Parry skill

[CatharzGodfoot]

D&D vastly overrates armour compared to parrying. This leads to plate armour > you and means heavy armour is always the right choice unless you have restrictions on armour (i.e. mages) or large alternative bonuses to entice you away (i.e. swashbuckler etc.).

Is the a simulationist argument that a naked guy can parry and therefore has as good a defense as a heavily armored foe? Or is it a gameist argument that heavy armor is too highly incentivised for those who are both proficient with it and don't have other abilities that encourage them to not use it?

[Username17]

No, the selfish goal is for every fighting style that Red Rob likes to be mechanically superior to any other fighting style. We got to the same point on the two handed weapon discussion. Red Rob is a very selfish person.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

No, the selfish goal is for every fighting style that Red Rob likes to be mechanically superior to any other fighting style

Really?

If the Fighter has to pay for his armour and Conan doesn't, either the Fighter is better and Conan sucks, or they are equal and the Fighter feels like a goomba for paying for his armour. The only way to balance it is if they do different things, hence the Tome Monk having a completely different play style to the Fighter.

Yeah, looks like I said exactly that Frank. Glad to see you're not straw manning again. Since you love image macros so much, how about this one?

Is the a simulationist argument that a naked guy can parry and therefore has as good a defense as a heavily armored foe? Or is it a gameist argument that heavy armor is too highly incentivised for those who are both proficient with it and don't have other abilities that encourage them to not use it?

I think an unarmoured warrior with a 2 handed weapon is a classic Fantasy Trope. It makes me sad that when someone tries to play this in D&D they suck hardcore. Just as there are classes that get incentivized to use Bows or be sneaky, I think a class that recreates this Trope would be a worthwhile addition to the game. The trick is making it balanced with the other classes.

Regarding parrying as a whole, its not really represented very well mechanically in D&D's combat system. This isn't a criticism per se, its just an observation.

[Roy]

Unarmored with a two handed weapon. Charger. Your AC won't matter anyways, so don't pretend it does. Have fun stat contesting the enemies. NEXT!

[angelfromanotherpin]

I think an unarmoured warrior with a 2 handed weapon is a classic Fantasy Trope.

Really? From where?

[Username17]

I think an unarmoured warrior with a 2 handed weapon is a classic Fantasy Trope.

Really? From where?

It doesn't matter from where. If his character can't be at last as good as any other warrior by spending absolutely fucking nothing and having only one magic item invested in combat while other characters are expected to set aside wealth and item slots for 3 different items, then Red Rob will whine.

It is after all, his right to spend less than other players and get the same tangible effect.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

I think an unarmoured warrior with a 2 handed weapon is a classic Fantasy Trope.

Really? From where?

Are you fucking kidding me?

A muscled guy with a Broadsword practically is the fantasy genre in the eyes of the public. I think pointing out it could be an option in D&D isn't asking too much.

If his character can't be at last as good as any other warrior by spending absolutely fucking nothing and having only one magic item invested in combat while other characters are expected to set aside wealth and item slots for 3 different items, then Red Rob will whine.

It is after all, his right to spend less than other players and get the same tangible effect.

Frank, only one person here is whining. You have no point, and I should have realised this when you resorted to childish pouting in the other thread rather than engage in actual discourse. This fact is proved by one simple thing: The Dungeonomicon monk. You yourself created, or co-created, a class that expends zero slots on weapons or armour. This is a class that is pretty much universally agreed to be balanced, fun and a great addition to the game.

Now, you know and I know that this is balanced because it doesn't compete in the same way that other characters do. It has its own Schtick and therefore it doesn't get compared apples to apples with other classes. In particular it works by applying status effects and conditions rather than out-and-out damage dealing.

So, when I say "An option that uses less weapon slots could compete with TWF in other ways than damage" or "A class that doesn't use armour could be balanced by having a different defensive metric that doesn't compare directly to AC" you know that I'm not just whining or asking for a straight power up. The fact you keep trying to pass it off as that leads me to believe you just hate the classic fantasy barbarian. Now, whether thats because you were teased at school for liking "those books with the muscle men on the cover", or just from repeated exposure to "Andy Collins whining about his dwarf barbarian", I don't know. But just because you dislike the concept shouldn't mean you dismiss the possibility of workable mechanics.

So please stop trying to pass off an attempt to make an alternative character option as powergaming.

Jesus, I could play a Monk with a Greatsword and use the Fighting Style that applies style effects to the weapon and get a pretty close approximation of what I've been talking about. Pointing that out would be a reasonable way to answer my suggestions - its flat out not needed as it already exists. I might not agree with you but at least you'd actually have a point.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Rob, I think the weight of argument against you is simply that, in D&D, parrying isn't something that needs better representation as a general rule, and certainly isn't something that should be added on as a skill.

As a special type of armor (a pallet swap) or a feat or class (something that requires real investiture and won't inadvertently boost wizards or dragons), the Conan trope is totally fine.


And Frank is just being an asshole because that's his way, I guess. He probably has some rationale like predicting your net influence on the Den will be negative. But Frankly, Frank, it mostly seems like you're being a jerk for no damn' reason at all.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Rob, leaving aside that a number of those people are not using two-handed weapons, if your grasp of fantasy is based on lame swipes of Frazetta, I'm not surprised that you're experiencing a disconnect.

[Red_Rob]

Rob, I think the weight of argument against you is simply that, in D&D, parrying isn't something that needs better representation as a general rule, and certainly isn't something that should be added on as a skill.

If Melee attacks are wtfpwning everything, then you should look at something to make them easier to defend against. Currently I think most people would argue this is not the case, and therefore your skill in its current form is counter-productive.

I'm glad you agree with me.

And Frank is just being an asshole because that's his way, I guess. He probably has some rationale like predicting your net influence on the Den will be negative. But Frankly, Frank, it mostly seems like you're being a jerk for no damn' reason at all.

I read enough of Frank's stuff to know he's not shy about letting rip if he thinks something sucks, but I was kind of hoping he'd destroy my puny ideas with a beam of pure logic so irrefutable I'd be left quivering on the floor. These snide comments and image macros aren't going to convince me I'm wrong in thinking that a character displayed on the front of plenty of DnD books should be an option, so if he wants me to shut up or go away a reasoned explanation would be a good start.

If anything, I'd appreciate the chance to avoid wasting my time on a bad idea if he can prove that either (a) two handed weapons or (b) unarmoured warriors cannot be made balanced. I believe they can, but if he has some proof they can't it would save me a lot of messing around.

Rob, leaving aside that a number of those people are not using two-handed weapons

One is using a shield. The rest have a single weapon and nothing in their other hand. In DnD terms, the closest approximation is a two handed weapon. In DnD all the characters in these pictures are non-viable options.

Frank talked a lot in the 5th edition threads about how bad it is for a game when a new player says "I want to play X!" and the response is a pained look and a "well, thats not really going to work". When X is something displayed prominently on the front of the book you are reading from I see this as a problem.

if your grasp of fantasy is based on lame swipes of Frazetta, I'm not surprised that you're experiencing a disconnect

Includes != Based on

I posted at least 5 different image sources, including computer games, novels, board games and Roleplaying games. I think the classic Barbarian image has gone beyond "lame swipes of Franzetta".

If you don't like that concept, thats a different issue. I don't like the fact that there are infinite planes in D&D. If an infinite plane has an infinite population then, by definition, if any fraction of the population are attempting an action then an infinite number are. Which means, for example, that an infinite amount of Balors are currently invading the Prime Material plane. And if the population aren't infinite, then whats the point in it being an infinite plane? Its just infinitely empty. But I don't go and bitch that the Fiend rules can't work because of this.

I am interested in seeing if you can make a viable D&D character like the images I posed. If you can already, then fine, tell me how and I'll shut up. If you can't I'd like to have a go at making something that does the job. The re-skinned monk I posted above was off the top of my head, but if it could work with some flavour alterations that would be fine.

[Username17]

Honestly Catharz, I have not been reading Red Rob's posts on this or any other thread for some time, since I have him on ignore. The only thing I am reading is the crap people are responding to Red Rob with and quoting his crap. And that only because the Ignore function doesn't edit out other people quoting someone. But seriously, once someone makes the argument that their big axe wielding character does not do as much damage as a two dagger Rogue who has invested a lot more resources into damage dealing and therefore needs a power up, I seriously don't care what they have to say about that or any other subject ever again.

Red Rob is a broken record, and I've stopped listening to it. Waaah! My character isn't powerful enough because other people get more power when they invest more resources! Waaah! I'll call him a Waaambulance, but that's it.


Some time ago, Red Rob came up with the brain storm that Rogues with two weapon fighting did more damage than other melee styles, and that this was somehow a problem. A problem to be remedied by giving dumbfucks with only one magic item extra benefits until they matched the Rogue's performance on top of having the ability to spend resources on doing other things. I objected on several grounds, but he simply wouldn't shut up about it. The primary problem with his stance is the entitlement presumed in the statement. The my character needs to be better than your character. It's completely counter to the ideals of cooperative storytelling.

But if you look at the concept, it's just fractally wrong. Why should anyone do more damage than a MAD light armor character with heavy feat tax, the worst possible saves, and a d6 for hit points? Especially when "doing a lot of damage" is that character's only saving grace and primary draw?

The argument is an argument to be given more power that does not rely upon objective data that the player in question needs more power. It's not "I can't hold my own against monsters of my level." It's not "I am being overall outclassed by that other character archetype." It's simply "I want to do more DPS than that DPS specialist." In short, it's the basest and most pathetic of avarice. That person has a thing, and suddenly the cry baby wants a better version of the same thing.

It doesn't help at all that this was one of Andy Collins' arguments for why 3.5 needed to happen. Dwarf Barbarians with greataxes were not getting a much benefit from Power Attack as double short sword rangers. Boo Hoo!

The complaint that Steve does more damage because he spent resources on doing more damage is not an argument for fairness. It is an argument against fairness. It is a shallow demand to be given the benefits that other players had to spend resources on, and to get them for free. It is asking to get the benefits of feats from whining until more power is given out of disgust. A rational argument would be constructed in the form "I spent comparable resources in other areas, and it seems like the other character's damage boost exceeds the benefits of the other path." But that's not the argument being made, because they never even checked to see what they could be rolling with instead. They just say the other person's big numbers (that they bought with resources) and immediately started crying for it like a four year old.

Everything about the stance is loathsome and petty. When my best friend's little brother was about 4, he would demand to get a birthday every time any of us got a birthday. Nevermind that the other person had waited an entire year to get a birthday, he was having one now, and Michael could not let that pass. And that was annoying, but it wasn't world ending, because he was four, and we knew he would grow out of that shit. And he did. But when that kind of trash comes out of the mouth of a grown man, it is our sacred duty to punch it closed.

Crying that someone who invested in magic fucking armor has a higher amount of resilience to physical assault than someone who spent nothing at all is no better, and really no different than bitching that someone who spent twice as much on magic weapons has a boost in DPS. It's loathsome and pathetic, but it really doesn't surprise me to hear that Red Rob is making that vapid and mathless argument, because it's the exact same fucking construction as the one that made me put him on Ignore in the first place!

-Username17

[violence in the media]

Let's try this from a different direction, Red Rob.

You have these two adventurers:



No armor, single weapons only. Maybe the dude has a bastard sword, whatever.

Do you think the class that best allows these two characters should also be the class that allows the armored knight or ghetto-stabbing assassin?

If so, why would the aforementioned knight wear armor, if they didn't need to bother with the hassle and expense?

Why would the assassin use two swords, when they could get the same benefit with one?

So, do these types of characters need a new class to cater to them? If so, how should their abilities interact with people who multi-class into wearing armor or using two swords? Could you just do a monk reskin like GoA did to get his Paladin?

[Red_Rob]

If Frank is ignoring my posts that would explain why his responses to me seem to be odd non-sequiturs and straw man arguments.

I would like to say, for the record, that I never mentioned rogues in the discussion he is referencing. I asked why Fighters who used two weapons got a massive boost over Fighters who used a Greatsword. It seemed to me to be a horribly limiting system that meant all Fighters used the same fighting style and limited viable character concepts, but then Frank started frothing about rogues and Andy Collins and the discussion fell apart. Personally I thought allowing vertical advancement by spending more resources was something Frank was against, but it seems he makes an exception when he feels like it.

So I guess I'll stop responding to Franks posts then, if theres no point.

[Username17]

Violence in the Media: Those characters are wearing visible armor. Those are AD&D 2nd edition characters, back when arm bands were a valid full replacement for armor and shield at mid levels. Both characters are wearing arm bands, and that's roughly the equivalent of wearing banded mail at the levels where people run around with belts like that (which in turn probably make that dude have the strength of a Stone Giant).

-Username17

[God_of_Awesome]

Frank, Rob's point has fucking nothing to with rogue or any of that.

It has to do with this:

"Under Tome, to be a viable martial character, you must wield two-weapons."

Their is no incentive, no reward, nothing of the sort for the martial character that want one weapon held in two hands. It's a very common trope that shouldn't be punished.

Now what is the proposed solution? NOT HIGHER DAMAGE OUTPUT, THAT'S WHAT. Not, because higher damage output is the schtick of two-weapon fighting and that's been accepted. The proposal I suggested was fuck you status affects. Other ideas have been greater reach. NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN 'DO MORE DAMAGE' except for one but that got revised.

And I also have another proposal. Two-handed weapons take up two slots. They are held in two hands, ergo, two slots.

Unfortunatley, you seem to have some built-in prejudice to the idea given to you by whoever the hell Andy Collins is and that's just... dumb. One of your design incentives has seriously been make viable as many concepts as possible and yet you turn around and say 'EXCEPT THIS ONE' is a slap to the face all of us.

Aslo, you should take Rob of ignore. I did that to Kael and I realize I was seriously missing out by blocking out someone's opinion simply because I didn't like it.

[Jilocasin]

Andy Collins is responsible for a number of terrible terrible D&D books. Like some of these!

And I also have another proposal. Two-handed weapons take up two slots. They are held in two hands, ergo, two slots.

That has a bunch of problems right off the bat. If you want to try and work around them or solve them then go for it, just be cognizant of the issues. First off, if it takes two slots it has to be twice as good and twice as expensive. Honestly, that's really awful thing to do, so I would recommend against it. Second, balancing feats around that would be monstrously irritating. With two weapons most feats that apply to one weapon will apply to the other as well, and if you're using a sword and shield then you've obviously deemed it worth it to sacrifice some extra oomph for whatever benefit the shield gives you. A two-handed weapon essentially gives you one benefit once. If you want to make some new feats (I guess you did/are?) that require a two-handed weapon then y'know, follow your bliss or something. Just make sure you have a clear idea fluff-wise what you think a two-handed wielder should be able to do, figure out how that would work mechanically, make sure there aren't options that already allow you to do those things, and make them level appropriate and balanced against how many character resources need to be invested.

Personally I don't really give a shit because any class that doesn't at least give lip service to the use of PHENOMENAL COSMIC POWERS, is extremely uninteresting to me.

[Judging__Eagle]

There is a parry skill.

It's part of Races of War; it's called Expertise.

Trade off some of your BaB, you're remaining attacks have a penalty, you get more AC.

I'll be honest, fights in D&D might be more realistic at higher levels if PCs and NPCs use Expertise more.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Frank, I can't even understand why you're trying to shout down someone you have on ignore. Words cannot describe how pointless...

There is no fundamental problem with wanting to have a viable, unarmored, heavily armed character. That doesn't even register on the munchkin scale. If you're basing all of your rants on selectively quoted text being used to attack Rob, just stop. You have nothing of worth to add.

There could be a serious discussion here about how to best go about creating a character to fit those demands (clearly it doesn't involve giving wizards another skill to max). That's what we do. Calling people munchkins just poisons the water, and even the best among us still have to drink.

...and I just went way off the rails with that metaphor, but hopefully you see my point.

[Username17]

There is no fundamental problem with wanting to have a viable, unarmored, heavily armed character.

And there's no problem with players playing a Wizard. I have no problem with people creating new archetypes. I have a huge problem with people supplying the argument that "Player X invested resources in Y and is good at Y, therefore I need more power." That argument is fucked. That argument is offensive, and I have no respect for the actual person who makes that argument.

An item slot is a big deal. People who invest a second item slot into weaponry should do more damage. People who invest an item slot into armor should have better protection. If people want to make a balance argument they are free to make one that won't earn my eternal hatred. The construction looks like this:

• I think that armored characters get too much of a benefit relative to having a cloak of displacement.
• I think that using a second weapon gives too much of a benefit relative to wearing boots of speed.

And if that's the kind of argument you're making, you gotta accept that the answer you're looking for may in fact be making Boots of Speed a bit better. If your argument is that wearing armor is beneficial compared to nothing at all, then you don't even have an argument and you should fuck off and die.

But I remind you: the guy with no armor and a two handed weapon is already the most powerful character: that's the traditional layout of the arcane spellcaster. So at high levels, armor of any kind is competing against greater mage armor and ghost form. And if I don't see an argument that's comparing benefiting from those kinds of spells and having an extra magic item slot to go crazy with, I not only don't take the argument seriously - I actually get angry at the whining little bitch making that bullshit argument and wasting my fucking time.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

Fair enough, but I feel that your argument is a tad disingenuous. After all, a rogue will be wearing boots of speed, a cloak of displacement and wielding a second weapon (and possibly wearing magical armor as well).

An arcane spell caster is likely to be wearing light or no armor, carrying a two-handed weapon, and kicking ass--but an arcane spell caster is probably the last thing that someone who wants to play this is looking for.

[Avoraciopoctules]

Is there a problem with [Combat] feats for fighting with a big weapon that don't dramatically boost your damage but do let you do things like hit more reliably (or maybe target 2 squares with a single attack), knock people around for short distances, and get the Edge in a new way?

If mages take the feat, they still won't get access to the more powerful abilities of the feat until later, even if they multiclass into something with full BAB progression. And if the damage isn't significantly higher, the person who spent 2 slots and a feat still has a significant edge.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50816
This didn't look all that bad.

[Username17]

Conan's classic layout is Sword and shield, with either that ridiculous giant belt or more traditional armor.

Conan shows up naked with or without a giant blade when he has been captured and is breaking out of prison (something he does almost every book). Conan is not a counter example to warriors wearing armor, because Conan fucking wears armor!



-Username17

[Username17]

Is there a problem with [Combat] feats for fighting with a big weapon that don't dramatically boost your damage but do let you do things like hit more reliably (or maybe target 2 squares with a single attack), knock people around for short distances, and get the Edge in a new way?

If mages take the feat, they still won't get access to the more powerful abilities of the feat until later, even if they multiclass into something with full BAB progression. And if the damage isn't significantly higher, the person who spent 2 slots and a feat still has a significant edge.

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50816
This didn't look all that bad.

The problem is that the formulation of the justification is bullshit. Her'e the justification:

It's clear that without something like the amazing Two Weapon Fighting feat, two handed fighters end up feeling a little short in the pants.

There it is again. That TWF guy invested a feat and an extra magic item, and then this afforded them the opportunity to get enhanced benefit out of unlimited use static damage bonuses and unlimited use on-hit status effects and they used those together to get a syngeristic bonus. And then a guy who spent absolutely nothing is outperformed by that. Well, yeah. He is. Of course he is. That argument is offensively shitty.

I haven't wargamed the feat in question, and I am not going to. Because the bug report is "Character who spent resources on damage dealing does more damage than character who did not." Are you fucking kidding me?

If people don't do apples to apples to apples comparisons before deciding that there's a problem, no amount of apples to apples comparisons can determine if said problem was "fixed." So with Catharz's bullshit formulation of the balance question, he can't get an answer. So I sure as fuck am not going to put any work in to see if he stumbled upon one. Because I know a priori that the work is no better than the spew produced by Hamlet typing monkeys. There is reason to playtest work produced by random action, and any balance patch produced against an unexamined premise is by definition no better than that.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Honestly Catharz, I have not been reading Red Rob's posts on this or any other thread for some time, since I have him on ignore. The only thing I am reading is the crap people are responding to Red Rob with and quoting his crap. And that only because the Ignore function doesn't edit out other people quoting someone. But seriously, once someone makes the argument that their big axe wielding character does not do as much damage as a two dagger Rogue who has invested a lot more resources into damage dealing and therefore needs a power up, I seriously don't care what they have to say about that or any other subject ever again.

He isn't currently saying that and you attacking him without even reading his posts is just fucking up the SNR. Either actually ignore the guy or converse with him. Following him about and attacking posts you haven't even looked it is fucking stupid.

[Akula]

I think that the argument is not that the guy who spends nothing is outclassed by the guy that has invested resources, it is that the guy who invested nothing has nothing comparable to invest in.
If you want to be a THF guy in Tome, you just get outclassed by the guy that is TWF. He can give more status effects by hitting more people, he can deal more damage by attacking more times, he has more AoOs, and everything just gives more benefits to him. So if you want to do damage, you TWF; if you want to inflict status effects, you TWF; if you want to do battlefield control, you TWF. The only reason not to TWF is if you cannot afford it. So THF is literally the poor kid's style.

Or am I just wrong?