PDA

View Full Version : Parrying



Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:07 AM
How is blocking with a weapon represented in game? fighting defensively? but you can do that without a weapon.
What happens if you say, "I block incoming attack with my sword?"
are there rules for weapons having inherent AC bonuses that they grant while you are on the defense? has anyone houseruled this?

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:14 AM
How is blocking with a weapon represented in game? fighting defensively? but you can do that without a weapon.
What happens if you say, "I block incoming attack with my sword?"
are there rules for weapons having inherent AC bonuses that they grant while you are on the defense? has anyone houseruled this?

2 weapon defense, parrying is included in fighting defensively, regular AC, full defense and base dex score (10 is human, which is understated).

That's the crunch anyway, but what you're actually talking about is fluff.


A players ability to parry is represented by their investment in either the above feats or enhancers for those feats or ones that boost AC, or the investment in their dexterity score.

You might think that being an expert swordsman makes you super awesome at parrying things, but that's all included in the current AC and dex systems, there are ways to improve it which lower attack rolls, but that's what being an "awesome swordsman" is all about-- keeping your relative attack bonus while fighting more defensively.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:16 AM
I don't really think thats the case.
Not having a weapon doesn't affect your AC in any way that I know of.
Even if you have no unarmed capability. that implies that you simply don't use your weapon to block attacks, or if you do it is no more effective than if you were totally unarmed. And yeah the existance of the shield bonus from two weapon defense only makes that harder to understand for me, since clearly weapons can be used to stop other weapons from hitting you.

AslanCross
2010-11-25, 08:18 AM
For the most part, parrying is abstracted into feats like Two Weapon Defense, Combat Expertise, and attack options like Fighting Defensively and Total Defense.

However, there are more active parrying options like the Warblade maneuver Wall of Blades (make an attack roll as an immediate action, if the result as higher than your AC you can use it to replace your AC) and the feat Melee Evasion (which does something similar).

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:22 AM
Not having a weapon doesn't affect your AC in any way that I know of.
Right, like in real life.

In dnd dodging or parrying work equally well and are used "whenever". It's fluff.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:23 AM
Thanks for answering so quickly.
But I am still unsatisfied.
I feel there should be some kind of rule representing the fact that when someone is trying to hit you with a bit of steel it is almost always preferable to have a similar bit of steel to interpose between their bit of steel and your fragile body. Since there apparently isn't, how would I make one?

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:25 AM
Right, like in real life.

In dnd dodging or parrying work equally well and are used "whenever". It's fluff.

Thats my point exactly, in real life it is far better for your health, to be armed unless you are skilled in not being armed.

Spiryt
2010-11-25, 08:25 AM
Not having a weapon doesn't affect your AC in any way that I know of.

It affects you by the fact that you're provoking attacks of opportunity if you try to fight unarmed against armed individual. So you're pretty screwed.

And it's quite sufficient for abstract game like 3.5.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:25 AM
Thanks for answering so quickly.
But I am still unsatisfied.
I feel there should be some kind of rule representing the fact that when someone is trying to hit you with a bit of steel it is almost always preferable to have a similar bit of steel to interpose between their bit of steel and your fragile body. Since there apparently isn't, how would I make one?

You shouldn't make one.

And it's even more preferably to have a huge slab of steel between you and their little bit of steel (called a shield).

Fun fact: parrying with shields is and was far more common than parrying with weapons.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:29 AM
I do think it's fair to say that conventional (read: not ToB) D&D does a terrible job representing the defensive manoeuvres capable with both. But this is a good reason to use Tome of Battle.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:31 AM
If you want a better abstraction for parrying with weapons and shields and so on.. play GURPS. :smalltongue:

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:32 AM
A little tip, the run feat, a good con score and improved base speed will always win no matter how long the other guys sword is.

In fact, the bigger the sword the easier it is to dodge, parry, or block the arm. Strength breaks through parries and arm blocks, and moves the sword faster and with more ease to account for dodging.

Monks don't seem to mind not having a weapon, but perhaps that's because they are actually trained in martial arts where as a fighter is trained in weaponry usage.

Anything that isn't already mechanical, is probably fluff.


It's preferable to have steel if you want to hurt them, which is represented in the AoO from untrained unarmed attacks and that's where the lack of AC from the sword comes in, the double hit chance-- scrambling away while not fighting doesn't require a sword to be effective.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:33 AM
It affects you by the fact that you're provoking attacks of opportunity if you try to fight unarmed against armed individual. So you're pretty screwed.

And it's quite sufficient for abstract game like 3.5.

That's more what I was looking for. But its not all that abstract. I mean there are rules for far more complicated things. That works for when you are fighting but what about just defending yourself?


You shouldn't make one.

And it's even more preferably to have a huge slab of steel between you and their little bit of steel (called a shield).

Fun fact: parrying with shields is and was far more common than parrying with weapons.

But they ARE still both bits of steel, and both can theoretically be used to halt the movement of other bits of steel.

A related point. The defensive enhancement to weaponry. i can't really remember what it does, but doesn't it seem like it is implying that the ability to parry is almost supernatural? I jest of course (unless we are living in a world in which the only presence of the supernatural is an innate ability of all inhabitants to block whilst weilding weapons).

Psyx
2010-11-25, 08:33 AM
How is blocking with a weapon represented in game? fighting defensively? but you can do that without a weapon.
What happens if you say, "I block incoming attack with my sword?"
are there rules for weapons having inherent AC bonuses that they grant while you are on the defense? has anyone houseruled this?

It's poorly reflected in D&D. And it should be based on the swordsman's skill, not the weapon they carry. A 20th level fighter with an AC of 20 is hit just as easily as a 1st with an AC of 20.

Weapon Expertise allows parrying, and it's assumed that fighting defensively does so to a degree, too. Two weapon defence, of course...



Since there apparently isn't, how would I make one?

Throw out your books and buy pretty much ANY other roleplaying system out there! Seriously: D&D is VERY poor for 'realism' in combat, and if you want it, you should look elsewhere.

Ossian
2010-11-25, 08:34 AM
Thanks for answering so quickly.
But I am still unsatisfied.
I feel there should be some kind of rule representing the fact that when someone is trying to hit you with a bit of steel it is almost always preferable to have a similar bit of steel to interpose between their bit of steel and your fragile body. Since there apparently isn't, how would I make one?

I tend to agree.

However the one thing that changes is that you lose reach. So the puny 1,5 meter drops to zero (unless you have improved unarmed strike) that is, if you try to punch someone and he has a knife, he gets an AoO. That, in real life, might really be the difference between life and death. You are both commoners (let s face it) and have 1 to 6 HPs. he gets to stab you first because he's armed, and if he succeeds (normal humans, AC 10, is a 50% chance) you get stabbed, which might result in death (1d4+STR or even worse if it is a critical). What I just said (I will diss my own point here) is totally moot though, because we are not talking about street gangsters gutting each others in dark alleys. We are talking sordboys and axe dudes, we are talking soldiers and knights and we want to be able to go into climactic battles on rooftop like the last strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0761.html) just proved. We want battles where between two equally skilled and high level badass opponents, the one who gets disarmed is in serious trouble and is forced to dodge, duck and tumble like crazy, never mind attacking or winning.

I feel that total defense and fight defensively are two very limited options, and this is why I recommend to use at the very least the level/class based AC (as in Star Wars or Unearthed Arcana). Thus, the gritty veteran of middle age (who has his dex dropped to "just 10-11") still is a force to be reckoned with because of his 20 years of battle experience. It still does not cover the armed vs unarmed part, but it does make the fluff easier to bend to the kind of battle descriptions I am going for.

O.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:34 AM
If you want a better abstraction for parrying with weapons and shields and so on.. play GURPS. :smalltongue:

What's that?

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:36 AM
Highly generic and adaptable point-buy system. I'm not really enamored with it; almost anything it does, interestingly, I find another more focused system does better - just like D&D, but without the huge number of people to play with. It does have its fans, though.

I'm also going to repeat my earlier statement about Tome of Battle - Iron Heart includes a lot of traditional sword moves poorly represented by D&D.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:37 AM
What's that?

It's an RPG.

Do a Google search for GURPS. It'll be the first result.

Instead of "armour class", they have defense scores - Block, Parry and Dodge. Block depends on shields, Parry on weapon skill, and Dodge on how quick you are.

If you want to play a character focused on parrying, you buy a high weapon skill and perhaps Improved Defense (Parry).

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:38 AM
A related point. The defensive enhancement to weaponry. i can't really remember what it does, but doesn't it seem like it is implying that the ability to parry is almost supernatural? I jest of course (unless we are living in a world in which the only presence of the supernatural is an innate ability of all inhabitants to block whilst weilding weapons).
S'called Level 1: Dex 12 average, 18 maximum.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:39 AM
Highly generic and adaptable point-buy system. I'm not really enamored with it; almost anything it does, interestingly, I find another more focused system does better - just like D&D, but without the huge number of people to play with. It does have its fans, though.

I'm also going to repeat my earlier statement about Tome of Battle - Iron Heart includes a lot of traditional sword moves poorly represented by D&D.

Only problem with that is that not anyone can do it... unless they train specifically. Still blocking a sword blow is probably quite difficult. I dunno.

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:39 AM
Only problem with that is that not anyone can do it... unless they train specifically. Still blocking a sword blow is probably quite difficult. I dunno.
Have you ever trained with swords IRL?

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:40 AM
It's not something you do as a matter of course with a weapon. The primary point of having the weapon is to hit someone. Parrying and blocking is done by a dedicated hand - a shield, or parrying dagger (that's right, two-weapon fighting is not usually supposed to be RAAAAAAAAAAAGH KILL EVERYTHING DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS!)

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:41 AM
Parrying is not an effective way to kill someone. It's better to get out of the way and stab them, rather than just block their strike and leave both of your weapons useless until you recover.

Psyren
2010-11-25, 08:42 AM
Neverwinter Nights had a "Parry" skill, which I think confused more than a few people who expected something similar to be in D&D.

Spiryt
2010-11-25, 08:46 AM
Parrying is not an effective way to kill someone. It's better to get out of the way and stab them, rather than just block their strike and leave both of your weapons useless until you recover.

Recover from what?

"Blocking" with a weapon like portrayed in games and movies would be indeed quite useless, easy to avoid "defense".

However, defensive value of any bigger weapon is obviously significant, to bind, deflect and oppose your opponents weapon.

And of course, it's not really job for D&D to represent fighting in detailed way.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:46 AM
No matter how you use your weapon to defend, the point is that it's still not ready to stab your enemy in the gut. You need to recover first.

elonin
2010-11-25, 08:47 AM
Parrying is included in your ac value. If you want to parry more use the combat expertise feat. I've realized from fighting with boffer weapons that it is better to not be there instead of parrying against your opponent. If you don't mind a bit more paperwork I'll suggest playing role master. You can subtract from your attack roll to add the same amount to one attack.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:47 AM
Neverwinter Nights had a "Parry" skill, which I think confused more than a few people who expected something similar to be in D&D.

Honestly I think it owes more to the high amount of parrying in cinema, because it's much more dramatic and cool than dodging all the time. (Not that I'm complaining, here, let me get out my lightsaber...)

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:50 AM
Have you ever trained with swords IRL?

No more or less than the average Australian Psychology student :smalltongue: But I have used objects to stop people from hitting me with other objects. And usually I have been quite happy with the result.

Also it seems to me that most realistic, real life swordplay consists mostly of blocking. since getting hit typically means you lose. Though I concede I could be wrong, being a mere student and not someone who understands swords and blocking and stuff.

The Rose Dragon
2010-11-25, 08:51 AM
Honestly I think it owes more to the high amount of parrying in cinema, because it's much more dramatic and cool than dodging all the time. (Not that I'm complaining, here, let me get out my lightsaber...)

In cinema, the defender doesn't parry. The attacker aims at the defender's weapon instead.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:52 AM
Recover from what?

"Blocking" with a weapon like portrayed in games and movies would be indeed quite useless, easy to avoid "defense".

However, defensive value of any bigger weapon is obviously significant, to bind, deflect and oppose your opponents weapon.

And of course, it's not really job for D&D to represent fighting in detailed way.

But I wanna!
Well I guess I have plenty of advice now anyway.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:52 AM
No more or less than the average Australian Psychology student :smalltongue: But I have used objects to stop people from hitting me with other objects. And usually I have been quite happy with the result.

Also it seems to me that most realistic, real life swordplay consists mostly of blocking. since getting hit typically means you lose. Though I concede I could be wrong, being a mere student and not someone who understands swords and blocking and stuff.

You're wrong. Most real life swordplay consists of a single attack and then the loser dies.

If they're good, it might also contain someone getting out of the way and stabbing back first.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:53 AM
No more or less than the average Australian Psychology student :smalltongue: But I have used objects to stop people from hitting me with other objects. And usually I have been quite happy with the result.

Also it seems to me that most realistic, real life swordplay consists mostly of blocking. since getting hit typically means you lose. Though I concede I could be wrong, being a mere student and not someone who understands swords and blocking and stuff.

It's really hard to actually block a third class lever being used against you. A realistic sword fight consists of trying to hit the other guy first and making him miss you. Mostly trying to hit him first. Prince Caspian is the only recent cinematic swordfight I can think of that's at all realistic (it was amazingly so), and that's because when you're in armor they can get away with both having an extended battle (cinematic!) and having the weapon hit regularly (realistic!).

Spiryt
2010-11-25, 08:53 AM
No matter how you use your weapon to defend, the point is that it's still not ready to stab your enemy in the gut. You need to recover first.

Eh, I'm don't really feel like doing internet fencing, but it really depend of thousands of factors, and is not at all true in many cases.

In fact not true in most cases.

Here's simple fluid pass from guarding your side to striking and opponent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9qXYxZvA64).

Psyx
2010-11-25, 08:55 AM
It's not something you do as a matter of course with a weapon. The primary point of having the weapon is to hit someone. Parrying and blocking is done by a dedicated hand

Err. No.
Lots of fencers would disagree with you, for a start.
A weapon is for defence AND attack. Some are better at one than the other. Some are good at both.



Parrying is not an effective way to kill someone. It's better to get out of the way and stab them, rather than just block their strike and leave both of your weapons useless until you recover.

Again...no. Parrying as a mens to an end is a very effecitve way to kill someone as -if done right- their weapon is then not protecting their body.
How about as the strike is delivered, you deliver a strike that both blocks the line of attack and strikes the foe. This is a single-time movement. Alternatively you can use a double-time one: Parry the blow (and displace the blade), and from that position, launch an attack while the foes' weapon is displaced [parry-riposte].

Orzel
2010-11-25, 08:56 AM
Since half your enemies are superstrong, being armed wouldn't grant you much of a bonus.

You would probably try to dodge waaaaay before you'd try to parry when facing an ogre's club.

IDEA FOR NEW FEAT!

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:57 AM
Err. No.
Lots of fencers would disagree with you, for a start.
A weapon is for defence AND attack. Some are better at one than the other. Some are good at both.

There's a difference between saying that "parries happen and are useful" and "parrying is something that occurs all the time by all sword users."

Also, most sport fencing only has tangential relevance to reality.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 08:58 AM
You're wrong. Most real life swordplay consists of a single attack and then the loser dies.

If they're good, it might also contain someone getting out of the way and stabbing back first.

I don't think I am wrong. I think it was a done thing to push aside an incoming blow with your own weapon. Otherwise swords wouldn't have things like hand guards or ... any of the other defensive features that swords have. Also, I am not a master swordsman by any stretch of the imagination. Most people today aren't. But as I said, I have in the past performed actions equatable to a parry and i am sure many other people here have too.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 08:58 AM
Err. No.
Lots of fencers would disagree with you, for a start.
A weapon is for defence AND attack. Some are better at one than the other. Some are good at both.




Again...no. Parrying as a mens to an end is a very effecitve way to kill someone as -if done right- their weapon is then not protecting their body.
How about as the strike is delivered, you deliver a strike that both blocks the line of attack and strikes the foe. This is a single-time movement. Alternatively you can use a double-time one: Parry the blow (and displace the blade), and from that position, launch an attack while the foes' weapon is displaced [parry-riposte].

Fencing is not sword fighting. Fencing is a sport.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:00 AM
In cinema, the defender doesn't parry. The attacker aims at the defender's weapon instead.

This is true.
In real life it probably doesn't happen quite as... flambouyantly as it does in the movies but I think it still happens.

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 09:02 AM
I don't think I am wrong. I think it was a done thing to push aside an incoming blow with your own weapon. Otherwise swords wouldn't have things like hand guards or ... any of the other defensive features that swords have. Also, I am not a master swordsman by any stretch of the imagination. Most people today aren't. But as I said, I have in the past performed actions equatable to a parry and i am sure many other people here have too.

Again, parries happen and are an important part of swordplay. They're not a basic maneuver though.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 09:02 AM
This is true.
In real life it probably doesn't happen quite as... flambouyantly as it does in the movies but I think it still happens.

Actually, in real life a lot of untrained fighters tend to imitate movies...

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:04 AM
Actually, in real life a lot of untrained fighters tend to imitate movies...

Well anyway in movies it works awesomely. It should work in D&D!

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 09:05 AM
Recover from what?

"Blocking" with a weapon like portrayed in games and movies would be indeed quite useless, easy to avoid "defense".

However, defensive value of any bigger weapon is obviously significant, to bind, deflect and oppose your opponents weapon.

And of course, it's not really job for D&D to represent fighting in detailed way.
Here's a sword form of parries done by Sam Masich who I know and respect, his classes go for 200-300 each and are always stocked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_HV3YlAjw

I can personally vouch for the form in it's hidden effectiveness, as well as the power of the jian and the power that parrying can bring.

Thing is, parrying in true effectiveness is really done more with internal martial arts than external, and DnD simply has no internal martial arts. It's all iron palm this and wing chun that. Sure it has Wis -> attack or AC modifiers, but it has no accurate portrayal. If you want what would appear to by mystic powers like being able to grab someone's sword with your sword just as grabbing their arm with your arm, you will have to look elsewhere because monk powers simply do not transfer through weapons because of the fluff being Su instead of Ex as it is IRL. Kung Fu movies are based off of a blend of shaolin, chin na, kempo, bagua/taichi/qigong and wuxing, all labeled kung fu. Most of the super hard hitting stuff is shaolin, like breaking through someone's ribcage and pulling out their heart-- that's iron palm right there and is real, disrupting blood flow, nerves and other inner body systems is real and falls under chin na, stopping the heart through concussion and such is kempo, being able to do apparently impossible things is either tai chi or wuxing, if it's physical like throwing someone 15' with a tap it's probably true root tai chi, if it's stuff like flying jumps or fireballs it's wuxing.

Examples: Tai chi fighting, body like flypaper mixed with muuuuud. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTxDEa92B8)

Showy examples of internal martial arts, super simple and gimmicky for a master. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSnUDkCQ0WU)

The Rose Dragon
2010-11-25, 09:13 AM
if it's stuff like flying jumps or fireballs it's wuxing.

That's... not Wu Xing is. It is a mnemonic device that uses five movements at its core. It certainly doesn't allow you to toss fireballs.

Flying jumps are Qing Gong cranked up to 11.

Orzel
2010-11-25, 09:13 AM
6 words
oversized 35 strength cloud giant morningstar

The silly part is not that your weapon doesn't naturally boost AC, this that Awesome Blow isn't automatic.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:16 AM
Here's a sword form of parries done by Sam Masich who I know and respect, his classes go for 200-300 each and are always stocked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY_HV3YlAjw

I can personally vouch for the form in it's hidden effectiveness, as well as the power of the jian and the power that parrying can bring.

Thing is, parrying in true effectiveness is really done more with internal martial arts than external, and DnD simply has no internal martial arts. It's all iron palm this and wing chun that. Sure it has Wis -> attack or AC modifiers, but it has no accurate portrayal. If you want what would appear to by mystic powers like being able to grab someone's sword with your sword just as grabbing their arm with your arm, you will have to look elsewhere because monk powers simply do not transfer through weapons because of the fluff being Su instead of Ex as it is IRL. Kung Fu movies are based off of a blend of shaolin, chin na, kempo, bagua/taichi/qigong and wuxing, all labeled kung fu. Most of the super hard hitting stuff is shaolin, like breaking through someone's ribcage and pulling out their heart-- that's iron palm right there and is real, disrupting blood flow, nerves and other inner body systems is real and falls under chin na, stopping the heart through concussion and such is kempo, being able to do apparently impossible things is either tai chi or wuxing, if it's physical like throwing someone 15' with a tap it's probably true root tai chi, if it's stuff like flying jumps or fireballs it's wuxing.

Examples: Tai chi fighting, body like flypaper mixed with muuuuud. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTxDEa92B8)

Showy examples of internal martial arts, super simple and gimmicky for a master. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSnUDkCQ0WU)

Thankyou for posting this. It was very intersting. I can see why the Xiang is reffered to as the gentlemans weapon. But what they were doing seemed alot more intricate than swordfighting in its most basic form.

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 09:17 AM
That's... not Wu Xing is. It is a mnemonic device that uses five movements at its core. It certainly doesn't allow you to toss fireballs.

Flying jumps are Qing Gong cranked up to 11.
Well, that's me not knowing far less about kung fu movies than martial arts. Heh.

Yes you are correct.

By flying jumps I mean ones where the arc is inverted :smalleek:


Thankyou for posting this. It was very intersting. I can see why the Xiang is reffered to as the gentlemans weapon. But what they were doing seemed alot more intricate than swordfighting in its most basic form.
Xiang?

Yes that's because tai chi sword is just tai chi with a metal bit on your arm, and tai chi application takes 50 years to master.

By no means are these guys masters quite yet, Sam is really getting there as he started out as a hotshot even when he was in his early 20's in competitions in china.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:24 AM
Hmm anyway. Digressing.
I feel strongly enough about this to houserule something. some sort of shield bonus dependent on the type of weapon, granted under certain situations. Might look at some feats or maneuvers for ideas.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:25 AM
Xiang?

Yes that's because tai chi sword is just tai chi with a metal bit on your arm, and tai chi application takes 50 years to master.

By no means are these guys masters quite yet, Sam is really getting there as he started out as a hotshot even when he was in his early 20's in competitions in china.

hmm you know. I swear I used to see that word everywhere until I searched it just now. It feels like it has been retconned away from me.:smallmad:

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 09:26 AM
Call it Parry and Dodge, designate a foe and gain +1AC to him.

Same in every way to the dodge feat, it just can parry as well, probably! :smallbiggrin:


Also you're thinking Jian.... or xianghua from soul calibur? Though she used a straightsword wushu style I believe.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:29 AM
Call it Parry and Dodge, designate a foe and gain +1AC to him.

Same in every way to the dodge feat, it just can parry as well, probably! :smallbiggrin:


Also you're thinking Jian.... or xianghua from soul calibur?

Haha thats definitely it :smallsmile:
Gimme a break, its early here.

AslanCross
2010-11-25, 09:30 AM
Thankyou for posting this. It was very intersting. I can see why the Xiang is reffered to as the gentlemans weapon. But what they were doing seemed alot more intricate than swordfighting in its most basic form.

Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y) of German longsword techniques. There is some parrying, but there is just as much stepping out of the way, and each of these is immediately followed up by a counter.

Here's a very lengthy article on parrying from ARMA. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htm) For the most part, it deals with the misconceptions regarding parrying (among them the rigid blocking seen in movies and using the edge of the sword), but it also describes the parry as not a purely defensive move--yes, it was meant to keep you alive, but the way it is executed also gives you an opening to kill your opponent decisively--none of this "let's whack each others' swords for a few minutes" nonsense we see in movies.

Thus, I think the Dex bonus represents dodging and parrying enough in D&D. Burdening an already complex game with even more mechanics (apart from the odd feat or martial maneuver) does not do anything to make the game more "realistic."

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:35 AM
Here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3DhjFUOG6Y) of German longsword techniques. There is some parrying, but there is just as much stepping out of the way, and each of these is immediately followed up by a counter.

Here's a very lengthy article on parrying from ARMA. (http://www.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htm) For the most part, it deals with the misconceptions regarding parrying (among them the rigid blocking seen in movies and using the edge of the sword), but it also describes the parry as not a purely defensive move--yes, it was meant to keep you alive, but the way it is executed also gives you an opening to kill your opponent decisively--none of this "let's whack each others' swords for a few minutes" nonsense we see in movies.

Thus, I think the Dex bonus represents dodging and parrying enough in D&D. Burdening an already complex game with even more mechanics (apart from the odd feat or martial maneuver) does not do anything to make the game more "realistic."

Perfect. Apart from the small detail that you can parry unarmed. I'm sorry but that STILL bugs me. having a weapon in your hand should always be and advantage. Even for a novice (unless they are prone to impaling themselves on their own blade).

Vladislav
2010-11-25, 09:36 AM
In D&D 3.x, parrying is represented by not provoking attacks of opportunity.
- if you're fighting armed, opponent only gets his normal attack routine; you can be descriptive and assume he gets more attacks, but your sword parries everything else.
- if you're fighting unarmed, he gets additional attacks - those are the ones you would have parried with your sword if you had one.

Darrin
2010-11-25, 09:39 AM
There were a few attempts in Dragon Magazine to introduce Parry feats... the most robust of which was in issue #301 (3.0 rules). But they were highly annoying... lots of requirements, and you needed to get a metric buttload of them before they did anything useful.

There's a serious impact on the combat system by introducing a parry mechanic... it can really, really bog things down if the defender has to make some sort of defensive roll/check. In general, D&D combat abstracts this into a passive target AC you have to roll over. Yes, it's kludgy, but it keeps the speed of combat rolling along fairly quickly. So... be careful when you introduce something that could slow things down.

Spiryt
2010-11-25, 09:39 AM
Perfect. Apart from the small detail that you can parry unarmed. I'm sorry but that STILL bugs me. having a weapon in your hand should always be and advantage. Even for a novice (unless they are prone to impaling themselves on their own blade).

That's certainly right, realistically, even most sick kickboxer, wrestler, combat guy, combined will have his bottom in danger with someone who has a knife and use it aggressively, even if knife guy is complete scrub.

However, it's D&D, and it's not supposed to be realistic.

If you really want to change it, give some flat bonuses to armed guys, and call it a day. :smallsmile:

AslanCross
2010-11-25, 09:41 AM
Perfect. Apart from the small detail that you can parry unarmed. I'm sorry but that STILL bugs me. having a weapon in your hand should always be and advantage. Even for a novice (unless they are prone to impaling themselves on their own blade).

The unarmed combatant either steps aside or uses his limbs (and superior dexterity) to step into the safe zone of the cut or blow and target the attacker's arms. I can't vouch for how possible this is in real life, but it definitely should be in D&D.

panaikhan
2010-11-25, 09:41 AM
Palladium use parrying rules for almost anyone - which is why hand-to-hand combats take hours. Much better to stand back and nuke the site from orbit.

But yeah - if you want to include parrying, simply make it an immediate action that uses your next standard action (or the highest attack from your next full-attack sequence) and you have to beat their attack roll with your own. This is how Palladium do it.
The more you parry, the less you hit your opponent (and hopefully, the less he hits you)

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:42 AM
In D&D 3.x, parrying is represented by not provoking attacks of opportunity.
- if you're fighting armed, opponent only gets his normal attack routine; you can be descriptive and assume he gets more attacks, but your sword parries everything else.
- if you're fighting unarmed, he gets additional attacks - those are the ones you would have parried with your sword if you had one.

Similar to something that was said earlier, and I think you are right. That is probably how parrying is represented. Its not perfect though :smallfrown: Oh well. I guess its just too hard to do anything about.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 09:44 AM
Palladium use parrying rules for almost anyone - which is why hand-to-hand combats take hours. Much better to stand back and nuke the site from orbit.

But yeah - if you want to include parrying, simply make it an immediate action that uses your next standard action (or the highest attack from your next full-attack sequence) and you have to beat their attack roll with your own. This is how Palladium do it.
The more you parry, the less you hit your opponent (and hopefully, the less he hits you)

Ok I think I got the gist of it. Thanks :smallsmile:.
I'll use that next time someone in my group (more than likely me) feels they should be able to block an attack with their weapon.

Doug Lampert
2010-11-25, 09:50 AM
That's certainly right, realistically, even most sick kickboxer, wrestler, combat guy, combined will have his bottom in danger with someone who has a knife and use it aggressively, even if knife guy is complete scrub.

However, it's D&D, and it's not supposed to be realistic.

If you really want to change it, give some flat bonuses to armed guys, and call it a day. :smallsmile:

Yeah, you could do something. Maybe, oh I don't know, if the unarmed guy ever actually tries to do anything much but run away give the armed guy an extra attack and make it so he always goes first.

How could we do this?

I know! We give the armed guy an attack of opportunity if the unarmed guy ever attacks! Brilliant! Why didn't they include that in the system? (Oh, wait, they did.)

As for how defensive moves are represented in the current system, there's one defense relevant to sword fighting that goes up with level without regard to equipment or spells, it's called HP. A 5 HP shot takes out a commoner and may well kill him, to the level 5 guy this same shot does something that converts it into a scratch that he'll completely recover from overnight even if no one does anything to treat the wound. He dodged/parried/blocked/avoided the worst of it and in facing 6 seconds of deadly attacks barely got a scratch.

Spiryt
2010-11-25, 09:53 AM
Yeah, you could do something. Maybe, oh I don't know, if the unarmed guy ever actually tries to do anything much but run away give the armed guy an extra attack and make it so he always goes first.

How could we do this?

I know! We give the armed guy an attack of opportunity if the unarmed guy ever attacks! Brilliant! Why didn't they include that in the system? (Oh, wait, they did.)

As for how defensive moves are represented in the current system, there's one defense relevant to sword fighting that goes up with level without regard to equipment or spells, it's called HP. A 5 HP shot takes out a commoner and may well kill him, to the level 5 guy this same shot does something that converts it into a scratch that he'll completely recover from overnight even if no one does anything to treat the wound. He dodged/parried/blocked/avoided the worst of it and in facing 6 seconds of deadly attacks barely got a scratch.

Why mad tho?

As you can see, the whole point is that TS wants it less abstract, more detailed, and more "realistic".

So really, your point is obviously valid, but not exactly on topic.

panaikhan
2010-11-25, 09:55 AM
Ok I think I got the gist of it. Thanks :smallsmile:.
I'll use that next time someone in my group (more than likely me) feels they should be able to block an attack with their weapon.

If you really want players to ponder the pros/cons of parrying, treat the attack as sunder attempts on the parry (i.e. the parrying weapon can be damaged if the attack damage is high enough)

Matthew
2010-11-25, 10:01 AM
This is probably one of the most common home brew topics to crop up; here is a list of solutions that more or less amount to the same thing:

Skjaldbakka's Parrying System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48609)
Talanic & Erk's Interception System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=44108)
Tough Tonka's D20 Parrying System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38214)
Elliott20's Parrying System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36139)
Magic8Ball's Parrying Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34053)
Munchy's Parrying Fighter Feats (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23175&page=2)
Senir's Parry Skill (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25404)
Matthew's Active Defence (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2)
Tower’s Parrying System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54235)

Bottom line, though, is as Spiryt and Psyx say, which is that D&D (even the D20 version) has a sufficiently abstract combat system that looking for that level of granularity will usually end in heartbreak (or more specifically a "fantasy heart breaker"). If the "feeling" of having an active parry system is desired, then attack actions as the economy by which to do this is pretty much the best approach. A third party supplement well worth looking into would be Galloglaich's Codex Martialis (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=58045), which does a good job of getting D20 to resemble more closely modern understandings of ancient and medieval combat reality.

Psyx
2010-11-25, 10:02 AM
Fencing is not sword fighting. Fencing is a sport.

Olympic fencing is a sport. 'Fencing' covers a multitude of sins.

Although your point in no way subtracts from my own. No: Fencing is not a real fight, but it's a common starting point for those not familiar with classical fencing to draw an example from.
Both Western and Eastern schools of swordplay rely heavily on parries. Heck: The techniques in Go Rin No Sho - the most famous book on swordsmanship that there is - crucially rely on parries. A casual flick through anything from I33 to bayonet manuals of the 20th century shows that parries are a crucial and essential part of armed combat.



"parrying is something that occurs all the time by all sword users."

How about: "Parries are something that happens an awful lot in swordplay, but they aren't the only defensive measure used, because of things such as displacements. All of the defensive techniques though are generally poorly treated under d20, except in all but the most basic of terms."

true_shinken
2010-11-25, 10:04 AM
Take Robilar's Gambit. Now when they attack, you get an AoO. Now, disarm them with said AoO.
That's as close to a parry effect you'll get with D&D rules, I believe.

Oh, no, wait a second. Duelist has a +AC when fighting defensively ability that requires him to be wielding a one-handed weapon. So does Bladesinger, except it's not limited to fighting defensively. There's also the Einhander feat.

So that's, what, 4 ways to parry in D&D, I believe? Oh, there's also something in Tob< like was already mentioned. So, 5 ways to parry.

Doug Lampert
2010-11-25, 10:05 AM
Why mad tho?

As you can see, the whole point is that TS wants it less abstract, more detailed, and more "realistic".

So really, your point is obviously valid, but not exactly on topic.

If you include BOTH an abstract representation of something AND ALSO a stacking more "realistic" representation of the exact same thing then you make the thing that you are double counting too effective.

Is attacking with a melee weapon so effective in D&D land that it really NEEDS to be further nerfed?

If you INSIST that defense must be represented by some sort of parry, and add a detailed resolution for that sort of parry, then the baseline WITHOUT that detailed resolution shouldn't include defensive actions like parrying, and in D&D land it definitely does. Two unarmored well trained fighters (level 1 in a full BAB class is a well trained combatant) with swords can try to attack each other for 6 seconds, and both miss all their tries. That's without an added parry mechanism.

If you are going to eliminate the abstracted defenses then without active defenses that fight should last about 1.5 seconds and end with the winner going to the hospital with a life-threatening wound while the loser goes to the morgue.

Add a "realistic" defense mechanism and you need to eliminate escalating HP, and give another +10 or so to attack, and allow multiple attacks per round starting at level 1. Otherwise you're just pointlessly nerfing one of the weakest options in the game, that being, I attack someone with a weapon.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 10:12 AM
If you include BOTH an abstract representation of something AND ALSO a stacking more "realistic" representation of the exact same thing then you make the thing that you are double counting too effective.

Is attacking with a melee weapon so effective in D&D land that it really NEEDS to be further nerfed?

If you INSIST that defense must be represented by some sort of parry, and add a detailed resolution for that sort of parry, then the baseline WITHOUT that detailed resolution shouldn't include defensive actions like parrying, and in D&D land it definitely does. Two unarmored well trained fighters (level 1 in a full BAB class is a well trained combatant) with swords can try to attack each other for 6 seconds, and both miss all their tries. That's without an added parry mechanism.

If you are going to eliminate the abstracted defenses then without active defenses that fight should last about 1.5 seconds and end with the winner going to the hospital with a life-threatening wound while the loser goes to the morgue.

Add a "realistic" defense mechanism and you need to eliminate escalating HP, and give another +10 or so to attack, and allow multiple attacks per round starting at level 1. Otherwise you're just pointlessly nerfing one of the weakest options in the game, that being, I attack someone with a weapon.

I wasn't originally thinking of nerfing it. Rather giving it a tiny boost. But I refuse to make a decision for myself so I'll do whatever the last person who comments on this thread tells me to do :smallamused:

The Big Dice
2010-11-25, 10:49 AM
The reason real people use defensive techniques and weapons is simple. Get hit by a weapon and you're either going to be seriously hurt. Like permanently injured or dead.

D&D doesn't have that aspect to it. A D&D character can fall distances that would kill anyone in all but the most fluke circumstances. They can survive crushing, burning, bending, folding or spindling events that would leave real people as a greasy smear on the ground.

And that's why a parry mechanic isn't worth implementing in D&D. Some people might even argue that a parry/fatigue mechanic is already present in the form of hit points.

If you add active defensive techniques to D&D, what you're going to end up with is fights that take unsatisfying lengths of time to resolve.

Psyx
2010-11-25, 11:05 AM
Is attacking with a melee weapon so effective in D&D land that it really NEEDS to be further nerfed?


This is actually quite a good point. Fireballs and their ilk obviously can't be parried. So we're left with a situation where the Fighter gets into combat and is going to see a proportion of his damage parried by foes, while the Wizard continues to to full damage. Hence, this [a parry mechanic] is effectively nerfing the effectiveness of melee-types in comparison to fighters.

There is certainly room for parries in fantasy games. sadly, D&D is not really one of them... Unless you fancy giving everyone an AC bonus equal to BAB to reflect their skill at defensive measures.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 11:06 AM
The reason real people use defensive techniques and weapons is simple. Get hit by a weapon and you're either going to be seriously hurt. Like permanently injured or dead.

D&D doesn't have that aspect to it. A D&D character can fall distances that would kill anyone in all but the most fluke circumstances. They can survive crushing, burning, bending, folding or spindling events that would leave real people as a greasy smear on the ground.

And that's why a parry mechanic isn't worth implementing in D&D. Some people might even argue that a parry/fatigue mechanic is already present in the form of hit points.

If you add active defensive techniques to D&D, what you're going to end up with is fights that take unsatisfying lengths of time to resolve.

Thats one way of looking at it I suppose. But even in that context, I have always seen my hitpoints as a valueble comodity, and if i can avoid losing them thats always nice. Also I like to imagine that my characters feel pain. Maybe thats dumb, I dunno. but whatever.

Vladislav
2010-11-25, 11:06 AM
Unless you fancy giving everyone an AC bonus equal to BAB to reflect their skill at defensive measures.4th edition waves hi!

Psyx
2010-11-25, 11:27 AM
4th edition waves hi!

Are you seriously trying to suggest 4th edition as some kind of realistic paragon of combat simulation? Because it's even worse than 3.5... a feat that wasn't even possible until 4e was invented...

Boci
2010-11-25, 11:44 AM
Are you seriously trying to suggest 4th edition as some kind of realistic paragon of combat simulation? Because it's even worse than 3.5... a feat that wasn't even possible until 4e was invented...

I think they are just pointing out that 4e does give your BAB to defences.

Vladislav
2010-11-25, 11:45 AM
I'm not suggesting anything, let alone *seriously*; I'm merely stating that your suggestion was already implemented in 4E.

EDIT: However, I'm not sure this bonus can actually represent parrying, because, (a) you don't need to be armed to take advantage of it, and (b) you retain it at all times, even when dazed, stunned, or struck from behind by an invisible attacker.

Zeofar
2010-11-25, 12:13 PM
Perfect. Apart from the small detail that you can parry unarmed. I'm sorry but that STILL bugs me. having a weapon in your hand should always be and advantage. Even for a novice (unless they are prone to impaling themselves on their own blade).

Yeah, as has been mentioned before, this is pretty much your faulty understanding of swordplay. You can indeed parry unarmed, and sometimes, just sometimes, actually grabbing the blade of your opponents sword is a better idea than trying to deflect it with your own weapon, which is a far better reason to keep your sword and arm in movement than "maintaining momentum" or any other such stuff they go on about in films.

Here are a few ways that you can understand parrying without changing the rules:


It's included in AC 10: By your own admission, you, someone who has little to no combat expertise, will instinctively block with something within reach. Keep in mind, a level 1 fighter will hit an unarmed, unarmored commoner only a little over half the time(well, it depends on the build, but the point remains); this isn't simply because he has bad aim.
It already exists in the total defense action and Combat Expertise
The effect isn't significant: Ultimately, your offense offsets your defense; you need to focus on defense to significantly add to your protection. See above.
Combat is simultaneous: When you disarm or hit your opponent on your next turn, you can justify it to be caused by you having parried his blade and created an opening. You aren't "taking turns" and starting back at neutral once an individual turn ends so to speak, but your attack may have taken place immediately after his missed, regardless of how many actions were in between.


If you really want skilled fighters to parry mechanically, let anyone with BAB +1 or +2 or more use combat expertise to a maximum of -2. (I'm feeling like I had another suggestion when I started writing this, but I've completely forgotten. Whoops.)

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 12:43 PM
Yeah, as has been mentioned before, this is pretty much your faulty understanding of swordplay. You can indeed parry unarmed, and sometimes, just sometimes, actually grabbing the blade of your opponents sword is a better idea than trying to deflect it with your own weapon, which is a far better reason to keep your sword and arm in movement than "maintaining momentum" or any other such stuff they go on about in films.

Here are a few ways that you can understand parrying without changing the rules:


It's included in AC 10: By your own admission, you, someone who has little to no combat expertise, will instinctively block with something within reach. Keep in mind, a level 1 fighter will hit an unarmed, unarmored commoner only a little over half the time(well, it depends on the build, but the point remains); this isn't simply because he has bad aim.
It already exists in the total defense action and Combat Expertise
The effect isn't significant: Ultimately, your offense offsets your defense; you need to focus on defense to significantly add to your protection. See above.
Combat is simultaneous: When you disarm or hit your opponent on your next turn, you can justify it to be caused by you having parried his blade and created an opening. You aren't "taking turns" and starting back at neutral once an individual turn ends so to speak, but your attack may have taken place immediately after his missed, regardless of how many actions were in between.


If you really want skilled fighters to parry mechanically, let anyone with BAB +1 or +2 or more use combat expertise to a maximum of -2. (I'm feeling like I had another suggestion when I started writing this, but I've completely forgotten. Whoops.)

Heh ouch. i don't think i am quite as hopeless as you make me sound. but you do make a good point. The simultaneous combat point, is at least half of the explanation i was originally looking for.
P.S. I am all for parrying fireballs.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 12:48 PM
P.S. I am all for parrying fireballs.

You can totally do that in GURPS! Well, if you have Parry Missile Weapons, anyway.

(Don't try to parry an Explosive Fireball, though. It'll hurt.)

Dada
2010-11-25, 01:03 PM
Edit: Oops, missed the last two pages. Just ignore my post, since the quote probably has been responded to.


Also it seems to me that most realistic, real life swordplay consists mostly of blocking. since getting hit typically means you lose. Though I concede I could be wrong, being a mere student and not someone who understands swords and blocking and stuff.

This is the exact reason that people normally don't use their weapon for blocking except in movies and other demonstrations. Blocking is usually more difficult than avoiding the blow, and avoiding instead means that you are ready to attack your opponent. And a single good hit will mean that you win and survive, but if you block using your weapon, then you are in no position to counter-attack. Basically, blocking with your primary weapon is a really bad idea, since it lets your opponent keep the initiative and keep attacking you.

Heliomance
2010-11-25, 01:06 PM
Examples: Tai chi fighting, body like flypaper mixed with muuuuud. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTxDEa92B8)

Showy examples of internal martial arts, super simple and gimmicky for a master. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSnUDkCQ0WU)

The first of those can be explained by the fact that the human body only has a limited range of comfortable movement, and isn't actually terribly efficient. If your opponent is reaching for something (eg, you), then a sufficiently skilled person can easily predict where their arm is going to be, and it doesn't take an awful lot of force to deflect it slightly sideways. As they are going to continue to apply force, as they carry on reaching for you, their arm is naturally going to remain in contact with yours as you deflect them around in a circle. Simply physics and biology.

As for the second, it looks exceedingly fake. Some of those falls were very obviously deliberate dives, and the few that weren't obvious can be explained by those "students" being better actors.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 01:08 PM
This is the exact reason that people normally don't use their weapon for blocking except in movies and other demonstrations. Blocking is usually more difficult than avoiding the blow, and avoiding instead means that you are ready to attack your opponent. And a single good hit will mean that you win and survive, but if you block using your weapon, then you are in no position to counter-attack. Basically, blocking with your primary weapon is a really bad idea, since it lets your opponent keep the initiative and keep attacking you.

I didn't mean to imply that blocking was better than dodging. but sometimes you can't dodge. thats when you block. or die. But its cool. I have already reached a conclusion. pretty much.

Amiria
2010-11-25, 01:11 PM
Conan D20 uses 'Armour as Damage Reduction' (armour doesn't improve 'armour class / defense) and two defenses: Dodge and Parry, the classes have different Dodge and Parry defense progressions (low/mid/high), comparable to BAB and Save progressions.

Strength modifies the Parry defense, Shields add their defense bonus (+2 to +4) to Parry defense against melee attacks.

Dexterity modifies the Dodge defense, Shields add their defense bonus to Dodge defense against ranged attacks.

Hironomus
2010-11-25, 01:12 PM
Conan D20 uses 'Armour as DR' and two defenses: Dodge and Parry, the classes have different Dodge and Parry defense progressions (low/mid/high), comparable to BAB and Save progressions.

Strength modifies the Parry defense, Shields add their defense bonus (+2 to +4) to Parry defense against melee attacks.

Dexterity modifies the Dodge defense, Shields add their defense bonus to Dodge defense against ranged attacks.

Out of interest is there a magic system in Conan D20 and if so whats it like?

Amiria
2010-11-25, 01:19 PM
Edited the first sentence of post above a bit, just clarifications.

Yes, there is a magic system, Conan is quite low magic, it uses power points, spells aren't organized in levels but have prerequisites like Scholar level, other spells, magic attack bonus. Some spells are also exclusive to worshippers of specific gods and demons.

Magic attack bonus: The roll (BMAB + Cha modifier) sets the DC for target's saving throw. The progression is quite low, the Scholar class has 0,5 per level, all other classes only have 0,25 - but the Temptress, a class that can choose minor Sorcery as a class feature gets special bonuses to BMAB to compensate the 0,25 progression.

Other classes can also get sporadic access to Magic with the Dabbler feat.

There are different magic schools like Counterspells, Curses, Divination, Hypnotism, Nature Magic, Necromancy, Oriental Magic, Prestidigitation, Summoning ...

Mongoose Publishing just lost the license and but they still have Conan stuff on their page. Here is a link with some information, including character sheets, previews and a FAQ.

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/detail.php?qsID=279&qsSeries=7

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-25, 01:39 PM
How is blocking with a weapon represented in game? fighting defensively? but you can do that without a weapon.
What happens if you say, "I block incoming attack with my sword?"
are there rules for weapons having inherent AC bonuses that they grant while you are on the defense? has anyone houseruled this?

I have a houserule that works like this, and is intended to differentiate TWF from other fighting styles (you also don't have to take so many feats, Two Weapon Fighting automatically grants you an extra swing for every primary hand swing you have, and at no penalty to-hit, improved two weapon fighting and greater two weapon fighting do not exist):

Feat: Two-Weapon Parry
You may exchange any pair of attacks in your routine for a parry. If you are attacked and have chosen a pair of attacks to parry with, you make an opposed attack roll against your target. If your roll surpasses the enemy's, your parry is successful. If your parry roll succeeds and also surpasses the enemy's armor class by 4, you strike the enemy with one attack as a counterattack.

For example, an 8th level fighter using two-weapon fighting has a routine of +8/+8/+3/+3. On your turn, you may choose to give up your attacks at +3 to parry. You only take your two attacks at +8. If you are attacked on an enemy's turn, you make opposed attack rolls at the +3 bonus (only one roll). If your check beats the enemy, you successfully parry and avoid damage. If you succeed and your roll exceeds the enemy's AC by 4, you roll damage once.

Psyx
2010-11-25, 01:55 PM
^So why don't characters with single or two handed weapons get to parry?

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-25, 02:04 PM
^So why don't characters with single or two handed weapons get to parry?

To differentiate the fighting styles. Shield users get the bonus to AC (the bonuses are larger in my games than written in 3.5). 3.5 as written doesn't support using two weapons except for in the case of rogues. If two handed users could do the same thing, there would be no reason to choose to use two weapons.

The rule was made more for balance than for flavor. Two handers are already king of manufactured weapons. Putting the same mechanic in place for two handers that was meant to differentiate two weapons from two handing would put them back on the same playing field as they are in 3.5 as written, which would result in people having no reason to use two weapons and instead just use two handed fighting.

Ragitsu
2010-11-25, 05:53 PM
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs16/i/2007/185/9/2/Sword_Fight_1_by_Elorine.jpg

Mastikator
2010-11-25, 05:58 PM
Hitting below AC means you miss, not that the attack is parried or bounces of the armor. From a simulationist/roleplayer perspective D&D combat kind of sucks. All the other systems (Fallout, Exalted, Trudvagn) I know of are better in at least this aspect.
Basically, there's no such thing as parrying in D&D. And no, unless the fluff says you parry, you don't parry. The fluff is the game.

Boci
2010-11-25, 06:04 PM
Hitting below AC means you miss, not that the attack is parried or bounces of the armor.

No, missing means you don't deal any damage. How that visually plays out is up to the DM and the PC.

Ragitsu
2010-11-25, 06:11 PM
Highly generic and adaptable point-buy system. I'm not really enamored with it; almost anything it does, interestingly, I find another more focused system does better - just like D&D, but without the huge number of people to play with. It does have its fans, though.

I'm also going to repeat my earlier statement about Tome of Battle - Iron Heart includes a lot of traditional sword moves poorly represented by D&D.

Well, duh.

However, where you might need five to six systems for a variety of genres, you can handle them pretty well with one or two books. That's a damn good compromise.

It's lack of popularity, I can attribute to the fact that is is Point Buy, and also due to the sometimes elitist fan community (which isn't unique to GURPS by any stretch of the imagination, but couple this with point-buy, and it tends to easily drive prospective players away).

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-25, 06:18 PM
It also has a reputation for having A Lot Of Math.

Which is unfair, but some past supplements have been... unwieldy.

(3e Vehicles, I'm looking at you.)

Ragitsu
2010-11-25, 06:20 PM
It also has a reputation for having A Lot Of Math.

Which is unfair, but some past supplements have been... unwieldy.

(3e Vehicles, I'm looking at you.)

Depends on what you're doing.

Building Vehicles in 3rd Edition, oh yeah.

Playing? It's basically 3d6, and match or be under a target number (most of the time).

true_shinken
2010-11-25, 06:57 PM
Hitting below AC means you miss, not that the attack is parried or bounces of the armor.
No. It means you either missed or the attack was parried or it bounced of the armor.
I mean, geez. At least read the Player's Handbook, it's specifically written there.

Thurbane
2010-11-25, 08:24 PM
4th edition waves hi!
UA already had an option like this for 3.5, called Defense Bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm).

AstralFire
2010-11-25, 08:28 PM
UA already had an option like this for 3.5, called Defense Bonus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/defenseBonus.htm).

Defense Bonus sucked as a design in every single d20 variant it popped up in, to my knowledge, save for SW Saga. And it STILL had issues there - I never really liked how it interacted with armor.

Hanuman
2010-11-25, 08:58 PM
Are you seriously trying to suggest 4th edition as some kind of realistic paragon of combat simulation? Because it's even worse than 3.5... a feat that wasn't even possible until 4e was invented...
I think he was trying to imply that 4e has a better parrying system because the characters all have 30lb swords. Which is true, if you're going to get anime about it you might as well treat a sword like it's a defensive tool.


Ok guys, bottom line:

Swords are NOT defensive tools, they are a psychological effect and there is NOTHING stopping someone who is trying to block with a sword from being overrun by someone who is willing to accept whatever fate happens.

DnD is about fighting dragons and ogres and goblins and winter wolves and ghosts and stuff, either you'll have to create a VERY niche feat that represents a mechanic which is already differentiated by only fluff because it's what makes sense and what's practical when going from fighting a dude with a sword to a purple wurm, or you'll have to reinvent the system.

There is no difference in range between 5' reach and 3' reach, if you had a shorter weapon then perhaps it would be more effective to parry and block than dodge if you were trying to stab the dude, but because the mechanics are separated into 5' sections and that you simply do not need to parry reach weapons most of the time as the length isn't usually designed for injury or moves too slow to need to, the mechanics do not need to account for decrease and increase effectiveness in the differentiation of the fighting.

FLUFF IT YOURSELF.

DwarfFighter
2010-11-26, 03:33 AM
Thanks for answering so quickly.
But I am still unsatisfied.
I feel there should be some kind of rule representing the fact that when someone is trying to hit you with a bit of steel it is almost always preferable to have a similar bit of steel to interpose between their bit of steel and your fragile body. Since there apparently isn't, how would I make one?

There is already a feat called Combat Expertise, but this doesn't have anything to do with being armed.

How about this: A character that carrying a weapon (or improvised weapon) or shield and chooses to fight defensively (or use total defence) can opt to forego the normal +2 (+4) dodge bonus to AC and instead attempt to parry incoming blows.

The parry is a special kind of save where you simply roll 1d20 against a DC of X (select an appropriate DC, e.g. 10 or 15). A successful save negates the damage from the attack.

* You add +2 if you are using total defence
* You add +2 if you are parrying with a shield or a weapon otherwise suited for parrying, at the GM's discretion.
* You suffer a -4 penalty if parrying with an improvised weapon.

In practice this means that parrying introduces a sort of "miss chance" that turns some of the hits that beat the character's AC into misses. The reason that none of the character's abilities or magical bonuses are applied (or those of the attacker) is that these have already come into play when resolving the attack roll. A vulnerable combatant will simply have to parry more often because he is hit more often.

So bearing this in mind, here are some additional caveats:

A character can only parry close combat attacks and close combat touch attacks. Special attacks like trip, grapple, disarms and so on cannot be parried.

A character can only parry attacks from creatures of the same size category as himself, or one size smaller or larger.

A character cannot parry attacks from flanking enemies or attacks that deny him his Dexterity bonus to AC.

If the character is subject to a critical hit then he must make a parry save against each critical multiplier. Each successful parry effectively reduces the multiplier by one and if all the parry saves are successful then all damage is negated.

E.g.: A character subject to a critical hit from a longsword (x2) that also deals an extra 1d6 of fire damage will need to make two parry saves to negate all the damage. If he makes a single parry save then the damage is 1d8 plus 1d6 fire damage.

-DF

Psyx
2010-11-26, 07:07 AM
To differentiate the fighting styles. Shield users get the bonus to AC (the bonuses are larger in my games than written in 3.5). 3.5 as written doesn't support using two weapons except for in the case of rogues. If two handed users could do the same thing, there would be no reason to choose to use two weapons.

It just seems...odd. As in 'two weapon fighters can block, because it's leet combat styleOMGOMG!!!!'
TWF is truly disgusting for rogues and a bit poor for others, that's true. but then: Most warriors should be using a sword or a two hander because it's simply a better way of doing things.



Hitting below AC means you miss

Err...it means it's bounced OR been parried OR missed. Otherwise how would putting on plate harness (+8AC) make it harder to be missed?

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 07:09 AM
It just seems...odd. As in 'two weapon fighters can block, because it's leet combat styleOMGOMG!!!!'

...That and, you know, there were weapons designed primarily to be used in a two-weapon style where one was more defensive. :smallconfused:

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 07:33 AM
...That and, you know, there were weapons designed primarily to be used in a two-weapon style where one was more defensive. :smallconfused:

D&D already has that, though. It's called "wielding a dagger of defending in your off-hand". Maybe with the Two-Weapon Defense feat to simulate it before you get the magic dagger.

Orzel
2010-11-26, 07:41 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a human parries a cloud giant.

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 07:44 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a human parries a cloud giant.

Well... you see...

HEY! Look over there! -flee-

Ragitsu
2010-11-26, 07:53 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a human parries a cloud giant.

In GURPS, parrying heavier weapons often fails (usually resulting in your own weapon getting damage/destroyed), and if the thing attacking is much larger, it tends to just plow on through your Parry defense.

Buuuut, that's on a somewhat realistic level.

Hanuman
2010-11-26, 07:56 AM
It just seems...odd. As in 'two weapon fighters can block, because it's leet combat styleOMGOMG!!!!'
Having a vast amount of training with TWF styles IRL I gotta say it works great and is actually underpowered compared to how it can work IRL.

When I weapon spar hell yes I prefer 2 swords over 1, I actually prefer having tether based weapons like flails or whips as they work better for TWF but a very light sharp sword like a jian or staightsword? Oh man it's beautiful and just fun.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 07:58 AM
In GURPS, parrying heavier weapons often fails (usually resulting in your own weapon getting damage/destroyed), and if the thing attacking is much larger, it tends to just plow on through your Parry defense.

Buuuut, that's on a somewhat realistic level.

Darnit now I want to play GURPS again.

My current game seems to have kinda died.

Orzel
2010-11-26, 07:59 AM
Well... you see...

HEY! Look over there! -flee-

What ove... HEY!


In GURPS, parrying heavier weapons often fails (usually resulting in your own weapon getting damage/destroyed), and if the thing attacking is much larger, it tends to just plow on through your Parry defense.

Buuuut, that's on a somewhat realistic level.

That's my point. In D&D:

1/4 of the creatures you'd face would break your arm if yoo tried to parry them.
1/4 of them never attack you with parryable attacks
and the rest have been clouded, walled, enchanted, or caged.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 08:01 AM
...That and, you know, there were weapons designed primarily to be used in a two-weapon style where one was more defensive. :smallconfused:

More defensive than three square feet of iron-rimmed Linden wood?

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 08:06 AM
More defensive than three square feet of iron-rimmed Linden wood?

Depends on how good you are with a main gauche. If you're good you can get his sword out of the way, rather than just blocking it...

(In fact, trying to block with a parrying dagger is going to get your hand cut open.)

Emmerask
2010-11-26, 08:08 AM
No, missing means you don't deal any damage. How that visually plays out is up to the DM and the PC.

Yep, I mostly do it this way:

not hitting...

1) but a close call -> parry or glances of the armor
2) not that close -> evade
3) far to low -> defender doesn´t even have to do anything the swing was far off the mark

My players know about this so they have some indication what to roll to hit (or how much power attack to use next time instead ^^)

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 08:09 AM
Depends on how good you are with a main gauche. If you're good you can get his sword out of the way, rather than just blocking it...

(In fact, trying to block with a parrying dagger is going to get your hand cut open.)

Contrary to popular belief, you also get thing out of the way with shield, or many other things, not just block things like in arcade games....

Main gauche is quite simply 'poor mans' shield with obvious pointy end benefit, carried in everyday life. Comparing those two "realistically" for purposed of D&D is pretty pointless.

And do many more things, but discussion is getting weird again - simply in 3.5 there's no way to for such "subtle things".

Amphetryon
2010-11-26, 08:13 AM
How has this thread gotten to 4 pages without anyone suggesting the OP try Riddle of Steel (http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/)? If 'more realistic* combat' is the thing you're after, TRoS has the reputation as being near the top of the pile.

*'realistic' without devolving into "four guys whacking each other with sticks in the back yard".

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 08:15 AM
But a master with a parrying dagger would probably be safer with a main gauche than a shield. Maybe. Depending on what weapon his opponent is using. (Maybe use both at once...)



And you're basing it on what? :smallconfused:

No, I really don't think that "master of main gauche" would be safer with dagger instead of shield. Especially against arrows, bolts and similar dishonorable stuff. :smallwink:

Unless by "master of main gauche" you mean that he has no idea how to handle a shield on the other hand. But he will probably learn fast then.

Ragitsu
2010-11-26, 08:17 AM
Darnit now I want to play GURPS again.

My current game seems to have kinda died.

Course, in the right games, you can either ignore these realistic rules altogether, or give a character ST/Striking ST/Lifting ST with a Limitation of "Weapons Only".

Bam! You've got human swordsmen capable of holding their own against giants.


That's my point. In D&D:

1/4 of the creatures you'd face would break your arm if yoo tried to parry them.
1/4 of them never attack you with parryable attacks
and the rest have been clouded, walled, enchanted, or caged.

Then again, it IS possible to get a character's Strength score up to the level of the very monsters they are fighting.

There is also a consideration of Size. Even a super strong Epic Level character is often Small-Medium-Large, against Huge and greater Size monsters with appropriately scaled weaponry.

Why is the above relevant? There is no super strict policy on Size and Strength correlation, which makes implementing any sort of "realistic" parrying mechanic in standard D&D (be it natural attack against natural attack, weapon against natural attack, or weapon against weapon) something of a nightmare.

And...all of this is before magic/magic weapons even factor in!

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 08:18 AM
And you're basing it on what? :smallconfused:

No, I really don't think that "master of main gauche" would be safer with dagger instead of shield. Especially against arrows, bolts and similar dishonorable stuff. :smallwink:

Unless by "master of main gauche" you mean that he has no idea how to handle a shield on the other hand. But he will probably learn fast then.

I have no idea what post you're quoting. It seems to have mysteriously vanished!

(I realised I'm an idiot, shh.)

Earthwalker
2010-11-26, 08:20 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a human parries a cloud giant.

When things like this start to be mentioned I find it odd that a character can not parry the blow, take it on his chest and keep attacking.

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 08:22 AM
When things like this start to be mentioned I find it odd that a character can not parry the blow, take it on his chest and keep attacking.

Hit Points do not measure how badly you've been beaten or cut up.

An attack that "hits" from a cloud giant did not actually hit your character. It just knocked away some of his stamina/morale/luck by being so freaking close that it shaved his hair.

(In GURPS, on the other hand, if it does hit... you're dead, generally. Unless you have some sort of huge damage reduction or masses of health.)

Orzel
2010-11-26, 08:27 AM
When things like this start to be mentioned I find it odd that a character can not parry the blow, take it on his chest and keep attacking.

Hit Points do not measure how badly you've been injured (for humanoids by default).

Once you get past level 5 (for humanoids), Hit Points represent the dodges, blocks, and lucky misses to attacks you can't parry, and parries of the attacks you can actually... parry.

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 08:28 AM
I have no idea what post you're quoting. It seems to have mysteriously vanished!

(I realised I'm an idiot, shh.)

It must be the Machine Spirit raising to it's own consciousness....

Although as far as D&D goes, there's always something that dagger can do better than shield... Unless we're going into real hardcore fantasy. :smallwink:

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/10001129.jpg

Yuki Akuma
2010-11-26, 08:30 AM
... Why are they naked.

Orzel
2010-11-26, 08:33 AM
Guy Rule #6: Don't be naked around sharp or pointy sticks.

Hanuman
2010-11-26, 08:34 AM
... Why are they naked.
Because skin doesn't stain when you get blood on it.

Also, that picture is silly. He should of just slashed the wrist and disabled a weapon hand.

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 08:42 AM
... Why are they naked.

Because Renaissance ideas where not unlike modern.... Someone was interested in human anatomy and fencing, and put it together in one drawing.

Today people don't really know much about fencing or anatomy, so just draw Dark Elves in really high heel boots... :smalltongue::smalltongue:



Because skin doesn't stain when you get blood on it.

Also, that picture is silly. He should of just slashed the wrist and disabled a weapon hand.

So you're going to call one of the most important sources on rapier fighting "silly" from the height of your forum account?

Really?

Ragitsu
2010-11-26, 08:45 AM
There is a simple, logical reason why parrying is not a part of the D&D rules ->

No player wants their shiny +1 longsword to get any more scratched than it needs to be.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 09:11 AM
Also, that picture is silly. He should of just slashed the wrist and disabled a weapon hand.

Errr...yeah. Capoferro was pretty bad at fencing. :smallconfused:
[That is Capoferro, right?]



Although as far as D&D goes, there's always something that dagger can do better than shield...

Be used offensively? A shield is pretty good for that, too. Get a shield slammed into you and you know about it! Plus shields are better used for forcing a foe backwards, and provide defence against missiles. It's also a LOT easier to block with a shield than a little dagger.

As for better in D&D... doesn't a shield bash do 1d3 and a dagger 1d4?



Depends on how good you are with a main gauche. If you're good you can get his sword out of the way, rather than just blocking it...

You mean a bind? you can bind with a shield, just fine.

It doesn't matter how good you are at getting 12" of steel in the way of a sword: You'd be better at it if it was a large shield instead. Truth is that parrying daggers are not meant for pitched battle; they are urban side-arms, used against un-armoured foes in situations where its not practical to carry a proper shield. Saying that a left-handed weapon is 'better' than a good shield is somewhat akin to comparing a pistol to an assault rifle: In times when you can't carry an assault rifle, a pistol is a lot better than nothing. But if you can carry an assault rifle, it's going to be better than a pistol in most circumstances.

There is a reason why pretty much every warrior society on earth has used shields heavily, and why left-handed weapons have only seen fairly niche use in any combative arena save for urbanised back-street conflict. Basically, nine times out of ten, a shield is better than an off-handed weapon.



1/4 of the creatures you'd face would break your arm if yoo tried to parry them.

That doesn't prevent a weapon being used defensively, though. for example, a stop-thrust, or tsuki in Japanese arts: Foe starts to lunge forward, so you level your weapon at the foe's throat and extend. Your foe can then either impale their windpipe on your pointy thing, or abort the strike.

AstralFire
2010-11-26, 09:17 AM
Yes, shields > off-handed weapons. But I think the goal is to try and strike a happy medium between realism and balance; if we can accept someone can make four solid strikes in six seconds, I don't think it's "OMG DUAL-WIELDING IS SO OSSUM" to give TWF a niche of being more defensive than THF; it owes more to reality than 'death by a thousand cuts' certainly does.

Orzel
2010-11-26, 09:23 AM
You don't stop-thrust a cloud giant.
He does not lunge at you. You're 1/3 his size.

He swings his oversized morningstar down.
If you don't have STR at least in the mid 30s, you dodge or die.

And your body, alive or not, flies 10 feet in the direction of his choice.

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 09:23 AM
Errr...yeah. Capoferro was pretty bad at fencing. :smallconfused:
[That is Capoferro, right?]

Be used offensively? A shield is pretty good for that, too. Get a shield slammed into you and you know about it! Plus shields are better used for forcing a foe backwards, and provide defence against missiles. It's also a LOT easier to block with a shield than a little dagger.

As for better in D&D... doesn't a shield bash do 1d3 and a dagger 1d4?



No, not used ofensively, nor to bind enemy weapons, control them, put pressure against opponent or whatever....

Just to stab opponent under the armpit. For that purpose dagger will be preferred tool, even if shield tries with middle spike like some scottish targes, or whatever. :smallwink::smallwink:

And yes, that was Cappoferro.

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-26, 09:55 AM
It just seems...odd. As in 'two weapon fighters can block, because it's leet combat styleOMGOMG!!!!'
TWF is truly disgusting for rogues and a bit poor for others, that's true. but then: Most warriors should be using a sword or a two hander because it's simply a better way of doing things.

I'm not exactly sure if you're talking about D&D or real life with the bolded part, but anyway:
- i said nothing about twf being superior in any way, in fact the mechanic isn't all that powerful in practice because enemies typically have higher attack bonuses than PC's
- it is bad design for a system to favor one fighting style over another. faithfully reproducing real life does not make for a good roleplaying system. a player must be able to create a character archetype and not feel like a sucker for doing something weak.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 10:09 AM
- it is bad design for a system to favor one fighting style over another. faithfully reproducing real life does not make for a good roleplaying system. a player must be able to create a character archetype and not feel like a sucker for doing something weak.

Fair comment, but I've always felt the problems with TWF was that it's feat intensive and yet still utterly awesome in the hands of a precision damage specialist, yet poor (for the feat outlay) in comparison to Power Attack and a two hander for anyone lacking sneak attack.

Essentially, I rate the styles as being ranked...
For finesse, low str rogue: TWF, sword and board, two hander
For everyone else who melees: Two hander, TWF, sword and board

Essentially, adding an extra parry mechanic for the style means that it's even more brilliant for rogues (to the point where you'd be crazy not to take it), and slightly better for everyone else. Whereas Sword and board needs some love badly!


You don't stop-thrust a cloud giant.
He does not lunge at you. You're 1/3 his size.

Storm Giant wasn't specified in the post I replied to... but how about: Giant goes to flatten yo,; step in so that its wrist is above you and hold your pointy thing up in the air; giving it the choice of squashing you flat while driving your pointy thing through it's arteries, or not delivering the blow.
I get where you're going, but a skilled swordsman has plenty of ways of using a weapon defensively. It's not just a thing for sticking into other people.

BeholderSlayer
2010-11-26, 10:17 AM
Fair comment, but I've always felt the problems with TWF was that it's feat intensive and yet still utterly awesome in the hands of a precision damage specialist, yet poor (for the feat outlay) in comparison to Power Attack and a two hander for anyone lacking sneak attack.

Essentially, I rate the styles as being ranked...
For finesse, low str rogue: TWF, sword and board, two hander
For everyone else who melees: Two hander, TWF, sword and board

Essentially, adding an extra parry mechanic for the style means that it's even more brilliant for rogues (to the point where you'd be crazy not to take it), and slightly better for everyone else. Whereas Sword and board needs some love badly!

Keep in mind I did a lot more than that. There is no such thing as improved two weapon fighting or greater, you get better benefits for free. However, two handed users (well, everybody actually) don't have to take Power Attack, you get that for free at BAB 1 with 10 STR.

Shields enjoy a considerably greater AC bonus than in the current system, and all grant some level of cover. You may also two-weapon fight with a shield, but it is slower and you don't get as many bonus attacks.

Two-handed enjoys the same advantages that it always has: cheaper, and high damage capability, especially for punching through DR and hardness. The fact that it is cheaper is not something to ignore, as a two-weapon user will typically have 2 lower powered weapons compared to the two hander that can spend more on one weapon.

In the end I have found that it balances the whole thing out in practice.

Spiryt
2010-11-26, 10:31 AM
You don't stop-thrust a cloud giant.
He does not lunge at you. You're 1/3 his size.

He swings his oversized morningstar down.
If you don't have STR at least in the mid 30s, you dodge or die.

And your body, alive or not, flies 10 feet in the direction of his choice.

One can still raise sword/stuff perpendicular to the strike, pointing almost to the direction of the swing but not exactly, to let it slide away from wielder, like in pretty standard parry.

Sure, with creature that's 5.5 meters tall, with morningstar head as big as your own head it would require precision, timing, and speed of kind of crazy proportions, but that's what 10 + level characters are about....

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/34.jpg
Just for example.

crazedloon
2010-11-26, 11:06 AM
I don't know if this thread has passed the point of worrying about rules however a homebrew I came up with (and than ironically found a similar feat in a 3rd party source) went something like this

-a character may opt to forgo an attack in a full attack action or attack action.
-for every attack which a character forgoes they gain a parry attempt with a bonus equal to the attack bonus of the forgone attack.
-When a character is attacked but before they know the result of the attack they may use a parry attempt to replace their AC with an attack roll with a bonus equal to one of their parry attempts.


in this manner you can pit skill vs skill (as well as strength since str is part of attack bonus) because attack bonus "scales" with skill. It also represents that attempting parry and failing to do so can put you in a worse situation (due to a lower AC by a low roll). And though it is available to a 2 hander (like all parrying should) a 2 weapon fighter can make better use of it due to number of extra attacks.
It would be wise to also give a bonus on parry attempts with shields but that is making the rule more complex then it needs to be.

Matthew
2010-11-26, 11:10 AM
Sure, with creature that's 5.5 meters tall, with morningstar head as big as your own head it would require precision, timing, and speed of kind of crazy proportions, but that's what 10 + level characters are about....

I seem to remember somebody telling me that a giant would have all kinds of physical problems in any kind of earth physics ruled environment...

However, perhaps a good place to look for inspiration as to what might go down would be the mythical fight between King Arthur and the Giant of Mount Saint Michael. A kind of "how to fight giants" guide. I seem to recall that the Alliterative Middle English version is quite detailed, or maybe Lazamon's Brut. I remember Arthur fends off a blow with his shield, but it completely shatters under the force of the blow. Probably was not magical or maybe only +1. :smallbiggrin:

Orzel
2010-11-26, 11:49 AM
One can still raise sword/stuff perpendicular to the strike, pointing almost to the direction of the swing but not exactly, to let it slide away from wielder, like in pretty standard parry.

Sure, with creature that's 5.5 meters tall, with morningstar head as big as your own head it would require precision, timing, and speed of kind of crazy proportions, but that's what 10 + level characters are about....

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Mair/34.jpg
Just for example.

You forgot strength. You'd still have to push the attack away mid-swing or brace your arm long enough for the weapon to slide away. If your Str isn't withing 10, you're probably losing an arm. It's like parrying a giant lead ball falling to your head. Parrying isn't applicable versus 1/3 or your nonhumaniod enemies past level 5.

The problem with a parry rule is that. The difference in skill level, size, and strength between the attacker and the target would make a decent parry rule too complex. It'll end up like grappling but worse.

It's better leaving parrying like dodging and keep it as HP.

Psyx
2010-11-26, 12:24 PM
You forgot strength.


I seem to remember somebody telling me that a giant would have all kinds of physical problems in any kind of earth physics ruled environment...


This is D&D. As Matthew states: This is D&D world where physics doesn't matter so much. If a 30' tall giant doesn't sink into the ground, its bones don't shatter supporting it, and it's tiny heart manages to push blood that high up, then we can sure as heck parry its blows.

Trying to bring physics into D&D discussions is probably slightly less relevant than bringing them into Marvel/DC discussions.

The Big Dice
2010-11-26, 08:21 PM
Hitting below AC means you miss, not that the attack is parried or bounces of the armor. From a simulationist/roleplayer perspective D&D combat kind of sucks. All the other systems (Fallout, Exalted, Trudvagn) I know of are better in at least this aspect.
Basically, there's no such thing as parrying in D&D. And no, unless the fluff says you parry, you don't parry. The fluff is the game.

Actually, the crunch is the game. The fluff is the setting and narrative.

There's no reason at all why a miss on the dice couldn't be interpreted as a parry with a blade, a block with a shield or a well timed dodge. In game terms, all have the same net result: no damage deliverd on that attack. The crunch is that the attack missed. The fluff is how the blow missed.

As for size v strength, there's a couple of martial arts maxims to bear in mind. Circular force beats straight line force and the best way to not get hurt is not to be where the punch lands.

Hanuman
2010-11-26, 11:06 PM
So you're going to call one of the most important sources on rapier fighting "silly" from the height of your forum account?

Really?
I know full well the effectiveness of a rapier, but naked fighting means that full slashing weapons instead of piercing weapons are going to be flat out more effective. Let's put it this way-- lets say instead of trying to lunge in after that parry he just pulled back and let the sword slide across an arm as part of the parry, you'd be:
1) Not killing the guy, killing is stupid.
2) Not endangering each other's mortality if an accident were to happen.
3) Disabling his main weapon hand, you would still have 2 weapons and arms and he would have one, and a changehand would be needed to keep fighting and in that time you've got a window anyway.

Rapiers, as sharp as they claimed to be, are not razor sharp and there are simply lighter, easier handling, sharper swords out there which can end the fight from a parried position that doesn't invest you as a target.

A slashing weapon used in this way is more effective to move away from your target, a rapier is more effective to move towards but the mentality for it's defensiveness is to move backwards, seems like it's sacrificing something:

Rapiers are the estoc's sophisticated son, without having armor the evolved principle of piercing swords tend to be lacking, having bare skin is not the same as chainmail or 2 layers of oldschool thick cotton, and you don't need to stab at something that requires only a delicate graze.


As for size v strength, there's a couple of martial arts maxims to bear in mind. Circular force beats straight line force and the best way to not get hurt is not to be where the punch lands.
Seconded.

Except for ranged weaponry, arrows still beat boomerangs.

Cerlis
2010-11-27, 06:34 AM
the most basic way is this

Shields/bucklers, are metal items of various sizes that grant +1 to +4 Ac . They are metal object you use to obstruct your enemy attacks, as they said in the first page, you are parrying with your shield.

Secondly, when you attack with your shield or buckler, you cannot use it for AC, though its still possible to block with your shield while attacking with it, when your not focusing on defending with it it is alot harder. So any random pseudo blocks are represented by regular AC, Dodge bonus, 10 base AC and Hitpoints (a powerful thrust from a commoner might be easily dodged by a skilled fighter, so the attack would do 8 damage to a commoner and kill them, but only scrape the fighter, thus does HP also represent evasivness, or in other words turning strong hits into meager hits)

So essentially to parry, you just have to houserule that if your proficient in its use you know how to parry with it. any given round you can choose to use your offhand/mainhand weapon to parry. Tiny weapons (daggers) are treated like bucklers(+1), small weapons (Rapiers, kukris, shortswords) are used like a small shield (+2), Medium weapons Provide +1, but +3 if they have two weapon fighting, since such a large weapon is unwieldy and large and not designed for defense with a mere one hand to manuever it. A two handed weapon provides -2 AC if unproficient, +2 if Proficient +4 if Proficient and either weaponfocus(weapon) or a high strength score (if you want to get convoluted) since a big weapon is a hinderance to someone who doesnt know how to use it, a decent thing to hide behind for someone who knows how to use it, and a large great object to block if you are really skilled or are able to wield the weapon easily.

Any round you use it for defense is one you cant use it for attack, if you use it sparingly for defense you Fight Defensively (thus maybe getting a higher bonus but a hindered attack score). Two weapon defense represents exceptional skill with defending yourself with a blade.
As a side effect if players choose to play on defense, or enemies, fights will be longer. if this is kick in the door, that is a bad idea. but if players are able to defend themselves even better (a rogue with two weapon fighting could raise his AC well enough to stall in melee as well as a fighter) and thus allow them to move across the battlefield and hopefully take advantage or story, scenery, ect

Edit:


Hitting below AC means you miss, not that the attack is parried or bounces of the armor. From a simulationist/roleplayer perspective D&D combat kind of sucks. All the other systems (Fallout, Exalted, Trudvagn) I know of are better in at least this aspect.
Basically, there's no such thing as parrying in D&D. And no, unless the fluff says you parry, you don't parry. The fluff is the game.

sorry, but no. Hitting below Touch AC means you probably missed. if my fighter has 11 touch AC and 22 Regular AC that means anything between and equal to 11 and 21 represents the attack landing but not getting through my armor. Thats why its Armor/Shield AC