Fighter's (BM) "Parry" Manuever - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JohnnyNitro Feb 22, 2015 2:43:58	So, if you negate all the damage from your "Parry" roll, do you still technically get "hit"?
#2 Bait-hammer Feb 22, 2015 3:25:21	Yep, as the roll to hit still succeeded.
#3 Ath-kethin Feb 22, 2015 4:13:44	I would say it depends on what you are trying to do or prevent. For example, if you are trying to cast a spell (and I'm not sure you can cast a spell and parry in the same round, but this us the example that came to kind), being hit in combat could disrupt it. But I would say that if you parry the attack, it does not count as being hit for the purpose of disrupting the spell.
#4 El_Condoro Feb 22, 2015 4:41:36	Parry reduces the damage of a melee attack, so it assumes damage and therefore a hit. It is a reaction, so it can only be done once per turn but I would rule it reduces the damage of the attack before any constitution check for concentration being interrupted.
#5 Jenks Feb 22, 2015 8:07:16	Yes. You have to be hit to take damage, you have to take damage to parry.
#6 Rhenny Feb 22, 2015 9:17:40	I think this question is important for deciding whether or not to add poison damage, or other conditions granted by a successful hit. I'd rule that if the parry reduces damage to 0 then the hit is completely negated, thus no poison or other applied condition. The narrative of the action "parrying a blow" implies that if it is fully successful the blow is parried.
#7 FrogReaver Feb 22, 2015 9:20:47	I'd go with it stopping poision and such from applying. But expect table variation.
#8 Bait-hammer Feb 22, 2015 12:59:56	Lets consider the closest analog to parry, temp HP. @Mathew_ReutherIf my Temporary Hit Points are 10 and I take 30 damage from an attack, what is the DC of my Concentration Check? The DC is 15. When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you're still taking damage, just not to your real hit points. — Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 25, 2014
#9 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 17:30:47	I do not see any reason to believe it prevents any 'on hit' effects. There is no basis in the rules for that, for example poison only says it requires a hit so if the damage ends up being 0 for any reason the poison still applies. As for how much damage is taken, well I guess that would be the same as in cases such as damage resistance or any other effect that reduces damage, in which case I would say that if Parry reduces enough damage that the character takes 0 damage, then any effect the is based on damage taken would be using 0.
#10 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 17:46:40	FrogReaver wrote:
#11 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 17:50:40	MechaPilot wrote:
#12 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 18:16:57	jeff0 wrote:
#13 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 18:17:39	MechaPilot wrote:
#14 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 18:21:01	jeff0 wrote:
#15 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 18:46:50	MechaPilot wrote:
#16 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 18:57:13	jeff0 wrote:
#17 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 19:06:36	MechaPilot wrote:
#18 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 19:08:00	jeff0 wrote:
#19 jeff0 Feb 22, 2015 19:11:35	MechaPilot wrote:
#20 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 19:18:16	jeff0 wrote:
#21 Byakugan01 Feb 22, 2015 19:32:51	Rule of cool should apply here. 'Just before you get cut, your reflexes kick in and you adeptly parry your opponent's blade just before it slices your face. You notice a wet green sheen on the blade' super cool.
(Reply to #10) MephistoXtheXred	MechaPilot wrote:
#23 MechaPilot Feb 22, 2015 20:25:35	MephistoXtheXred wrote:
(Reply to #17) FrogReaver	Not another one of these threads. We all make assumptions that the rules do not clearly state. gravity? Not in the rules. Standing on air, why not? Breathing underwater, sure, the rules never even say you breathe as far as I can find. The point is that a lot of stuff happens that the rules don't specifically sanction. but lets not turn this into one of those threads.... Okay? jeff0 wrote:
#25 jeff0 Feb 23, 2015 4:17:54	But this is in the rules. Specifically, when hit you suffer effects. How about people stop turning these into "this is how I would have written the rule book" thread, because if that is what you want, I am pretty sure previous editions deal with touch attacks and damage negation. This edition specifially does not touch on any rules of the sort. There is a reason they are absent, because those mechanics are not there. 5e is pretty straight forward and people really need to stop trying to wedge in old rules they miss. FrogReaver wrote:
#26 Noctaem Feb 23, 2015 5:04:32	Parry: When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on the die + your dexterity modifier. Ok so now that we have the actual text for the maneuver we're discussing. First, parry can NEVER negate a hit by the rules. Let's just get that clear right off the bat, in order for basically any melee attack I can think of (I'm leaving room for something that would be considered a melee attack but does not require a hit or miss to deal damage here) to deal damage it requires a hit vs a target. So by the time you CAN use Parry to reduce the damage dealt by an attack, the entire hit or miss portion of the "Making an Attack" chain is long gone. You cannot invalidate a hit with Parry, first the trigger is wrong, it's not "when you are hit do x" and second reactions can't invalidate triggers in 5e from what I've seen. And furthermore, by the point damage is actually applied to a target you "hit" with a melee attack, you've already factored in all of the extra damage dice that would be applied by "hitting" IE: Sneak attack, poison on hit, Paladin smite, Hex damage, Hunter's Mark damage, etc.. All of that is then applied as a lump damage sum which can be reduced by the Parry maneuver or multiple lumps if there's somehow multiple damage instances (not sure if that's even possible in 5e). Now I've seen some interesting replies about how fluff wise the attack could be deflected off your shield or armor or using your own sword to stop the blow or cute stuff like that. Ok but that's not what the rules say. Mechanically speaking and by the sequence of how attacks are made and resolved, parry can NEVER negate a hit. First it would have to state that it does negate a hit. Second Parry basically works like damage resistance. The feat heavy armor master gives the user resist 2 to all damage IIRC. Just because the user takes 2 damage which is then reduced to 0 by the feat doesn't mean they didn't take damage or that they weren't hit by an attack. It simply means that they didn't take damage to their life points thanks to the feat. Any and all effects that trigger from hitting will still be applied. So if you have a melee attack that does 2 damage and on hit applies poison which acts like the spell "confusion", the poison still works even if the feat reduces the 2 damage to 0. You hit the target, met the requirement to apply the poison -> ergo it is applied. The same can be said of the Parry maneuver which only serves to reduce the damage you would take from an attack, it still hit to begin with and all consequences of hitting are still applied. Rule however you want at your tables people, but let's not confuse how we would individually rule at our tables and what the rules say. This is the rules forum after all. TL:DR Parry cannot invalidate a hit, ever. Effects which trigger from hitting still apply regardless of damage being reduced to 0.
(Reply to #26) Lucas_Blackstone	Noctaem wrote:
(Reply to #27) MephistoXtheXred	Lucas_Blackstone wrote:
(Reply to #23) MephistoXtheXred	MechaPilot wrote:
#30 strider13x Feb 23, 2015 9:11:40	Parry reduces damage. That's is. Lets say a "hit" does 3 slashing and then 2 poison damage for a total of 5 damage. The "hit" requires you to roll CON save for poison, that is part of the "hit". You then Parry 4 damage. As DM I would rule you take 1 poison damage. The term "hit" is a mechanics term for a successful attack action (as in you hit the target #). I have described HP loss from a "hit" as dodging the blow entirely! Why would you take poison damage if you were never touched, you ask? Because HP are part luck! You expended some karma to avoid the deadly attack. The more you look for real world explanations for HP loss (or gain) the less fun D&D becomes. Narrate an effective story around the mechanics and a more memorable experience can be had by all.
#31 Avross Feb 23, 2015 10:08:58	Noctaem wrote:
#32 MechaPilot Feb 23, 2015 16:21:53	MephistoXtheXred wrote:
#33 FrogReaver Feb 23, 2015 18:50:33	Are there any spells that call for a spell attack and do not do damage even on a hit. Maybe just cause a condition?
(Reply to #33) Macv12	FrogReaver wrote:
#35 JohnnyNitro Feb 23, 2015 21:58:20	Thanks for all the feedback, ladies and gents. The situation came up at our table last weekend, and as the first Fighter in our group, we found this instance to be particularly precarious. Will move forward based on said feedback...thanks again for keeping posts like this alive...

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

JohnnyNitro

Feb 22, 2015 2:43:58

So, if you negate all the damage from your "Parry" roll, do you still technically get "hit"?

Bait-hammer

Feb 22, 2015 3:25:21

Yep, as the roll to hit still succeeded.

Ath-kethin

Feb 22, 2015 4:13:44

I would say it depends on what you are trying to do or prevent. For example, if you are trying to cast a spell (and I'm not sure you can cast a spell and parry in the same round, but this us the example that came to kind), being hit in combat could disrupt it. But I would say that if you parry the attack, it does not count as being hit for the purpose of disrupting the spell.

El_Condoro

Feb 22, 2015 4:41:36

Parry reduces the damage of a melee attack, so it assumes damage and therefore a hit. It is a reaction, so it can only be done once per turn but I would rule it reduces the damage of the attack *before* any constitution check for concentration being interrupted.

Jenks

Feb 22, 2015 8:07:16

Yes. You have to be hit to take damage, you have to take damage to parry.

Rhenny

Feb 22, 2015 9:17:40

I think this question is important for deciding whether or not to add poison damage, or other conditions granted by a successful hit. I'd rule that if the parry reduces damage to 0 then the hit is completely negated, thus no poison or other applied condition. The narrative of the action "parrying a blow" implies that if it is fully successful the blow is parried.

FrogReaver

Feb 22, 2015 9:20:47

I'd go with it stopping poision and such from applying. But expect table variation.

Bait-hammer

Feb 22, 2015 12:59:56

Lets consider the closest analog to parry, temp HP.

@Mathew_ReutherIf my Temporary Hit Points are 10 and I take 30 damage from an attack, what is the DC of my Concentration Check? The DC is 15. When temporary hit points absorb damage for you, you're still taking damage, just not to your real hit points. — Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford) August 25, 2014

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 17:30:47

I do not see any reason to believe it prevents any 'on hit' effects. There is no basis in the rules for that, for example poison only says it requires a hit so if the damage ends up being 0 for any reason the poison still applies.

As for how much damage is taken, well I guess that would be the same as in cases such as damage resistance or any other effect that reduces damage, in which case I would say that if Parry reduces enough damage that the character takes 0 damage, then any effect the is based on damage taken would be using 0.

#10

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 17:46:40

FrogReaver wrote:

#11

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 17:50:40

MechaPilot wrote:

#12

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 18:16:57

jeff0 wrote:

#13

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 18:17:39

MechaPilot wrote:

#14

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 18:21:01

jeff0 wrote:

#15

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 18:46:50

MechaPilot wrote:

#16

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 18:57:13

jeff0 wrote:

#17

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 19:06:36

MechaPilot wrote:

#18

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 19:08:00

jeff0 wrote:

#19

jeff0

Feb 22, 2015 19:11:35

MechaPilot wrote:

#20

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 19:18:16

jeff0 wrote:

#21

Byakugan01

Feb 22, 2015 19:32:51

Rule of cool should apply here.

'Just before you get cut, your reflexes kick in and you adeptly parry your opponent's blade just before it slices your face. You notice a wet green sheen on the blade'

super cool.

(Reply to #10)

MephistoXtheXred

MechaPilot wrote:

#23

MechaPilot

Feb 22, 2015 20:25:35

MephistoXtheXred wrote:

(Reply to #17)

FrogReaver

Not another one of these threads. We all make assumptions that the rules do not clearly state. gravity? Not in the rules. Standing on air, why not? Breathing underwater, sure, the rules never even say you breathe as far as I can find. The point is that a lot of stuff happens that the rules don't specifically sanction. but lets not turn this into one of those threads.... Okay?

jeff0 wrote:

#25

jeff0

Feb 23, 2015 4:17:54

But this is in the rules. Specifically, when hit you suffer effects. How about people stop turning these into "this is how I would have written the rule book" thread, because if that is what you want, I am pretty sure previous editions deal with touch attacks and damage negation. This edition specifially does not touch on any rules of the sort. There is a reason they are absent, because those mechanics are not there. 5e is pretty straight forward and people really need to stop trying to wedge in old rules they miss.

FrogReaver wrote:

#26

Noctaem

Feb 23, 2015 5:04:32

Parry: When another creature damages you with a melee attack, you can use your reaction and expend one superiority die to reduce the damage by the number you roll on the die + your dexterity modifier.

Ok so now that we have the actual text for the maneuver we're discussing. First, parry can NEVER negate a hit by the rules. Let's just get that clear right off the bat, in order for basically any melee attack I can think of (I'm leaving room for something that would be considered a melee attack but does not require a hit or miss to deal damage here) to deal damage it requires a hit vs a target. So by the time you CAN use Parry to reduce the damage dealt by an attack, the entire hit or miss portion of the "Making an Attack" chain is long gone. You cannot invalidate a hit with Parry, first the trigger is wrong, it's not "when you are hit do x" and second reactions can't invalidate triggers in 5e from what I've seen. And furthermore, by the point damage is actually applied to a target you "hit" with a melee attack, you've already factored in all of the extra damage dice that would be applied by "hitting" IE: Sneak attack, poison on hit, Paladin smite, Hex damage, Hunter's Mark damage, etc.. All of that is then applied as a lump damage sum which can be reduced by the Parry maneuver or multiple lumps if there's somehow multiple damage instances (not sure if that's even possible in 5e).

Now I've seen some interesting replies about how fluff wise the attack could be deflected off your shield or armor or using your own sword to stop the blow or cute stuff like that. Ok but that's not what the rules say. Mechanically speaking and by the sequence of how attacks are made and resolved, parry can NEVER negate a hit. First it would have to state that it does negate a hit. Second Parry basically works like damage resistance. The feat heavy armor master gives the user resist 2 to all damage IIRC. Just because the user takes 2 damage which is then reduced to 0 by the feat doesn't mean they didn't take damage or that they weren't hit by an attack. It simply means that they didn't take damage to their life points thanks to the feat. Any and all effects that trigger from hitting will still be applied. So if you have a melee attack that does 2 damage and on hit applies poison which acts like the spell "confusion", the poison still works even if the feat reduces the 2 damage to 0. You hit the target, met the requirement to apply the poison -> ergo it is applied. The same can be said of the Parry maneuver which only serves to reduce the damage you would take from an attack, it still hit to begin with and all consequences of hitting are still applied.

Rule however you want at your tables people, but let's not confuse how we would individually rule at our tables and what the rules say. This is the rules forum after all.

TL:DR Parry cannot invalidate a hit, ever. Effects which trigger from hitting still apply regardless of damage being reduced to 0.

(Reply to #26)

Lucas_Blackstone

Noctaem wrote:

(Reply to #27)

MephistoXtheXred

Lucas_Blackstone wrote:

(Reply to #23)

MephistoXtheXred

MechaPilot wrote:

#30

strider13x

Feb 23, 2015 9:11:40

Parry reduces damage. That's is. Lets say a "hit" does 3 slashing and then 2 poison damage for a total of 5 damage. The "hit" requires you to roll CON save for poison, that is part of the "hit". You then Parry 4 damage. As DM I would rule you take 1 poison damage.

The term "hit" is a mechanics term for a successful attack action (as in you hit the target #). I have described HP loss from a "hit" as dodging the blow entirely! Why would you take poison damage if you were never touched, you ask? Because HP are part luck! You expended some karma to avoid the deadly attack. The more you look for real world explanations for HP loss (or gain) the less fun D&D becomes. Narrate an effective story around the mechanics and a more memorable experience can be had by all.

#31

Avross

Feb 23, 2015 10:08:58

Noctaem wrote:

#32

MechaPilot

Feb 23, 2015 16:21:53

MephistoXtheXred wrote:

#33

FrogReaver

Feb 23, 2015 18:50:33

Are there any spells that call for a spell attack and do not do damage even on a hit. Maybe just cause a condition?

(Reply to #33)

Macv12

FrogReaver wrote:

#35

JohnnyNitro

Feb 23, 2015 21:58:20

Thanks for all the feedback, ladies and gents. The situation came up at our table last weekend, and as the first Fighter in our group, we found this instance to be particularly precarious. Will move forward based on said feedback...thanks again for keeping posts like this alive...