|
Ok so I've recently been reading Warhammer fantasy roleplay and looking at the simplicity of their parrying rules wondered why D&D never incorporated any.
How would this affect the game?
Parry: As a move or standard action you can prepare to parry. Anytime between this declaration and your next turn you may parry one incoming attack. Make an attack roll, if greater than your opponents then the attack is parried.
Special: If you have a shield or off hand weapon you may make one free parry a turn without taking this action.
**You can only take one parry action per turn.
Possible Eberron expansion: Spend an action point to take an extra parry action.
Feat: Extra parry
Prereq: Dex 13, Combat Expertise, Combat Reflexes, Dodge.
Benefit: You may take a number of parry actions equal to your dex bonus per turn.
|
I've kinda seen attacks that hit the Flat-Footed AC but not the Full AC as having been parried or dodged.
If you want, you could use a variant of the non-static AC rules from Unearthed Arcana where you can to roll your Dexterity Bonux on one die(the die used is based upon the character's Dex Mod, and the armor's Max Dex bonus) any time your character is not considered Flat-Footed; and that could be considered the parry/block/evasive move.
I've toyed with a similar idea, only using the "attack of opportunity" as the currency for parrying. Gives more survivability back to the light armored fighters with combat reflexes, like swashbucklers.
|
In 2nd edition AD&D, with the Fighter's Handbook, you had such a system - a character could use an attack to instead parry a nominated attack. You could use a weapon or a shield - shields gave an extra +2 to the parry roll and also added in their magical bonus.
I've been using something similar and find it works quite well. Definitely a bonus for being a fighter-type as they have good attack bonuses and can often spare using a later multiple attack against a non-fighter.
In 2nd edition AD&D, with the Fighter's Handbook, you had such a system - a character could use an attack to instead parry a nominated attack. You could use a weapon or a shield - shields gave an extra +2 to the parry roll and also added in their magical bonus.
I've been using something similar and find it works quite well. Definitely a bonus for being a fighter-type as they have good attack bonuses and can often spare using a later multiple attack against a non-fighter.
Same thing here.
Sacrify one of your attacks for a parry.
|
If you use a parry standard maneuver/option, you might want to reconsider the AC bonus provided by shields.
In the common acception of the "one number to catch them all" for AC values, DEX modifiers and shield bonuses already account for some parrying.
I'd rule out that the shield bonus goes straight to the parry counter-roll instead of usual AC, boosted by STR for large/heavy shields and by DEX for bucklers and light shields.
Also, it could be useful to develop a class-related base defensive bonus (for parrying and dodging), that could help further characterize the various core classes - clerics and paladins might be good at parrying but awful at dodging, while rogues and maybe rangers should be at the opposite of the spectrum; fighters could choose where to apply the bonus, basing that on personal fighting style.
You can also take a look at the excellent "Art of the Duel" pdf from Sinister Adventures...
Finally, I do agree with the attacks of opportunity traded for parrying option. One per round at a slight cost, more if you have the proper feat.
Indeed, i give a bonus to parry (actually "block") according to the size of the shield : +1/kote, +2/small, +3/medium, +4/large (it happens to be the same AC bonus i give for these shields).
BUT, on the other side, as for any other shield attack or maneuver, the AC bonus of the shield is lost for the remaining of the round.
I also give a +2 parrying bonus to some weapons designed for that, like the main gauche, sai, rapier, broad sword, bastard sword, claymore, and even staff.
I also have some specific feats for parrying.
And yes, you can use an Action Point to parry, adding the xd6 to your roll.
Neverwinter Nights incorporated a Parry skill, which I believe you had to activate to use (as opposed to it being passively operational continuously); I think it opposed an opponent's attack roll, similar to an above suggestion. Of course, what made the idea terrible is that it was a skill, and thus you had to spend skill points on it. Without increasing the number of skills (which the game didn't), it only further compounded the issue of low skill point classes.
I think that some of the ideas proposed in this thread are okay, but I have to echo what Golem101 said. The game already accounts for parrying. It's represented by the Dex bonus to AC, shield bonuses in general, fighting defensively, and taking total defense. It then simply falls to the DM/players to describe any given missed attack as a parry (versus some other explanation for the miss). Introducing rules to further simulate parrying, when it's already been accounted for, may run into minor play-balance issues (check for these) and, perhaps more importantly, will certainly add to the complexity of the game (read: slow it down). The extent to which each of these results is brought about would have to be determined as you play-tested the rules. I simply wish to advise any who consider adopting these rules to be aware of their likely outcome.
|
|
Slightly revised based on peoples comments here and on RPG.Net
Parry: As a move or standard action you can prepare to parry an attack as long as you are armed with a melee weapon. Anytime between this declaration and your next turn you may parry one incoming melee attack.
Make an attack roll, if greater than your opponents attack then the attack is parried.
This action uses your attack of opportunity for the round.
You may not parry whilst flatfooted, or if unaware/surprised by your opponent, or unarmed.
Special: If you have a shield or off hand weapon you may make one free parry a turn without taking this action. This still uses up your attack of opportunity.
**You can only parry once per turn.
***You cannot parry an immaterial or invisible attacker.
***Using this rule your shield no longer adds to your AC, instead the bonus is added to your parry attack roll.
Possible Eberron expansion: Spend an action point to take an extra parry action.
Feat: Extra parry
Prereq: Dex 13, Combat Reflexes, Dodge.
Benefit: You may take a number of parry actions equal to your dex bonus per turn.
Feat: Unarmed Parry
Prereq: Dex 13, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: You may parry attacks whilst unarmed.
|
|
Ok here are a few comments from a friend of mine. What do you think?
It is very good for a spell caster as you only need one free hand to cast spells, carry a weapon in the other even if your not in melee declare a parry in case someone closes and attacks (even better if you are a cleric carry a shield cast a spell parry and still move).
It also seems to loose effectiveness at higher levels as more attacks are gained it would be less effective, the trade off between 2-3 extra attacks or one parry definitely doesn't appeal. As the rules stand unless I was using a shield I would not be using parry after 6th level as a fighter as the numbers just wouldn't be in my favour. Most foes by that point gaining at least 2 attacks against me with only one parry per round admittedly I would have a chance to avoid thier best attack (assume in your average encounter opponents are roughly equal to characters giving you at best 50/50 chance of a parry fighter vs fighter. A secondary attack would become 5-10% more effective due to lost shield bonus not counting magic)but at the same time there weaker attack is more formidable as I've lost my shield bonus. On the other side of that I'd rather take an extra attack on my opponent knowing he has lost that shield bonus knowing he could only try to parry one attack. Possilbly trading attacks from a full a attack action would balance this somewhat?
Does he have a point?
|
|
Slightly revised based on peoples comments here and on RPG.Net
Parry: As a move or standard action you can prepare to parry an attack as long as you are armed with a melee weapon. Anytime between this declaration and your next turn you may parry one incoming melee attack.
Make an attack roll, if greater than your opponents attack then the attack is parried.
This action uses your attack of opportunity for the round.
You may not parry whilst flatfooted, or if unaware/surprised by your opponent, or unarmed.
Special: If you have a shield or off hand weapon you may make one free parry a turn without taking this action. This still uses up your attack of opportunity.**You can only parry once per turn.
***You cannot parry an immaterial or invisible attacker.
***Using this rule your shield no longer adds to your AC, instead the bonus is added to your parry attack roll.Possible Eberron expansion: Spend an action point to take an extra parry action.
Feat: Extra parry
Prereq: Dex 13, Combat Reflexes, Dodge.
Benefit: You may take a number of parry actions equal to your dex bonus per turn.Feat: Unarmed Parry
Prereq: Dex 13, Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit: You may parry attacks whilst unarmed.
Seems good.
I'd change a couple of points, though.
- parry is an immediate action. You parry, counter-attack and move; I see no problems in that.
- parry can not be performed against confirmed criticals. They're uncommon enough with the standard rules, parry would add another factor to render them too rare to perform.
- the Extra Parry feat drops one other feat requirement; right now it is not palatable enough, requiring a bit too much prerequisites.
Regarding JOD's comments:
- no problems for spellcasters, IMHO. It makes more sense for sorcerers/wizards to bring along the signature staff, especially if you give to specific weapons the proposed bonus for parrying. It lessens the value for the Concentration checks, though, so be careful.
- no biggie for fighters either (though he has good points). Knowing that you can effectively parry only one attack (barring feats) encourages tactical planning and personal evaluation of the opponent - does it looks dangerous enought to threathen multiple attacks? can I risk the second attack while having a better possibility of evading the first? and so on.
|
|
I'd also add a couple of extra details/notes:
- just as STR and DEX modifiers are added to attack rolls, it seems logical that they should have weight in active defensive actions such as parry.
Thus, i would add the DEX modifier for parrying actions performed with bucklers and light shields, and the STR modifier to heavy shields. This options also reduces a bit the problems JOD pointed out with hit/parry probability.
- a fighter can be quite hampered with multiple attacks should he/she not choose to take the extra parry feat, and this should be taken into account. I'd add the sub-rule that a character can do a second parry action (even if it goes against the immediate action description) if he drops his lowest attack iteration - this is possible only once, even for characters with more than two attack iterations.
As the character uses a lower modifier to the parry roll - as opposed to extra parrying action performed with the right feat, that use the highest modifier - this second rate option is interesting in the right situations, but mantains the feat superiority.
A 11° level fighter that drops his lowest iteration gains a parry action that has a low probability of success - unless it's used against the proper opponent, which is where individual competence shines.
|
|
I'd also add a couple of extra details/notes:
- just as STR and DEX modifiers are added to attack rolls, it seems logical that they should have weight in active defensive actions such as parry.
Thus, i would add the DEX modifier for parrying actions performed with bucklers and light shields, and the STR modifier to heavy shields.
Not sure if this overcomplicates the issue.
- a fighter can be quite hampered with multiple attacks should he/she not choose to take the extra parry feat, and this should be taken into account. I'd add the sub-rule that a character can do a second parry action (even if it goes against the immediate action description) if he drops his lowest attack iteration - this is possible only once, even for characters with more than two attack iterations.
As the character uses a lower modifier to the parry roll - as opposed to extra parrying action performed with the right feat, that use the highest modifier - this second rate option is interesting in the right situations, but mantains the feat superiority.
A 11° level fighter that drops his lowest iteration gains a parry action that has a low probability of success - unless it's used against the proper opponent, which is where individual competence shines.
I was toying with the idea that characters may get an additional parry at set levels. However I'm not sure about this as again may overcomplicate what is meant to be a simple mechanic.
|
|
I agree that these can make a simple addition a complicated mess, especially in the chaos that can be a round of combat with multiple creatures.
Thus, I suggested them as extras if you like some more detail for extra simulationism. Obviously, if you feel that the potential gain is offset by a too overcomplicated mechanic, just plain ignore them.
One of the most difficult points in developing house rules, at least to me, is knowing when and where to stop. ;-D
I think it was simpler (and, in some ways, more realistic) to assume that 6-second combat rounds include parrying attempts.
Also, total defense rules, anyone?
I think parrying rules are more baggage than designers have wanted. Sure, there have been occasional attempts to introduce them, and there are more intrusive rules that have made it into the game. But, in the end, I think it was a reasonable design decision.
IMO.
|
|
I think it was simpler (and, in some ways, more realistic) to assume that 6-second combat rounds include parrying attempts.
Also, total defense rules, anyone?
I think parrying rules are more baggage than designers have wanted. Sure, there have been occasional attempts to introduce them, and there are more intrusive rules that have made it into the game. But, in the end, I think it was a reasonable design decision.
IMO.
It's always been the stated intent that parrying is included in the back and fore of the six second round.
However imho I don't feel that the rules as written go far enough to distinguish between the superior combat skills of the martial character and the other classes.
I'm not sure I ever intend to apply these rules other than here as an academic exercise in rule creation but my underlying philosophy in all my house rules is simplicity if the above idea crosses that boundary it fails the 1st point of my personal checklist.
That said I'm not sure this idea does, plagarised as it is from WHFRP I still think it might be a good fit (with the kinks worked out).
|
|
I think it was simpler (and, in some ways, more realistic) to assume that 6-second combat rounds include parrying attempts.
Also, total defense rules, anyone?
I think parrying rules are more baggage than designers have wanted. Sure, there have been occasional attempts to introduce them, and there are more intrusive rules that have made it into the game. But, in the end, I think it was a reasonable design decision.
IMO.
Personally I was always a rolemaster fan 8-)
I've appreciated the input a lot.
However imho I don't feel that the rules as written go far enough to distinguish between the superior combat skills of the martial character and the other classes.
I agree this is a weak point, but rules will always be a compromise between realism and playability.
Personally I was always a rolemaster fan 8-)
I loved RM! But it deserves the bad rap it gets -- the system was way too complicated and cumbersome for most players. My group never got a long-term RM campaign going (we tried MERP upgraded to full RM rules).
Personally, I applaud WotC for the d20 rules. IMO they've found a sweet spot in the battle between realism and playability.
|
|
However imho I don't feel that the rules as written go far enough to distinguish between the superior combat skills of the martial character and the other classes.I agree this is a weak point, but rules will always be a compromise between realism and playability.
Personally I was always a rolemaster fan 8-)I loved RM! But it deserves the bad rap it gets -- the system was way too complicated and cumbersome for most players. My group never got a long-term RM campaign going (we tried MERP upgraded to full RM rules).
Personally, I applaud WotC for the d20 rules. IMO they've found a sweet spot in the battle between realism and playability.
It's fair to say I don't love the D20 rules. I like them, they do the job fairly. However they can definitely be improved on, later editions have kept far to many bad design flaws/ideas just because.
A more skill based defense (and attack for that matter) would be an infinite improvement over the current HP/AC debacle and doesn't need to add significant complexity. (I rather like Alternity for example).
I have many fond rolemaster memories but theres no way I'd run it again.
I simply allow for a "Defense Bonus" = half the BAB rounded down, reduced by the Armor Check Penalty of any armor (NOT shields, those are used to parry attacks away) worn by the character. Add feats (or class features for the Fighter) to reduce armor check penalties bit by bit, and you have an integrated "Parry" feature that grows with the character's combat prowess and complements armor even at high levels. Makes the lightly-armored fighter with rapier & buckler as viable as the heavyly armored tank. :)