I am one of 8 player/Dm/close friends that all play in the same group. Since we all DM for each other, we come to group agreements on the mechanics of how the rules work. This is so that one character a player may have is "DMable" by anyone on the group. It has never been a problem. Well, there is one thing the group has never been able to agree on. The Parrying feat tree in Dragon 301. It has led to (and I kid you not) more than a few multi hour long debate/aurgements on if they should exsist. The key aurgement being that there are so many other feats and class ablities where "parrying" is described as AC bonus vs. a landed blow deflection. So now it is to the point where only 2 players have parrying characters, and the other 6 pretend those characters don't exist. We simply try to not EVER mention the word parry when we all play.
I was just curious if anyone else has had thoughts on this one? Or if these feats have caused any kind of controversy? Has this discussion taken place else where?
I am one of 8 player/Dm/close friends that all play in the same group. Since we all DM for each other, we come to group agreements on the mechanics of how the rules work. This is so that one character a player may have is "DMable" by anyone on the group. It has never been a problem. Well, there is one thing the group has never been able to agree on. The Parrying feat tree in Dragon 301. It has led to (and I kid you not) more than a few multi hour long debate/aurgements on if they should exsist. The key aurgement being that there are so many other feats and class ablities where "parrying" is described as AC bonus vs. a landed blow deflection. So now it is to the point where only 2 players have parrying characters, and the other 6 pretend those characters don't exist. We simply try to not EVER mention the word parry when we all play.
I was just curious if anyone else has had thoughts on this one? Or if these feats have caused any kind of controversy? Has this discussion taken place else where?
It sounds like the ones getting so edgy about the Parrying need to realize that they're being very close-minded. Instead of worrying about rules mechanics, they need to just accept what's new and gain a feel for it in the game.
Why debate on something that's always entirely abstract anyway? It's pointless. I'm surprised they don't argue about the nature of hit points.
Sure, one can say the attack that misses someone can be subtituted as a deflection. Or is it? Me and my players describe misses all different ways, from the monsters claws failing to penetrate the chainmail, to the character reacting just in time (high Dexterity) to lift his shield and block it (shield bonus) or to buff out his beastplate to cushion the blow (high Dex, medium/heavy armor) to the character's armor getting scratched and tugged on by attacks (heavy armor) and so on.
The whole parrying with a weapon comes in often during description of the misses but I see someone with the Parry feat tree as someone that actually wards off blows with their weapons mostly, and this combined with the other elements of their defenses makes them more formidable. I usually describe weapon parries with Combat Expertise, but hardly. I see Combat Expertise as the character quickly analyzing and learning opponent's attacks, styles, and routines and learning how to effectively dodge or counter them (hence, it grants dodge bonus to AC) and the more he concentrates on the defense the worse the offense (hence the attack penalties).
It's really all a matter of perspective. As a DM, I do my best to let my players know the perspective of how I see certain rules done in the game and they accept it. Mainly because being picky about it shouldn't ruin a D&D game, it is a game after all.
I use the Parry feats in my game. Only problem is, no one has taken them because the tree is too large. You have to take about 3 Parry feats to be any good at it, but then again you're canceling a blow that could've hit with an attack roll meaning that's twice the chance the monster's attack is deflected. Nice balance if you ask me. We do have one player who made a Swashbuckler and is taking the Parry feat tree route. He's taking Parry and Improved Parry, and possibly one more to round it out a little more.
I don't understand why the players in your group are so picky, they need to roll with it and just accept that characters with the Parry feat tree are better at defense than everyone else. Think of it as a "Defensive Theme" type as opposed to offensive types who specialize in Power Attack feat tree.
My advice, I'd personally tell the picky ones to shut it, arguing over abstract crap is pointless. They either accept Parry feat tree or find another group. What makes it more pointless is, as a player, one should be ecstatic to have access to an optional feat tree that will enhance their defenses.
Instead of adopting a parrying rule or feat tree, I expanded the combat expertise feat to include Greater and Improved combat expertise, both of which give greater trade-offs of attack rolls vs. parrying.
Someone who "fights defensively" is using rudimentary parrying during the combat. Now, someone who actively takes the combat expertise feat has honed their "parrying skill" to a fine art and is able to exploit their weapons skill more effectively to help protect them during combat.
I just didn't see the need for another game mechanic for parrying when the combat expertise feat (and my home-brewed expansion of same) accomplished what I wanted my players to have--the ability to take feats to improve their defensive capabilities.
I largely agree with F2K on the lack of need for a specific parrying mechanic--I think it's pretty much encompassed under Dex bonus, dodge, and combat expertise, and fighting defensively. I have, however added three of homebrew feats to the Combat Expertise tree that can be used only with certain suitable weapons and simulate special moves of a highly trained fighter: Deft Parry allows negation of one blow with an opposed attack roll, Lightning Riposte allows one to follow up a Deft Parry with an attack of opportunity, and Trap Weapon allows one to trap the blade of an opponent's weapon using the hilts or other suitable projections from one's own weapon, giving one a variety of grappling-type options such as attempting to disarm him by main force, pushing him back, or keeping his weapon trapped so your allies can attack him or move past him without provoking attacks of opportunity unless he wishes to drop his weapon and draw another one on his turn.
~Combat Expertise is not parrying.~
First off, it has an Intelligence prerequisite. What does Intelligence represent? A character's ability to reason, think, logic, analyze, and solve.
What Combat Expertise is, in-game, is the ability to analyze an opponent's attacks and provide counter maneuvers to avoid getting struck. Parrying with a weapon COULD be involved, but it's not the sole option. Cause I'd like to see how you describe Combat Expertise with an unarmed character (and I don't mean a Monk). It's a dodge bonus, which means the character is mostly avoiding the attacks SOMEHOW, not parrying them against his weapon, which could very well be a Small sized dagger for all we know.
Combat Expertise means the character has honed his intellect into the art of martial combat, just as a sage hones his intellect to a study of lore. As the character rises in combat experience (base attack bonus) he learns and masters more techniques to better stave off attacks directed at him, at the cost of accuracy and ability to successfully counterstrike. An ogre swings his club one way, he ducks, then it swings back before the arc of the swing finishes. Prepared for this (by taking penalties to his attacks and increasing his AC) he COULD move in closer to strike at the ogre's knee but he twists himself away from the attack, possibly losing his chance to effectively harm the ogre(hence the attack penalty)
Like I said, all a matter of perspective and how well you can describe a metagame situation.
Fighting defensively just means you're still attacking, except you're more focused on the defense than you are on the offense. It's a basic form of melee fighting and doubled with expertising in the art of defense simply means all the more defense for you.
Parrying is another matter entirely, and game mechanic wise, a sound choice for those looking to master defensive maneuvers. Should the attack hit from all your stunts and maneuvers and armor, you have the chance to parry it at the last moment. I really don't see the problem with including Parrying in a game, and I really wish people would stop associating Combat Expertise with parry alone, that's like associating Cleave with slashing weapons only, which is not the case it can be done with all weapon types. You just need some darn creativity to describe a Cleave attack with a piercing weapon. X D
You just need some darn creativity to describe a Cleave attack with a piercing weapon. X D
Shish kabob?
|
I have built a character using the parrying rules in Dragon 301, and I'm currently playing a character that uses Combat Expertise.
The two mechanics work very differently. In many ways, parrying is better. Let me explain.
A martial character gains an attack bonus at +1 per level. A 1st level martial character that gains a masterwork weapon and has a strengh modifier of +4 will have a +6 to attack at 1st level. By 20th level we might imagine the character has an attack bonus of +34 (+20 BAB, +5 Enhancement Bonus, +7 Str Mod, +1 Weapon Focus, +1 Greater Weapon Focus).
At the same time, a well-equipped first level character may have an AC of 22 (+1 Dex, +8 Full Plate, +2 Shield, +1 Dodge). With expertise this character can make his AC 23. A character focused on defense may increase this to 39(+3 Dex, +5 Enhancement Bonus, +8 Mithral Full Plate, +5 deflection, +7 shield bonus, +1 dodge).
At 1st level a martial character needs a 14 or better to hit his first level counterpart. At 20th level he needs a 5 or better.
Now, while I've chosen some rather arbitrary numbers, the point is that increasing one's attack bonus is easier than increasing one's AC. With the use of Combat Expertise we can require the attacker to need a 10 or better if we commit almost all the rest of our resources to defense.
The use of the parry feats allow us to avoid buying all the defensive equipment.
The attack bonus of someone with the parry feat may very well equal that of the attacker. Instead of spending all of the characters wealth on defensive items, he can instead put that money toward increasing his own offensive power, thus making him more balanced overall.
This is particularly true in a low magic campaign. Without recourse to magic, the AC bonus is essentially static, while the attack bonus becomes progressively better.
In that situation, the parry rules allow for approximately 50% negation of a hit that would otherwise hit your armor class on anything other than a natural 1.
So, they do work differently. I think parrying is fun, and adds something to the game. Some DMs might very well consider it overpowered. It does negate the "auto hit" mentality of high level fighters. By 20th level a fighter should be able to hit just about everything with his primary attack except a character with the parry feat.
Here's a question: Does your group have issue with the Blind Fight feat? Because the two feats work surprisingly similar to each other. One way to look at AC is that the character is taking 10 on a defensive roll (10 + modifiers). The feat allows a character to effectively reroll their defense (albeit at a likely higher roll) much like blind fight allows a character to reroll an attack. And let's face it - Against the heavy hitters at high level, AC is generally a laughable concept.
Another feat to compare this to is Deflect Arrows. Parry is actually less effective than Deflect Arrows, since you actually have to make a roll to use it.
Food for thought...
TK
No one in the group has ever debated that the parry tree isn't more useful. The aurgement is largely based on it beng too good. There is little reason for a fighter to NOT take the parry tree.
The other aurgement, is that there are many many many other places in core books and other places that state parrying with a weapon is the active defense that all combatants use. And this active defense results in a bonus to AC. Dodge adds to AC. It doesn't allow you to dodge a blow that would otherwise hit. Even combat expertise adds a bonus to AC, it does not make an attack automaticly miss when the defender would otherwise be hit.
The feats imply that the only characters that deflect blows away with their weapons are the ones with the parry tree feats, and that all other characters simply can not make that attempt. This is rediculious.
|
|
I don't think it is ridiculous.
While the parry feats are good, they're also intensive. A character that focuses on parrying is giving up many other good feats. It is very difficult to create a parrying character that also has great cleave, for instance.
There are a number of different effective builds a "fighter" can take. One of the best is still ranged combat. Most tough monsters with a decent CR are melee brutes. If you stand 200 feet away with a cliff between you, though, they're pussycats. Does anyone say a ranged build is "too good"? Probably. It definitely works wonders against creatures that are less mobile and don't have good ranged attacks.
In either case, though, you give up effectiveness in some situations for greater effectiveness in others. A parrying character isn't guaranteed to be able to negate a hit. They can only negate a very small number of potential blows each round. They can lose their weapon quite easily (or if using a locking guantlet, have it sundered) rendering their combat abilities essentially eliminated.
There are plenty of reasons not to take parrying. I did it once. It was nice. I once parried a dragon's bite. Barely. It didn't make me invulnerable, but it did make me a valuable addition to the party. I could tank without using up all my hit points, but I couldn't dish out nearly as much damage as some other characters (like the casters).
It is a good feat tree, but most high end feats are good. I'd argue that it is far from broken, however.