Parry [new rule]
With this new rule, melee combat becomes a bit more than attack rolls and damage rolls, as the players will be forced to decide whether to go all out at the risk of being hit later in the round, or if attacked before the character's turn, whether or not to spend the best attack roll on a parry. Parry can only be used if not flat-footed against the attack.
In melee combat, on a character's turn, a character chooses how many attacks he will use to attack and how many he will use to parry. Assuming he/she hasn't used any of his/her attacks yet (see below), his/her first attacks per round will be used to attack, and the lowest attacks per round will be used to parry. Assuming a character has a Base Attack bonus of +10/+5, and acts before his opponent, he can use his +10 attack to attack, and save his +5 to parry. Alternatively, he can attack with both or save both to parry. He cannot parry with the first and attack with the second. A parry roll is rolled just as a normal melee attack with the appropriate bonuses or penalties. If the parry roll exceeds the attackers attack roll, then the attack has been successfully parried.
If a character is hit before he has had his turn, he can still parry if he desires to do so. Doing so simply uses up his first attack(s) per round. Assuming the same character as above is hit before he can act this round, he can decide to parry with his +10 attack. He then still has his +5 attack to use as he sees fit.
An unarmed character or a character using a weapon dealing nonlethal damage trying to parry an attack takes a -10 penalty. Thus, a character with the Combat Martial Arts feat would be allowed to parry normally, but a character without it, even with the Brawl feat would be taking the -10 penalty. As an exception to this rule, two unarmed characters dealing nonlethal damage can still parry eachothers attacks without taking the penalty.
Any attacks saved to parry that are left unspent at the end of a round are lost. That is, a character who saves his attacks to parry but is not attacked simply loses them at the end of the round.
Any thoughts? I've tried this in Warhammer Fantasy RPG, and it was a blast in duel-like combat (my character beat an NPC in a public duel, even though the NPC was hugely higher 'level' than my knight thanks to careful use of a similar parry rule), but in normal combat (against multiple lower-level foes) I tended to go all-out-attack (which ended up almost costing my character's left arm).
Regardless, you could add a feat for higher level such as
Advanced Parry:
Req: BAB +10
Benefits: When parrying with a weapon that deals non-lethal damage or
unarmed, you take a -5 penalty instead of the usual -10. In addition
all parrying made with a weapon that deals lethal damage is made
with a +5 modifier.
You think this feat is balanced or does it need more reqs?
Yeah, I thought a couple of feats would be appropriate.
I don't know about the prereqs. They seem fine, since BAB+10 is kinda hard to get, especially in d20 M.
How about Fighting Defensively/Combat Expertise. Did you scrap that in your game then?
Parry
You can use a melee weapon to block attacks
Prerequisites: BAB +6
Benefit: When using a full-round action to make multiple melee attacks, you may forgo one of your attacks to designate it as a parry. If you are the target of a melee attack before your next turn, you may add the Base Attack Bonus of your parry to your defense. A parry may only be used once, and if not used, it expires at the beginning of your next turn.
Advanced Parry
You are skilled at parrying, and can block multiple attacks.
Prerequisites: Parry, BAB +11
Benefit: When using a full-round action to make multiple melee attacks, you may forgo up to two attacks to designate them as parries. If you are the target of a melee attack before your next turn, you may add the Base Attack Bonus of one of your parries to your defense. Each parry may only be used once, and if not used, it expires at the beginning of your next turn.
It would even be possible to call the second one Improved Parry, and Advanced Parry would add the option of a third parry at BAB +16.
I just created this rule so that anyone can do it, just as CyberDave made his Burst/Double Tap alternate rules. It'd be weird if you couldn't do it. I guess feats are good as for improving stuff, but I like games where most people can attempt to do "anything". That, and the fact that if you wanna play a fun/cool/good/etc. character, you're gonna need the feats.
Btw. I've enjoyed your Book of Advanced Classes, Battles.
But thanks for the quick feedback guys, you're really cool.
But I like your parry system too. I will see how it works in my next d20 mod game.
I guess feats are good as for improving stuff, but I like games where most people can attempt to do "anything". That, and the fact that if you wanna play a fun/cool/good/etc. character, you're gonna need the feats.
Yeah, I guess that's a difference of opinion. There's nothing wrong with giving players lots of options, but there are some things that are too difficult to expect everyone to be able to do. That's why I went with the feat. It's worth thinking about balance too - something like this is going to benefit melee fighters more than ranged, so it might not be a rule that's fair to just give everyone if it only really benefits some players (I guess that's true for some other combat rules too...:P ).
Anyway, that's just a peek behind the curtain of my creation philosophy. I think the concept works well either way. Thanks for the props on the BBAC - one of my favorite things to do is create new advanced classes, and I'm glad those ones came out well.
P.S. Do you mind if I use the parry feats that I created in a forthcoming supplement? I'll be sure to give you due credit.
Anyway. I'm looking forward for the feedback, Gamileo.
@Battles: Yeah, but since Modern is mostly all about guns (which is good IMO - go play D&D if you wanna dual wield +5 flaming greatswords), rules like Autofire, Double Tap, Burst Fire, and so forth are designed for ranged (gun)fights. I thought it would be nice to have something that can be used by anyone if they happen to be in melee (a gun's buttstock can parry/be parried too).
I was thinking that since a friggin' twohanded greatsword would be hard to parry with a dagger, perhaps a bonus/penalty for weapon size would be in order. How about a character trying to parry takes a -2 penalty to his Parry roll for every size category the attacker's weapon is larger than his own? That way, a dagger (tiny) would take -6 to parry rolls vs. a greatsword (large), which reflects the difficulty, but still allows it to be possible (perhaps it'd result in a deflect/dodge more than a block).
Also, in the spirit of the d20 Mecha SRD and the new weapon qualities (see the thread), I think allowing rapiers and sabres a +2 bonus to parry rolls, and shields a +4 or +6 would be in order.
Edit: Forgot to answer your question. Of course, please do, I'll be glad to see my work used somewhere. I myself am looking at creating an alternate WW2 SteamPunk (Lumbering Nazi Mecha with MG42s blazin') setting supplement, and some of the AdCs you've created seem useful. Would you mind if I incorporate 'em? I'll give you the credits, of course.
The Interpreter?
Show
Another question, isn't the Interpreter a pretty weak class? Above average skill points, low HD, low BAB, poor Fort save, average will/reflex, average def/rep. It seems like the Field Medic. Extremely specialised to the point of being incapable of anything else.
*I have +46 Treat Injury!* -but nothin' else.
*I can speak friggin' every language in the world* -but nothin' else. (not that it isn't cool playing a character that can speak anything, but it might get boring - just like playin' a Knight in armour in a cloak&dagger campaign [the above example of the duel in the OP was the only time for an entire year where I got to fight wearing full battle regalia and bastard sword - the rest of the time I followed around, worried about my armour and sword back at the inn.].)
My point is, I don't think the Interpreter is good for any campaign. I'd give the class some true negotiation skills like the Negotiator or something, so that the Interpreter becomes a linguist negotiator, and the Negotiator stays a bluffin', lyin', cheatin' negotiator. That's my 2cents.
*I have +46 Treat Injury!* -but nothin' else.
*I can speak friggin' every language in the world* -but nothin' else. (not that it isn't cool playing a character that can speak anything, but it might get boring - just like playin' a Knight in armour in a cloak&dagger campaign [the above example of the duel in the OP was the only time for an entire year where I got to fight wearing full battle regalia and bastard sword - the rest of the time I followed around, worried about my armour and sword back at the inn.].)
My point is, I don't think the Interpreter is good for any campaign. I'd give the class some true negotiation skills like the Negotiator or something, so that the Interpreter becomes a linguist negotiator, and the Negotiator stays a bluffin', lyin', cheatin' negotiator. That's my 2cents.
The Interpreter is probably the class I've taken the most criticism for, but I stand behind it. You're absolutely right - it's a completely specialized class, but no more specialized than the Field Medic (or the Negotiator, or the Investigator, or the Personality, or even the Daredevil for that matter). In the right campaign, it can make a huge difference. In the wrong campaign, maybe it's not as effective, but just because you take the class doesn't mean you have to go the full 10 levels in it. In a regular campaign, five levels in Interpreter would allow the character to speak more than enough languages to be sufficient for the campaign, gain a +3 bonus to disguise checks (which really comes in handy), and gain inroads to reason with hostile or unfriendly characters. Maybe it works better as a PrC, but I had enough ideas to fill the full 10 levels. That doesn't mean I think every character should use them all.
As far as your project, go right ahead. You can get my real name from any of my supplements.
I'm only usin' this to prove my overwhelming superiority
Well, I understand your point (and I personally believe that the Field Medic is completely underpowered when it comes to anything else than stitchin' people up). I guess I'm just too used to playing combat heavy campaigns.
Your AdCs are just very campaign specific, which can be both good and bad. It's just like the Soldier, he can't really do much except shootin' people up.
And thanks about the project. It's a real cool name you have btw. [especially compared to mine: "he-who-comes-from-the-farm-to-the-west-of-the-village"]
Well, I understand your point (and I personally believe that the Field Medic is completely underpowered when it comes to anything else than stitchin' people up). I guess I'm just too used to playing combat heavy campaigns.
Your AdCs are just very campaign specific, which can be both good and bad. It's just like the Soldier, he can't really do much except shootin' people up.
And thanks about the project. It's a real cool name you have btw. [especially compared to mine: "he-who-comes-from-the-farm-to-the-west-of-the-village"]
Cool! Any suggestions? :P
Well, since you mentioned it...
I looked back up at your first post, and noticed your ruling that if a character has multiple attacks the first attack cannot be used to parry, then be followed-up with the second attack. I was wondering why you ruled it that way, considering that this is like what happens in real-life combat sports like fencing or karate; move, parry, counterattack. Do you think that would be unbalanced?
That way:
Mongo gets attacked once before he can act. He has an attack progression like this: +18/+13/+8. He can then parry with his +18. He can then attack with his remaining +13/+8 or save them to Parry if he feels really threatened. Alternatively, he can parry/attack/save to parry.
The point is that the BABprogression is made so that the more attacks you make, the bigger a penalty you get. Thus, if you use an attack action to parry before you really attack, the follow up attack should be made with a penalty similar to the one you'd get if you'd just attacked.
The first attack when fencing isn't a parry, it's an 'antiparry' - now it gets complicated - the attack is used to prevent the target from parrying... (I've fenced for a couple of years) In fencing, it's a five foot step, antiparry, and attack. I guess you could include a feat like that.
AntiParry
Prerequesite: BAB+6
Benefit: You may spend an attack action to deflect the enemy's weapon so that he can't defend himself effectively. This requires a Touch attack against the target, and if succesful grants a -4 penalty to the target's next Parry roll.
Whatyathink?
That rule was to keep it as simple as possible, so you either go from the highest and down if attacked before you can act, or you can attack and then save your energy/time(read: Attacks per round) to parry if it becomes necessary...
The point is that the BABprogression is made so that the more attacks you make, the bigger a penalty you get. Thus, if you use an attack action to parry before you really attack, the follow up attack should be made with a penalty similar to the one you'd get if you'd just attacked.
Okay, I read it again; I overlooked the distinction of whether the character was attacking first or getting attacked. Yeah, I totally agree with the rule.
The first attack when fencing isn't a parry, it's an 'antiparry' - now it gets complicated...
Indeed! Apparently you've fenced more than I did in college.
Well, I've fenced for about 3-4 years total, a couple of years back.