the whole thread and this may not pertain to the OP’s barbarian, but the only time you cannot choose your AC is if you multiclass with two classes that have Unarmored Defense (Barbarian /Monk)
Unarmored Defense
If you already have the Unarmored Defense feature, you can’t gain it again from another class.
I agree with the consensus that RAW allows a character to choose an AC calculation and doesn't clearly specify when this choice occurs. Without a specification, since AC is recalculated for every attack anyway already based on circumstances like cover, shield spell, etc - there is no reason (RAW) that a character can't choose the AC calculation they want to use before each attack.
The only text in the rules that this might not be intended is where it says:
"The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
If the AC of the character is determined at "character creation" then it can't be determined before every attack since that is not a point of "character creation". Character creation could be generalized to include updates to levels, skills, items, armor etc since all of these affect the content of the character sheet. Using that definition of "character creation" then the character AC would be decided at points where changes are made that are relevant to the creation of the character and the determination of the base character AC and not before every attack.
Unfortunately, this one sentence isn't sufficiently explicit if the intention was to have characters choose their AC when the situation of the character changes (changes to character creation), rather than at will. The sentence is suggestive that this is what they might have had in mind.
I agree with the consensus that RAW allows a character to choose an AC calculation and doesn't clearly specify when this choice occurs. Without a specification, since AC is recalculated for every attack anyway already based on circumstances like cover, shield spell, etc - there is no reason (RAW) that a character can't choose the AC calculation they want to use before each attack.
The only text in the rules that this might not be intended is where it says:
"The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
If the AC of the character is determined at "character creation" then it can't be determined before every attack since that is not a point of "character creation". Character creation could be generalized to include updates to levels, skills, items, armor etc since all of these affect the content of the character sheet. Using that definition of "character creation" then the character AC would be decided at points where changes are made that are relevant to the creation of the character and the determination of the base character AC and not before every attack.
Unfortunately, this one sentence isn't sufficiently explicit if the intention was to have characters choose their AC when the situation of the character changes (changes to character creation), rather than at will. The sentence is suggestive that this is what they might have had in mind.
as i said in the latest rules publication in essentials box set remove this from the making an attack action description. it no longer states the "at character creation"
which tells me this was more of a pointer to where to get teh AC calculation and not a when you calculate your AC.
which didnt make sense anyways because its not only at character creation and assuming its only when changing your stats is a big assumption as you point out its not explicit. its removal sure indicates that it was not meant like that but just as where to find the calculation.
If your GM lets you choose, then go with AC10. Everything else is modifiers and from what some folks have been saying you get to choose which ones you want to apply. If you choose to apply none of them, then your AC is 10.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
It doesn't really help because despite the fact that the phrase "you choose" is used, it seems clear that the RAI expected a character to simply pick an AC and stick with it unless another option was acquired or a change in stats made one more favorable. There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system, just the Air Bud argument of "there's no rule specifically against it", which runs against the entire concept of natural language they used for 5e specifically to avoid making the rules read like a legal manuscript. The wording exists, but only in the context of character design, not combat options, which makes the argument that the one can then apply to the other potentially specious. The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option.
It doesn't really help because despite the fact that the phrase "you choose" is used, it seems clear that the RAI expected a character to simply pick an AC and stick with it unless another option was acquired or a change in stats made one more favorable. There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system, just the Air Bud argument of "there's no rule specifically against it", which runs against the entire concept of natural language they used for 5e specifically to avoid making the rules read like a legal manuscript. The wording exists, but only in the context of character design, not combat options, which makes the argument that the one can then apply to the other potentially specious. The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option.
I happen to agree with you but as in all things it's GMs choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Obviously a creature needs to be able to choose which AC calculation to use when they don or doff armor at a minimum. If this were not the case armor would be meaningless as after a creature dons armor they would still be stuck with the AC calculation they were using before they donned the armor.
I feel the question that should be asked instead is why would you want to change AC calculations for every attack that targets you?
It is weird to quote a tweet that says no rules allow you to do a thing while presenting as if it was a tweet that allows you to do that thing.
You can't willingly fail a save.
Can a DM homebrew otherwise? Obviously yes. But not according to the rules. Which is what this tweet even confirms.
When I described willingly failing a save as something a DM might allow I was attempting to clarify that it is a ruling a DM might make, and not something that is supported by the rules. I provided a citation of a figure prominent in the D&D community saying it is a ruling they might make as evidence for my claim that willingly failing a save is something a DM might allow. This was never meant to be a claim about the RAW mechanics of the game and I will endeavor to make it more clear when a claim I am making is RAW, RAI, or a DM ruling. I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused you.
I believe the reason so many people object to changing AC calculations at will with no restrictions is that it creates ludonarrative dissonance. By default a human has an AC calculation of AC = 10 + dex mod, as every creature does. If that human spends 10 minutes donning a suit of Plate armor they gain a new AC calculation method of AC = 18. Mechanically nothing prevents the human from changing between these AC calculation methods while the armor is donned.
However this does not make narrative sense. Plate armor provides such a high AC because it covers the body in steel, most of which is solid plates designed to absorb blows and deflect them away from the body. How would a person control the armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows with no appreciable effort? Do they mentally control the toughness of the steel to either behave normally or suddenly become as fragile as wet tissue paper?
This is why I suggested that it might be better for a DM to rule that a creature can choose to get hit by an attack. While not supported by the RAW it avoids this ludonarrative dissonance of changing AC calculation methods on the fly. Allowing yourself to get hit is something that happens in fiction with alarming frequency, Obi-wan Kenobi being the example that springs to mind.
If the OP really wanted to get hit and stick with what is supported by the RAW, then they could also have closed their eyes as they ran by to give the creature making the opportunity attack advantage.
Regardless of how you handle it intentionally provoking an opportunity attack is a risky tactic. A DM could take advantage of it by using creatures with nasty on hit effects like Sentinel, or having intelligent creatures choose to forgo their opportunity attack to cause the Rage to drop.
Attacking is generally a much better way of maintaining Rage and it doesn't have to be a melee attack. Ranged attacks work too and that is why the Barbarian starting equipment includes Javelins, the longest range Thrown weapon in the game. Don't have a Thrown weapon? Throw your weapon anyways as an Improvised Weapon, or pick up and throw a rock. Not proficient with it? It doesn't matter, all you have to do is make any attack against a hostile creature, it doesn't need to hit.
The real problem I see is that changing AC calculations is something the OPs group found objectionable. Hopefully it is something they can find a ruling that makes everyone happy, or at least maximizes the number of people it makes happy. Another idea to bring to that discussion is maybe bring in the ability to maintain rage as a bonus action from the playtest. This would likely have allowed the OP to dash and get to where they wanted to be, possibly even without provoking an opportunity attack, while maintaining their rage.
Obviously a creature needs to be able to choose which AC calculation to use when they don or doff armor at a minimum. If this were not the case armor would be meaningless as after a creature dons armor they would still be stuck with the AC calculation they were using before they donned the armor.
I feel the question that should be asked instead is why would you want to change AC calculations for every attack that targets you?
It is weird to quote a tweet that says no rules allow you to do a thing while presenting as if it was a tweet that allows you to do that thing.
You can't willingly fail a save.
Can a DM homebrew otherwise? Obviously yes. But not according to the rules. Which is what this tweet even confirms.
When I described willingly failing a save as something a DM might allow I was attempting to clarify that it is a ruling a DM might make, and not something that is supported by the rules.
There are perfectly legitimate instances when you can willingly fail a save. These are specified in spell descriptions. Most spells do not say so though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The OP of the thread is wondering if while running around during combat or what-not could a person willingly decide that, to maintain barbarian rage one must be hit, and to ensure they are damaged by intentionally dropping their Armor Class to accept an attack.
Most DM will look at you like your nuts, and rules assume you want to be safer rather than sorry. However, rules also state the DM has the ability to adjudicate on the fly player choices.
want to take a hit, fail a save, or just get something over with, if the player “willingly chooses” to accept the potential consequences, then it was their choice and DM can ether entertain the player’s request or flat out reject it.
As for maintaining that Rage, quick self pimp slap to self, 1hp damage no AC check to hit, and if used as a object interaction or a readied reaction to the self awareness that the rage might not be maintained, as a DM I would let it slide.
It doesn't really help because despite the fact that the phrase "you choose" is used, it seems clear that the RAI expected a character to simply pick an AC and stick with it unless another option was acquired or a change in stats made one more favorable. There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system, just the Air Bud argument of "there's no rule specifically against it", which runs against the entire concept of natural language they used for 5e specifically to avoid making the rules read like a legal manuscript. The wording exists, but only in the context of character design, not combat options, which makes the argument that the one can then apply to the other potentially specious. The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option.
You're missing a key indicator. It isn't just "you choose", though yes it does say you choose. And you do. But it also says "you choose which one to use".
Use. You choose which one to use.
When do you "use" an AC?
When you're attacked. That is when and how you "use" an AC.
So the only sense that even can be made from the rule here is that when you are attacked, you choose which AC to use.
You can't "use" the AC in some other time or way, can you?
I see several people asking about the "when" do you choose and this seems like the obvious and only answer. Because it doesn't just say "you choose". It says "you choose which one to USE."
If you disagree, please do explain how and when you think AC is used if not when you're attacked and you need to determine if the attack hits you or not. What other "use" is this rule pointing to??
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The OP of the thread is wondering if while running around during combat or what-not could a person willingly decide that, to maintain barbarian rage one must be hit, and to ensure they are damaged by intentionally dropping their Armor Class to accept an attack.
Most DM will look at you like your nuts, and rules assume you want to be safer rather than sorry. However, rules also state the DM has the ability to adjudicate on the fly player choices.
want to take a hit, fail a save, or just get something over with, if the player “willingly chooses” to accept the potential consequences, then it was their choice and DM can ether entertain the player’s request or flat out reject it.
As for maintaining that Rage, quick self pimp slap to self, 1hp damage no AC check to hit, and if used as a object interaction or a readied reaction to the self awareness that the rage might not be maintained, as a DM I would let it slide.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
The OP of the thread is wondering if while running around during combat or what-not could a person willingly decide that, to maintain barbarian rage one must be hit, and to ensure they are damaged by intentionally dropping their Armor Class to accept an attack.
Most DM will look at you like your nuts, and rules assume you want to be safer rather than sorry. However, rules also state the DM has the ability to adjudicate on the fly player choices.
want to take a hit, fail a save, or just get something over with, if the player “willingly chooses” to accept the potential consequences, then it was their choice and DM can ether entertain the player’s request or flat out reject it.
As for maintaining that Rage, quick self pimp slap to self, 1hp damage no AC check to hit, and if used as a object interaction or a readied reaction to the self awareness that the rage might not be maintained, as a DM I would let it slide.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
So a creature can not “willingly choose” to be hostile to oneself?
guess that would break the shit out of blood-hunter classes.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
Can you provide supporting evidence for this claim?
In the description for the Rage class feature I find the following text: "It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/classes#Rage
It seems to me that the hostile creature requirement is attached to using an attack to continue your rage, not taking damage to continue your rage. Environmental hazards for example are potential sources of damage that cannot be attributed to a creature, hostile or otherwise. I searched the Sage Advice Compendium but did not find anything relevant to what situations can and cannot enable a Rage to continue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
thats fair, my friends on discord came up with this and i think its the best solution,
you make the choice at the begining of your turn because yes you can choose but i dont want to have to deal with having to give you the choice every attack and its combat i want it to run smoother not more clunky.
rule of cool? you drop your guard and take 10, your AC is 10 which accounts for the attack wiffing because they miss not because you avoid.
There is no real RAW answer because this particular scenario is never addressed, and attempting to shoehorn the presence of the word choice into the context of instantaneous modularity is really stretching the letter of the rules to a breaking point. As has been said, the designers had no real reason to expect people to want less than the max possible AC, so it wasn’t considered. My read of the RAI is that you cannot attempt to use this as a loophole exploit to maintain Rage, particularly when you’re making the deliberate decision to not attack after not having taken damage over the previous turn. The combat chapter and your features describe what choices are available to you in combat, the absence of text expressly forbidding another particular action does not automatically make it valid. Someone else might feel differently, but this much turn your head and squint for a player to be able to dodge minor consequence of an informed choice is a no-go per RAI by my read.
They're welcome to "don't think" that's the case all they want. Until they can provide rules backing up their assertions the matter is pretty clearly settled. "You choose which AC to use" means exactly what it sounds like.
Your AC is only ever "used" when you're attacked. So when you're attacked is when you "use" it. And when you use it, you choose which AC to use.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
RAW RAI is clear in that you get to choose.... So choosing when it benefits you is part of the game and not an exploit. It's not breaking the game to use a rule to choose your ac calculation? In no way does that break the game even if it benefits you.
Your opinion that it's somehow trying to skirt the rules and exploit them has no base in the rules that I can see other than your own preconceived notions of what you do and how you see it? Even rule of cool back me up here your opinion to be is just not fun? But that's my opinion and not a rules discussion.
I'm not looking for personal opinion I'm looking for a rules discussion about how they can be put into play. Which means back your personal opinions up with rules.
i love the straight forward nature of your affirmation backed up by the general wording not being overridden by any specific wording.
i wish everyone looked at the RAW and came away going "it says i can choose" when do i choose? well only time i need to know my AC is when i get attacked so thats when i choose.
its where i have stood since i first read the rules.
I’m sure someone probably mentioned this already, I haven’t read the whole thread and this may not pertain to the OP’s barbarian, but the only time you cannot choose your AC is if you multiclass with two classes that have Unarmored Defense (Barbarian /Monk)
So it’s whatever class gives it to you first.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I agree with the consensus that RAW allows a character to choose an AC calculation and doesn't clearly specify when this choice occurs. Without a specification, since AC is recalculated for every attack anyway already based on circumstances like cover, shield spell, etc - there is no reason (RAW) that a character can't choose the AC calculation they want to use before each attack.
The only text in the rules that this might not be intended is where it says:
"The AC of a character is determined at character creation, whereas the AC of a monster is in its stat block."
If the AC of the character is determined at "character creation" then it can't be determined before every attack since that is not a point of "character creation". Character creation could be generalized to include updates to levels, skills, items, armor etc since all of these affect the content of the character sheet. Using that definition of "character creation" then the character AC would be decided at points where changes are made that are relevant to the creation of the character and the determination of the base character AC and not before every attack.
Unfortunately, this one sentence isn't sufficiently explicit if the intention was to have characters choose their AC when the situation of the character changes (changes to character creation), rather than at will. The sentence is suggestive that this is what they might have had in mind.
as i said in the latest rules publication in essentials box set remove this from the making an attack action description. it no longer states the "at character creation"
which tells me this was more of a pointer to where to get teh AC calculation and not a when you calculate your AC.
which didnt make sense anyways because its not only at character creation and assuming its only when changing your stats is a big assumption as you point out its not explicit. its removal sure indicates that it was not meant like that but just as where to find the calculation.
If your GM lets you choose, then go with AC10. Everything else is modifiers and from what some folks have been saying you get to choose which ones you want to apply. If you choose to apply none of them, then your AC is 10.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Found this:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/step-by-step-characters#ArmorClass
would this help, seems to spell out the rules to start by.
It doesn't really help because despite the fact that the phrase "you choose" is used, it seems clear that the RAI expected a character to simply pick an AC and stick with it unless another option was acquired or a change in stats made one more favorable. There's no actual language supporting the idea that AC should be changeable based on what suits a player in the moment in this system, just the Air Bud argument of "there's no rule specifically against it", which runs against the entire concept of natural language they used for 5e specifically to avoid making the rules read like a legal manuscript. The wording exists, but only in the context of character design, not combat options, which makes the argument that the one can then apply to the other potentially specious. The words are there, but honestly when you take them in context you have to squint and turn your head to make them fit as a combat option.
I happen to agree with you but as in all things it's GMs choice.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
OOOORRRR
Take the Charger Feat.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Well this conversation certainly moved fast. First off, an apology is in order.
When I described willingly failing a save as something a DM might allow I was attempting to clarify that it is a ruling a DM might make, and not something that is supported by the rules. I provided a citation of a figure prominent in the D&D community saying it is a ruling they might make as evidence for my claim that willingly failing a save is something a DM might allow. This was never meant to be a claim about the RAW mechanics of the game and I will endeavor to make it more clear when a claim I am making is RAW, RAI, or a DM ruling. I am sorry for any confusion this may have caused you.
I believe the reason so many people object to changing AC calculations at will with no restrictions is that it creates ludonarrative dissonance. By default a human has an AC calculation of AC = 10 + dex mod, as every creature does. If that human spends 10 minutes donning a suit of Plate armor they gain a new AC calculation method of AC = 18. Mechanically nothing prevents the human from changing between these AC calculation methods while the armor is donned.
However this does not make narrative sense. Plate armor provides such a high AC because it covers the body in steel, most of which is solid plates designed to absorb blows and deflect them away from the body. How would a person control the armor's ability to absorb and deflect blows with no appreciable effort? Do they mentally control the toughness of the steel to either behave normally or suddenly become as fragile as wet tissue paper?
This is why I suggested that it might be better for a DM to rule that a creature can choose to get hit by an attack. While not supported by the RAW it avoids this ludonarrative dissonance of changing AC calculation methods on the fly. Allowing yourself to get hit is something that happens in fiction with alarming frequency, Obi-wan Kenobi being the example that springs to mind.
If the OP really wanted to get hit and stick with what is supported by the RAW, then they could also have closed their eyes as they ran by to give the creature making the opportunity attack advantage.
Regardless of how you handle it intentionally provoking an opportunity attack is a risky tactic. A DM could take advantage of it by using creatures with nasty on hit effects like Sentinel, or having intelligent creatures choose to forgo their opportunity attack to cause the Rage to drop.
Attacking is generally a much better way of maintaining Rage and it doesn't have to be a melee attack. Ranged attacks work too and that is why the Barbarian starting equipment includes Javelins, the longest range Thrown weapon in the game. Don't have a Thrown weapon? Throw your weapon anyways as an Improvised Weapon, or pick up and throw a rock. Not proficient with it? It doesn't matter, all you have to do is make any attack against a hostile creature, it doesn't need to hit.
The real problem I see is that changing AC calculations is something the OPs group found objectionable. Hopefully it is something they can find a ruling that makes everyone happy, or at least maximizes the number of people it makes happy. Another idea to bring to that discussion is maybe bring in the ability to maintain rage as a bonus action from the playtest. This would likely have allowed the OP to dash and get to where they wanted to be, possibly even without provoking an opportunity attack, while maintaining their rage.
There are perfectly legitimate instances when you can willingly fail a save. These are specified in spell descriptions. Most spells do not say so though.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
The OP of the thread is wondering if while running around during combat or what-not could a person willingly decide that, to maintain barbarian rage one must be hit, and to ensure they are damaged by intentionally dropping their Armor Class to accept an attack.
Most DM will look at you like your nuts, and rules assume you want to be safer rather than sorry. However, rules also state the DM has the ability to adjudicate on the fly player choices.
want to take a hit, fail a save, or just get something over with, if the player “willingly chooses” to accept the potential consequences, then it was their choice and DM can ether entertain the player’s request or flat out reject it.
As for maintaining that Rage, quick self pimp slap to self, 1hp damage no AC check to hit, and if used as a object interaction or a readied reaction to the self awareness that the rage might not be maintained, as a DM I would let it slide.
You're missing a key indicator. It isn't just "you choose", though yes it does say you choose. And you do. But it also says "you choose which one to use".
Use. You choose which one to use.
When do you "use" an AC?
When you're attacked. That is when and how you "use" an AC.
So the only sense that even can be made from the rule here is that when you are attacked, you choose which AC to use.
You can't "use" the AC in some other time or way, can you?
I see several people asking about the "when" do you choose and this seems like the obvious and only answer. Because it doesn't just say "you choose". It says "you choose which one to USE."
If you disagree, please do explain how and when you think AC is used if not when you're attacked and you need to determine if the attack hits you or not. What other "use" is this rule pointing to??
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
RAW the damage needs to come from a hostile source, so no you or an ally can’t make a token attack to keep it going.
So a creature can not “willingly choose” to be hostile to oneself?
guess that would break the shit out of blood-hunter classes.
Can you provide supporting evidence for this claim?
In the description for the Rage class feature I find the following text: "It ends early if you are knocked unconscious or if your turn ends and you haven’t attacked a hostile creature since your last turn or taken damage since then." - https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/classes#Rage
It seems to me that the hostile creature requirement is attached to using an attack to continue your rage, not taking damage to continue your rage. Environmental hazards for example are potential sources of damage that cannot be attributed to a creature, hostile or otherwise. I searched the Sage Advice Compendium but did not find anything relevant to what situations can and cannot enable a Rage to continue.