|
So I was toying with ways to make fighters and warriors more effective in combat in the long run, and one possibility I'm considering is a parry mechanic. Thematically, this would be like using a weapon to deflect or block incoming attacks.
If a character is subject to an attack, or an ally within his reach is being attacked, he can attempt to parry the attack by expending an attack of opportunity. If the result of his counterattack exceeds the opponent's attack roll result, the opponent's attack is prevented. Characters with multiple attacks of opportunity per turn can make multiple parry attempts in this fashion.
On the one hand, this gives warrior-types a new toy, and would favor high-dexterity classes. It would be useful for countering ranged attacks, defending allies, and for dealing with pesky magic that relies on attack rolls (such as rays).
On the other hand, it could bog down play... but it could add another dimension to tactical combat, in that wasting your attack of opportunity to block a basically harmless attack, could leave you vulnerable to a more devastating special attack.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
I feel a change like that has the risk of forcing the martials into a completely defensive role, since monsters will have an easier time preventing martials' attacks. At first level, a bunch of three goblins would be very hard for a fighter to even harm, and more or less impossible for a rogue. Martials would be forced into standing around waiting for monsters while casters (that don't care about enemies parries) would be the active participants.
I'm not opposed to buffing martials, and I'm not opposed to parry mechanics, but I think this implementation will make for worse game play. Of course, this is just theory - if you test it out I'd be interested in hearing the results.
Theres already a class that does this, the duelist prestiege class.
Remaking the wheel.
Also, this belongs in homebrew section, not in rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah well, the organization of this forum is misleading. I didn't even see a houserules/homebrew section, just a "rules questions" section.
As for remaking the wheel: I want this to be a feature that can be used from level 1 on, not something a fighter has to spend ten useless feats on to qualify for. I also think posting "remaking the wheel" is a needlessly flippant response, please don't post something like that, it makes you come off as smug and unhelpful.
Duelist is not hard to qualify for. One good feat - Dodge - two "meh" feats, and 4 skill ranks.
Duelist is fairly strong, as is parry, not to mention INT to AC, and +2d6+level damage permanently. Also lots of other neat abilities.
That said, I have no problem with your idea, but Pathfinder simply does not incorporate active defenses outside your turn well. Even Parry is clunky.
Parrying is nice, but if you really want mundane characters to have more in combat, they need to be able to ignore physics at higher levels like casters do. They need to be more like the characters in wuxia films like "Hero" and "Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon".
Then they will gain some power and be able to do things casters can't replicate.
After reading what you proposed....
I would say this make it this.
Parry is a combat maneuver that uses your standard action to parry opponents attack melee roll vs you. You use your CMB vs there attack roll. If you succeed then attack fails. This maneuver is useable once per round.
Feat Improved Parry
Requirement: Combat Expertise, INT 13
Benefit: You can make parry combat maneuver as AoO in stead of standard action. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to parry a foe. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Attack roll whenever an opponent tries to parry you.
Normal Parry is a combat maneuver that uses your standard action to parry opponents melee attack roll vs you. You use your CMB vs there attack roll. If you succeed then attack fails. This maneuver is useable once per round
Feat Greater Parry
Requirement: Combat Reflex, Combat Expertise, Improved Parry, DEX 13,INT 13 BAB+6
Benefit: You may use the Parry combat maneuver more than once per round. Twice per round if BaB is +6, Three time per round if BaB is +11, Four time per round if BaB is +16. Each time you go it use one of your AoO for the round. In addition, you receive a +2 bonus on checks made to parry a foe that stack with Improved parry. You also receive a +2 bonus to your Attack roll whenever an opponent tries to parry you that stack with Improved parry.
Feat Parrying Strike
Requirement: Combat Reflex, Combat Expertise, Improved Parry, DEX 13,INT 13
Benefit: If you succeed on a parry combat maneuver then you may strike back at the attacker with a +1 to hit and +1 to damage. This action use an additional AoO for the round each time.
Why did I tie greater parry # to BaB? So you did not do all day long. So that way combat dose not take forever to run.
Why did I make it melee only not range attack as well? Because that sound to much like defect arrows to me. Which is an other feat.
Tom S's suggestion is solid, but drop the combat expertise/intelligence requirement. They're stupid on the already existing combat maneuver feats, no need to add them to even more ;D
Tom S's suggestion is solid, but drop the combat expertise/intelligence requirement. They're stupid on the already existing combat maneuver feats, no need to add them to even more ;D
Thank you:)
I understand where you are coming from. But to fit in to a standard rule like set, it need to be there.
On a related note do you drop power attack Requirement for bullrush, sunder, etc in your home game?
|
|
This seems like far too many hoops to jump through for the ability to counter an attack or two per turn.
Why is it that, when a spell is just added to a spell list, no one bats an eye, but when someone makes a feat, people feel the need to pile on unnecessary prerequisites? The fighter has been punished enough already.
It's the way things have been since, what, third edition?
Casters get options. Martials get numbers. It's a dumb paradigm, but that's what it is.
I will say the game is fairly balanced if you play it the same at 20 as you did at 1. That is, get a quest, go to the dungeon, kill the monsters, get the treasure. When you start making your own quests, that's when casters take over.
...If you're determined to go with a parry system, I'll pitch ideas, but I need some time.
I understand where you are coming from. But to fit in to a standard rule like set, it need to be there.
On a related note do you drop power attack Requirement for bullrush, sunder, etc in your home game?
Not really, no. You could simply ignore it, or you could use another feat that is actually useful for most martial characters, like power attack, or the both thematically and mechanically fitting Combat Reflexes.
Yes, we did, but I don't really have an issue with PA as a requirement because that's a feat 95% of all melee characters will take anyway, it's a feat that's already very good for them. Combat expertise generally isn't, and so most who wants to parry must give up not only the feat required to let them parry anywhere close to efficiently, but also 3-7 points of their point buy and another feat that they might never use.
Why is it that, when a spell is just added to a spell list, no one bats an eye, but when someone makes a feat, people feel the need to pile on unnecessary prerequisites? The fighter has been punished enough already.
Oh, I hear you. This is an issue no doubt. However, NOT having any kind of requirement will lead to the issues I mentioned in my first post, and the feats would give an additional benefit in being able to take extra attacks (though I don't think the +1 attack/damage is really needed).
I think I would make it something like this:
Combat Maneuver - Defensive Stance
As a move action, you can take a defensive stance. From that moment until the beginning of your next round, you can try to parry once. When an opponent attacks you, you can make a CMB check against their attack roll result. If your CMB check beats their attack roll, you have parried their attack. If you roll a natural 20 on your parry roll, you have blocked the attack and deal your weapons damage to their weapon.
If using a shield to parry, you may add either it's enhancement bonuses as a weapon to the CMB roll or it's shield bonus.
You may never try to parry the same attack more than once.
Improved Parrying
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Dex 13+
Benefit: Once per round, if you haven't made all your attacks of opportunity, you can reduce the number of attacks of opportunity left by one to immediately parry one attack against you or a creature within reach (see the defensive stance rules for details on parrying).
Greater Parrying
Prerequisites: Improved Parrying, Combat Reflexes, Dex 13+
Benefit: You can utilize Improved Parrying to parry by spending an attack of opportunity any number of times per round, only limited by the number of attacks of opportunity.
Riposte
Prerequisites: Improved Parrying, Combat Reflexes, Dex 13+
Benefit: Whenever you have parried an attack, and you haven't made all your attacks of opportunity for the round, you can reduce the number of attacks of opportunity left by one to immediately make an attack against the parried creature.
Spell Parry
Prerequisites: Improved Parrying, Combat Reflexes, Dex 13+
Benefit: If you are wielding a magic weapon, you can parry spells directed at you. Once per round if you are aware of a spell being cast that targets you, you can dodge and parry. The spellcaster has to succeed at a ranged touch attack to hit you with it (even if it normally didn't require one) and you get one free attempt to parry it. If the spell has several targets, parrying the spell only protects you, not anyone else.
This seems like far too many hoops to jump through for the ability to counter an attack or two per turn.
Why is it that, when a spell is just added to a spell list, no one bats an eye, but when someone makes a feat, people feel the need to pile on unnecessary prerequisites? The fighter has been punished enough already.
It not the Fighter being punished it is the other class.
It that many feats so a fighter can do it and feel good about it. When they get it early then other class because they have the feat to spend.
It the same amout of hope any other comabat manuver chain use?
As it stands any race of fighter can pull this trick off at level 1.
And a Human Fighter at level 2 could be striking 2 times at level 2. Once with it regular attack and once with Parrying Strike with +1hit and +1 damage.
It cost more feat because it stop hit to you and let you swing back.
If any thing I would feel this may be to strong... Not to weak.
New spell are judge vs other spell. New Feat are judge vs other feats.
That's not bad, Ilja. Very nice. Spell Parry might be too strong - I can parry a dominate person? What about any spell requiring a reflex save?
(Thinks)
Maybe any spell is best. I don't know.
I dont have an issue with slmeone parrting a single dominage person per rou.d. I think a martial character that has invested a bit ibto it should be pretty resistant to mant spells. In earlier editions fighters got better and better vs mind control, nowaday they get worse and worse.
But it only affects targeted spells. So while she can parry a dominate person she cannot parry a glitterdust. Its also once per round and you have to be aware.
Goddamn awful spelling due to writing on phone. Hipefully its understandable.
. But to fit in to a standard Not really, no. You could simply ignore it, or you could use another feat that is actually useful for most martial characters, like power attack, or the both thematically and mechanically fitting Combat Reflexes.
So what it realy boils down to is you do not like Combat Expertise as feat vs other more offenceive feat like power attack or Combat Reflexs.
Again I am not trying to change to basic rules of the game. All combat manuver use Combat Expertise or Power Attack as base Prerequisites. Not try to reinvet the wheel.
With your Greater parry a first level human fighter with DEX of 18 could stop 5 attack per round and still attack and move. I think that is to strong.
Spell Parry
Spell can not be deflected with deflect arrow feat. This would totally kill spell caster.
G@!##%n awful spelling due to writing on phone. Hipefully its understandable.
I am with you. But I think both need so work and play testing. Unfortunely I can not do any play testing for awhile because it Convetion and vaction month for most of my group. I will try it after Drogon Con.
. But to fit in to a standard Not really, no. You could simply ignore it, or you could use another feat that is actually useful for most martial characters, like power attack, or the both thematically and mechanically fitting Combat Reflexes.So what it realy boils down to is you do not like Combat Expertise as feat vs other more offenceive feat like power attack or Combat Reflexs.
Again I am not trying to change to basic rules of the game. All combat manuver use Combat Expertise or Power Attack as base Prerequisites. Not try to reinvet the wheel.
Yes, because CE is a feat tax, people take it just to get to the feats after. It's not so much that it isn't offensive, as that it's not good. And on top of that it has a really stupid ability score requirement that makes the half-way MAD classes a LOT more MAD. Martials have a hard time keeping up, especially on the standard point buy, and even more so if they have to waste 3 points where they could otherwise have gained 2-4 points. On a 25 pt buy that isn't a big deal, but on the standard 15 pt buy or even the PFS 20 pt buy it is.
Mechanically, it also has nothing to do with it. In fact, using combat expertise makes you _WORSE_ at parrying.
Meanwhile, PA is something every melee character will take, and CR is useful for most characters.
And you are changing the rules of the game, you are introducing new rules. "All combat maneuver feats use CE or PA" isn't even a rule - it's just a standard that happens to be true in all published cases. Just like "all reach weapons are slashing or piercing" was a standard, not a rule (and the standard was broken with the release of the longhammer). Likewise, one could say that all combat maneuvers are used immediately when you spend the action (actually that is generally a much more deeply ingrained standard, that generally, something happens when you take the action) but that's a standard we happily break.
With your Greater parry a first level human fighter with DEX of 18 could stop 5 attack per round and still attack and move. I think that is to strong.
You might be right that it's a bit too strong at low levels, but... I don't know. Defensive options are generally underpowered compared to offensive options - which is why CE is a feat tax to begin with - and making a single character hard to kill doesn't really change that much in terms of party success (since the objective is rarely "have someone survive). And that's someone who's spent all their feats and will have quite a lousy offensive output. Opponents are likely to just ignore the character. Also note that with that array, the CMB will be so lousy far from all attacks will be blocked.
A full build would be useful to test this out.
Spell Parry
Spell can not be deflected with deflect arrow feat. This would totally kill spell caster.
Someone spending at least three feats being able to have a chance to block maybe 30% of the spells a wizard can choose from, once per round, will kill the caster? Are you under the impression that casters are under some kind of heavy burden where they can just marginally scrape by as useful party members and enemies?
A simple fix to prevent this houserule from turning monsters into parriers (thus nailing all martial classes into dedicated defender niches as Ilja pointed out) would be simply requiring the parry "maneuver" (and this should definitely be a CMB thing, not an attack roll thing) to be performed with a manufactured weapon.
You could then, of course, offer a feat or class feature for classes like the monk (and for monster-y BBEGS) that'd allow for unarmed parrying.
A lot of enemies have manufactured weapons, the three goblins I mentioned in my first post for example.
I don't see that as a solution really, though I agree that limiting parrying to manufactured weapons would probably be a good idea. And just add monks and similar as exceptions, as at least monks already have a class ability that states they can treat their unarmed attacks as manufactured weapons.
A simple fix to prevent this houserule from turning monsters into parriers (thus nailing all martial classes into dedicated defender niches as Ilja pointed out) would be simply requiring the parry "maneuver" (and this should definitely be a CMB thing, not an attack roll thing) to be performed with a manufactured weapon.
You could then, of course, offer a feat or class feature for classes like the monk (and for monster-y BBEGS) that'd allow for unarmed parrying.
I'd have to disagree with this, many weapons can easily be parried with no threat to the one parrying. Parrying is deflecting the energy of an attack, and directing it away from the body, not blocking.
A shield outright blocks attacks, while parrying deflects them, there is a subtle, but crucial, difference.
For instance, one of my close friends is trained in actual rapier combat (not just Olympic dueling for points, actual combat). He knows dozens of little tricks to fight with a rapier. One of the things he taught me, is that there are, essentially, three types of rapiers. The first rapier, is a thrusting weapon, it has no edge to it at all, and is basically a giant needle. The second, is a rapier with a razor's edge, it's a slashing weapon, and is very similar to a scimitar, or sabre. The third was meant to be a hybrid thrusting/slashing weapon; while it does technically work, the blade is too thick for the rapid thrusts of the first rapier, and too thin for the durability needed in a slashing weapon like the second rapier.
Now, Hollywood has confused the three rapiers in that they treat all rapiers as a hybrid, but that it works equally as well as the other two. You see this in many movies with opponents cutting, hacking, slashing, and thrusting with the rapier, despite it not really working that way.
Tangent, I know, but back to my main point. The rapiers in Pathfinder (and most all other RPGs) deal piercing damage, so they are thrusting weapons. That means they don't really have an edge (some may have the top 4 inches or so of the blade sharpened). I was kind of shocked that, in my friends demonstration fight, he used his bare hand to simply slap the blade of his opponent away. Why? Because the blade has no edge, he can hit it without fear.
Nearly all piercing weapons work this way. You can just slap them away with no effort at all.
Slashing and Bludgeoning weapons get more difficult. Go a head and Google Images the word 'bracers'. People may not realize it, but bracers are a form of armor. They protect your arm and wrist from the slashes and cuts of weapons. A person wearing bracer should be able to knock away the attacks of slashing weapons without much effort.
The point is, unarmed characters and monsters should all be able to parry. Most monsters have natural armor, this could be from thick skin (like Rhinos) to scales (like Dragons) to hard shells (like turtles). If you really wanted to get technical, I'm sure you could go through the Bestiary, deciding exactly which monsters can and cannot parry and what types of attacks they can parry. After all, a Turtle couldn't parry any weapon really, but other creatures with shells could.
(...) If a character is subject to an attack, or an ally within his reach is being attacked, he can attempt to parry the attack by expending an attack of opportunity. If the result of his counterattack exceeds the opponent's attack roll result, the opponent's attack is prevented. Characters with multiple attacks of opportunity per turn can make multiple parry attempts in this fashion (...)
Thoughts? Suggestions?
Played with a similar rule for a while, with an option to "dodge" (Reflex save) for those without parry weapons, and an option to "block" using a shield instead (allowing ranged weapons and ranged touch spells to be blocked as well).
Bottom line; it drags combat into interminable lengths, as players and monsters continually nullify attacks. Since attacks were thus nullified with the same level of effectiveness as their level of dealing damage, the odds were pretty much preserved and in the end, it didn't contribute much to the combat experience outside the occasional thrill of surviving for three consecutive rounds were you should have been dropped, and the frustration of seeing the monster survive a bit longer that it should have.
The problem with this rule, parrying and dodging are already taken into account in the AC and hit points. A good part of HPs are about turning a serious blow into a lesser one, not necessarily about having more blood in your body to spill. Also, your AC can be raised by taking the Fighting Defensively Action, an option called "parrying" in older editions of D&D (and which can be improved with the Combat Expertise feat).
TL:DR So with high AC, high HP and high probability of parrying as an AoO, combats can drag even more than they do. It's better off as a relatively rare class ability.
The problem with this rule, parrying and dodging are already taken into account in the AC and hit points.
Very much so, hence we have the armour and dex coming into play, with traits, feats, class abilities etc abstracting the ability to move parry block etc - as well as HP to reflect turning major blows into lesser ones, take more of said blows, survive impossible (by mortal standards!) odds etc.
To now call out Parry would be adding more layers, and from 2nd ed experience, a long winded and dull one that only serves to make Spellcasters EVEN BETTER.