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.
this is a good run down of real practical play, i appreciate the thought process and the time to lay it out.
i agree with your points and reasoning. Its not what i asked for but it does answer how to deal with this sort of ruling at the table with real actionable advice. I wish my table had of taken that tact.
Yes my table took umbridge with my thought process and layed out a hard line of I have to attack to maintain my rage and cant willingly put myself in more harms way because they didnt like it/it didnt make sense.
I accepted when the DM said he was making a call and we could discuss it at a later time not at the table to keep the game moving because that's the best way to do it in any situation.
but later on away from the table i was shut down with "there is an extremely clear correct answer in this case" which was not my answer.
which obviously didnt sit well with me and being a good player when the DM tells you that hes made a call then thats the call and i had to stop discussing it.
but its not a clear answer at all and my DM is wrong in there reasoning, but proving them wrong does not make me right so i had to figure out if i was correct RAW. i know im correct rule of cool, choosing to take damage to stay angry is thematic as ****.
I am not trying to restart any old arguments. People play how they feel.
But somehow all the tables I play at have come to the same conclusion. Doing any action that consciously results in your taking any type of damage does not count to or for keeping rage going. Its all counts as self harm.
But thats us.
I mean thats like the most restrictive and not thematic or fun way to run rage? like it goes against rule of cool so much and negates so many "rage" type themes in popular culture.
i feel bad for the barbarians, which imo are already one of the most boring classes in D&D, at your table.
We have never found it restrictive at all. Only once has our barbarian lost their rage while in a fight. It was like your describing he just ran out of close by enemies and didn't want to throw his weapon to make an attack. At quite a few times he never raged in a fight because he thought the enemy was not worth the effort and saved it for later. Correction, Once he actually ran out of time and lost rage because the fight went over 10 rounds.
Since you can willingly fail on a saving throw, e.g., against the enlarge/reduce, I think it makes sense to choose one's lower AC calculation in order to willingly be hit.
In fact, I don't even think a PC needs to choose their lower AC in order to be hit willingly. I think the PC just says I want to be hit, regardless of their AC. I could imagine someone in a tavern who wants to be in a brawl but doesn't want to start it. Such a circumstance isn't hard to imagine, and AC is irrelevant IMO.
Since you can willingly fail on a saving throw, e.g., against the enlarge/reduce, I think it makes sense to choose one's lower AC calculation in order to willingly be hit.
If you are going to allow PC’s to willingly fail the saving throw, outside of spells that specifically tell you this (I think 1DD is making it universal), then I would just skip the whole “choose a lower AC” and just make it an automatic hit. What’s the point of using a lower AC if they can still miss you. If you want to get hit, then they will hit you. But if you are that defenseless then maybe it does extra damage or automatic crit.
If you are a barbarian and want to keep your rage going by being hit, always reckless attack so they have advantage and focus ASI’s on STR and feats and not so much DEX/CON so your Unarmored Defense isn’t too high
I don't think extra damage is automatic, but I do believe it's more likely. It's possible to get hit willingly but also avoid getting hit squarely.
On rage and being hit willingly: I actually think there might be something about getting hit willingly that might not necessarily trigger rage in a barbarian. In order to know whether all hits result in rage I think we need to know more about the mechanics of rage. For example, if a barbarian's infant child hits their barbarian parent, I don't think the barbarian would rage. Rage is more complicated that that. Anger is probably a necessary condition for rage. I don't see how someone would get really angry about being hit when they intended to be hit. Maybe if they were hit (much?) harder than expected.
If you are a barbarian and want to keep your rage going by being hit, always reckless attack so they have advantage and focus ASI’s on STR and feats and not so much DEX/CON so your Unarmored Defense isn’t too high
If your goal is simply continuing your Rage, using Reckless Attack is almost certainly unnecessary and actively harmful. In order to use Reckless Attack you must first make an attack, and so long as the attack is made against a creature that is hostile toward you then you have already ensured your Rage continues.
I felt compelled to point this out because this strategy has been mentioned a few times as an alternative to choosing a lower AC calculation for continuing a Rage.
Wanting to get hit by an attack to continue your rage comes about specifically because the Barbarian in question is either unable or unwilling to make an attack. If they are willing and able to make an attack then doing so will continue the Rage, no getting hit required. If they are unwilling or unable to make an attack then another way they could give an opponent advantage on Opportunity Attacks is by closing their eyes so that the attacker gets advantage for being unseen. This doesn't require making an attack like Reckless Attack does, so the Barbarian is free to use their action to Dash, Disengage, etc. To me this feels similarly exploitative of game mechanics as deliberately choosing a lower AC calculation, but at least it avoids the narrative dissonance arbitrarily changing your AC has.
On rage and being hit willingly: I actually think there might be something about getting hit willingly that might not necessarily trigger rage in a barbarian. In order to know whether all hits result in rage I think we need to know more about the mechanics of rage. For example, if a barbarian's infant child hits their barbarian parent, I don't think the barbarian would rage. Rage is more complicated that that. Anger is probably a necessary condition for rage. I don't see how someone would get really angry about being hit when they intended to be hit. Maybe if they were hit (much?) harder than expected.
There is a trivial mechanical answer to this question. Did the hit cause the Barbarian to take damage? If yes, the Rage continues, if no the Rage ends early.
Also this discussion is about continuing a Rage, not starting one. To start a Rage the Barbarian just needs to have a use of Rage available and take a Bonus Action to start their Rage.
*edit* I mean really this discussion is about when a player can choose a new AC calculation. It just happened to be that the reason the OP asked is because they tried to choose a lower AC to be more likely to be hit by an opportunity attack so they could Dash and keep their Rage going. Presumably they had to Dash to even reach the threatened space of the creature they were trying to provoke an Opportunity Attack from.
this is a good run down of real practical play, i appreciate the thought process and the time to lay it out.
i agree with your points and reasoning. Its not what i asked for but it does answer how to deal with this sort of ruling at the table with real actionable advice. I wish my table had of taken that tact.
Yes my table took umbridge with my thought process and layed out a hard line of I have to attack to maintain my rage and cant willingly put myself in more harms way because they didnt like it/it didnt make sense.
I accepted when the DM said he was making a call and we could discuss it at a later time not at the table to keep the game moving because that's the best way to do it in any situation.
but later on away from the table i was shut down with "there is an extremely clear correct answer in this case" which was not my answer.
which obviously didnt sit well with me and being a good player when the DM tells you that hes made a call then thats the call and i had to stop discussing it.
but its not a clear answer at all and my DM is wrong in there reasoning, but proving them wrong does not make me right so i had to figure out if i was correct RAW. i know im correct rule of cool, choosing to take damage to stay angry is thematic as ****.
We have never found it restrictive at all.
Only once has our barbarian lost their rage while in a fight. It was like your describing he just ran out of close by enemies and didn't want to throw his weapon to make an attack. At quite a few times he never raged in a fight because he thought the enemy was not worth the effort and saved it for later.
Correction, Once he actually ran out of time and lost rage because the fight went over 10 rounds.
Since you can willingly fail on a saving throw, e.g., against the enlarge/reduce, I think it makes sense to choose one's lower AC calculation in order to willingly be hit.
In fact, I don't even think a PC needs to choose their lower AC in order to be hit willingly. I think the PC just says I want to be hit, regardless of their AC. I could imagine someone in a tavern who wants to be in a brawl but doesn't want to start it. Such a circumstance isn't hard to imagine, and AC is irrelevant IMO.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
If you are going to allow PC’s to willingly fail the saving throw, outside of spells that specifically tell you this (I think 1DD is making it universal), then I would just skip the whole “choose a lower AC” and just make it an automatic hit. What’s the point of using a lower AC if they can still miss you. If you want to get hit, then they will hit you. But if you are that defenseless then maybe it does extra damage or automatic crit.
If you are a barbarian and want to keep your rage going by being hit, always reckless attack so they have advantage and focus ASI’s on STR and feats and not so much DEX/CON so your Unarmored Defense isn’t too high
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That's what I suggested:
I don't think extra damage is automatic, but I do believe it's more likely. It's possible to get hit willingly but also avoid getting hit squarely.
On rage and being hit willingly: I actually think there might be something about getting hit willingly that might not necessarily trigger rage in a barbarian. In order to know whether all hits result in rage I think we need to know more about the mechanics of rage. For example, if a barbarian's infant child hits their barbarian parent, I don't think the barbarian would rage. Rage is more complicated that that. Anger is probably a necessary condition for rage. I don't see how someone would get really angry about being hit when they intended to be hit. Maybe if they were hit (much?) harder than expected.
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
If your goal is simply continuing your Rage, using Reckless Attack is almost certainly unnecessary and actively harmful. In order to use Reckless Attack you must first make an attack, and so long as the attack is made against a creature that is hostile toward you then you have already ensured your Rage continues.
I felt compelled to point this out because this strategy has been mentioned a few times as an alternative to choosing a lower AC calculation for continuing a Rage.
Wanting to get hit by an attack to continue your rage comes about specifically because the Barbarian in question is either unable or unwilling to make an attack. If they are willing and able to make an attack then doing so will continue the Rage, no getting hit required. If they are unwilling or unable to make an attack then another way they could give an opponent advantage on Opportunity Attacks is by closing their eyes so that the attacker gets advantage for being unseen. This doesn't require making an attack like Reckless Attack does, so the Barbarian is free to use their action to Dash, Disengage, etc. To me this feels similarly exploitative of game mechanics as deliberately choosing a lower AC calculation, but at least it avoids the narrative dissonance arbitrarily changing your AC has.
There is a trivial mechanical answer to this question. Did the hit cause the Barbarian to take damage? If yes, the Rage continues, if no the Rage ends early.
Also this discussion is about continuing a Rage, not starting one. To start a Rage the Barbarian just needs to have a use of Rage available and take a Bonus Action to start their Rage.
*edit* I mean really this discussion is about when a player can choose a new AC calculation. It just happened to be that the reason the OP asked is because they tried to choose a lower AC to be more likely to be hit by an opportunity attack so they could Dash and keep their Rage going. Presumably they had to Dash to even reach the threatened space of the creature they were trying to provoke an Opportunity Attack from.