Thus, I developed parrying rules. These are completely of my own creation. I have been playing with them for a while now (though none of my players have gotten to some of the later feats, so I'm not sure if they are balanced well), and my players all love them. They have increased the amount of time most battles take, but they make the battles feel more realistic, not to mention more intense. Since they tie-in with combat reflexes, attacks of opportunity have become more prevalent throughout the game, which is something that was lacking before. They give even spell casting classes the chance to get in a lucky parry, if they are holding a melee weapon, which gives spell casters a chance to survive if enemies happen to slip past the front line fighters. Also, since the enemy can parry as well, it nerfs some of the over-poweredness (forgive my horrible wording there) of some characters. It makes for excellent duels, especially between two characters who have multiple attacks per round, combat reflexes, high dexterity, and some of the parrying feats.
In short, I would highly recommend the addition of parrying to almost any game.Formatting aside, this looks like a good system. The part I don't understand is combat reflexes. I assume it works like this, if you are presented more than one AoO per turn, and you don't take the attacks, you are allowed to attempt to parry that many times in a turn? Your wording isn't really clear about that.
BUT
What about Power Attack and Combat Expertise? How do they count towards parries? It could seem fair that focusing on damage may limit your defence this way, but Expertise? I would say perhaps using Expertise would increase the parry roll same as it does AC.
What about Dodge? Other defensive feats? The monk AC bonus is based on his specialised training to avoid an attack, so how would this be incorporated into parry rules?
I remember having similar thoughts myself about making parry rules.
Shields? The primary instrument of parrying, how would they fit in? Would the shield AC bonus apply to the parry as well? And a bonus parry? Might make sword-and-board popular again. Can you parry a disarm? Or a sunder? Or a trip?
I am in favour of parrying rules, but many existing defence rules become semi-obsolete.
The opposed attack roll, I suppose that is including each persons Total Attack Bonus, not just an opposed d20 roll? And that roll is also used to determine if the AC of the defender is hit (assuming he does not successfully parry)?
Also, I suppose you have you decide if you want to parry before you see the opponents result, so the AoO is wasted even if the attacker would not have hit you?
Parrying
When you are attacked in melee combat, and you are wielding an appropriate melee weapon*, you may attempt to parry your enemy's attack. This uses up your attack of opportunity for the round. You may not attempt a parry if you have already used your AoO. Make an opposed attack roll. If your attack roll beats your opponent's, you have successfully parried his/her attack. You may not parry an attack of opportunity. If you are being flanked, you may only parry the enemy you are facing (or only one enemy, if the DM doesn’t want to deal with figuring out facing), unless you have Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Special: If you have the combat reflexes feat, you may give up as many attacks of opportunity as you have in this manner.
Feats:
Improved Parry [General, Fighter]
You are skilled at parrying your enemies' blows, which sometimes enables you to return the attack.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: When parrying an attack, if you beat your opponent's roll by more then 10, you may immediately make a counter attack. This is a normal melee attack, at your highest base attack bonus. If your attacker is using a reach weapon and you are not, you may parry, but you may not counter attack.
Greater Counter-Attacking [General, Fighter]
Your skill at parrying and counter attacking is amazing.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Base Attack Bonus +13, Cleave, Improved Parry
Benefit: If you drop an opponent with a counter attack, you may use your cleave ability to make an additional attack against a nearby enemy. This works exactly as the feat (no 5-foot step, same weapon, same attack bonus, etc). You may not make multiple additional attacks, even if you possess the Great Cleave feat.
Two-Weapon Parrying [General, Fighter]
Your use of two weapons greatly aids you in counter-attacking.
Prerequisite: Dex 17, Base Attack Bonus +9, Improved Parry, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Fighter or Ranger(two-weapon fighting style)
Benefit: While wielding two appropriate melee weapons, if you parry an enemy's attack, you may then make a counter-attack with your off-hand weapon, no matter how much you beat his attack roll by. The off-hand attack is made at a -5 penalty. If your opposed roll beats your opponent's roll by more then 10, you make the attack with your main weapon, at your highest attack bonus, like normal.
Special: You may choose to make the counter-attack with your off-hand weapon, at the -5 penalty, even if you beat your opponent's attack roll by more then 10.
Perfect Parrying [Epic, Fighter]
You have perfected the art of parrying and counter-attacking.
Prerequisite: Dex 25, Improved Combat Reflexes, Greater Counter-Attacking, Two-Weapon Parrying, Base Attack Bonus +25, Great Cleave, Fighter level 11th or Ranger level 11th.
Benefit: As long as you beat your opponent's attack roll, you may make a counter-attack, no matter how much you beat it by. Great Cleave works with this feat. Also, you can make an unlimited number of parries per round.
*-Appropriate melee weapon: this has been left intentionally vague, for it depends on multiple things, and is mainly up to the DM. I let players parry as long as their weapon is roughly the same size or bigger. If their weapon is smaller, I let them parry, but at a negative to their attack roll. I do not allow parrying with natural weapons, except for certain rare instances where a creature’s natural weapon happens to be big, and hard enough to parry a sword or axe blow, such as a Hook Horror’s claw attack.
Fighting Defensively.
Total Defense.
Combat Expertise.
Two-Weapon Defense.
Combat is already slow and muddled. I cannot see that your rules add significantly to them. I am especially unhappy with opposed attack rolls. If you gave these feats to a greater air elemental, you are going to make melee combat virtually impossible. Also: Facing is not a rule in 3.5 edition.
Finally: your CODE formatting was especially difficult to read. I'd suggest using a quote block in the future... or else use line breaks a little more liberally.
Here's an alternative proposal that has all the advantages of your method, without the disadvantages: use more evocative descriptions of combat. That will make it more realistic (or unrealistic, depending on what is desired), and more intense, without taking up table-time with dice hitting the deck or unfairly cutting down the ToB classes.
As for Shields, That sounds like a great idea to allow shield parry! Add the shields bonus to parry attempt.
As for the Sunder, and disarm, If you parry the attack you are defeating the purpose by putting the weapon that they are trying to strike just where they want it. You cannot parry a trip.
Another thing to consider would be weapon size. Can you effectively parry a greatclub with a dagger?
Defender weapon size vs. Attackers weapon size: -2 for each size smaller, +2 for each size larger.
For dodge and other AC abilities, Usually these are affecting the fact that the weapon in fact hits nothing. Parrying is the attempt to put your weapon/shield in the way of an attack, striking that instead of you. There isn't much dodging involved.
The Parry attempt: Str or Dex based for the roll?
Shields? The primary instrument of parrying, how would they fit in? Would the shield AC bonus apply to the parry as well? And a bonus parry? Might make sword-and-board popular again. Can you parry a disarm? Or a sunder? Or a trip?Okay if I were DMing a person with a shield would automatically be able to parry any attack so long as they had an AoO (as opposed to needing an appropriate weapon)
Shields.
In my game, shields do not grant you AC, but instead give you a free parry attempt every round. The attempt gains a bonus depending on the size/quality of the shield. You can also attempt to parry by giving up one of your attacks--effectively, you're turning your weapon into a shield for the round.
This means that people almost never have to use the mechanic if they don't want to, since people using shields are fairly rare (at least in my experience). It also gives a boost to an item that seems kind of weak on the whole (though I could be wrong).
Also, I think it's a very basic assumption when people try to increase the complexity of the combat system (such as through Armor as DR, or Wound/Vitality, or something like this) that they are willing to sacrifice simplicity and speed for "realism," or at least a system that mirrors elaborate/evocative descriptions in the mechanics. Some people don't like playing with D&D abstracted to it's normal level. It's not better or worse, it's just different.
First, there are cases where your attack bonus is lower than your AC. Usually at very low levels, then again at higher levels if the character is defensively based. Attempting a parry should NEVER increase your chance of being hit.
Next, you treat not having facing as though it were a houserule. (The "If your DM doesn't want to figure out facing" line) There is no facing in D&D by default. Adding the rule here gives you nothing of value, and is merely cluttering your system. I'd advise leaving that out entirely.
Improved Parry should be Riposte.
Two Weapon Parry should give an attack with -both- weapons if you beat the roll by 10. As it's currently written you're saying "Yeah, you can spend an extra feat to get an extra attack if you roll low, but if you're REALLY good you don't get any benefit from this feat at all. So only people who suck should take this feat"
Now, on a note not directly relating to the system, while this makes melee combat more interesting, it doesn't address high level combat, where the real trouble is, in the least.
Spells can't be parried. It doesn't seem like you can parry with a reach weapon, or even parry another reach weapon. Natural Attacks can't do anything.
You have to realize 90% of what the high level PCs are fighting use either Natural Attacks, Spells, or SLAs. The reason why high level combat ends so quickly is because the Wizard decides he's going to blow half his 9th level slots to destroy the encounter instantly. This system does nothing to enhance any combat at all, EXCEPT melee combat. And even there it doesn't really enhance it. As you pointed out, it slows it down. Honestly, I'd rather take Robilar's Gambit and/or Karmic strike, and just ignore this system altogether, getting two AoOs every time someone attacks me.
Anyways, as far as the various questions. As far as combat reflexes, yes, you basically get to use parry attempts if you don't make attacks of opportunity, and vice-versa. They are both basically two uses of the same use-per-day mechanic.
I don't really think most of the defensive mechanics would work with parrying, simply because parrying is you trying to attack your enemies' attacks, basically, whereas those are purely defensive abilities. I could see combat expertise, but not dodge bonuses, as those are your ability to get out of the way. I can't see those helping your ability to put your weapon in the way of your opponent's.
Shields wouldn't help in parrying, as parrying is more a weapon thing. As far as making sword & shield more popular, I’ve very strongly considered making shields' AC bonus higher. I've done foam fighting (google it, belegarth, anything like that), it may not be the most realistic fighting in the world, but boy are shields easy to put in the way of your enemy's weapon. But that's another house rule, and another post. As far as disarms, sunders, etc., I haven't really thought about that, though I suppose they should.
Yes, they do take into account your whole attack bonus, not just a D20, and yes, you do have to decide before you know if they hit your AC or not.
Parrying attacks of opportunity is a definite no, because the reason you are provoking an attack of opportunity is because you aren't able to focus on the enemy enough to defend against them, therefore, you are opening yourself up for an attack of opportunity. As for giving up attacks for parry attempts, I’ll have to think about that.
As far as it being complicated or whatever, it's basically the player making an attack role at the same time the enemy is, or the other way around. It really doesn't take up too much time. It took me a lot of time to decide whether or not to use this, because of that. I asked my players, and they loved the idea, so I tossed it in to try it out. They all think it's great.
As far as balance, I didn't so much mean character balance, as much as semi-balancing characters that were made too powerful to begin with, such as if the DM lets the players use above a 28 point buy, or 5d6, things of that nature. Not that I do, i'm just saying that it would balance things out in such a case. I know I had that problem before, and this is the sort of thing that could have at least helped that.
Anyways, thanks for all the feedback, any more would be appreciated. Also, if anyone does try this out, I’d love to hear how it works out for you.
One thing is that it meshes well with feinting, since someone can't make A.o.O while flat footed (and thus I would assume they couldn't parry), making a feint tactic a more viable option. (Which is good, because I like the whole swashbuckling thing.)
The unbalance in D&D is virtually always that spellcasters completely rule the high level game, relegating fighters, rangers, and even paladins to the role of meat-shield and distraction. This does not address that imbalance -- in fact, it makes it WORSE by providing enemies an increased chance to avoid melee attacks!
Furthermore, high BAB classes at high level are some of the worst offenders on the "takes forever to resolve" list, below Druids using wildshape and close behind spellcasters who can't remember where they put their spell list. When the Fighter is already making four attack rolls on his action, and some of them are trip attacks or other special actions (which are already opposed rolls), the extra set of rolls needed to calculate parries is just annoying and unnecessary.
Slowing down combat is a bad thing, and I see no legitimate benefit for the slowdown.
You haven't actually established how parrying improves the game. it makes combat 'more realistic' and 'more intense' as a trade-off for more time spent rolling dice.
Here's an alternative proposal that has all the advantages of your method, without the disadvantages: use more evocative descriptions of combat. That will make it more realistic (or unrealistic, depending on what is desired), and more intense, without taking up table-time with dice hitting the deck or unfairly cutting down the ToB classes.
Question, how does spending more time describing combat more exotically make it shorter than rolling a d20 seems to me a player saying I parry I rolled an 18 takes just as long to officiate as you saying "after a series of thwarted jabs you bring your blade in from an angle that as he goes to defend you switch bringing the blade around and leaving a gash on his chest."
Good.
What about Power Attack and Combat Expertise? How do they count towards parries? It could seem fair that focusing on damage may limit your defence this way, but Expertise? I would say perhaps using Expertise would increase the parry roll same as it does AC.
I would say - power attack increases the parry-ee's attack roll (and thereby the chance to beat through an attempted parry), and expertise is added to the parry-er's pary attack roll as you suggest.
What about Dodge? Other defensive feats? The monk AC bonus is based on his specialised training to avoid an attack, so how would this be incorporated into parry rules?
No need. It affects AC and that's benefit enough. Parrying is a pure weapon-handling skill.
I remember having similar thoughts myself about making parry rules.
Shields? The primary instrument of parrying, how would they fit in?
You do not parry with a shield. You parry with a weapon.
Can you parry a disarm? Or a sunder? Or a trip?
Yeah, I'd say so ... or maybe only a disarm. Possibly disarm could be incorporated into the parry system - if your parry beats the attacker by some very high value (10 or so), then it counts as a disarm attempt.
To Seerow: I'll change improved parry to Riposte, that's definitely a better name. You can parry reach weapons with other reach weapons, and you can parry a natural attack with just about anything. What I meant in the rules is that you can't use a natural attack to parry. As far as the two-weapon parrying, you'll have to clarify, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. The facing thing, I only wrote it the way I did because I know some DMs use facing rules, and some people are just kinda **** like that.
The main thing was that if you are being flanked, you can only parry one of them. Also, even if your parry attempt misses, the attacker can still miss your AC. You don't have to worry about parrying making you easier to hit. ("You bring your longsword up in an arc to parry, but you just barely miss his weapon. However, his sword just misses your left side.") The parry attempt is based on whatever score you normally use for your weapon. It's basically just a normal attack.
I still don't feel that you can parry with a shield. You can shield block with a shield, but as far as I know, parrying implies using a weapon. I think shield blocking like that would be its own mechanic.
Yes, it does make feinting much more useful.
Finally, I would like to point out 2 things: 1.) Yes, it does slow the game down a little bit. Not a lot, but it does. Some people don't mind. 2.) This wasn't intended to fix everything. It was intended to make melee combat both a little more drawn out and realistic, and a little more balanced. No more does one lucky high damage roll end the battle on the first swing. It could happen, but it's less likely. I never claimed that it fixed everything.
One thing that it does majorly help, is the fighter. With some of the higher end parrying rules, armed deflect arrows (which I know I’ve seen somewhere, though I’m not sure if it is an official feat), and some spell resistance, high level fighters turn into very hard to hurt tanks that can wade into large groups of powerful enemies easily.
As far as it just being more feats, the higher end ones, as you may have noticed, are aimed more towards fighters (or rangers, but I figured if they get two-weapon fighting, this sorta fits in with their style), and we all know fighters need more things specifically geared towards them. Anyone can learn to get a counter-attack, not everyone can learn to get an unlimited number of parries per round, and an automatic counter attack as long as they parry.
By the way, do you guys think I should make Greater Counter-Attacking have the fighter or Ranger pre-req as well? I was thinking about it, but I’m not sure.
All that in mind, I'm glad that my parrying rules have gone over so well. And remember, if you want to use them but don't like them as-is, well, it's your game, you can change them however you want. If you wanna let shields parry, go ahead. I just saw how well the whole thing is going with my group, and figured I'd share with everyone so you guys can try it out if you want.
I love this so much, I have worked on and off with a parry mechanic for the last few years, mine to also used your AoO, but in a different way, but that's not the point. Expertise is the Dnd equivalent of parrying. Using a Parry system should replace the feat. But instead allow the feat in a different way, like allow you to subtract from attack to add to parry attempts for the rest of the round and not add to AC. You should be allowed parry attempts with as many AoOs you have to forfeit.
As for Shields, That sounds like a great idea to allow shield parry! Add the shields bonus to parry attempt.
As for the Sunder, and disarm, If you parry the attack you are defeating the purpose by putting the weapon that they are trying to strike just where they want it. You cannot parry a trip.
Another thing to consider would be weapon size. Can you effectively parry a greatclub with a dagger?
Defender weapon size vs. Attackers weapon size: -2 for each size smaller, +2 for each size larger.
For dodge and other AC abilities, Usually these are affecting the fact that the weapon in fact hits nothing. Parrying is the attempt to put your weapon/shield in the way of an attack, striking that instead of you. There isn't much dodging involved.
The Parry attempt: Str or Dex based for the roll?
I thought the same on Expertise, although I would let it work on AC as well since a solid defence is nigh-impossible without magic.
Yes, I think shields should be the ultimate exploitation of this rule.
I could argue real-life combat, but Sunders and Disarms use opposed attack rolls anyway.
Can you effectively parry a dagger with anything other than a shield?
Parrying is far more than intercepting their weapon. The three main categories of parry from my swordsmanship training are Block (counterswing with roughly equal force & reduces the lifespan of your blade significantly), Guiding Parry (deflects the attacking weapon down or to the side) & Carrying Parry (strikes the back of the attacking weapon, riding the back and forcing it's swing further out, opening them up for a riposte).
My point is, if I swing a weapon and they merely raise their weapon in the way, the force of my blow will drive their own weapon into them.
Dodge bonus, my answer to that is Expertise is a dodge bonus. Again, practical combat experience talking but dodging back from a thrust might not avoid it but could buy you that extra instant to get your weapon across.
Str or Dex? I say same as usual, there are different styles to parrying, with longswords it is definitely strength-based.
Okay if I were DMing a person with a shield would automatically be able to parry any attack so long as they had an AoO (as opposed to needing an appropriate weapon)
And any bonus? Shields are very easy to block with.
First of all, sorry for taking so long to reply. I don't have an internet connection at home. Also, Khelvaster, thanks for re-posting that for me. I rarely post on these boards, I didn't realize it was that bad.
Anyways, as far as the various questions. As far as combat reflexes, yes, you basically get to use parry attempts if you don't make attacks of opportunity, and vice-versa. They are both basically two uses of the same use-per-day mechanic.
I don't really think most of the defensive mechanics would work with parrying, simply because parrying is you trying to attack your enemies' attacks, basically, whereas those are purely defensive abilities. I could see combat expertise, but not dodge bonuses, as those are your ability to get out of the way. I can't see those helping your ability to put your weapon in the way of your opponent's.
Shields wouldn't help in parrying, as parrying is more a weapon thing. As far as making sword & shield more popular, I’ve very strongly considered making shields' AC bonus higher. I've done foam fighting (google it, belegarth, anything like that), it may not be the most realistic fighting in the world, but boy are shields easy to put in the way of your enemy's weapon. But that's another house rule, and another post. As far as disarms, sunders, etc., I haven't really thought about that, though I suppose they should.
Yes, they do take into account your whole attack bonus, not just a D20, and yes, you do have to decide before you know if they hit your AC or not.
Parrying attacks of opportunity is a definite no, because the reason you are provoking an attack of opportunity is because you aren't able to focus on the enemy enough to defend against them, therefore, you are opening yourself up for an attack of opportunity. As for giving up attacks for parry attempts, I’ll have to think about that.
As far as it being complicated or whatever, it's basically the player making an attack role at the same time the enemy is, or the other way around. It really doesn't take up too much time. It took me a lot of time to decide whether or not to use this, because of that. I asked my players, and they loved the idea, so I tossed it in to try it out. They all think it's great.
As far as balance, I didn't so much mean character balance, as much as semi-balancing characters that were made too powerful to begin with, such as if the DM lets the players use above a 28 point buy, or 5d6, things of that nature. Not that I do, i'm just saying that it would balance things out in such a case. I know I had that problem before, and this is the sort of thing that could have at least helped that.
Anyways, thanks for all the feedback, any more would be appreciated. Also, if anyone does try this out, I’d love to hear how it works out for you.
First of all, you have done foam-fighting, I fight with wooden shields - they are VERY easy to defend with, and definitely deserving of their own rule.
Part of my thoughts about defensive mechanics is that the defense-conscious fighter should have some advantage to parrying, as opposed to the offense-focused combatant. I could give real-life training suggestions if desired.
Looks interesting. Not sure if I'd use it, but looks pretty good.
One thing is that it meshes well with feinting, since someone can't make A.o.O while flat footed (and thus I would assume they couldn't parry), making a feint tactic a more viable option. (Which is good, because I like the whole swashbuckling thing.)
Yes. Parry rules would encourage more inventive combat. The worth of catching someone flat-footed in real-life combat is immense.
I agree with Derrick. Parrying is not a useful rule. It complicates combat; it makes more feats to suck up the already-crowded feat-space of the game; and it fails in its stated goal.
The unbalance in D&D is virtually always that spellcasters completely rule the high level game, relegating fighters, rangers, and even paladins to the role of meat-shield and distraction. This does not address that imbalance -- in fact, it makes it WORSE by providing enemies an increased chance to avoid melee attacks!
Furthermore, high BAB classes at high level are some of the worst offenders on the "takes forever to resolve" list, below Druids using wildshape and close behind spellcasters who can't remember where they put their spell list. When the Fighter is already making four attack rolls on his action, and some of them are trip attacks or other special actions (which are already opposed rolls), the extra set of rolls needed to calculate parries is just annoying and unnecessary.
Slowing down combat is a bad thing, and I see no legitimate benefit for the slowdown.
Question, how does spending more time describing combat more exotically make it shorter than rolling a d20 seems to me a player saying I parry I rolled an 18 takes just as long to officiate as you saying "after a series of thwarted jabs you bring your blade in from an angle that as he goes to defend you switch bringing the blade around and leaving a gash on his chest."
Ah, the familiar straw man style of argument, with a side of weasel wording and a garnish of quoting out of context. Guess I must be on the internet.
Firstly, my original post does not admit that the OP's method actually makes combat more realistic or more intense, only that this is claimed as an advantage. Your suggested method of employing the OP's rules seem to make combat a tedious chore, but I'm not sure that you're making a fair representation.
Secondly, evocative and exotic are not synonyms. I am not advocating a policy of looking for weird and wonderful descriptions; I am suggesting that DMs use emotionally-laden words to help the group engage with the game.
Finally, and most substantially, my objection is not with how long it takes to play the game, so long as it's enjoyable. In the post you've quoted, it should be absolutely clear that I'm objecting to the fact that this proposal spends time just rolling dice (which you can do on your own) rather than talking, or listening, to your friends.
As far as balance, I didn't so much mean character balance, as much as semi-balancing characters that were made too powerful to begin with, such as if the DM lets the players use above a 28 point buy, or 5d6, things of that nature. Not that I do, i'm just saying that it would balance things out in such a case. I know I had that problem before, and this is the sort of thing that could have at least helped that.
This is an unfamiliar sense of balance, so thanks for giving an explanation. What I'd like to know is how these parrying rules address this 'problem'? As far as I can see, they are totally ineffective, because high stat characters benefit more and suffer less from your rules than low stat characters.
Now, I do tend to prefer role playing over roll playing, however descriptions of combat can and have taken just as long as rolling it all out...
Some players are more roll players and this lets them do that and allows for more randomess and "realism" in the fight and allows for descriptions to come from the simulation of the battle itself.
I like the effort.
Ah, the familiar straw man style of argument, with a side of weasel wording and a garnish of quoting out of context. Guess I must be on the internet.
This is an unfamiliar sense of balance, so thanks for giving an explanation. What I'd like to know is how these parrying rules address this 'problem'? As far as I can see, they are totally ineffective, because high stat characters benefit more and suffer less from your rules than low stat characters.
First of all, no need to be rude. I don't want anyone starting to flame anyone. Not that you were, I'm just trying to head it off. ;)
Second of all, in overpowered combat, things end quickly because high-powered characters will have insane attack and damage rolls, while HP and AC aren't affected nearly as much. With parrying, so long as both PCs and NPCs are overpowered, their attack rolls are likely to counter each other more often, giving battles a more realistic feeling, and prolonging combat for more than 1 round. This is the main balance issue that I meant parrying could correct.
Outside of that, I simply stated that parrying makes combat feel more realistic. Along with evocative descriptions, it gives battle that sense that people (and monsters) aren't just missing their target or bouncing off of armor, but that having a high attack roll actually means you're good at deflecting blades.
Stormbrand, I'm not quite sure how you meant it, but in foam-fighting the shields are generally made out of wood. If you were just agreeing with me, then, well...cool.
Lol. As far as different kinds of parrying, that seems like something that would get to be too complicated. Remember, we are striving for simplistic realism. If you wanna try, I'd be willing to think it all over, but I doubt it's really necessary. As far as shields go, again, I'm just thinking about raising their bonus (maybe even doubling it?), but I'm not quite sure yet. If you think of anything good, let me know...Second of all, in overpowered combat, things end quickly because high-powered characters will have insane attack and damage rolls, while HP and AC aren't affected nearly as much. With parrying, so long as both PCs and NPCs are overpowered, their attack rolls are likely to counter each other more often, giving battles a more realistic feeling, and prolonging combat for more than 1 round. This is the main balance issue that I meant parrying could correct.
OK. So, to paraphrase this into terms that I'm more familiar with, you're saying that your proposal increases the number of rounds that a combat takes and that this is a good thing.
Let's have a think about that first claim - that combat is prolonged by the proposal. Well, it's largely false, as parrying does nothing to change save-or-die spells. (This is the case even in Core at low levels, thanks to color spray and [i]sleep/i].) Even if the proposal actually delivered, I'm not sure that there's any particular advantage to spending more time rolling dice
(Again, I'm fine with spending more time on combat, but I think that it would be better to spend that time on description. A further advantage of my programme is that, if the PCs are not in an important fight, the descriptions can be abbreviated!)
Outside of that, I simply stated that parrying makes combat feel more realistic. Along with evocative descriptions, it gives battle that sense that people (and monsters) aren't just missing their target or bouncing off of armor, but that having a high attack roll actually means you're good at deflecting blades.
Fix: whenever someone misses by less than 10, describe the attack in terms of the defender making a difference. Modify depending on the defender's style. Examples:
1. A fighter is missed by an orc.
"The feral beast swings at Regdar, but his warrior skills are more than sufficient to beat aside the blow..."
2. A wizard is missed by a flesh golem.
"Predictably, the construct's fists sweep down at Mialee again - but the canny mage has anticipated the move and slipped away..."
3. A rogue is missed by a dragon.
"Lidda's cat-like reflexes contest with the wyrm's deadly claws..." (roll dice) "and the beast comes up empty-handed."
Honestly, I don't see what the parrying rules add to this sort of thing, other than rolling more dice. If you like rolling lots of dice, then I suppose it's a good idea, though it could do with tables for hit location, type of parry, etc, etc, etc.
To even out the melee-ers with the casters, maybe you could even allow ray-spell parries as a follow-on feat to missile weapon parries - but the weapon would likely have to take the damage. Those casters love them ranged touch attacks nowadays.
In concept this is very similar to lots of other RPGs that allow one parry/dodge/block/whatnot attempt a round.
You could really integrate this with shield blocking - if you have a readied shield you could take block attempts with your AoOs as well (instead of a parry), doubling your shield bonus against that attack. With a feat, add the shield bonus to spell saves! Hiding behind a shield to not take as much fireball/cone of cold damage seems like a genre staple, or even using it to "avert your eyes from his charming gaze!"
That coding wasn't word-wrapped, so here it is repasted without coding.
Parrying
When you are attacked in melee combat, and you are wielding an appropriate melee weapon*, you may attempt to parry your enemy's attack. This uses up your attack of opportunity for the round. You may not attempt a parry if you have already used your AoO. Make an opposed attack roll. If your attack roll beats your opponent's, you have successfully parried his/her attack. You may not parry an attack of opportunity. If you are being flanked, you may only parry the enemy you are facing (or only one enemy, if the DM doesn’t want to deal with figuring out facing), unless you have Improved Uncanny Dodge.
Special: If you have the combat reflexes feat, you may give up as many attacks of opportunity as you have in this manner.
Feats:
Improved Parry [General, Fighter]
You are skilled at parrying your enemies' blows, which sometimes enables you to return the attack.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Base Attack Bonus +6
Benefit: When parrying an attack, if you beat your opponent's roll by more then 10, you may immediately make a counter attack. This is a normal melee attack, at your highest base attack bonus. If your attacker is using a reach weapon and you are not, you may parry, but you may not counter attack.
Greater Counter-Attacking [General, Fighter]
Your skill at parrying and counter attacking is amazing.
Prerequisite: Dex 15, Base Attack Bonus +13, Cleave, Improved Parry
Benefit: If you drop an opponent with a counter attack, you may use your cleave ability to make an additional attack against a nearby enemy. This works exactly as the feat (no 5-foot step, same weapon, same attack bonus, etc). You may not make multiple additional attacks, even if you possess the Great Cleave feat.
Two-Weapon Parrying [General, Fighter]
Your use of two weapons greatly aids you in counter-attacking.
Prerequisite: Dex 17, Base Attack Bonus +9, Improved Parry, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Fighter or Ranger(two-weapon fighting style)
Benefit: While wielding two appropriate melee weapons, if you parry an enemy's attack, you may then make a counter-attack with your off-hand weapon, no matter how much you beat his attack roll by. The off-hand attack is made at a -5 penalty. If your opposed roll beats your opponent's roll by more then 10, you make the attack with your main weapon, at your highest attack bonus, like normal.
Special: You may choose to make the counter-attack with your off-hand weapon, at the -5 penalty, even if you beat your opponent's attack roll by more then 10.
Perfect Parrying [Epic, Fighter]
You have perfected the art of parrying and counter-attacking.
Prerequisite: Dex 25, Improved Combat Reflexes, Greater Counter-Attacking, Two-Weapon Parrying, Base Attack Bonus +25, Great Cleave, Fighter level 11th or Ranger level 11th.
Benefit: As long as you beat your opponent's attack roll, you may make a counter-attack, no matter how much you beat it by. Great Cleave works with this feat. Also, you can make an unlimited number of parries per round.
*-Appropriate melee weapon: this has been left intentionally vague, for it depends on multiple things, and is mainly up to the DM. I let players parry as long as their weapon is roughly the same size or bigger. If their weapon is smaller, I let them parry, but at a negative to their attack roll. I do not allow parrying with natural weapons, except for certain rare instances where a creature’s natural weapon happens to be big, and hard enough to parry a sword or axe blow, such as a Hook Horror’s claw attack.
Dragon issue 301 has a whole Parry feat tree. With the Parry feat you can the ability, once per round to attempt to parry an attack that would be successful otherwise. To parry it you have to make an opposed attack roll and equal or exceed the attacker's original attack total. Parrying takes an attack of opportunity. If you fail the parry, the attacker gets a free disarm attempt against you. Then there are feats to get rid of the free disarm attempt, to allow you to make more than one parry per round, to allow you to parry more than one attack from the same opponent in a round, to parry much larger weapons, to parry an attack directed to an adjacent square, etc.
So far I've had one character, a samurai/kensi base class called the nindurai in my campaign, take the Parry tree of feats. He didn't have the same potential of the more hack-and-slash fighters of the campaign, but he got much harder to hit. It really added a level of excitement to the combats. (The hill giant rolled a natural 20 and confirmed the critical hit; will he kill the nindurai or can the nindurai possibly roll high enough to parry that critical hit?! Sadly, he did not roll high enough and did die. There was, however, another time where he needed to roll a natural 20 himself on his parry roll to succeed and he actually did.)
It also adds a level of complexity to an already complex combat system. I came from a war-games background before playing D&D, so I don't mind a bit of added complexity (and it uses a mechanic that's common in the game already, the opposed roll), but some people might. I have to say though that for most of the members of my campaign it added a great deal of excitement.
First of all, no need to be rude. I don't want anyone starting to flame anyone. Not that you were, I'm just trying to head it off. ;)
Second of all, in overpowered combat, things end quickly because high-powered characters will have insane attack and damage rolls, while HP and AC aren't affected nearly as much. With parrying, so long as both PCs and NPCs are overpowered, their attack rolls are likely to counter each other more often, giving battles a more realistic feeling, and prolonging combat for more than 1 round. This is the main balance issue that I meant parrying could correct.
Outside of that, I simply stated that parrying makes combat feel more realistic. Along with evocative descriptions, it gives battle that sense that people (and monsters) aren't just missing their target or bouncing off of armor, but that having a high attack roll actually means you're good at deflecting blades.
Stormbrand, I'm not quite sure how you meant it, but in foam-fighting the shields are generally made out of wood. If you were just agreeing with me, then, well...cool.
Yes - I was agreeing, and reinforcing that your point was true with more authentic equipment than foam as well. However, in a strange way, foam-fighting is more realistic because there is more freedom to use techniques that would be FAR too dangerous to practice with real weapons (a wooden waster is really just a nicely carved baseball bat).
My opinion is that this rule is entertaining and helpful because, if nothing else, when you are outclassed, parrying will let you survive long enough to realise you are outclassed and decide on a retreat. There had been a previous, highly detailed thread on the subject of high-powered combatants, the general point being that the fights tend to be over sooner, with the knock on effect of giving less chance to escape.
So my suggestion is go with the parry rules, they add to the game and to the combats. Since these rules are built to accommodate high-powered play, redressing the gap between warriors and spellcasters could be to exploit the high-powered play.
Hear me out folks.
Warriors and Rogues tend to get more use of their ability scores than casters, who mostly rely on their spellcasting stat, they use DEX and CON as well but they make less difference than for non-casters (non-full-casters). So use the parrying rules as a mitigating factor, and let the warriors and rogues dish out tons of damage.
I'm planning a 3.5 Ed sequel to that campaign now and was considering whether or not to include something like the parry roll again. I just want to tell you that I *love* the idea of using an AO for a parry. The feat tree seems interesting as well and I may kipe some of these ideas ;) Ah, imitation, the sincerest form of flattery!
I haven't read this whole thread through, but I did want to offer something else I used in that campaign in case you found it interesting as well. I had a critical hit table and also a kind of "fumble" table - I called it the "melee mistake table". It caused various mishaps to you if you had to roll on it, such as losing your weapon, falling prone, subjecting you to an AO (before there were AOs), putting you into a "disadvantaged" combat state so you took a penalty on attack and damage until you broke melee, etc. Typically you had to roll on the table if you rolled a nat 1 on your attack roll. One of the variant rules we used was that if an attacker was successfully parried, and the defender rolled a 20 on the parry, the attacker suffered a melee mistake and had to roll on this table. More rolls? Yes, but it was pretty cool when the knight is at 5 hp, on his knees, and when the enemy comes to finish him he rolls a 20 on his parry roll, leaping to his feet in a shocking burst of speed and staggering his opponent in surprise.
I'm hesitant to use them because while it does seem like it offers a bit more defense than regular AC rules, I don't see much use for it other than giving my players the choice of buffing their AC or buffing their attacks with the added bonus of increasing the chances of not being hit.
I'd almost recommend using the d20 + AC modifiers variant out of the DMG. This would offer a bit more varied AC. This makes everyone, mobs and PCs, a bit more unpredictable in the "Fighter swings and needs a 4 to hit" area.
I didn't read anywhere about attacks that can't be parried. If an ogre swings a club the size of a tree at me, I'm definitely not going to be able to deflect it. A two handed human could probably have the same effect swinging a greatsword at another human with a rapier. Parrying just doesn't seem to be an option in that circumstance.
In the PHBII there's a feat that lets you roll 1 attack and use its result as your AC against one attack against you. This sounds a bit like your rules. It has potential, I want so see more about this
Have you tried these rules in a game? Can you describe how they worked (not rules, but affects these rules had on your game)?
I'm hesitant to use them because while it does seem like it offers a bit more defense than regular AC rules, I don't see much use for it other than giving my players the choice of buffing their AC or buffing their attacks with the added bonus of increasing the chances of not being hit.
I'd almost recommend using the d20 + AC modifiers variant out of the DMG. This would offer a bit more varied AC. This makes everyone, mobs and PCs, a bit more unpredictable in the "Fighter swings and needs a 4 to hit" area.
I didn't read anywhere about attacks that can't be parried. If an ogre swings a club the size of a tree at me, I'm definitely not going to be able to deflect it. A two handed human could probably have the same effect swinging a greatsword at another human with a rapier. Parrying just doesn't seem to be an option in that circumstance.
In the PHBII there's a feat that lets you roll 1 attack and use its result as your AC against one attack against you. This sounds a bit like your rules. It has potential, I want so see more about this
As far as certain types of weapons, I did mention that parrying must be done with an "appropriate" melee weapon. I left this vague because I didn't want to have to list every possibility. And as far as big weapons, they're parry-able, but I just put a negative on the roll based on how much bigger they are then your weapon.
As far as effect upon my game, I've found that they add quite a bit of excitement. They add something to battles that previously were very boring. Especially what Stormbrand said, they give the players a chance to know when to run away. And this way, you don't have as many times where you say "The high level, very powerful BBEG swings at you with his weapon of legacy, and misses you. He didn't even hit your armor: he just wasn't even close." This way, you can just say that the attack was easily parried. (That's just one example I liked. ;) ) My players love the rules, they think it adds a lot of realism and excitement to the game. All in all, I'd have to say that I've yet to find a single flaw with the system, other then that it adds a small amount of time to battles, but since the rolls happen at the same time, it's not much. The battles overall may take a bit longer because people don't die right away, but nobody in my group sees that as being a problem. I don't know the dynamics of your group, but I'd suggest at least trying it out for a bit if you think it may work. You can always just tell your players you want to try something out for a while, and if it doesn't work out well with them, you can scrap it.
Dragon issue 301 has a whole Parry feat tree. With the Parry feat you can the ability, once per round to attempt to parry an attack that would be successful otherwise.
I hate it when people try to use feats to model things which anyone should be capable of attempting. This is not an appropriate use of the feat mechanics: Feats model special abilities, special training, or specialization. For example, if the game didn't already have a Jump skill, you wouldn't want to model jumping by adding a "Jump" feat.
Similarly, parrying is a natural part of combat. Even completely untrained people can attempt to parry blows, so it doesn't make sense to model it as a feat.
[u]My Thoughts on Parrying, Take 1[/u]
A few years back I wrote an article for Pyramid with several new combat maneuvers for D20. I'm no longer completely happy with them (I made a key mistake in the Throw mechanic, for example -- it should only be allowed if you've got someone pinned). But one of things I did attempt was a parry mechanic:
Parry [Attack]
On your turn you can choose to use one or more of your attacks as a parry. If anyone attempts to perform a melee attack against you before your next turn, you may use one of your parries. Doing so allows you to apply the attack bonus of the attack you sacrificed as a bonus to your Armor Class against that one attack.
Note: You cannot parry an armed attack while unarmed, unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or similar class ability). This also means that you cannot parry an unarmed attack from someone who possesses the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or similar class ability), unless you also possess the Improved Unarmed Strike feat (or similar class ability).
In terms of game balance, this works OK. It's very difficult to overcome a parry, but the person performing the parry has to give up an entire attack without knowing whether it will actually benefit them over the course of the next round.
The problem is, it doesn't feel much like parrying. Instead of reacting to and countering an attack, you're preparing for it before its made. The mechanic also requires some metagame firewalling, because otherwise people tend to avoid the harder to hit characters they know to have readied a parry.
[u]My Take on Parrying, Part 2[/u]
Then I read this thread, and I initially loved the idea of using AoOs to perform parries. Its an innovative and creative use of the AoO mechanic and properly reflects the "feel" of parrying (as a reaction to someone else's attack).
After reflecting on it for awhile, however, I came to the conclusion that there are several problems with the approach:
1. It increases the utility of Combat Reflexes to a ridiculous degree. Take any two identical fighters with a Dex high enough to take advantage of Combat Reflexes (say 3-4 total AoOs). Give one of them Combat Reflexes and give the other one any other combat feat without pre-reqs you'd like. The guy with Combat Reflexes clearly has the superior feat: He's cancelling out 50% of the other guy's successful attacks.
2. Several of the supporting feats don't make any sense. For example, Greater Counter-Attacking allows you to use your Cleave feat but not your Great Cleave feat when you drop an opponent using a counter-attack. Well, since I can use both my Cleave feat and my Greater Cleave feat WITHOUT taking this feat using the rules-as-written, there's no way I'm going to waste a feat slot on something that makes me LESS effective.
3. Its interactions with the rest of the system seem counter-intuitive. Using Expertise or fighting defensively suddenly makes you easier to hit some of the time?
[u]My Take on Parrying, Part 3[/u]
But thinking along those lines suddenly presented another solution, which requires a minor segue into my solution for called shots.
The way called shots are typically handled is a really bad idea because it breaks the assumptions of the game system. Sean K. Reynolds explains that thoroughly and authoritatively in this essay.
But when I wanted to run a modern pulp game using D20, I really felt the need to include some of mechanic which would allow someone to, for example, shoot the villain in the leg as they're attempting to escape. Without that you were missing a major staple of the genre.
Thinking about this problem led me to realize that there are two things people want from a called shot mechanic: First, they want to inflict some sort of "special effect" on their character they're targeting. They want to throw acid in their face and blind them or shoot them in the leg and stop them from escaping. Second, they want to strike a vulnerable part of the body and do extra damage (they want to shoot somebody in the head).
The first option I thought of was to use the critical rules as Reynolds suggests: They automatically deal with the "extra damage" scenario, and you could add in a system in which the character dealing the critical could decide to, instead, do normal damage + a special effect of some kind.
That's not a bad way to go, but the problem is that there's no way to actually "call" a critical. You can't model the situation where a sharpshooter aims for a headshot or Pulp Hero shoots his opponent in the leg to stop them from escaping.
This thought led me towards the idea of allowing people to accept a penalty on their attack roll in order to increase their critical threat range. This worked in simple cases, but I eventually decided the mechanic was too exploitable when used in combination with Improved Crit and keen and the like. (Players weren't using the mechanic to make called shots, they were just using the mechanic to improve their criticals unilaterally. And raising the penalty to a point where they stopped doing that simply made the mechanic undesirable in all situations. You could stop it from stacking with other crit range increases, but that only compounds one of the more foolish mistakes of the 3.5 revision.)
So then I decided to cut out the middleman of critical hits and simply allow players to accept a penalty on their attack roll to either aim for a special effect (a crippling blow, etc.) or extra damage.
In the case of the penalty for achieving a special effect, I'm still tweaking. But here's a simple version using a modified version of the Massive Damage Threshold: When you make a called shot to a limb, you suffer a -4 penalty on your attack. If the damage from your attack is larger than the target's Con score, the target must make a Fortitude save (DC 15). If they fail the save, the targeted limb is incapacitated until the damage is healed.
(There are two different directions I'm trying to develop this: One includes tweaks for more serious effects -- such as blindness -- by accepting a larger penalty. The other allows a character to accept larger penalty in order to increase the Fort save DC. I've found solutions which include both, but not elegant ones.)
In the case of causing extra damage, however, my eye was naturally drawn to Power Attack: -1 to attack/+1 to damage. The only problem is that Power Attack is a feat and a called shot, like a parry, is something anyone should be allowed to try.
My solution was simple: Anyone can make a called shot by accepting a penalty to their attack roll. For every -2 penalty to their attack roll, they gain a +1 bonus to damage. The penalty cannot exceed the character's BAB, although a character with a BAB +0 or +1 can still accept a -2 penalty. In practice, this makes Power Attack basically an "improved called shot" feat, which seems to work fine in practice. (Its utility is a little lessened, but its still a meaningful improvement. Plus, Power Attack has always been primarily a gateway feat in any case.)
Now characters could aim for the head or the heart or whatever took their fancy, accept the penalty, and go from there.
[u]My Take on Parrying: The Solution[/u]
Which brings us back to parrying. The problem a lot of people have with the lack of parrying in D&D is that your skill with a blade is not represented in your AC. Trying to hit an unarmored master swordsman is just as easy as trying to hit an unarmored peasant.
What's needed is some way to transfer some of the puissant ability represented in your attack bonus to your AC.
Let's start with a paradigm shift: When you make a standard attack roll in D&D, you are not using your weapon to defend yourself. You are basically making an all-out attack with your weapon of choice.
This leads you naturally to fighting defensively: -4 penalty to attacks, +2 bonus to AC.
The problem with fighting defensively is that it doesn't scale: A guy with a +20 attack bonus can still only gain a +2 bonus to AC; just like the guy barely trained in swordplay with a +2 attack bonus. It shows that you've taken some of your attention away from attacking all-out to defend yourself with your weapons, but there's still no way to scale it.
This leads you to Combat Expertise: But not only is Combat Expertise a feat (when, as I mentioned before, anyone should be able to parry -- its a natural part of combat), it's still capped! You have to constantly re-devote feats to the Expertise track.
Well, instead of that, let's look to my Power Attack-based called shot solution, and redo the whole thing.
Fighting Defensively: When using the attack action or the full attack action in melee, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to accept a penalty on all attacks from the round in order to gain a bonus to your AC. For every -2 penalty you accept, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. (For example, by accepting a -6 penalty, you would gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC.) The total penalty cannot exceed your base attack bonus, although characters with low base attack bonuses (+0 or +1) can still accept a -2 penalty to their attack rolls for a +1 dodge bonus to their AC. The penalty to attacks and bonus to AC apply until your next turn.
Combat Expertise: Remove the -5/+5 cap, although the total penalty still can't exceed your BAB. (I'd also get rid of the Int requirement. I similarly got rid of the Str requirement on Power Attack in my called shot variant. Those are fluff requirements in any case: They take a mechanic which could represent many different things and narrow it to only one interpretation. They have no game balance utility whatsoever.)
All of that I know will work. Here are some feat ideas that are just brainstorming (and probably need refining and testing):
Improved Parrying (feat): Set Combat Expertise as a pre-req. This feat allows you to expend an attack of opportunity to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC vs. one attack. If you can take multiple attacks of opportunity, you can expend multiple attacks vs. a single attack (thus, expending two AoOs, could give you a +4 bonus against one attack). You cannot use this feat if unarmed (unless you have the Improved Unarmed Strike ability).
Parrying Mastery (feat): Set Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Improved Parrying, and Weapon Specialization as pre-reqs. When using a weapon you've specialized in, you can expend an attack of opportunity to double the dodge bonuses to AC from your Combat Expertise and Improved Parrying vs. one attack. (You can only use Parrying Mastery once against each attack, but you can still expend multiple AoOs using Improved Parrying and double the bonus from each.)
Supernatural Parry (feat): Set Combat Expertise and Improved Parrying as pre-reqs. This feat allows you to expend an attack of opportunity to literally parry magical attacks, granting you a +2 bonus to your Reflex save vs. one spell.
Improved Supernatural Parry (feat): The bonus to Reflex saves is increased to +4.
Two-Weapon Defense Expertise (feat): Set Combat Expertise and Two-Weapon Defense as pre-reqs. When using Combat Expertise and wielding two weapons, you gain a shield bonus to AC equal to half the dodge bonus granted by Combat Expertise. This replaces the shield bonus granted by Two-Weapon Defense.
These feats start giving a meaningful track for the "unarmored swashbuckler". They can use their Combat Reflexes and Improved Parrying feats to effectively counteract the advantage of armor bonuses. (This may seem like the classic case of spending feats just to keep even, but it only takes three feats to accomplish it. And when you consider that the character can still be wearing a ring of protection and +1 leather armor loaded up with special abilities instead of armor bonuses, there are some real possibilities that start to open up.
With some tweaking, you might discover that an Expert Parrying feat -- giving a +4 dodge bonus per AoO -- might work. Or perhaps a feat track that allows you to apply your parrying bonus against all attacks for the round -- although that would need to be the end of a lengthy feat track, IMO.
[u]My Thoughts on Parrying: Total Defense[/u]
Total Defense should never be inferior to making an attack with Expertise. It doesn't make any sense that you can forego your attacks and end up with a lower AC than if you'd made your attacks. The core rules are just flat-out wrong on this one. Plus, Total Defense becomes increasingly useless as you advance in levels.
My first instinct is to say that Total Defense should give you a bonus of +4 on top of whatever fighting defensively or Combat Expertise would give you if you "spent" your entire melee attack bonus on getting a dodge bonus, except that you completely forego making attacks.
My second instinct is to say that Total Defense should give you a +2 dodge bonus to AC for every attack you're normally entitled to, plus whatever dodge bonusyou would have gotten from spending your entire melee attack bonus on getting a dodge bonus with Combat Expertise or fighting defensively. (So, for example, if you normally have +15/+10/+5, you'd get a +6 bonus from Total Defense.) How this interacts with the bonus attacks from two-weapon fighting would be important to keep in mind while trying to figure out if this is balanced.
[u]My Thoughts on Parrying: Shields[/u]
As a way of possibly making the sword-and-board style of combat more attractive again, you could base the shield bonus to AC on the BAB of the character using the shield. I'm not sure of exactly what approach I'd take with that. It might be something to spend a feat on.
[u]My Thoughts on Parrying: Headlong Attack[/u]
What if you switch things around? Normal mechanics represent focusing on attack without using your weapon to defend.
I hate it when people try to use feats to model things which anyone should be capable of attempting.
That's funny because I hate it when someone dismisses out of hand a post I made to be helpful. I do enjoy it, however, when someone who dismisses me out of hand then writes a novel, expecting that I'd bother to read even a single word of it. :D
As far as the cleave/great cleave thing, you're reading it wrong. It lets you use cleave/great cleave, when it's not your turn. That right there makes it way more powerful. You need cleave, then greater counter attacking to cleave normally, and during a counter attack. Then, when you get great cleave, you can still use it normally, but you can only single cleave on a counter attack, at least, until you get perfect parrying.
Expertise and fighting defensively would have to work slightly differently in this system. I just haven't figured out how. This is, obviously, something I need to do. But ultimately, I like my rules better, even if they don't stretch too far. I will admit, though, that you've got a solid idea going there.
That's funny because I hate it when someone dismisses out of hand a post I made to be helpful.
"Dismiss out of hand" would suggest that I didn't explain why I disagreed with your comments. This is not, in fact, what happened.
If you dislike someone disagreeing with you, that's fine. But don't pretend that I didn't specifically state why I don't like modeling parrying through the feat system, when you're quoting me doing precisely that. Sheesh.
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
First of all, it is a natural part of combat. Anyone can parry, feats make it better. As far as Combat Reflexes, yes, it makes the feat more powerful. About as powerful as the feat was meant to be if everyone always made full use of AoO.
I don't think Combat Reflexes was "meant to be" more powerful than every other combat feat in the entire game, so I'm going to have to reject your premise here.
As far as the cleave/great cleave thing, you're reading it wrong. It lets you use cleave/great cleave, when it's not your turn.
And, according to the core rulebooks, I can already do that without taking your feats.
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
That said, I agree with the idea that BaB should affect the bonuses from fighting defensively and total D. Their bonuses seem kind of stale, especially after 5th level when the crafty characters who relied on them are being beaten with high BaB enemies.
Kind of what I was saying earlier, if you ran a game where everyone was a fighter of sorts, then giving all the players combat expertise for free is still balanced, and it doesn't take feats away from the players. If you gave this out in a normal game though I'm sure the wizards and bards will look at you funny and ask for something else.
Everyone who is pro-parrying rules sounds like they're all envisioning fencing duels or scenes from Gladiator. I would have to say that in almost any movie I’ve seen parrying used they definitely didn't parry and then cleave one after the other. Combat expertise hurts as a feat, but the advantages of it cannot be stressed and fighter's shouldn't feel that the NEED it or deserve it. It’s an option. It’s perfectly viable for a fighter to never try parrying, and I think the rules reflect that when you opt out of combat expertise for cleave or weapon specialization. Those choices are choices reflected in your character's fighting style, and if your style is hitting for a lot of damage then its easy to assume that the special effort in learning to hit harder has left him a bit behind in parrying.
As for the cap on combat expertise, there's a feat that eliminates the cap. I believe its in complete warrior. Taking a feat to remove a cap on another feat seems ridiculous too I bet, but think of how a 20th level fighter can drop 20 from his base attack for a whopping +20 to his AC. Two feats and a high base attack is all he'd need.
Then for the comment on combat expertise being stupid because when you don't make an attack you don't get the full bonus you'd have gotten if you did. The FAQ states that you can declare an attack, choose the penalty you take, and then not take an attack. Its important that you do this because the penalty you took on the attack affects AoO too, which if you'd just taken total D or fighting defensively would have been handled differently.
It sounds like you guys have a lot of ideas as to how to make this work. I think in an all fighter game (such as a legend of the 9 swords or complete warrior based campaign, both which would be really cool) these rules would enhance combat a lot, but as is I think the system is balanced and reflects most of what you're trying to accomplish already. It may not seem like it at first, but has anyone made a fighter with combat expertise that didn't like his AC bonus? Wasn't it worth the feat?
I'm going to preface this with a simple request. Everyone who is using these rules don't forget game balance. I agree with the direction this discussion is going in the sense of game REALISM but as far as game BALANCE I'm worried non-fighter classes will get left behind.
That said, I agree with the idea that BaB should affect the bonuses from fighting defensively and total D. Their bonuses seem kind of stale, especially after 5th level when the crafty characters who relied on them are being beaten with high BaB enemies.
Kind of what I was saying earlier, if you ran a game where everyone was a fighter of sorts, then giving all the players combat expertise for free is still balanced, and it doesn't take feats away from the players. If you gave this out in a normal game though I'm sure the wizards and bards will look at you funny and ask for something else.
Everyone who is pro-parrying rules sounds like they're all envisioning fencing duels or scenes from Gladiator. I would have to say that in almost any movie I’ve seen parrying used they definitely didn't parry and then cleave one after the other. Combat expertise hurts as a feat, but the advantages of it cannot be stressed and fighter's shouldn't feel that the NEED it or deserve it. It’s an option. It’s perfectly viable for a fighter to never try parrying, and I think the rules reflect that when you opt out of combat expertise for cleave or weapon specialization. Those choices are choices reflected in your character's fighting style, and if your style is hitting for a lot of damage then its easy to assume that the special effort in learning to hit harder has left him a bit behind in parrying.
As for the cap on combat expertise, there's a feat that eliminates the cap. I believe its in complete warrior. Taking a feat to remove a cap on another feat seems ridiculous too I bet, but think of how a 20th level fighter can drop 20 from his base attack for a whopping +20 to his AC. Two feats and a high base attack is all he'd need.
Then for the comment on combat expertise being stupid because when you don't make an attack you don't get the full bonus you'd have gotten if you did. The FAQ states that you can declare an attack, choose the penalty you take, and then not take an attack. Its important that you do this because the penalty you took on the attack affects AoO too, which if you'd just taken total D or fighting defensively would have been handled differently.
It sounds like you guys have a lot of ideas as to how to make this work. I think in an all fighter game (such as a legend of the 9 swords or complete warrior based campaign, both which would be really cool) these rules would enhance combat a lot, but as is I think the system is balanced and reflects most of what you're trying to accomplish already. It may not seem like it at first, but has anyone made a fighter with combat expertise that didn't like his AC bonus? Wasn't it worth the feat?
Oddly enough, in all the time I've been playing 3rd Ed, I can recall seeing someone use Expertise/Combat Expertise only once. Basically the fighter had a piercing weapon and could hardly do any damage to the creatures they were fighting anyway, so he took the attack penalty to make himself harder to hit, then hung in there to provide flanking and hopefully a second target to take some heat off the fighter with the slashing weapon, and make to poke at it for a point or two from time to time. (It probably would have been more effective for him to use the aid another action rather than make an attack himself.) I just don't see too many melee specialists willing to give up the attack bonus. I've seen it a fair amount with Power Attack, especially at higher levels, but not with Expertise/Combat Expertise.
I have seen a character use the Parry tree of feats from Dragon. Only one player has chosen that route so it's clearly not overwhelmingly better than all other feat options. It added a minor complexity, but mostly fun and excitement. It didn't represent Western fencing so much as kenjutsu, which has all sorts of blocks and parries. It fight the flavor of his samurai/kensai character very well.
Oddly enough, in all the time I've been playing 3rd Ed, I can recall seeing someone use Expertise/Combat Expertise only once. I just don't see too many melee specialists willing to give up the attack bonus. I've seen it a fair amount with Power Attack, especially at higher levels, but not with Expertise/Combat Expertise.
I usually see rogues do it. They'll get into flanking position with the tank and then burn a few points on Expertise to get their AC to a somewhat respectable level while still having a decent shot at landing their sneak attack.
And I'm pretty sure it was designed to be a rogue feat (note the Intelligence prereq).
And it sees a lot of use, along with Power Attack, whenever they encounter mooks (which happens not infrequently in my campaigns). The rogue will wade into a big pile of enemies and pour on the Expertise to make themselves nearly impossible to hit, while the fighter will pile in and pour on the Power Attack and Great Cleave to mop 'em up.
I usually see rogues do it. They'll get into flanking position with the tank and then burn a few points on Expertise to get their AC to a somewhat respectable level while still having a decent shot at landing their sneak attack.
And I'm pretty sure it was designed to be a rogue feat (note the Intelligence prereq).
And it sees a lot of use, along with Power Attack, whenever they encounter mooks (which happens not infrequently in my campaigns). The rogue will wade into a big pile of enemies and pour on the Expertise to make themselves nearly impossible to hit, while the fighter will pile in and pour on the Power Attack and Great Cleave to mop 'em up.
I've never thought of rogues as being especially intelligent (as opposed, say, to wizards who must be) but I agree that Combat Expertise seems like a feat better suited to a rogue providing flanking than to a primary melee specialist. I'd say especially so at low levels, where the rogue does only +1d6 with a sneak attack, or at high levels against targets that can be flanked but are immune to critical hits.
The party in the campaign I ran fought an army of maugs which had a couple of greater stone golems with it, and nobody in the party had an AC that a greater stone golem, with an attack bonus of +42, could miss. We did have a rather subpar rogue in the party with a good AC, but she didn't have Combat Expertise or Improved Combat Expertise and didn't try to do something useful like provide flanking for the melee specialists.
Mechanically, of course combat expertise isn't worth as much as power attack (usually, don't hate me yet) but that’s because of a basic assumption made by D&D as a system. Characters are meant to get hit. Not all of the time, but enough that they feel excitement at risking death. AC is kept low because what good is the large amount of HP a fighter gets when nothing can touch him? Ever check the ACs on mid to high CR monsters? After 10th level if your fighter ever misses a monster on his first attack you should point and laugh.
Rouges to benefit most from combat expertise because hitting should never be a problem for them anyway (they should always be trying to get into good position) and with the armor limitations they'll be getting back the 4 or 5 points of armor the fighter has over them. I usually follow this up with some of the more interesting feats like improved trip. Its pretty amusing and devastating when a rouge attacks from flanking, trips his opponent (getting even more bonuses to his later attacks) and still gets to attack for damage (with a higher bonus because he's prone). Then he gets ANOTHER attack when the mob provokes AoO from standing. THEN THE FIGHTER GETS ANOTHER. It’s ridiculous to watch.
As for fighters never taking combat expertise, I challenge you to a duel because my improved disarm will show you just how annoying making unarmed attacks are
It’s all about how you use it. Power attack seems like an obvious superior, and you can never really go wrong with it, but combat expertise is perfect for clever type characters who don't rely on brute force all the time. I personally feel that the combat expertise tree is cooler than the power attack tree.I've never thought of rogues as being especially intelligent
Rogues are a skill-based class. Almost every rogue I've ever seen has dropped their highest score into Dex and their second highest score into Intelligence.
We did have a rather subpar rogue in the party with a good AC, but she didn't have Combat Expertise or Improved Combat Expertise and didn't try to do something useful like provide flanking for the melee specialists.
A party that doesn't perform basic flanking maneuvers properly is one of my early warning signs as a DM. It means I'm probably going to have to start dumbing down my NPC tactics.
(Basically, if the party isn't willing/capable to perform a maneuver like flanking that costs them absolutely nothing, it makes it very unlikely they're going to be making good decisions when you start having to make meaningful trade-offs to gain advantages.)
Another minor problem I have is that the system pretty much already has something like this in place with the standard system. Basically how it works is, your actual AC is your defense roll. Take 10 off of your regular AC, and this is essentially your defensive skill. Attacking is the same as a skill versus skill contest, with the attacker rolling a D20, and adding their bonuses, (BAB, Str, WF, etc.) and the defender rolling a D20 and adding their bonuses. (Armor Bonus, Dex, Dodge, etc.) Ties go to the attacker. The standard system simply takes it into account that all people on defense are taking 10 on their Defense. This is done to speed up combat. It is also why AC is 10 + whatever.
So basically, incorporating a Parrying ruleset really just gives the defender a chance to defend twice, instead of once. Even though the attacker can only hit once.
I do like the rules though, and may try incorporating them sometime with a few minor modifications. For instance, I don't like the limitations on some of the Feats. If you can counterattack after parrying, and you kill your opponent with that counter attack, you should be able to use the Cleave Feat freely, as well as the Great Cleave Feat. After all, they both still work if you kill something with an AOO, so why not with a counterattack. It doesn't fit with how the system already works to limit it like that.
I figure if anyone wants to incorporate the feats in that issue of Dragon, then I will have to take a closer look to see if any of the feats may be a swift action or something to make it beneficial and worthy as a feat. Has anyone already tried something like this? How did it work out?
Mechanically, of course combat expertise isn't worth as much as power attack (usually, don't hate me yet) but that’s because of a basic assumption made by D&D as a system. Characters are meant to get hit. Not all of the time, but enough that they feel excitement at risking death.
This is the main issue I see when parrying comes up and armor functioning as DR. The D&D system takes these things into account already but it isn’t really presented in a way that people seem to grasp or want to grasp.
One, you are not making a to hit roll. That really is a bad description of what is occurring. You are really making a roll to see if you damage the target. AC is saying that armor and your natural abilities to avoid hits (Dex) etc make it harder for you to be hurt.
HPs take into account that even thou you were hit maybe you deflected the blow to make it a grazing hit or successfully blocked the attack but you took some damage from the force of the blow. It is completely abstract.
Fighting defensively is a poor man's unskilled parry. Combat Expertise is a skilled person's parry. It works as a parry. If you don’t like the fact it is a feat... HR that it is a standard action or full round action and make the Feat the ability to go beyond the BAB limit.
I see no reason why feats don’t represent this. To be skilled at parry you need to be trained warrior. Feats represent training as do class abilities. I have yet to see a set of Parry mechanics work without scrapping other systems or slowing down gameplay... it becomes this slippery slope where you end up with something that isn’t D&D.
I believe if you are unhappy with AC not scaling with Attack bonuses that you make minor modifications to the Fighting Defensive, total defense, and combat expertise mechanics. (Which I believe some have suggested.)
Opposed rolls don’t work. I do not like the opposed roll system in general in D&D - the d20 makes it way too random on who wins.
I seem to recall seeing that issue of Dragon with the Parry feats in it. But I too thought that would limit a lot of players from taking it. Personally, I feel combat needs some sort of spice and pizzazz other than just trying to roll a D20 against someone else’s' AC. So, I've introduced a "houserule" system that basically allows any of the players to use an out-of-turn action upon being struck to decide if they wish to forego their next immediate standard action in favor of making a melee attack to parry/oppose the threatening attack with. Sure it means one more possible die roll from everybody during the round, but no one will be doing that EVERY round.
I figure if anyone wants to incorporate the feats in that issue of Dragon, then I will have to take a closer look to see if any of the feats may be a swift action or something to make it beneficial and worthy as a feat. Has anyone already tried something like this? How did it work out?
That Dragon issue came out before the invention of swift and immediate actions. The parry takes an attack of opportunity. To parry more than once you need a feat that allows multiple parries, Improved Parry, which itself requires Combat Reflexes. Keep in mind too that Parry requires Combat Expertise. So while it might seem like an extra defensive roll, it requires two feats and an attack of opportunity to do it even once, and more feats and more attacks of opportunity to do it multiple times. Even then you need Expert Parry to parry more than one attack from the same creature in the same round.
Also you normally can parry a weapon no more than one size category larger than your weapon. You need Incredible Parry to increase that by one size category, and you have to take it multiple times to parry weapons of increasing size.
You parry, furthermore, only when wearing light or no armor. If you want to parry in medium armor you have to take Armored Fencer (medium), and to parry in heavy armor you need that plus Armored Fencer (heavy). Also, unless you take Guarded Defense, you provoke a free disarm attack by someone whose attack you try to parry.
So really it's no where near as simple as you take one feat and you get a second defensive roll for each attack. Far, far from it. I think it's a logical and well-balanced progression of feats and feat benefits. In practice it worked out quite well.
I might also add that to parry unarmed you also need the Steel Skin feat (which requires Improved Unarmed Strike too). There's also a cool feat called Protective Parry that allows you to parry melee attacks aimed at targets in adjacent squares that you threaten. It requires Expert Parry.
Finally, to take Parry in the first place you need both Dexterity and Intelligence scores of at least 13.
Further still, in some other systems (Star Wars D20 at least) you gain a defense bonus based on your level, plus your dex and roll a d20 either once per round or once per attack against you to determine how well your Defense/AC.
Hope this helps.
Parry (New action) req shield
You can ready a standard action to parry a melee attack with a shield you only need to ready a parry «I ready my shield against melee / ranged attack" and when an opponent attack you, you can choose to take the readied action or to wait for another attack. If you choose to parry, you loose you shield bonus to AC until your next round, make a melee attack roll modified by your shield AC bonus opposed by the attack roll of the opponent.
You get a penalty of -8 for projectile weapons and -4 on thrown weapons and ranged spell with attack roll. For each weapon size greater than yours, you gain a -4 penalty on the opposed check. If you are successful your shield has taken a full hit as if targeted by a sunder attempt and you don’t take the hit.
If you fail the opposed check then the attack pass trough and STILL must hit your AC. You can parry only 1 attack per round.
You can also ready against an area attack that has a reflex saving throw. The procedure is the same but instead of making an opposed check, you add your shield bonus to AC to the saving throw.
If you use a secondary weapon, then you can use 1 additional parry against a single attack and you still need the Weapon parry feat. You use the same penalty as for fighting with two weapons and this must be declared in the readied action.
* Any Rage/Frenzy/Rage spell or any similar effect disables the Parry option
**The presence of the parry action may encourage the removal of the combat expertise feat
Weapon Parry (feat) req: Bab+1
You can use the parry action with a normal weapon instead of a shield but doing so is more difficult. Follow the normal steps but you take a penalty of -4 with light weapons and an additional -4 to parry any ranged attack.
Improved parry (feat) req: Bab +6, Int 13
You can substitute one of your attack in a full round attack to parry using the same attack modifier.
ex. Bob the fighter has a BAB of 12 ( +12/+7/+2), Bob makes a full round attack on a mean Ogre but decide to retain the second attack to parry so he strike at +12 and +2. On the Ogre's turn the Ogre decide to attack Bob with his great club and roll a total of 16, Bob use his prepared parry at a bonus of +9 (+7 bab and +2 heavy shield) rolls a 12 for a total of 21 and successfully parry the ogre's attack.
You still can parry only once in a round except if you use a secondary weapon and using two-weapon fighting and the weapon parry feat, you can use one of you offhand weapon as an additional parry against one attack and you still use the normal penalties for fighting with two weapons. Effectively, two weapon fighting allow you to try to parry twice the same attack.
Greater Parry (feat) req: Improved parry, Int 13, Bab +11
You can now substitute any number of attack of your full round attack to parry but still can use only 1 parry against the same attack. If you use a secondary weapon, then you can use 1 additional parry against a single attack and you still need the Weapon parry feat. You use the same penalty as for fighting with two weapons.
You also always add you shield Bonus to any reflex saving throws against area attacks.