Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Riddle_Phantastique 03-29-05, 12:04 AM	I'm getting ready to run a game and want to allow players to parry attacks, and do not know how to best run this. I was thinking to allow characters to parry by making an attack roll vs. the attack roll they are parrying, but am not sure how often they should be allowed to parry. I was originally going to making a parry an AO, but quickly realized that the finessing 1st level Elf Fighter should not be able to parry 5 attacks a round. So now I'm thinking of allowing each player either a number of parries as their attacks and with the same bonuses or to allow them to use their attacks as a Parry. I thought someone here might have an idea on the best way to allow characters to parry attacks, whether it is between my two, or an idea of their own. Thanks for the help
HailSpork 03-29-05, 12:39 AM	You could allow parries as per BAB while taking the full defense action. Example: Fred is a level 6 fighter with a total of +10 to hit. He goes full defense, adding 4 to his AC. He is attacked (unknown whether it's successful or not), so he makes an attack roll. He rolls 1d20+10; if that beats his AC, it replaces his AC, otherwise, he is attacked as per normal. He is attacked again, so he makes a second parry at -5. He can not make any more parries this turn. Feats could be used to allow counter-attacks after successful parries or extra parries or whatnot. Alternatively, you can say that instead of getting 1 attack per 5 points of BAB, you get 1 attack per 5 points of BAB you have *more* than your opponent, minimum of 1 attack. Depending on how you want to balance that, you could do half your opponent's BAB. Yeah, that works much better. Again, feats could be applied; you could get one that uses your full BAB for purposes of reducing their number of attacks or such.
weasel fierce 03-29-05, 03:28 AM	One easy option is to make it an opposed roll. You give up an attack in your turn, to parry an incoming blow. Works better, if you roll initiative each turn though, rather than one roll at the start of the fight
Lina_Inverse 03-29-05, 04:07 AM	simple,check out the full defense option and combat expertise feats.
DragonWatcher 03-29-05, 09:33 AM	I agree with Lina that Full Defense and Combat Expertise are two ways to take Parrying into account in D&D. They're also nice because they don't require additional rolls that would slow down the game. If you're not worried about slowing down the game, though, this is what I would recommend: As a non-standard part of the game, I would begin by making it a feat. Not everyone is good at actively parrying attacks, and for those who are not, your AC effectively takes reflexive defense into account. So... Active Parry [General] Prereq: Combat Expertise, BAB +1 Benefit: This feat allows the character to set aside one of their normal attacks for a parry attempt (using the BAB for the attack that they reserve). To parry an incomming attack, the character needs to make an attack roll with a DC = incoming attack success (so if an enemy rolls a 19 to hit you, you would need a 19 or better to parry). Special: A fighter can take Active Parry as one of his fighter bonus feats. Now, notice that you have to give up one of your attacks to parry at this point, which means if you only have one attack per turn, then you can either attack OR parry. Which leaves room for: Improved Parry [General] Prereq: Active Parry, BAB +3 Benefit: You may make one parry attempt as an instant action (I forget if that's the right name for the action that allows people to act out of turn, such as casting feather fall) at your highest BAB, instead of using one of your normal attacks to parry. Special: A fighter can take Improved Parry as one of his fighter bonus feats. All manner of other feats can also improve on this ability. The nice thing about doing it this way is that it makes it possible for anyone to take these feats and parry, but those who don't want to worry about it don't have to. Also, the PCs won't have to worry about every enemy they face parrying all their attacks either. :)
lostone 03-29-05, 11:45 AM	There was a swashbuckling issue of Dragon magazine that had some great stuff about adding parry to it, pretty sure it had something on the cover about Swashbuckling so it should be pretty obvious. If I was at home I'd look, but I think it's somewhere in the 285-306 range of issues.
Grigori 03-29-05, 11:48 AM	Check www.wakinglands.com under combat and combat variants.
lostone 03-29-05, 11:51 AM	According to that site it was in Dragon 301 :D But it looks like all the pertinent info is on that site.
Riddle_Phantastique 03-29-05, 01:20 PM	Thank you all for your help. :)
Rogue Newb 03-29-05, 03:16 PM	THis is me being stupid, but what's full defense and what book is it in?
DragonWatcher 03-29-05, 03:48 PM	Sorry, it's Total Defense not Full Defense. Total Defense You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can’t combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat (since both of those require you to declare an attack or full attack). You can’t make attacks of opportunity while using total defense. Note though, that this is a Standard Action, which means that you only get to do a move action in addition to this. In other words, you can't attack at all when using Total Defense. Also, it's in the Players Handbook.
HailSpork 03-29-05, 03:51 PM	PHB page 142. It's a standard action to give you a +4 dodge bonus to AC. Fighting defensively is a full-round action that gives you a +2 dodge bonus to AC but a -4 to hit. Either of these can be improved by Combat Expertise or 5 ranks in tumble.
Delfedd 03-29-05, 04:03 PM	Ok, heres how it should work. You say "The Drow thrusts his scimitars at you, but with a slice from your longsword, the scimitars miss there target" This is just you describing him missing. Don't make new rules when the old ones suffice. If you really want a "More complex" parrying system that will bog down your game, have every player (and monster) roll for defense every time they are attacked. Trust me, it slows things down to a crawl.
LordArkan 03-29-05, 04:37 PM	Part of the problem, I think, is in the 6 second combat round. In 2nd ed AD&D, combat rounds were 1 minute. There was a lot of swinging and parrying going on, now you're rolling for the attack that counts. Like a lot of things 2nd ed, it was open-ended. In GURPS, combat rounds are 1 second. You attack, your opponent tries to dodge or parry, ten thousand modifiers are added, and then maybe you hit, or maybe you stabbed yourself in the face. I haven't checked out the 4th ed rulebook, but the old "quick summary" of an attack roll took up 2-3 pages. :eek: 3rd ed seems to be trying to take the simplicity of 2nd ed and put it in a shorter scale, which doesn't really work.
Robbo 03-29-05, 07:15 PM	I basically agree with Delfed. It is not too difficult to hit a human sized target with a sword, if he is not actively defending himself. Most "hits" result in the loss of Hit Points (or Vitality Points if you use that variant) rather than a truely debilitating wound. This is what I would describe as a parry. In other words, when you suffer a loss of HP or VP in combat, it is because you have had to make that much extra effort to parry the on-target blow. Eventually you run out of energy, skill, luck, favour of the gods, or whatever, and your inability to effectively parry any more leads to you taking serious damage from any further hits.
Delfedd 03-29-05, 08:15 PM	Essentially, attacks per round are follow throughs with your other attacks. A low level fighter can swing that sword all he wants, but its not going to do much. This can help with your parrying descriptions, like "He swings his rapier at you over his head, but you block with your shield. Then he comes in for a stabing blow, and you knock it aside. As your swords are crossed, he swings his rapier around and stabs you in the chest. Take 4 points of damage." Both these characters can be 1st level. It all comes down to showsmanship. On an Unrelated note, My name is delfedd
sauce of evil 03-30-05, 06:01 AM	There was a swashbuckling issue of Dragon magazine that had some great stuff about adding parry to it, pretty sure it had something on the cover about Swashbuckling so it should be pretty obvious. If I was at home I'd look, but I think it's somewhere in the 285-306 range of issues. In that issue they made Parrying into a feat that was open to everyone, basically it was an opposed attack roll. If you get higher you take no damage, but if you get lower you take the damage. You could do this with any number of attacks, however, every time to tried it your opponent got a free disarm attempt. They also went on to allow you to take Improved/Greater/etc. parry that gave you bonuses against the disarm attempt. There was also an option for a weapon grip, it cost 10 gp to add it to your item but it gave you a +4 against all disarm attempts. There was also a parrying dagger, you could wield it like a regular dagger but it gave you a +2 on parry and disarm attempts. That's what I remember, it was a pretty cool issue. I've had thoughts about making a Swashbuckler campaign using that set of rules, but I can't decide if it should be Three Musketeers-esque ((government vs. church)) or if it should be Robin Hood-esque ((people vs. government)).
MadBlue 03-30-05, 10:25 AM	The way I see it is that AC is either from turning a blow such that it's ineffective (AC from armor, natural armor, etc.) or getting out of the way of a blow (AC from Dex, base AC etc.) and high HP represents the ability to roll with a blow enough to turn what would be major damage to low level characters into nicks and scratches for higher level characters. Contact actually takes place with a successful hit, otherwise carrier attacks (such as poison) and touch attacks wouldn't make sense. And what about ranged weapons? What about Critical Hits and Sneak Attacks? What about DR? I know there's a certain measure of abstraction in combat (what does a "Critical Hit" that only does 10 points of damage mean to a character with 100 HP anyway?), but if a successful hit with a weapon doesn't actually mean contact was made and had some kind of physical effect, it doesn't make sense as a mechanic, especially when there are other mechanics that represent blocking, dodging, parrying or otherwise avoiding damage. Still, I think that all characters should get better at avoiding damage as they level up, in the same way that they get better at attacking, rather than relying on magical protection (but that's more of a "Defense Bonus" issue than a parry issue - and you can bet I've got that covered with a house rule). :D MadBlue
Vahenir 03-30-05, 07:47 PM	1) Parrying is already in the rules. During a combat round, you don't just stand there and let the person swing at you. You are actively parrying, attacking, and moving about. So if you're describing the combat that's taking place instead of just saying "I swing and hit for 4 points of damage", then you should already have all the necessary parrying. 2) However, if you actually want to make combat more complex by instituting a new rule for parrying, which I think is redundant in an abstract combat system, by all means, go ahead. The easiest way is to allow characters to give up one attack for a parry attempt. If your attack roll beats theirs, they don't hit. The only problem is - it slows things down a LOT. Because the Fighter will soon learn that for most enemies, he can parry ALL of their attacks and still have one or two attacks of his own. It'll take him longer to kill the thing - but in the interum.. he's taking practically no damage. You have been warned.
MadBlue 03-30-05, 11:33 PM	1) Parrying is already in the rules. During a combat round, you don't just stand there and let the person swing at you. You are actively parrying, attacking, and moving about. So if you're describing the combat that's taking place instead of just saying "I swing and hit for 4 points of damage", then you should already have all the necessary parrying.Granted, combat is pretty abstract, but in mechanical terms it means a Wizard with no weapon drawn is just as good at parrying as a Fighter with a longsword. Which is why people are looking for a mechanic for parrying. As a parrying mechanic, IMHO fighting defensively, Feats and a level or class-based Defense Bonus are better than an opposed roll (since, as you mentioned, that's more time-consuming). MadBlue
Vahenir 03-30-05, 11:47 PM	but in mechanical terms it means a Wizard with no weapon drawn is just as good at parrying as a Fighter with a longsword. I would say, under the abstraction that is D&D combat, this is a patently false statement. Moreso, while the Fighter is using his longsword and shield to parry, the Wizard is ducking and weaving and sidestepping. (And note that the Wizard will have a lower Dex to AC and lower AC in general than many fighters, so technically he's not 'just as good' at parrying.)
HailSpork 03-31-05, 12:20 AM	If you count HP as a mechanic of parrying, then the wizard makes even mmore sense.
Vahenir 03-31-05, 12:41 AM	Haha. Yeah.. the abstraction of D&D can be really confusing sometimes.. as both HP and much of your AC is 'abstracted' to represent everything from parrying, to skill at maneuvering, to stupid luck. And each 'abstraction' steps on the toes of the other.
totoro 03-31-05, 02:15 AM	This is a little radical, but... Allow everyone to attack as many times as they want at -5 to each successive attack. When they are done attacking, whatever attack modifier they would have had for the next attack is added to their AC versus one parryable (or blockable if using a shield) attack. The fewer attacks you make, the better your parry. To prevent cuisinart attackers, implement fumble rules where if your modified attack roll is negative, you can't attack anymore and provoke an AoO. (We don't like fumble tables because it slows everything down, but that would work, too.) We also play that if you roll a 1, you reroll and subtract 20, so fumbles are possible even if your attack modifier is positive. I believe this rule works well despite it's radical nature, though I hadn't implemented the parry rule with leftover attack mod. Seems reasonable. You could also allow parries out of turn (assuming not flat-footed), then take a -5 penalty to your attack for each parry you made. To keep off-hand attacks straight, we implemented a rule that each successive attack is at -5, regardless of which limb was used. And you cannot make two successive attacks with the same limb. So, 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc. attacks can be with the primary weapon. TWF just reduced the penalty for third and later attacks by 5 (and was really no different than multi-attack). Improved TWF reduced the penalty of 5th and later attacks by 5 more. And so forth. It's actually easier than keeping track of off-hand attacks, number of attacks for BAB, etc. IMO.
Rowan_Whispercloak 03-31-05, 06:35 AM	You could subtract the base 10 out of everyone's AC and have them roll against the attack and the roll becomes their parry check.
Lina_Inverse 03-31-05, 10:06 PM	This is a little radical, but... Allow everyone to attack as many times as they want at -5 to each successive attack. When they are done attacking, whatever attack modifier they would have had for the next attack is added to their AC versus one parryable (or blockable if using a shield) attack. The fewer attacks you make, the better your parry. To prevent cuisinart attackers, implement fumble rules where if your modified attack roll is negative, you can't attack anymore and provoke an AoO. (We don't like fumble tables because it slows everything down, but that would work, too.) We also play that if you roll a 1, you reroll and subtract 20, so fumbles are possible even if your attack modifier is positive. I believe this rule works well despite it's radical nature, though I hadn't implemented the parry rule with leftover attack mod. Seems reasonable. You could also allow parries out of turn (assuming not flat-footed), then take a -5 penalty to your attack for each parry you made. To keep off-hand attacks straight, we implemented a rule that each successive attack is at -5, regardless of which limb was used. And you cannot make two successive attacks with the same limb. So, 1st, 3rd, 5th, etc. attacks can be with the primary weapon. TWF just reduced the penalty for third and later attacks by 5 (and was really no different than multi-attack). Improved TWF reduced the penalty of 5th and later attacks by 5 more. And so forth. It's actually easier than keeping track of off-hand attacks, number of attacks for BAB, etc. IMO. this gives a huge advantege to only attacking once in a round you realize.you can get a move action to easily add your entire BAB to your AC. additionally it favors spellcasters,as attacking is mathmaticlly foolish,thus fighters do alot less damage per round.thus casters further move ahead while gaining free AC bonuses.
MadBlue 04-01-05, 01:56 AM	I would say, under the abstraction that is D&D combat, this is a patently false statement. Moreso, while the Fighter is using his longsword and shield to parry, the Wizard is ducking and weaving and sidestepping.My example didn't assume a shield. That changes things. Presumably, if the Fighter is unarmed, then he's avoiding being hit while ducking and weaving and sidestepping same as the Wizard, right? An unarmed Fighter with a shield gets a Shield Bonus to AC, so my assumption would be that the Fighter is now blocking in addition to ducking, weaving and sidestepping, rather than just blocking. Take away the shield and give him a sword. What accounts for his AC now? Ducking, weaving and sidestepping? Ducking, weaving, sidestepping and parrying? Just parrying? Do you see what I mean? IMHO parrying should add to AC (or otherwise decrease one's chance of being hit), like using a shield does, rather than be assumed to be part of AC automatically. Which is why fighting defensively et al. strike me as good representations of parrying in the game. I'm not saying that parrying isn't meant to be accounted for in a standard "to hit" roll vs AC, just that with an unarmed person having the same AC as an armed person, and with all the other mechanics that go into the combat system to account for specific actions (even considering the abstraction of the combat system), it's really not modelled well that way. (And note that the Wizard will have a lower Dex to AC and lower AC in general than many fighters, so technically he's not 'just as good' at parrying.)Not necessarily. Granted, there are many more Fighters who put Dex before Str than Wizard who put Dex before Int, but unless a Fighter is putting Dex first, it's likely that a Fighter would prioritize Dex the same way as a Wizard would. Unless you're counting armor and shield AC bonuses as "parrying". MadBlue
Vahenir 04-01-05, 02:05 AM	The problem is, if you start quantifying -everything- about combat - how do you describe what the characters are doing in that time? DM: "You push his blade away with yours and press forward" Player: "No.. I didn't use my Parry ability this round." DM: "Eh.." Parrying isn't generally a good idea, anyway. Too much weapon-to-weapon combat can damage the weapons involved. Parrying, normally, would only be done when necessary. This falls nicely in line with the abstraction of D&D combat. Remember that you "take 10" on your defense. You add all of your bonuses to AC to a base of 10. Wouldn't that 10 be what represents dodging, weaving, and parrying away other blades? Also - why do you -need- a mechanic for it? Isn't it enough to say that if the moment came up where it was "parry or die" - your character is smart enough to have parried the blow? Another contention I have is - if you add a parrying feature... what happens when you've "used it up?" Is your character no longer able to effectively parry blows, because he's used up his "parries?" Or is that one parry he gets every round the one GOOD parry - sort of like an attack roll represents that one good attack you got in, or had the opportunity for, or whatever. The deeper you delve, the more you realize D&D is too abstract for rules like this. If you start making parrying and all that - you start too tightly defining what exactly goes on in a combat round. That's no fun. Edit: If that post seemed really scattered.. I'm sorry. And if I ignored any of your points, don't take offense. I'm feeling kind of out of it tonight and my head is sort of everywhere. You understand, I'm sure.
Riddle_Phantastique 04-01-05, 04:20 AM	Another contention I have is - if you add a parrying feature... what happens when you've "used it up?" Is your character no longer able to effectively parry blows, because he's used up his "parries?" As far as this goes, as a Fighter gains levels, he gains the ability to attack more often.... think the same with parry, if your ability to parry increases in amount, it's because you only have enough skill to swing your sword around so much with precision at low levels, and as you gain levels (skill) you are more adept and parrying blows. If you get what I'm saying. It's 4 am here so I might be the only one that understands what I just wrote. :zzz:
Vahenir 04-01-05, 04:30 AM	The problem still stands. Even with "more" "parries" - what happens if you run out. Is your character expected to not parry attacks that come his way.. because he's all used up?
Grigori 04-01-05, 08:22 AM	The problem still stands. Even with "more" "parries" - what happens if you run out. Is your character expected to not parry attacks that come his way.. because he's all used up? You can only respond to so many attacks at once, something is bound to slip by eventually. The one reason I like the parrying system is that it makes the players more proactive in combat. There is more they can actively do to defend themselves in a round rather that simply cross their fingers when the opponents start rolling up their attacks. It adds an interesting dimension to combat. Does it draw out combat? A bit, but less so if the DM is well prepared and the group understands the mechanic well enough. I find it is no worse (for drawing out combat) than the Armor as DR variant. And I use both so... *shrug* It's an option. If you and your group likes it, use it. If not, don't.
Riddle_Phantastique 04-01-05, 01:56 PM	The problem still stands. Even with "more" "parries" - what happens if you run out. Is your character expected to not parry attacks that come his way.. because he's all used up? What happens when a Fighter uses his last attack for the round and leaves the monster at 1 hp... Why doesn't he finish off the monster this round instead of waiting till next round... because he's all used up? The round system only allows for a character to perform so much in a certain span of time, it's their problem on how to use these actions. Think of it this way, a round is 6 seconds, if you're surrounded by 8 fighters, each taking 3 attacks, in what way would you be able to parry that many blows that fast. In game terms think of it like this. You parry the oncoming attack, but cannot turn your blade back to parry the second fast enough. It strikes you hard and you tak X damage.
Vahenir 04-01-05, 05:59 PM	But, if I recall correctly, attack rolls are described as your 'best opportunity for a strike' - not the only one you take. You could be attacking much more, they're just not good enough to connect. Parrying can't work that way - a parry attempt that 'wasn't good enough' is called taking a hit. I prefer to leave parrying abstract, that way a character parries as often or as little as is necessary. It makes more sense to me, and it sounds better in descriptions of combat. I want characters to be parrying the attack that almost hit them, not trying to find another reason why they aren't taking damage since after all - they're out of "parries" for that round. (Note: I do run highly houseruled and customized games with a ton of rules changes, so I'm definitely not afraid of changing things up, nor am I arguing for any kind of purity in the game)
totoro 04-01-05, 06:13 PM	this gives a huge advantege to only attacking once in a round you realize.you can get a move action to easily add your entire BAB to your AC. additionally it favors spellcasters,as attacking is mathmaticlly foolish,thus fighters do alot less damage per round.thus casters further move ahead while gaining free AC bonuses. Actually, every action had a "limb" component. If you moved your movement rate, you were at -5 to subsequent actions (it was like "one leg" of movement). Swinging a sword to another ("arm") action. Casting a spell took three actions (a "mind" action, a "mouth" action, and an "arm" action). Firing a bow required 3 actions (1 less if you took quick draw and/or rapid shot). Sprinting (4x move) was 4 actions. The penalty was assessed on the next action that round. Charging included an attack (so you could move x2, then make an attack without a penalty--or with the usual +2, rather--but subsequent actions were at -15). So if you cast a spell (unless you had still spell and/or silent spell) your next action was at -15. In playtest, this worked great. We would have noticed glaring problems. And it flowed naturally. If somebody wanted to pick something up. Fine. You get a -5 on subsequent actions that round. Move along. No need to double-check. Stand up from prone? Feels like 2 actions unless you make your Tumble check. The new idea about adding attack bonus to AC hasn't been playtested. However, adding vs. one attack seems fine to me. The counter to someone who is fighting full defensive is to attack twice (the improved AC is only vs. the attack they decide to parry). Now that I think about it, though, maybe I would let the defender spread the attack bonus among as many attacks as he wants. So, if you have a +20 attack mod you can take +5 parry bonus vs. 4 different attackers.
MadBlue 04-01-05, 11:06 PM	If you count HP as a mechanic of parrying, then the wizard makes even mmore sense.It doesn't make sense in a game that includes a mechanic for nonlethal damage though. Why would a character take nonlethal damage from weapons dealing nonlethal damage (by design or intent), unarmed attacks, heat and exhaustion, but lethal damage from parrying? MadBlue
lostone 04-01-05, 11:19 PM	When you take HP damage it represents a failed parry or dodge. I think what they were trying to explain above is more like the Wounds and Vitality system used in Star Wars d20 and an optional system in Unearthed Arcana. When you would normally take hit point damage in D&D you take vitality damage in Star Wars d20. Vitality damage symbolizes the character rolling with the blows and getting a bruise instead of their jaw broken, or singed by a lightsaber instead of losing a limb. It could also symbolize the character getting tired avoiding the hard-yet-accurate weapon swings of their opponent by flipping, jumping and all that other martial arts type fighting. When you take a critical hit or run out of vitality you take wound damage which is the serious sucking-chest-wound and oh-my-god-Vader-just-lopped-off-my-hand type damage. Hit points can be viewed the same way, when you get below 10 you're taking serious damage. Higher hit points symbolizes the higher level character's ability to shrug off and avoid taking the truly serious hits like an axe-to-the-head.
SaddestPleasure 04-11-05, 10:39 PM	I see both sides. On the one hand, I agree with Vahenir. Parry as active ability/opposed roll needs a lot of work. Okay, so the level 1 fighter can parry once a round -- but what about the level 20 dual-wielding ranger with 7 attacks in a round? Surely those extra weapons and that extra skill should count for something? But then you start allowing more parry attempts, and things just slow to a crawl. On the other hand, I think there should be SOME representation of the benefit a trained fighter has in having a weapon in hand. Think of it this way -- you have two unarmed and unarmored heroes, a fighter and a wizard. They can both avoid melee damage only by dodging. Stick a sword in the wizard's hand and he doesn't get much from it. But put a sword in that fighter's hand, and now he has an additional tool to avoid damage -- he can dodge and he can parry. But how to implement it without unnecessarily slowing down gameplay and complicating things with new mechanics? I say, keep it simple. Here's what I suggest: Create a new standard general feat called Parry. Parry You've trained in using your weapon to turn aside incoming blows. Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1. Benefit: While wielding a melee weapon in which you are proficient, you may designate an opponent and receive a +2 parry bonus to Armor Class against melee attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action. If your weapon is smaller than your opponent's, you only receive a +1 parry bonus to Armor Class. If your weapon is two sizes smaller than your opponent's, you receive no benefit from Parry. You can only gain the parry bonus against attacks from manufactured melee weapons, and not from any attack that counts as a natural attack. You may not use this feat against attacks from any opponent against which you would be denied your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. Give this as a free bonus feat at level 1 to fighters, barbarians, paladins, and rangers. Give it as a bonus feat to any class or prestige class that gains proficiency with martial weapons and starts 1st level with a +1 base attack bonus. Any other class can get it as a normal feat choice provided they meet the prerequisite. Obviously this is patterned on Dodge. This version of Parry has a few more limitations than Dodge, but is available to any character with a +1 or higher attack bonus, has no ability requirement, and can provide a potentially higher (or lower) bonus than Dodge. I'd recommend opening the way for additional new feats with Parry as a prereq, including: Improved Parry You've received special training in advanced parrying techniques. Prerequsites: Intelligence 13, Combat Expertise, Parry, base attack bonus +1. Benefit: The parry bonus you receive to Armor Class against melee attacks from your designated opponent is equal to your Intelligence modifier. On any action you may designate a new opponent. You may split up your parry bonus to Armor Class between more than one designated opponent, provided the total bonus does not exceed your Intelligence modifier. Your parry bonus against opponents wielding larger weapons is reduced by 1. All other limitations on parrying still apply. The benefits of Improved Parry replace those of Parry. I'm satisfied with this way of representing parrying. It fits in well with existing rules and doesn't affect game balance overly much. It's fast, dirty, and fits the tone of the standard D&D game. Your mileage may vary. Cheers, SaddestPleasure