a Parry type [Feat]

[magic8BALL]

An idea that just came to me. Please pick it appart. I think Parry is also the name of another feat...somewhere... so another name wouldn't go astry either.

Parry
You may forego any number of melee attacks during your turn. Untill you next turn, you may use these forgone attacks to deflect any incomming melee attacks.

When someone attacks you, make an opposing attack roll using the attack bonuses you sacrificed, and applying the following special modifiers:
- a combatant using a two-handed weapon gains a +4 bonus to this roll
- a combatant using a light weapon gains a -4 penalty.
- a combatant gains a +4 bonus for every size cattagry larger than medium they are.
- a combatant gains a -4 penalty for every size cattagry smaller than medium they are.
- if the defender's attack would be using a shield, roll the following instead of an attack roll.
1d20 + BAB + STR + 2xshield bonus to AC + feats (such as weapon focus(shield))

Example: a 6th level fighter with STR 19 and weapon focus (shield) could sacrifice attacks with his +2 heavy spiked shield (still taking penalties for TWF) to parry. He rolls 1d20 and adds 19(+6+4+(2x4)+1).

The defender loses his shield bonus to AC after this parry attempt, unless they also have the Improved Shield Bash feat.

If the attacker wins, he must still beat you AC (less any shield modifiers you may have) with the same result, without any of the above modifiers. If you win you prevent the attack.


You must still attack using your highest bonuses first, and defend yourself with your highest bonuses first. You may not 'skip' attacks, to attack with low bonuses and defend with high bonuses.

Improved Parry [General]
Prerequisites: BAB+1, Combat Expertise
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus to Parry attempts to defend yourself.
Special: A fighter may take Improved Parry as a fighter bonus feat.

Counter Attack [General]
Prerequisites: BAB +1, Improved Parry, Combat Expertise
Benefit: When you successful parry an attack, you may make an imediate attack against you attacker using the same weapon the same bonus to attack you used to defend yourself.
Example: A fighter with BAB +13 takes a full attack action, sacrificing his last attack to parry. If the parry attempt is sucseful, he may make an imediate attack against his attacker using BAB +3.
Special: A fighter may take Counter Attack as a fighter bonus feat.

Counter Parry [General]
Prerequisites: BAB+1, Combat Expertise
Benefit: You gain a +4 bonus to Parry attempts to overcome someones defence.
Special: A fighter may take Counter Parry as a fighter bonus feat.

[icke]

Great idea, have seen similar things in other rulesets and it worked out pretty neat.

Just one question? Why does a two-handed weapon wielder gain a bonus on his defense? And why does the off-hand parrying guy get a -4 instead of the usual off-hand penalty? Okay, two question, actually.

As an option, You might want to add the shield bonus on a parry roll, at least if the parrying attempt is made with the shield hand.

[Calver]

I agree with the Icke about the bonus for having a shield.
I'd also like a clarification:
When you say "a combatant using a weapon in his off hand gains a -4 penalty," does it mean that you get the -4 to any parries made by sacrificing off-hand attacks or just because you have a weapon in your offhand (thus, the feat would give you more reasons to fight with one hand free). If the latter were true, I would like to point out that Rapier and Dagger fighting styles, historically, always represented a higher-level skill of swordsmanship; the dagger being used just as readily for parrying blows as it was to support attacks. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I can understand a penalty for blocking blows with your offhand, but simply having a weapon ready in your off-hand shouldn't pose any penalties.

[Matthew]

Yeah, I use almost the exact same mechanic in my Houseruled (A)D&D Game and have sugested it for 3.x numerous times (Parry or Block or something was actually a 2.x Combat and Tactics option, which looked very much like this, but had a fixed DC for some reason).

Do you want a separate Feat for Shields? If not, then they should get a bonus to Parry. Be aware that making a separate 'Block' Feat has its own problems.

I wouldn't be inclined to make the difference between Off Hand and Two Handed 8 Points, as that seems too much.

Perhaps:

Two Handed: +4
One Handed: +2
Off Handed: +0

Here's a link to Munchy's Active Parry (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23175&page=2) suggestion and my Active Block (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22979&page=2) suggestion from many moons ago...

Another alternative to the 'number of attacks' method is to allow reactive parries that don't take up attacks, either limited to one per weapon used [i.e. one for two handed weapons, two for dual weapons] or by Attacks of Opportunity.

[Quellian-dyrae]

I did a feat similar to this called Deft Block. Went with a +/-4 per size category difference, +4 for a two handed weapon, and -4 for a light weapon (as with a disarm). I also ruled that the penalty the attacker takes from Power Attack does not apply (since attacking with more power is likely to let you crush right past the block) but your penalties for Power Attack, Combat Expertise, or fighting defensively don't apply (power attack because a block is in large part power to power, the other two because A. skill matters and B. it's stupid for defensive fighting to weaken one of your defenses).

[magic8BALL]

I'm changing "a combatant using a weapon in his off hand gains a -4 penalty" to "a combatant using a light weapon gains a -4 penalty". I think the 8 point difference is justified.

This is due to larger weapons being able to defend better (becouse of size), but they are also more able to penetrate a defence due to their size. A falchion can deflect a kukri any day, and a dagger is flat out stopping a greatsword.

I'm also thinking of having Combat Expertise and/or Power Attack as prereqs. Any ideas?

[icke]

I'm changing "a combatant using a weapon in his off hand gains a -4 penalty" to "a combatant using a light weapon gains a -4 penalty". I think the 8 point difference is justified.

This is due to larger weapons being able to defend better (becouse of size), but they are also more able to penetrate a defence due to their size. A falchion can deflect a kukri any day, and a dagger is flat out stopping a greatsword.

I'm also thinking of having Combat Expertise and/or Power Attack as prereqs. Any ideas?

Okay, I'm fine with the 8 points of difference.
I wouldn't say a feat is necessary to parry with a weapon, since no feat is necessary to attack with it and nonproficiency already adds another -4 to the roll.

Anyway, I'd like to see something like four times the shield bonus added to the parrying roll, since one-handed weapons and shields should be at least as good as two-handed weapons.
Also add that two-weapon fighting with a double weapon doesn't grant the +4 to parry, it already grants extra attacks/parrying attempts.

[Zarincos]

well, i think that you should gain a penalty for attempting to use a two-handed weapon for parrying, i mean, i haven't tried it, but attempting to swing a 2ft long sword to parry a dagger doesnt sound like the easiest thing in the world. but then again, neither does parrying that same 2ft long sword with a dagger.


also, i think i remember reading a parry rule in the DMG or PHB, but it's just never used (like counterspelling). it went something like, "add your dex modifier and BaB and if it's lower then your enemies attack, he succeeds, if it's less then 5 points higher, you succeed, if it's 5 points or more higher, you succeed and counter-attack successfully." at least i think that's how it went.

[magic8BALL]

hmmm... I cant find anything on this parry, but I like the idea of a counter attack. I have included this, and also an attack of oppotunity... too much?

[icke]

hmmm... I cant find anything on this parry, but I like the idea of a counter attack. I have included this, and also an attack of oppotunity... too much?

Yes, too much. Don't let the attacker be penalized so hard, D&D is an offense-rewarding game after all.

[magic8BALL]

ok... thanks.

Im actually starting to think of this as a (new?) combat manauver, with the feat Improved Parry giving a +4 bonus when defending and allowing the counter attack. What do you think?

Oh, and another feat, Counter Parry granting a +4 to attacks vs a parrying defender... or somthing. Would people use this new manauver a lot? I know very few who counterspell, bullrush, overun or trip. Grappling happens often with Imbroved Grabbing monsters...

[Abardam]

Wait, so it's easier to parry a dagger with a greataxe than it is to parry a greataxe with a dagger?

[magic8BALL]

Yes.

I know in real life terms, a big hafted blade like a greataxe is to much to swing around to block a butter knife(dagger-ish), but thats a hell of a lot easier than using a cake trowl (shortsword-ish) to stop a baseball bat (greatclub-ish), yeah? I'm just going off the Disarm/Sunder type bonuses/penalties.

[icke]

ok... thanks.

Im actually starting to think of this as a (new?) combat manauver, with the feat Improved Parry giving a +4 bonus when defending and allowing the counter attack. What do you think?

Oh, and another feat, Counter Parry granting a +4 to attacks vs a parrying defender... or somthing. Would people use this new manauver a lot? I know very few who counterspell, bullrush, overun or trip. Grappling happens often with Imbroved Grabbing monsters...

It's fine as a combat maneuver, my characters would use it a lot. The feat ideas also sound fine if the Counter Parry feat just grants Your character +4 on attacks versus Parry...

[Matthew]

Yes.

I know in real life terms, a big hafted blade like a greataxe is to much to swing around to block a butter knife(dagger-ish), but thats a hell of a lot easier than using a cake trowl (shortsword-ish) to stop a baseball bat (greatclub-ish), yeah? I'm just going off the Disarm/Sunder type bonuses/penalties.

Maybe you should consider using a size difference mechanic so that weapons are best at parrying others of their own type.

There is no Parry Variant in the DMG that I am aware of, though there was in the 2.x DMG and Fighter's Handbook. He may be thinking of the Opposed Roll rule for Armour Class, which has defenders roll a D20 and add their Armour Class Bonus instead of adding their Armour Class Bonus to 10.

An Improved Parry that grants +4 to Parry attempts would probably be fine; I use that in my (A)D&D Game and it has worked out well. Not sure about Counter Parry. You might consider a Counter Attack Feat that allows a successful Parry to create an Attack of Opportunity.

[Zarincos]

I know very few who counterspell, bullrush, overun or trip. Grappling happens often with Imbroved Grabbing monsters...

well, you can count me that you quasi-know, i bullrush quite often when i have a leniant DM who lets me do it with my trident extended, thus pushing them into the blade for extra damage when i have the improved bull rush feat, adding something along the lines of +9 damage since i'm wielding a 1h weapon 2h, and then my actual strength and weapon damage roll, when a dm decided something didnt instantly die (a dragon that was something like 4 cr higher then the party level) i calculated it to be (1d8+15)X2 damage, it took me 2 hits to kill that.


anyway, i could've sworn i read something of a parry, i think it was in with bullrush, counterspell, and all the other lesser-known techniques. i like the size modifier for the parrying attempt, many -2 per category? do items have size categories, though? (other then the obvious, like a giant wielding a dagger would mean a humans longsword, or something along those lines)

[magic8BALL]

ok, Ive changed it to a combat manauver, and added feats that enhance the manauver. Is it too feat intesive? Should Improved Parry count both ways? Should Counter Attack be added into Improved Parry? Only id you win by 5 or 10 more?

[icke]

Parry as a combat maneuver is fine, with one exception:
Make it two, or even four times shield bonus added to the defense roll. It should be much easier to parry with a shield, and this way a character can parry a greatsword with a large shield without any penalties.

No problems with Improved Parry and Counter Parry, but Counter Attack is too good, it should at best grant an attack of opportunity or even be skipped completely.

[Matthew]

I have used these Feats in play (or very similar versions) and I would second both of Icke's comments:

i.e.

Shields should grant two tim their AC Bonus.

Counter Attack should be an Attack of Opportunity.

[magic8BALL]

Counter Attack is too good, it should at best grant an attack of opportunity or even be skipped completely.

An attack of opotunity is always made at you highest bonus to attack. A parry is always made at less than that (unless you sacrificed all your attcks to defend). How is Counter Attack overpowered?

Also, I see how parrying with a shield is an advandate, a shield being a large flat surface designded to deflect blows and such, just how often do you see a TWF build using a shield? An Ettin with Improved Shield bash is the closest I have seen. I will, however, give a shield-parrying defender double their shield bonus.

[icke]

An attack of opotunity is always made at you highest bonus to attack. A parry is always made at less than that (unless you sacrificed all your attcks to defend). How is Counter Attack overpowered?

Also, I see how parrying with a shield is an advandate, a shield being a large flat surface designded to deflect blows and such, just how often do you see a TWF build using a shield? An Ettin with Improved Shield bash is the closest I have seen. I will, however, give a shield-parrying defender double their shield bonus.

Okay, shields first:
As far as I see it, allowing anyone bearing a shield to parry with it, even if he doesn't posses or currently use the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, is justified on the basis that a shield IS BUILT FOR EXACTLY THAT MANEUVER and Shield Proficiency should grant exactly that benefit. So, yes, any character wielding a shield can give up attacks with his weapon(main hand) to parry with his shield(welding it off-hand) without any Two-Weapon Fighting or off-hand penalties. If the character carries a shield and actually uses Two-Weapon Fighting, he may forego any or all of is off-hand attacks to parry other characters, at the appropriate penalty for fighting with two weapons.

Counter Attack: You've got a point there. Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I don't like the idea of counter attacks in general, because they punish the attacker for attacking, in a way. Yes, I know that Disarm works along the same lines, I'm not too happy with that either, but there the choice is completely on the attacking character. With Counter Attack, a character would never know if he could 'safely' attack somebody, because that guy might be on him. Also, What if A attacks B, using the first of his four attacks and readying the rest for parade, while B has readied all of his, say, three attacks for parrying. A attacks, looses the parry rolls, B counters. And then? Either You have them stop here by saying You can't counter-attack a Counter Attack. Or You let them parry and counter attack each other until they're out of attacks or the other players on the table are out of patience - whatever happens first.

[Calver]

Also, What if A attacks B, using the first of his four attacks and readying the rest for parade, while B has readied all of his, say, three attacks for parrying. A attacks, looses the parry rolls, B counters. And then? Either You have them stop here by saying You can't counter-attack a Counter Attack. Or You let them parry and counter attack each other until they're out of attacks or the other players on the table are out of patience - whatever happens first.
I suppose that you could have it work somewhat like spell turning in that case. Basically just subtract one person's parries from the other and whoever has more gets the counter-attack and both players lower-number of counter attacks. So in that example, A gets his attack, B does not get to counter attack, and both A and B don't have any Parries left. In a cinematic rendition, I suppose it would look like A hit with his last counter-attack, but by game rules that's just him finally making his original attack. I suppose the only problem with that is when you get a very unevenly matched pair of fighters, like +15 v +7 BAB.

[Matthew]

They wouldn't be rolling any more attacks than during a normal round. I don't see why the other players would lose patience. It doesn't actually punish the attacker, because he would be getting attacked the same number of times in any case; the only change is the additional Parry Roll to Parry the attack.

i.e.

A: Readies his Attacks to Parry.
B: Makes one Attack (BAB 20).
A: Makes first Parry Roll (BAB 20), succeeds and makes first Counter Attack (BAB 20).
B: Makes first Parry Roll (BAB 15), succeeds and makes first Counter Attack (BAB 15).
A: Makes second Parry Roll (BAB 15), succeeds and makes second Counter Attack (BAB 15).
B: Makes second Parry Roll (BAB 10), succeeds and makes second Counter Attack (BAB 10).
A: Makes a third Parry Roll (BAB 10), succeeds and makes a third Counter Attack (BAB 10).
B: Makes a third Parry Roll (BAB 5), succeeds and makes a third Counter Attack (BAB 5).
A: Makes a fourth Parry Roll (BAB 5), succeeds and makes fourth Counter Attack (BAB 5).

The chances of this happening are fairly low, but even if it did, it is no big deal. In fact, it works out rather nicely.

Even if it did punish the attacker, it seems to me that is rather the purpose of a Counter Attack.

[magic8BALL]

Okay, shields first:
As far as I see it, allowing anyone bearing a shield to parry with it, even if he doesn't posses or currently use the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, is justified on the basis that a shield IS BUILT FOR EXACTLY THAT MANEUVER

And that is why they grant a shield bonus to AC. Weapons, on the other hand, oddly enough don't. Using a shield is using a shield: you are assumed to be parrying attacks with it simply by holding onto it.

This version of parry is a give and take thing. You lose an attack to gain a good chance of defending yourself. What dose a shield barer lose when he defends himself with a shield? Nothing. So why should he ad his BAB to his AC?


Thanks Matthew for clearing up the counter-counter that may occur. Now, dosn't that seem more like a dual then "I win initiative, I get my four attacks, then you can go... if your not dead, that is..."

[icke]

And that is why they grant a shield bonus to AC. Weapons, on the other hand, oddly enough don't. Using a shield is using a shield: you are assumed to be parrying attacks with it simply by holding onto it.

This version of parry is a give and take thing. You lose an attack to gain a good chance of defending yourself. What dose a shield barer lose when he defends himself with a shield? Nothing. So why should he ad his BAB to his AC?


Thanks Matthew for clearing up the counter-counter that may occur. Now, dosn't that seem more like a dual then "I win initiative, I get my four attacks, then you can go... if your not dead, that is..."

What You mean by 'holding onto a shield' is something passive. If Your character actively parries with his shield, he will shift attention from attack to defense, thereby also giving up attacks, but with is main hand. Basically, if two characters fighting with longswords and one of them is wearing a wooden wall of two feet times three feet, I want that guy to have a real advantage if he actively makes use of it.
So the one-weapon fighting shield bearer dismisses his main hand attacks, maximum four at level 16+, to parry,
while Your two-weapon fighting shield bearer can give up any of his off hand attacks and still fully attack with his main hand(albeit at usual TWF penalties), or he can forfeit as much as all of his attacks, maximum seven at level 16+, to parry with his shield.

[Solaris]

Fair sure there's nothing passive about using a shield in combat. 'Passive' in a melee is a euphemism for 'Dead or rapidly approaching that state.' Your opponent is rarely going to oblige you by whacking your shield ten percent of the time; you have to make sure he's hitting it instead of hitting you. Thus, I am thinking that improving a shield's bonus to AC because a character has this feat is rather silly. Opposed attack rolls are good. When I made something like this in another game, I went with opposed attack rolls but kept things simple and didn't apply any modifiers due to a weapon's size or suchlike.