| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature’s result, the creature’s attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature’s attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed’s cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.
Automatic Misses and Hits
A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
Opportune Parry & Riposte is a specific rule, but the rule that natural 20's always hit w/ a possible critical on a confirmation roll is a general rule. In the event of conflict of rules, specific rules from feats/spells/class features always override general rules.
The Swashbuckler must declare that he's making an OP&R after the attack is announced but before the attack roll is rolled.
So, the DM announces that a creature is going to attack you and you declare you'd like to OP&R that attack; if you OP&R with a roll of 10 on the d20 but with your modifiers this result ends up being a 25 total, then the enemy rolls a nat 20 but only has a +4 to hit, his result would be a 24 total, your total result of 25 is greater than the creature's total result of 24, so even though this normally would be an automatic hit, your specific rule to cause an automatic miss overrides this general rule for an automatic hit. This attack would be parried, and you would be allowed an Immediate Action to Riposte and the creature gets no confirmation roll.
Side note: your total attack result must be GREATER than the attacking creature's total attack result. So if you rolled a 24 and the creature rolled a 24, the creature would hit you, and then he would proceed to roll again to confirm his successful attack as a critical strike or not as normal, and you would not be allowed an Immediate Action to Riposte.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i agree with Ryze Kuja, and if your GM is stuck on the automatic hit wording of nat 20 you can point out a few things:
1. any roll that will total it's to hit at equal or higher then the ac of the target is also technically an automatic hit. that is sill manageable by OP&R. say for something with an ac of 11 any to hit roll done against it of 11+ is also an automatic hit. that still allow the target, if it has OP&R, to try and negate that hit.
2. even when some1 roll a nat 20, it is not always a hit. say if the target has concealment of sort or mirror image the automatic hit might turn into a miss anyway.
To be perfectly fair though, if you're fighting an APL=CR or APL+1to+5=CR monster/NPC and they roll a nat 20 vs your OP&R, it's going to defeat your total attack result almost every time. You'd have to roll an 18 or higher to even come close to an APL+=CR monster's total attack result that rolls a nat 20 + whatever their modifiers are, and if the creature is larger than you, you take a cumulative -2 penalty per size category to your total OP&R result. So this situation where you can possibly defeat a natural 20 with an OP&R is slim, if not impossible.
The chance to roll two nat 20's in a row is 1/400 chance.
As an example with an equally-sized monster vs. you that have equal attack roll modifiers: if you are medium-sized and have a +15 to attack, and the medium-sized monster also has a +15 to attack, then your chance to OP&R any nat 20 vs. that creature is impossible. Even with your OP&R result of 20+15=35, the creature's total attack result is also 35, and you have to BEAT that result, not meet it.
If the medium creature has a +13 to attack and you have a +15 to attack, you can only defeat a nat 20+13=33 with your OP&R if you roll a 19+15=34 or 20+15=35. Your chance to OP&R a nat 20 can only happen with two possible rolls, a 19 or a 20. The chance to roll a 19 or a 20 for an OP&R and then your DM rolls a 20 in response is about 1/200. So this is not impossible, but it's extremely rare.
But if you consider large, huge, gargantuan, or colossal monsters, you're looking at a -2, -4, -6, or -8 to your total OP&R result, now the chance of you doing this vs. a larger creatures with similar attack bonuses gets impossible real fast.
So if you're fighting a larger monster that you think can pulverize you, use every edge you can to beef up your attack bonus so that way you can defeat a monster's automatic hits/critical threats with OP&R. Drop Power Attack/Piranha Strike, flank, be in range of your bard's inspire courage, use high ground, and don't forget to debuff their attacks with knocking them prone, dazzle, entangle, blind, spells/hexes that cause minus attack, etc. Your OP&R will have a much better chance of defeating a nat 20 by buffing, debuffing, and using terrain/flanking to your advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with those above. specific rule vs general. if your total roll would exceed his total roll, regardless of nat 20's or not, then I would rule that you parry it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does your GM also rule that nat 20s cannot miss due to concealment, mirror image, invisibility, entropic shield etc?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, specifically, the issue is thus- my GM has ruled that if he rolls a nat 20 to attack me and he confirms, it hits. Doesn't matter if it's the BBEG, doesn't matter if it's a gobnlin with a dagger. Even if my result is greater, it hits me because "Natural 20s are an auto-hit, you can't parry them." I'm not concerned with beating the attack, because I have a pretty good atk bonus and I can reasonably parry a lot of stuff. I'm concerned with the simple fact that my defensive move now has a glaring error that ANY enemy can exploit, 5% of the time, no matter if I'm level 1 or mythic 10 level 20.
Any other number, I can parry just fine. Even if they crit on 15-19, they've ruled that parries will work if I beat the result. But not 20.
Welp, he's wrong. You have a Specific Rule from a Class Feature that causes an Automatic Miss that trumps the General Rule that natural 20's are Automatic Hits. Specific Rules > General Rules.
If he's going to continue to make rulings where nat 20's always hit regardless of specific rules from OP&R, then he's using his own house rules, not the proper rules of Pathfinder. It's your table, you can do w/e you want, but I think you should show him my first post in this thread because thems the proper rules for how your OP&R is supposed to work, and then decide whether you want to play with the proper rules or your own house rule.
Like the others have pointed out, how does your DM handle nat 20's with Mirror Image or Displacement? Does he also rule that the General Rule of Nat 20's are Automatic Hits that trumps the Specific Rules of these spells?
Slightly off-topic, but topic-adjacent: 10-ish days ago they announced that they're playtesting the new D&D 5.5e rules, and one of the new rules is that DM's can no longer crit the players. It's because PC's are sick of dying from bad rulings like this tbh, and overly-authoritarian DM's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with what the others are saying, but your GM has the final word so our opinion is really not important.
Given your GM’s ruling I would point out that Opportune Parry and Riposte is also an attack roll, and as such should get the same benefit. That would mean that if you roll a natural 20 on your attack roll it should also automatically succeed. Since you roll your attack first that would mean that if you roll a natural 20 the attacking player automatically misses no matter how high his bonus or roll is. That restores the balance because now your defensive action has the same 5% chance of always working.
I'm also of the onion that rules conflicts should mostly fall on the side that benefit the players, the game is more for their fun that the GMs (yes he should have fun too), and in this case letting the player character parry the potential critical is highly thematic and very exciting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm agreeing with the other's that a natural 20 can be parried if your attack roll on the Parry is higher. However, as a player and GM myself, I can see the reasoning why your GM would want to rule that way. I'd say that while the attack would hit you, the successful parry would deny any kind of critical hit confirmation attempts made by the enemy, just so your ability remains a valid combat tactic, and you could still get your Riposte attempt at them should you wish.
Really, it is a niche situation anyway. Just to clarify, I acknowledge the mechanics would work in your favor. How I handle that at my table is, obviously, more in line with your GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm agreeing with the other's that a natural 20 can be parried if your attack roll on the Parry is higher. However, as a player and GM myself, I can see the reasoning why your GM would want to rule that way. I'd say that while the attack would hit you, the successful parry would deny any kind of critical hit confirmation attempts made by the enemy, just so your ability remains a valid combat tactic, and you could still get your Riposte attempt at them should you wish.
Really, it is a niche situation anyway. Just to clarify, I acknowledge the mechanics would work in your favor. How I handle that at my table is, obviously, more in line with your GM.
I'm on this roughly this side.
By strict rules, if your attack roll is higher than the enemies (roll of 20+ whatever bonuses) you should by the rules be allowed to parry it.
But...as a GM I'm probably going to handle it as above and say it works to negate the critical but not completely deny the attack.
Generally speaking, unless GMs go to a lot of effort in PF1, opimtized player character far out pace NPCs in raw numbers (at least after a few levels). When I GM for me group, the minimum enemies they tend to face are like CR +3 or 4 because they're that optimized. So I have a lot of sympathy for a GM that finally get's a glimpse a good critical hit, only to have some mechanics invalidate it. It's super frustrating as a GM.
Honestly GMing PF1 can be a down right unfun task if your players are hard core optimizers.
It's a class mechanic that is MEANT to negate this exact stuff though. When 1,001 other ways to kill/harm the PC's exist, breaking the rules to invalidate a class mechanic isn't even necessary. OP&R is one of the main reasons to even play a Swashbuckler in the first place, it's one of their best abilities and it scales well all game. So, imagine if you've always wanted to play an <insert class here> and you finally get your chance, and now you get a GM that says "sorry, your core class mechanic doesn't work the way you'd like it to because of my house rule".
"Sorry, Cackle can only be used once every 10 minutes due to my house rule"
"Sorry, Wizards don't get to Scribe Scrolls on tuesdays due to my house rule"
"Sorry, Swashbucklers don't get to OP&R critical threats, but it works fine whenever I don't crit"
You're the GM, you can literally cheat, lie, and break every other rule in the game, and breaking rules to invalidate class mechanics is not necessary and takes away from the player's experience.
The Swashbuckler has to roll insanely high to negate a nat 20 anyway, so let him win. Not only is this the proper way to play the game, but he deserves it simply for the DM's nat 20 vs. PC's nat 20 roll. This is epic, and you're taking it away from him.
I disagree, but I don't care to argue with you on this topic.
I've already agreed with how the rule should be interpreted and we agree on that.
See my post above, then assume hypothetically.... the enemy/villain is a swashbuckler. Same rule?I disagree, but I don't care to argue with you on this topic.
I've already agreed with how the rule should be interpreted and we agree on that.
If for some reason you're using PC class enemies, you should maintain the same rules for both (generally speaking, I do usually give enemies max HP for example because PCs tend to melt enemies otherwise).
So yes, if I changed the rules for how Opportune Parry works, it would also change for any NPC Swashbuckler I might use.
Personally, I would say Opportune Parry can downgrade a nat 20 from a crit (assuming confirmed) to a regular hit and I would still allow a riposte (resolving after the enemy attack), but not a complete hit negation.
I really don't like negation mechanics as a GM. PF1 is already very lopsided against a GM (when following written APs or keeping enemies in the "standard" CR range), negation mechanics make it even more challenging.
And while I would do this for PF1 (because it is poorly balanced) I would never do this sort of thing for PF2, because it's pretty well balanced.
Of course, an enemy with a Nat 20 is unlikely to be outdone on attack roll by a PC, even if they also get a Nat 20 because enemy hit bonuses are higher on average.
Still haven't touched PF2. As a dex swashbuckler player who refuses to power attack (and who looks at the official encounters after they're done), I'll tell you my to-hit was above every single encounter for at least levels 1-15. It was Kingmaker though, so almost all humanoid bosses, not many size differences.
That's exactly my point.
PCs are numerically stronger than NPCs unless your GM changes the encounters to increase their CR by around 4, at least that's my experience with optimized parties. So it's not unreasonable to exceed an enemy's attack roll even with a +20. I would guess above level 10 it's likely that you would probably do so on a roll of 10+.
Sure, a Nat20 might normally be an automatic hit... but there are obviously ways that a Nat20 can still miss.
Mirror Image? Concealment?
I believe a high enough OP&R would legally block a Nat20. If the attacker wanted to cry about it, they get a gentle pat on the head, and a friendly reminder that life is not fair. Lol.
Ahh, I speed read a little and just saw "because enemy hit bonuses are higher on average" and assumed you were saying enemy to the party. I concur. If *anyone* has a higher to-hit than the party swashbuckler, they're playing swashbuckler very wrong.
I said that, but in the context of PF2.
FWIW, what everyone is saying fully makes sense and if it came down to it with my group I'd follow what people in this thread are saying rather than what we do.
I've GMed APs with two different players using Swashbucklers. A Nat 20 still hits, but the OPaR can negate the confirmation.
As for a Nat 20 roll on the parry, it's never come up where the Nat 20 was lower than the enemies attack so we've never had to decide on that one.
Ahh, I speed read a little and just saw "because enemy hit bonuses are higher on average" and assumed you were saying enemy to the party. I concur. If *anyone* has a higher to-hit than the party swashbuckler, they're playing swashbuckler very wrong.
Bloodragers ahead of swashbucklers, to hit wise, at most levels, but have considerably lower AC to compensate.
A really well build swashbuckler, like, with a single level dip in fractured mind/exciter (+8 to will saves, +2 to fort, cast shield twice a day, get 2 skill foci, probably have burs of insight for out of combat utility), is pretty amazing though.
Does your GM also rule that nat 20s cannot miss due to concealment, mirror image, invisibility, entropic shield etc?No, all that still works. My gm is totally understanding of concealment and miss chances, and mirror image.
How does your GM rule nat 20 vs Deflect Arrows?
Since it straight-up negates an attack, he's fine with deflect arrows erasing any attack, even a natural 20.How does your GM rule nat 20 vs Deflect Arrows?Does your GM also rule that nat 20s cannot miss due to concealment, mirror image, invisibility, entropic shield etc?No, all that still works. My gm is totally understanding of concealment and miss chances, and mirror image.
This made me genuinely laugh out loud. So all these other examples of Nat20's being negated are fine, but OP&R most certainly cannot! I'm at a loss, and cannot follow your GM's logic for the life of me.
This made me genuinely laugh out loud. So all these other examples of Nat20's being negated are fine, but OP&R most certainly cannot! I'm at a loss, and cannot follow your GM's logic for the life of me.Since it straight-up negates an attack, he's fine with deflect arrows erasing any attack, even a natural 20.How does your GM rule nat 20 vs Deflect Arrows?Does your GM also rule that nat 20s cannot miss due to concealment, mirror image, invisibility, entropic shield etc?No, all that still works. My gm is totally understanding of concealment and miss chances, and mirror image.
It seems to me your GM knows how it is supposed to work, but is having issues because he/she feels OP&R is somehow messing up his monsters ability to hurt you and is having more of an emotional reaction to it then a logical one. (That may or may not actually be the case, that is just how it is coming across to me).
It sounds like really your GM just needs to make adjustments to monster tactics to put more creatures attacking you (to eat through your panache if you want to parry a lot). Not that they should do this every combat of course, but from time to time. Or hit you with spells/ranged attacks which cannot be parried. Again not every combat needs to do this. Sometimes you should get to shine, sometimes the monsters will give you serious problems while other members of your party shine.
If your GM rules that Deflect Arrows, Mirror Images, Displacement/Concealment can all negate a Nat 20, then his ruling that OP&R doesn't also negate a Nat 20 is highly arbitrary. It's your table, you do you, but there is zero logic in this.
FWIW, Nat 20's are not crits. They're automatic hits. They're not crits until the confirmation roll is successful.
Only thing I can guess as to why your GM is saying a nat 20 still hits is because they're seeing the roll you're making as the "new AC to beat"?
(The only reason I can think of that is because that's how one of my players describes it)
It's especially funny that "a nat 20 automatically hits" is that OPaR states "...If her result is greater than the attacking creature’s result, the creature’s attack automatically misses."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect it's mental book-keeping. The DM is mentally thinking of a natural 20 as "an infinitely high attack roll thus hitting any finite AC."
In that situation, opposed attack rolls to deflect aren't ever going to succeed.
But that's not what the rules for natural 20 say. They only say that they automatically hit, not that they automatically exceed any AC. The goal in changing your DM's ruling on this - I think - comes down to them quantifying the mechanics of their ruling, figuring out exactly what they think the words do, and realizing that's not what the rules say.
If the DM just came out said "I don't it to work in my game", it'd be a house-rule and everyone could move on. But so far it sounds like a mistake.
Good luck changing their mind... most of us are stubborn and backing down especially after a long debate can leave sore feelings.
In my view, the GM is wrong by the RAW. But, he has made a definitive ruling - a nat 20 always hits, regardless of circumstance. So for the sake of table harmony, move on and live with the houserule. It may come in your favour in future.
Just before moving on however, you may want to clarify that 'at this table we treat a nat 20 as a hit regardless of circumstance '. That will give your GM the chance to be definitive or to reconsider his position without directly challenging him.
In my view, the GM is wrong by the RAW. But, he has made a definitive ruling - a nat 20 always hits, regardless of circumstance. So for the sake of table harmony, move on and live with the houserule. It may come in your favour in future.
Just before moving on however, you may want to clarify that 'at this table we treat a nat 20 as a hit regardless of circumstance '. That will give your GM the chance to be definitive or to reconsider his position without directly challenging him.
His GM still allows Deflect Arrows, Mirror Images, and Displacement/Concealment to trump a nat 20. So the only definitive ruling he's made is that nat 20's are automatic hits vs OP&R as its own house rule. Everything else seems to work to negate a nat 20 as per normal though.
It seems to me your GM knows how it is supposed to work, but is having issues because he/she feels OP&R is somehow messing up his monsters ability to hurt you and is having more of an emotional reaction to it then a logical one.
I suspect it's mental book-keeping. The DM is mentally thinking of a natural 20 as "an infinitely high attack roll thus hitting any finite AC."
Only thing I can guess as to why your GM is saying a nat 20 still hits is because they're seeing the roll you're making as the "new AC to beat"?
(The only reason I can think of that is because that's how one of my players describes it)
Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as a reaction) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent’s attack roll. (Essentially, the Ride check result becomes the mount’s Armor Class if it’s higher than the mount’s regular AC.)
After 14 years of playing Pathfinder {it was even changed in the Beta release}, I never noticed Mounted Combat no longer has this language, until today. Applying this missing parenthetical to the identical language for swashbucklers is an obvious step. Might even happen when the GM didn't play 3.5, if others have described Mounted Combat, or Parry, in this way to them, based on the 3.5 rule.
Definitely a deliberate change here from 3.5, mostly gone unnoticed. Somewhat similar to the 3.0 -> 3.5 change in Deflect Arrows, from requiring a Reflex save to negate to being automatic (you can see the original language still in the arrow deflection shield quality).
I'd suggest the OP mention this change to the GM as a point in his favor. I'd also suggest a compromise - that the automatic miss of OPAR cancel the automatic hit part of the natural 20, so if the attack would be a miss against the swashbuckler's regular AC, it does indeed miss. This is far more likely than you might think, due to attackers with iteratives, as well as masses of low-CR threats. Basically makes the Nat20 count for bigger enemies' primary attacks, but the swashbuckler can hold off a bunch of mooks just fine, even with nat20's flying.
Regardless of all that, I would challenge the OP to review their own behavior, and make sure they're respecting the complexity that they are adding to the game. Normally, a GM can roll a handful of dice, adjudicate, then describe the action. Swashbucklers (and others, like Misfortune Oracles), break the game flow. Every *intention* to attack has to be declared, with specificity and a pause to allow the swashbuckler to respond. If the GM moves a mini/token up to the PC, rolls a die and shouts with glee, "Threat!", and the swashbuckler calls out "Wait, I'm parrying!", it gets really frustrating and bogged down. Even the slightest hint of holding the parry until the target actually hits is corrosive to trust.
If you're doing your best to keep things moving and transparently aboveboard, then I'd suggest keep pushing a bit on your GM, even though I share his sentiments.
Thanks all for making me look closer at this, I'm reconsidering my own hesitance to allow this.
TL;DR: There's good reasons for your GM to be hesitant, and you should check your own behavior, but in the end you're correct.
His GM still allows Deflect Arrows, Mirror Images, and Displacement/Concealment to trump a nat 20. So the only definitive ruling he's made is that nat 20's are automatic hits vs OP&R as its own house rule. Everything else seems to work to negate a nat 20 as per normal though.In my view, the GM is wrong by the RAW. But, he has made a definitive ruling - a nat 20 always hits, regardless of circumstance. So for the sake of table harmony, move on and live with the houserule. It may come in your favour in future.
Just before moving on however, you may want to clarify that 'at this table we treat a nat 20 as a hit regardless of circumstance '. That will give your GM the chance to be definitive or to reconsider his position without directly challenging him.
Thanks, I hadn't picked up the other inconsistencies. I think I would ask the GM to consider the consistency of his rulings and to ask him to reflect on their evenness and how he would feel if he was subjected to them as a player.
I suspect that the majority of the exceptions he has ruled on have, at least initially, been in the monster's favour - in not wanting a nat 20 to ruin 'a great encounter' he has found and applied an exception.
Regardless of all that, I would challenge the OP to review their own behavior, and make sure they're respecting the complexity that they are adding to the game. Normally, a GM can roll a handful of dice, adjudicate, then describe the action. Swashbucklers (and others, like Misfortune Oracles), break the game flow. Every *intention* to attack has to be declared, with specificity and a pause to allow the swashbuckler to respond. If the GM moves a mini/token up to the PC, rolls a die and shouts with glee, "Threat!", and the swashbuckler calls out "Wait, I'm parrying!", it gets really frustrating and bogged down. Even the slightest hint of holding the parry until the target actually hits is corrosive to trust.If you're doing your best to keep things moving and transparently aboveboard, then I'd suggest keep pushing a bit on your GM, even though I share his sentiments.
This is definately worth noting.
I've actually never had a swashbuckler player, but if I did, I would insist they give me a statement up front, something like:
I will attempt to parry every attack from that glabrezu (or any glabrezu, etc). OR I will attempt to parry the 2nd and 3rd attacks only each round.
I will attempt to only parry the first attack from the enemy fighter.
etc.
And each round they would have to announce something different if they wanted to change, otherwise I'd assume they were using the same strategy as the previous round.
This is the sort of thing though that some computer automation would be great for if there were such a product for it. Swashbuckler player gets an indication that creature X makes an attack against them. Do they want to parry? Yes/no. Then once they respond the rolls are revealed. Then the next attack (if there is one), same thing, and so on.
If the GM moves a mini/token up to the PC, rolls a die and shouts with glee, "Threat!", and the swashbuckler calls out "Wait, I'm parrying!", it gets really frustrating and bogged down. Even the slightest hint of holding the parry until the target actually hits is corrosive to trust.
If the GM has already rolled a Critical Threat, the Swashbuckler cannot then decide to parry it. The Swashbuckler has to roll his OP&R after the attack has been announced but before the GM's attack roll, or it doesn't count.
Otherwise, the Swashbuckler will only OP&R the attacks that actually hit him if he knows the result of the roll.
Frankly, as the swashbuckler, if you insisted on that from me I'd refuse. My mind washes back and froth all the time, I run out of panache pretty fast all considered, and I have a damn good AC. I parry here and there, and again I do ALWAYS party before the attack roll is made, but it's not and it shouldn't be up to you when I parry.I think it's more than fair to say you're attacking someone, and give them a second- just a second, maybe two- to reply, before then moving forward with the roll. We're not computers, we're people, and our moods dictate our actions far more than sheer logic might insist it does.
I think my post got taken a little out of context here. I was responding to a post about a theoretical swashbuckler calling for parry rolls after a creature had already made its attack rolls. I should have been more clear in my response though that that was what I was responding to specifically.
ntgtoowc, does your GM at least let you parry the confirmation roll if your result is higher than the confirmation?