Me and my buddies have always rolled our games (non D&D rules) and would use Parry as a way to fight defensively.
After getting this game and looking at the rules, it seems you just roll against a set number (AC) instead of making the rolling more interactive like rolling your hit and the other character rolling a Parry.
Is there anyone that have successively modified the game rules where Parry is a viable option and it makes the fights more of a battle of rolls instead of rolling against a number?
And maybe there is, but we just don't know it?
Basically, I would like my NPC to roll a strike and my PC roll to defend it based on him putting points into his parry (DEX).
Is this possible to do?
Dragon 301 (Nov 2002 I think) has a complete set of parry rules for 3.x games.
Well I recall the duelist PrC in Core rulebook having a parry and riposte ability, it would be fairly simple to translate those into feats.
Conan OGL has very good rules for dodge and parry. In effect they work like saveing throws or BAB but have unique progression. We use those rules with a few changes. Such as....
as a house rule in terms of dodge armor ac actually works as a negative. So you have +4 armor, you get -4 to dodge.
Again as a house rule Parry gains nothing good or bad from armor AC but a helm with horns adds to Parry (they cacth the swords and stuff) and shield AC adds to Parry.
I would highly recomend looking into that games base rules to at lest set up a good starting point.
TTFN DRE
Of course its possible, but your effectively doubling the length of time it takes to resolve every single melee attack in the game.
And making ranged combat and spell even more powerful- no parrying there...
Well AC would stay. For those who have high str classes that like to tank up with armor but can't parry, it would not hurt them. So archers really would have no advantage.
I would like to give the player a choice of Parry or just using AC, but you can't use both. Of course you could only parry based on your fighting technique. If you fight with swords and have learned to parry, then you would obviously not be adept at parrying arrows coming at you. You could try, but would be at negatives just like the game rolls out now.
Magic would have no way to be parried.
My problem comes into play when the "balance" issue comes around. The game is centered around feats and classes being geared and balanced by having AC. Throwing in the option of Parry seems like I'm going to have all these loop holes of overbalancing someone a headache for myself.
In the end, we do not know the book back and forward and have actually never played by D&D rules at all, so we may just stick to the book until we have a solid understanding of most classes and then try modding stuff later. My only problem with that, is that I would have to make a whole new campaign possibly, because someone would want character X because of X stat and X new rule.
It's really frustrating trying to make house rules that breaks other classes rolls or functions.
Of course its possible, but your effectively doubling the length of time it takes to resolve every single melee attack in the game.
And making ranged combat and spell even more powerful- no parrying there...
Well AC would stay. For those who have high str classes that like to tank up with armor but can't parry, it would not hurt them. So archers really would have no advantage.
I would like to give the player a choice of Parry or just using AC, but you can't use both. Of course you could only parry based on your fighting technique. If you fight with swords and have learned to parry, then you would obviously not be adept at parrying arrows coming at you. You could try, but would be at negatives just like the game rolls out now.
First, a side note. Your AC assumes you are already parrying. If you are just lying there naked and helpless on the ground, your AC is effectively a 1 (DEX = 0 because of helpless, -4 AC for prone, so AC = 10 - 5 - 4). But standing and defending yourself, naked, your AC = 10 (assuming a common DEX of 10). The 9 extra points of AC represent your active defense (dodging, ducking, moving out of reach, and parrying - all rolled into this AC).
Back to parrying.
There are some built-in flaws here.
You said you would make it a choice. One or the other. And you also said that the Parry option would be weak against arrows. That probably includes other ranged attacks too.
There are a lot of ranged attacks in Pathfinder. Who in their right mind would chose active defense that only works against some attacks when they could choose passive defense that works against everything?
I sure wouldn't.
Besides, it's not like wearing armor means you can't move your arms (if it meant that, then armored up fighters and paladins would take penalties on attack rolls, right?). So if they can move their arms well enough to attack exactly like an unarmored combatant, why can't they parry at all?
Makes no sense.
On the other hand, if you allow AC and Parry, then defense really gets two chances to avoid every attack, rather than only one. Every attack has to beat the AC and even then, the defender might parry it. That could make for very long combats involving a whole lot of missing.
If you're OK with that, then this is the best option. Some people will only be good at one of these things anyway (rogues = low AC high parry, paladins = high AC weak parry, etc.). The guy who really wins is the fighter who can throw on full plate, shield, every piece of AC gear in the game, and is probably still good at parrying, too.
In the end, even this best option is still fairly difficult to deal with. Not quite game-breaking, but definitely a mechanical headache and a balance issue.
In case you're curious, I have tried this myself. I used several parry mechanics and tweaked and tweaked and tweaked, but it never came out balanced. What it did always do was add more rolls, more calculations, more missing (less hitting), and more rounds to most combats. It slowed everything down, but the payoff was a poorly balanced game mechanic that never really satisified all the players. Or me.
Maybe your luck will be better.
What I ended up doing was creating a feat chain with a fairly high DEX requirement. The first feat allowed just one parry per round at your highest BAB. The second feat allowed you a second parry at your second highest BAB. And so on. Nobody ever took more than two (spending a 3rd feat slot on a parry at -10 means your parry will almost always fail so it's not really worth a feat).
This limited the number of times people could parry (they're parrying all the time anyway, thanks to that extra 9 points of AC, so these are really kind of like extra super-parries), and it kept it out of the hands of most heavy-plate tanks since those guys usually don't have high DEX scores (since the plate armors have such low MAX DEX limits).
It was further balanced by requiring feats to get the ability, meaning those feats that could have been used for other stuff were used to gain the parry ability. This made people have to pay for their extra defense rather than just getting it automatically.
THat seemed like enough balance to me, but it still created some very defensive PCs that were hard to damage and even harder to hurt them enough to make them worry about dying - they literally became nearly invincible (whatever could merely threaten their lives would absolutely kill any other PC in the group).
So it was still a balance issue. Just not as bad as other things I tried.
Actively parrying should cost something, like an attack of opportunity or an actual attack.
For example: when a character makes a full attack they may choose to give up one or more attacks to grant themselves an equal number of parry attempts at those sacrificed attacks bonus. Works good with two weapon fighting and is okay with high attack bonus'. The simplest thing to do is make it an opposed attack roll, the next simplest is to make it a CMB check. Of course it could just be a static AC bonus, but that isn't very interesting or exciting.
The next option would be a feat
Active Parry
Prerequisites: base attack +1
Benefits: when you are attacked by a melée attack you may give up an attack of opportunity to try and deflect the blow. Make an attack roll, if your roll is higher than your opponent's the attack is deflected. You suffer a -2 when trying to parry a critical hit.
From there you can have feats that "lock weapons", riposte (the parried attacker provokes) or any number of things.
No matter what, parrying will slow things down. In a boss or solo encounter this may not be so bad, but 10 guys all parrying will be a right pain. So, take caution when considering something like this.
Me and my buddies have always rolled our games (non D&D rules) and would use Parry as a way to fight defensively.
After getting this game and looking at the rules, it seems you just roll against a set number (AC) instead of making the rolling more interactive like rolling your hit and the other character rolling a Parry.
Is there anyone that have successively modified the game rules where Parry is a viable option and it makes the fights more of a battle of rolls instead of rolling against a number?
And maybe there is, but we just don't know it?
Basically, I would like my NPC to roll a strike and my PC roll to defend it based on him putting points into his parry (DEX).
Is this possible to do?
It's certainly possible, but it would make it require a whole lot of work adapting the rules.
My suggestion? If you'd like the feel of parrying without having to make massive changes to the rules, just switch who rolls during an attack. Let the attacker always have 10 + their bonuses to attack as a set DC, and the defender has to beat it on a d20 + their bonuses to AC or be struck. Crits on a 1 (or 2 or 3 for higher crit range weapons) and so on.
Minimal change, no change at all to overall combat odds, and you get a lot of the feel of parrying.
(Also, if you're not too worried about the defender rolling aspect, fighting defensively and total defense make a handy stand-in for parry. Just rename them parry and full parry and you're good to go.)
Because of the role that size plays in CMB and CMD, parry might actually make a great combat maneuver. It just makes sense... it's hard as smurf to parry a giant's club, and much easier to parry a pixie's sting.
When attacked, a creature appropriately armed can sacrifice an attack of opportunity to attempt a parry as an immediate action (before the attack is resolved). The attacking creature must roll CMB vs. the defender's CMD. Success means the attack continues unhindered. Failure means the attack is negated.
In place of a single attack during a full round action, you may strike the opponent's weapon out of the way, knocking them off balance and giving you an opening for attack. Performing a beat maneuver incurs an attack of opportunity from the target. Make a CMB roll against the opponent's CMD. For every five points you roll above the enemy's CMD, you get a +2 on your next attack roll during a full attack action.
No matter what, parrying will slow things down. In a boss or solo encounter this may not be so bad, but 10 guys all parrying will be a right pain. So, take caution when considering something like this.
We only have 2 guys rolling, and to be honest, we aren't the traditional D&D type roll players. Our campaign's have always centered around fighting instead of storylines. We have never gotten into city politics or drama with a woman or things of that nature. Our campaigns focus on hack and slash with rolling on the side. (that statement is based on all the rpg'rs we have around our community we've seen or tried rolling with, not in terms of every D&D'r). Our style of play is around 70% battle and 30% storyline.
Our campaign characters in our generated games had upwards of 1500 hitpoints and the weapons did around 2d12 - 3d6 average damage. Fights would last 10 to 20 minutes and we loved it. It felt like an epic battle each time we played. Now, that is based on characters that were up around 20th lvl (characters could go to around 40).
Now that we've come to this style of play, we are finding that we will be just rolling against a number and not activity "fighting" against each other. It's not really that we want to "just" parry, we want a way for each person (the GM and the PC) to roll against each other and let the dice gods determine who will win the fight. It's going to be hard to look at a fight and say, just roll above a 5 and you get a hit.
My problem is that making parry viable vs AC (if you choose) might be to difficult. If you are forced to roll a base 10 on the d20 to break AC, why would you want to chose to parry instead? (Assuming your parry bonus and the NPC's attack bonus's are close) Makes more sense to just say, "well.. hope you can beat a 10, because realistically you only have a 50% chance to hit me". So therefore parry seems kinda worthless.
With our game, the dice rolls each other gave would determine who would win. We would sometimes beat characters that were +9 to attack over us, because the dice gods favored us. Those were epic campaigns that we really enjoyed. The fight was set up to lose, but by winning, the GM was in awe and would modify the campaign a little because of it. And to this day we still talk about some of those fights. But the point of all of it is, we out rolled the GM, not a base number. Each roll was unique due to the fact that you never knew if he was going to roll a 2 or a 18.
All the suggestions given are good, but I really am starting to believe this type of system is not going to work with this game, and I think we'll end up just going with the book rules until we have more knowledge about all the combat system and then come up with something.
The only other thing I was maybe leaning towards, was having some type of option for parrying that if you crit parry with a 19-20, you would disarm the opponent. This would give a reason to "want" to parry instead of forcing that other character to roll a 10 or above by using your AC. So by sticking with AC, you might have a good advantage in the fact they may not break it, but by parrying you may have an opportunity to disarm and change the course of the fight completely.
We bought the book for a reason, and that was to help with the parts of our campaign rules that were flawed, like ranged and magic. We couldn't really play those very much due to the distance and movement issues. It would always result in complaining and grumpiness. :) The also adds a lot more depth with feats. So we really want to stick to the rules without breaking the game.
It's just so frustrating though.. lol.
You should play Warhammer FRP.
It does have rules for parry, and you can even say it's at the core of the combat rules. Very often, without parry, you're orc meat!
You're wanting a game where things are less certain, a little more unpredictable, and where both parties always roll. Easy to do.
See how when you calculate a character's AC and CMD, it's done as "10 plus modifiers"? Just replace the "10 plus" with "d20 plus" instead.
See how all save DCs are calculated as "10 plus" the caster or creature's modifiers? Again, replace the "10 plus" with d20 plus.
This should allow for the additional interactivity and unpredictability you're looking for.
Now, instead of rolling CMB of d20+8 against a CMD of 15, you're now rolling CMB of d20+8 and the opponent is rolling CMD of d20+5.
Now, instead of a fireball reflex DC 18, it's a fireball reflex DC d20+8. Maybe your wizard makes a particularly clever fire spread this time (DC 25), or maybe it spreads out lazily this time (DC 10).
If you REALLY want to make it opposed rolls, you could even roll your d20s separately for each creature in the area.
It's a simple change, and it should be balanced -- not really giving much of an advantage over the current rules, but making things more unpredictable and doubling the number of rolls made.
Let me know what you think.
I will second AvalonXQ's suggestion.
If you're fairly new to the game. Then that is a quick and easy way to do what you want without all the complicated feat based parry rules. And it retains the basic game balance as a bonus.
I've been using defensive action rules since 2nd edition D&D and haven't had to much trouble with it. (Unless a PC min/maxes, but that is always an issue with some players.)
Anyway heres how I do it, every character gets 1 defensive action or move action (one or the other) each round. A full round action takes this away just as it does a move action.
It can be parry, dodge, whatever... and to do it the player rolls their Reflex save against the attack. Pretty simple. Any misc... AC bonuses described as "dodge" or "evasion" whatever have no effect except on AC as normal. (Don't one to constantly deal with these things...) AC remains calculated as normal (AC = normal trying to not get hit, while the "Defense action" is focusing specifically on getting out of the way/blocking.)
So thats basically how I do it, though some side notes of little things we (as a group found works in addition)...
Shield AC gets added to the roll when parrying with the shield in questoion.
Acrobatics skills checks can be used as the dodge roll in place of reflex as long as the character has enough space or "terrain" which is helpful to acrobatic action. (Like swinging on a chandelier.)
Flying/Swimming skills can also be used in place of the reflex roll as long as the individual in question is doing said thing.
And thats basically it, yes it makes combat run a bit longer sometimes, though once the group gets used to it things go pretty smoothly. (Also I give "monsters" the same rolls as appropriatte.) And it gives combat a more cinematic feel than the standard "passive" defense of AC.
You're wanting a game where things are less certain, a little more unpredictable, and where both parties always roll. Easy to do.
See how when you calculate a character's AC and CMD, it's done as "10 plus modifiers"? Just replace the "10 plus" with "d20 plus" instead.
See how all save DCs are calculated as "10 plus" the caster or creature's modifiers? Again, replace the "10 plus" with d20 plus.
This should allow for the additional interactivity and unpredictability you're looking for.
Now, instead of rolling CMB of d20+8 against a CMD of 15, you're now rolling CMB of d20+8 and the opponent is rolling CMD of d20+5.
Now, instead of a fireball reflex DC 18, it's a fireball reflex DC d20+8. Maybe your wizard makes a particularly clever fire spread this time (DC 25), or maybe it spreads out lazily this time (DC 10).
If you REALLY want to make it opposed rolls, you could even roll your d20s separately for each creature in the area.
It's a simple change, and it should be balanced -- not really giving much of an advantage over the current rules, but making things more unpredictable and doubling the number of rolls made.
Let me know what you think.
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Being new to the game and not knowing feats and other bonuses that certain classes get and certain don't, we are extremely unsure of how this would unbalance one class vs the other.
But yes, this is the method that we will try to capitalize on for sure.
Thanks for all the replies, I'm sure as we work with it, I'll post on how it is going or what flaws we see if any.
The only flaw I see as of now, is that a heavy armored person would really take advantage of this. Since his armor gives him more AC plus he gets a d20 roll, he wouldn't really need a high dex and would be just as good to parry.
I think I'll have to modify how armor's weight and constriction affects your parry. Not that an armored person is useless. As you still can attack like you want to and be very proficient, because you know which way you are wanting to swing, but when it comes to the unpredictability of a parry as you do not know where the opponent is swinging, you can only react. Therefore; armor would have to ensure some kind of penalty.
This is just one of the things we'll have to discuss with this system.