Parry skill

[xXOblivionXx]

We all know that parrying is a crucial part of actual combat, but D&D nothing that resembles it so I made this.

Skill: Parry
Ability: Dexterity
Training: no
Parry allows to block attacks.
Check: With someone attacks you with a melee weapon, non natural weapon, if you hold a melee, non natural weapon, you can expend an attack of opportunity to block the incoming blow. If you succeed against a DC equal to the modified attack roll means that the attack misses the parrying character.
Action: Intermediate
Try Again: You cannot make more parries than the attacks you can make in a full attack in a round. You cannot try to parry an attack more than once.
Special: Improved unarmed strike allows you to parry melee natural weapons and use melee natural weapons to parry.
Flat footed characters cannot parry. Flanked characters gain a -2 penalty to their parry checks. Flanking characters gain a +2 bonus to their parry checks. Parrying with a shield gives a +4 to parry checks. Parrying with a light weapon against non light weapons gives a -2 penalty to parrying checks.

Improved Parry
Prerequisites: Parry 4 ranks, BAB+1
Benefits: You can parry ranged attacks, the DC of such attacks is +5.
When attacked, you can expend a bonus attack from the next time you full attack in order to gain an extra parry attempt.
You can perform a counterattack when parrying if the difference between a successful check is 5 points or higher than the DC. A counterattack is a free attack made with a full attack bonus and subsequent counterattacks in the same round with a -5,-10,-15 etc.

Spell Parry
Prerequisites: Parry 13 ranks, BAB+10, improved parry
Benefits: Whenever you're the target of a ranged touch attack with a spell, spell-like ability or supernatural ability and are wielding a magic weapon or shield, you may attempt to parry the spell as if it was a ranged attack. The DC is 10+the spell caster's caster level+the spell caster's casting ability modifier. If you succeed, the spell has no effect. If you roll high enough to counterattack, you may, instead of nullifying the spell, change it's target to it's caster.

[PhaedrusXY]

Why not just make this something that everyone can do, instead of making up a new skill that anyone who cares about this has to stick max ranks in? Just make it an opposed attack roll. There is already a limit on the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. So there is no need to impose another limit.

[Quantumboost]

We all know that parrying is a crucial part of actual combat, but D&D nothing that resembles it so I made this.

...that is... not actually the case. I mean, the Expertise option (in Tome) and Combat Expertise (in core) actually exist. They let you sacrifice your BAB to get an equal Dodge bonus to AC. Given that you're using your ability to hit people with weapons to make yourself harder to hit? That sounds exactly like what parrying should do.

[Gelare]

Is calling it an "Intermediate" action meant to be ironic or just a misspelling?

[God_of_Awesome]

The lack of any fucking parrying rules bothered the fuck out of me.

That said, I don't think it should be a skill either but a special action.

[Kaelik]

Did any of you guys ever play 3.0? Or neverwinter nights?

The reason parry skills and rules don't exist is because they are stupid.

[CatharzGodfoot]

The lack of any fucking parrying rules bothered the fuck out of me.

That said, I don't think it should be a skill either but a special action.

Yeah...

[Username17]

Question 1: Why do you think Fighters need more skill taxes? Are they able to do too much outside of combat?

Question 2: Why do you think basic melee attacks should work less often? Are Fighters simply too effective compared to Wizards?

Question 3: What the fuck is wrong with you? Can you not see immediately how incredibly shitty your idea is?

-Username17

[God_of_Awesome]

To paraphrase Frank without all the indignity, Fighter don't need this as a skill. It should be assumed that as Fighters, they are awesome at this.

[Starmaker]

It should be assumed that as Fighters, they are awesome at this.

Well no. Introducing parrying into D&D means that melee attacks work less often. As a Fighter, some of your enemies would have it and some would not. Still less often on average. Meanwhile the Wizards don't give a flying fuck about basic melee attacks. Thus Parrying, being handed out to Fighters at cost or for free, makes them objectively worse.

[hogarth]

The reason parry skills and rules don't exist is because they are stupid.

In fact, there are already two (shitty) parrying rules called "fighting defensively" and "Combat Expertise". So there's certainly no need for a third shitty rule.

[NoDot]

Seen it, done it, got the t-shirt.

[God_of_Awesome]

It should be assumed that as Fighters, they are awesome at this.

Well no. Introducing parrying into D&D means that melee attacks work less often. As a Fighter, some of your enemies would have it and some would not. Still less often on average. Meanwhile the Wizards don't give a flying fuck about basic melee attacks. Thus Parrying, being handed out to Fighters at cost or for free, makes them objectively worse.

Unless Parrying magic is already a part of it.

[Username17]

Unless Parrying magic is already a part of it.

No. Parrying magic is another ability and another consideration.

Introducing the ability of people to be hit be melee attacks less makes melee attacks worse. And it makes people who depend upon melee attacks worse. Period. That's all it does.

Introducing new sinks for skill points that front line characters are expected invest in is a thing that functions as a "skill tax" and reduces the amount of skills that melee characters have left over for diplomacy and horse riding.

Making a Parry skill does two things: it makes Fighters suck (because their swords miss more often) and it makes Fighters boring (because they have less skills that can be used to do stuff). Coming up with an additional mechanic that causes ray spells to work less often makes ray spells suck more, but Wizards don't actually give a shit, because they still have stinking cloud.

Making a Parry skill is a stupid idea, and if you wrote it up without realizing how and why it was a stupid idea, you should feel like a stupid person. Because you evidently are stupid.

-Username17

[Red_Rob]

Oblivion, perhaps it would be better to approach the problem from the opposite angle. Instead of thinking "D&D needs parrying, how would that work?" try thinking "What part of the current attack / defense system is not working and needs rebalancing?". If your answer is "no part" then adding an extra step is not a good idea.

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.

[TOZ]

Would it be useful as a Fighter class feature, instead of a general everybody skill?

[CatharzGodfoot]

Would it be useful as a Fighter class feature, instead of a general everybody skill?

The fighter already gets it. It's called "foil action".

[TOZ]

Oh, right. I don't get to use the Tome Fighter, so I don't have it memorized.

[Sunwitch]

Parrying is already in the game. It's called "not getting hit" and while the mechanical representation is kind of lackluster, it's seriously just fluff as to what the hell happens when an attack does or does not hit.

[Red_Rob]

Parrying is already in the game. It's called "not getting hit" and while the mechanical representation is kind of lackluster, it's seriously just fluff as to what the hell happens when an attack does or does not hit.

No, this is simply false. Parrying is not "in the game" just because attacks don't always hit. I could claim that everyone in D&D has mental illusion powers that sometimes make attacks miss, but just because I flavour missed attacks that way doesn't mean my fluff is an actual part of the game.

The simplest test of whether parrying is in the game is to look at attack modifiers. Is it any harder to hit a guy with a weapon than an unarmed guy? No. Is it any harder to hit a skilled opponent than a commoner? No. The main things that affect your AC are Armour and Dodge. This is what D&D counts when determining attacks. Parrying doesn't come into it. This is why unarmoured fighters get such a raw deal and Conan would be dead within a few combat rounds.

I would actually be interested in using Oblivion's skill as the basis for an "unarmoured warrior" class feature. Make it useable in light or no armour only and you have the potential for an interesting class idea. I like the way it shifts your defensive focus from AC to AoO and I think it would make an interesting change of dynamic.

To all those who say that Combat Expertise accounts for parrying, let's see what Wikipedia has to say about parrying:

To execute a parry, fencers strike the opponent's foible, or the area near the tip of the blade, with their forte, or the part of the blade near the handle of the sword. This deflects the opponent's blade away from them, protecting them and placing them in a good position to strike back.

Now, this is talking about a specific Fencing maneuver and isn't really generalised to other weapons, but the key point is that if you turn your opponents weapon aside with your weapon, you make an opening that allows you to strike. Combat expertise penalises your ability to attack back, therefore I think its a poor representation of parrying. If anything, Feint seems a better fit.

So no, I don't think D&D does parrying at all. To my mind its one of the weaknesses of the system, and one of the key things that makes combat seem like you take turns to slug each other in the chops until someone falls over, rather than a strike / parry / counterstrike actual fight. In D&D he who swings first gets the advantage, whereas in real / cinematic swordfights people circle each other, sizing up the others defense and looking for a moment to strike. Swinging too early can leave you exposed and lead to a quick parry and counterstrike.

Now, this has to be taken with a pinch of salt as in D&D you can be fighting anything from an evil knight, to a Dragon, an owlbear or a gelatinous cube and using weapons from a longsword to a spiked chain. How, or even if you can parry attacks in these situations is another element that would need to be determined if parrying were introduced.

However, like I said earlier the D&D combat system is pretty balanced as is, and any change as fundamental as adding a whole new melee dynamic would throw everything out of sync. Thats why I'd choose to make parrying a class feature rather than a basic tactic unless I were reworking pretty much the whole system.

[hogarth]

Is it any harder to hit a skilled opponent than a commoner? No.

Yes, if that skill happens to be called Combat Expertise.

[Quantumboost]

To execute a parry, fencers strike the opponent's foible, or the area near the tip of the blade, with their forte, or the part of the blade near the handle of the sword. This deflects the opponent's blade away from them, protecting them and placing them in a good position to strike back.

Now, this is talking about a specific Fencing maneuver and isn't really generalised to other weapons, but the key point is that if you turn your opponents weapon aside with your weapon, you make an opening that allows you to strike. Combat expertise penalises your ability to attack back, therefore I think its a poor representation of parrying. If anything, Feint seems a better fit.

So no, I don't think D&D does parrying at all.[...]

Nonono. There isn't a lack of parrying. It is totally handled entirely by Combat Expertise, at least for fencing - because everyone in fencing is using Expertise all the time. They don't have Armor bonuses (beyond maybe Padded), or Natural Armor bonuses, or Deflection bonuses. They have Dex, and they have blocking the hit with their weapon - which is handled by the Dodge bonus from Expertise. And when someone in fencing hits the other guy they either 1) rolled really well on their attack or 2) had an attack where their opponent was denied their Dex bonus (and hence ALL Dodge bonuses, including Expertise). From, say, a previous successful Feint (Feinting in swordplay? Preposterous!).

Seriously, this is what the described situation looks like in D&D mechanics terms:

Both fencers are using full/near-full Expertise all the time, so they usually parry each other's attacks (since they're not wearing armor and don't have ultrahuman Dex bonuses). Each round, they make Feints at each other; when a Feint succeeds, their opponent loses Dex bonus to AC (and consequently the Dodge bonus from Expertise) and they hit on their next attack.

This is the level of abstraction we're looking at. Parrying is included implicitly in the calculations of AC and to-hit bonus based upon your use of particular abilities.

[Red_Rob]

Seriously, this is what the described situation looks like in D&D mechanics terms:

Both fencers are using full/near-full Expertise all the time, so they usually parry each other's attacks (since they're not wearing armor and don't have ultrahuman Dex bonuses). Each round, they make Feints at each other; when a Feint succeeds, their opponent loses Dex bonus to AC (and consequently the Dodge bonus from Expertise) and they hit on their next attack.

This is the level of abstraction we're looking at. Parrying is included implicitly in the calculations of AC and to-hit bonus based upon your use of particular abilities.

The aim of parrying is to turn an incoming attack aside to create an opportunity to strike at the opponent. Combat expertise increases your defense but makes your attack weaker. Feinting is an action initiated by you against the opponent, they don't even have to have attacked you, and is useless against foes without a Dex bonus to armour. Neither of these provide an effect like parrying a blow. Only in combination do you get something like it, but it is so convoluted and weak that its rarely worth it.

Combat expertise as parrying means that the default for most combatants is to not bother parrying in combat. That isn't reflective of how people fight. Its instinctive to hold a weapon out in front of you to ward off attacks.

In game terms it sucks too. Noone uses "Combat expertise for full" in a real D&D combat. I accept that a character investing in a heavy suit of armour should see a return on their investment, but unarmoured warriors are a fantasy staple and really get sold short in D&D.

[Quantumboost]

The aim of parrying is to turn an incoming attack aside to create an opportunity to strike at the opponent. Combat expertise increases your defense but makes your attack weaker.

The aim of parrying is "make man not hit me with sword". The aim of a parry-riposte combination is to also open up an opportunity to hit your opponent by making them not able to parry. And since at that point we're into combinations of goals (which fencers happen to think of as one goal because they're trained to think that way all the time), I don't care if we need to use a combination of abilities to get it done. Not even a little.

And I imagine that parrying against an opponent with an actual shield who doesn't bother using the weapon to block isn't particularly helpful.

Also, abstraction.

Feinting is an action initiated by you against the opponent, they don't even have to have attacked you, and is useless against foes without a Dex bonus to armour.

No. Feinting is useless against people who don't have things that go away when they would lose their Dex bonus to armor. This includes Dex bonus to AC, all Dodge bonuses, and things like the Duelist's Int bonus to AC. Which is exactly what is desired for "creates an opening by moving aside his blade".

Neither of these provide an effect like parrying a blow. Only in combination do you get something like it, but it is so convoluted and weak that its rarely worth it.

That hardly leads to "parrying doesn't exist". It means "parrying sucks".

Combat expertise as parrying means that the default for most combatants is to not bother parrying in combat. That isn't reflective of how people fight. Its instinctive to hold a weapon out in front of you to ward off attacks.

Every melee fighter with the Expertise and Power Attack abilities is, at all times, making a decision in how much to-hit, to-damage, and to-AC they use at any given time. It happens that the default in D&D is "try to hit them as accurately as you can at the expense of all else". You want there to be a different default. That is what I am hearing here.

Since parrying is something you should be able to do with any amount of training, Expertise should be available to everyone. That is a genuine problem.

In game terms it sucks too. Noone uses "Combat expertise for full" in a real D&D combat. I accept that a character investing in a heavy suit of armour should see a return on their investment, but unarmoured warriors are a fantasy staple and really get sold short in D&D.

"Parrying sucks", yes. And while unarmored warriors get sold short in core D&D, that's what classes with Armored in Life are for.

[Red_Rob]

Feinting is useless against people who don't have things that go away when they would lose their Dex bonus to armor. This includes Dex bonus to AC, all Dodge bonuses, and things like the Duelist's Int bonus to AC. Which is exactly what is desired for "creates an opening by moving aside his blade".

This is getting kind of circular. I feel that your blade should provide some defense, so moving the blade aside would negate that defense without the need for negating Dex. Put another way, two combatants in chain with no Dex bonus are fighting. If one parries and knocks the others blade aside, it seems that the resulting attack would have an advantage in being able to strike at the body and head without a sword in the way. This is not currently the case.

That hardly leads to "parrying doesn't exist". It means "parrying sucks"

You hit the nail on the head here. 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.)

You want there to be a different default. That is what I am hearing here.

Since parrying is something you should be able to do with any amount of training, Expertise should be available to everyone. That is a genuine problem.

I guess that a reliance on armour is unavoidable given D&D's conflating hitting and damaging. I'm not looking for a different default, like i said I'd be fine with it being a class feature, I'd just like to be able to do the Conan thing without having to add Monk levels where they don't fit conceptually.

I'm more concerned with balancing. As Frank pointed out regarding the Monk, you can't balance a class that needs armour and one that doesn't against the same metric. 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. I was thinking using AoO defensively with opposed attack rolls to simulate Parrying would be an interesting way to make an unarmoured warriors defense different from heavy armour.

Regarding Combat Expertise, in Tome rules all characters with +1 BaB get power attack and expertise as default options up to the limit of their BaB.