Parrying incorporeal creatures

[Jader7777]

Okay so you have a ghost reach out and touch a swashbuckler who's holding a +1 rapier

Can the swashbuckler parry the ghost?

[Crake]

Okay so you have a ghost reach out and touch a swashbuckler who's holding a +1 rapier

Can the swashbuckler parry the ghost?

As far as I'm aware, parry is not a thing in 3.5, could you explain what it is exactly that you're doing?

[Jader7777]

Whoops, this is supposed to be prefixed with 'Pathfinder'.

[Crake]

Whoops, this is supposed to be prefixed with 'Pathfinder'.

Right, then it would come down to whether an incorporeal touch attack is is considered a "melee weapon attack", which I don't think it is.

[Jader7777]

Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.

The problem is that it's just 'melee attack' as opposed to 'melee touch attack'. It's also incorporeal so I don't know how that interacts.

[CasualViking]

Touch attacks are a subset of (ranged or melee) attacks, not a different set. So that doesn't prevent OP&R. As for the Incorporeal part, not being able to parry that would be a reasonable house rule, but not one that I would use.

[D4rkh0rus]

Parrying is often the act of deflecting the attack using your weapon, so, if your weapon -can- come into contact with the ghost, then there should be no problem.

If the weapon is nonmagical, the ghost is immune. It passes through and you can't parry.

If your weapon is ghost touch, then you can party hearty on his heinie.

If your weapon is magical but not ghost touch:

"Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature."

Parry and riposte is an effect.
attacks made with such a weapon deal only 50% damage. RAW this kinda says any effects, but RAI it probably means non ghost touch magic weapons.

So, I would rule, that a +1 weapon would be able to parry, and after the roll, if it was successful, would have to roll a 50% chance roll.
If you chose to riposte, if you hit, you'll deal 50% damage

[Barstro]

Hmm; RAW vs. "Reality"

"If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses."

Nothing in the actual language says that the parry is turning the weapon aside. It could very easily be that the PC is dodging out of the way. This does not meet the OED definition of "Parry", but it suits the language of RAW.

In fact, I'd even argue (and hopefully someone can convincingly argue against it) that the weapon wouldn't even have to be magical, since actually touching the enemy is not a prerequisite of Parry. But, no effective riposte could happen without a magic weapon.

[CharonsHelper]

In fact, I'd even argue (and hopefully someone can convincingly argue against it) that the weapon wouldn't even have to be magical, since actually touching the enemy is not a prerequisite of Parry. But, no effective riposte could happen without a magic weapon.

I'd agree with that RAW interpretation, though it'd probably be RAI that a magical weapon is needed. (probably not ghost touch though)

[Psyren]

Depends on how you parse this line from the incorporeal subtype:


They cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions.

Does parrying a ghost's attempt to touch you count as "manipulating it?" A parry is, after all, slapping its hand out of the way.

[Aldrakan]

Does parrying a ghost's attempt to touch you count as "manipulating it?" A parry is, after all, slapping its hand out of the way.

One could argue that since it deals no damage without the riposte, parrying a touch attack means getting the person to withdraw their hand for fear of it getting sliced. While the phrasing of "parry and riposte" strongly implies it refers to the fencing definition, technically parrying can be defined more vaguely as warding off an attack without explicitly meaning physical contact - and given that a swashbuckler might be parrying a creature's antler's with a pick we've clearly left the piste behind.
It seems perfectly valid to rule that it counts as a physical manipulation, or as a physical effect with a 50% chance of fizzling, though I'd probably let it to work as long as they had a weapon capable of hurting the ghost.

[Barstro]

Does parrying a ghost's attempt to touch you count as "manipulating it?" A parry is, after all, slapping its hand out of the way.

OED "parry" could be slapping its hand out of the way.
RAW "parry" says nothing of the sort.

I suggest that this falls squarely on the DM to rule. As part of the debate at the table, I ask the following;
1) "How much would giving "Parry" its full effect against incorporeals actually affect the game"?
I think the answer is "not enough to waste time arguing; 'go ahead'".
2) Assuming it does affect the game in too meaningful a way to allow it with any mundane weapon; "Should every magic weapon be granted Parry against incorporeals"?

[Psyren]

One could argue that since it deals no damage without the riposte, parrying a touch attack means getting the person to withdraw their hand for fear of it getting sliced.

Ghosts are immune to that too :smalltongue:


OED "parry" could be slapping its hand out of the way.
RAW "parry" says nothing of the sort.

RAW has no definition of the word "manipulate", which moves this into the realm of GM adjudication.

("OED?")

[Barstro]

("OED?")

Oxford English Dictionary. That tome people turn to in order to have RAW yield odd results :-)

My apologies; I thought it was a common enough acronym.

----
I fail to see how "manipulate" comes into play. The very wording of "Opportune Parry and Riposte", exclusive of flavor text, is;

Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex): At 1st level, when an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler, she can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack. The swashbuckler makes an attack roll as if she were making an attack of opportunity; for each size category the attacking creature is larger than the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler takes a –2 penalty on this roll. If her result is greater than the attacking creature's result, the creature's attack automatically misses. The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made. Upon performing a successful parry and if she has at least 1 panache point, the swashbuckler can as an immediate action make an attack against the creature whose attack she parried, provided that creature is within her reach. This deed's cost cannot be reduced by any ability or effect that reduces the number of panache points a deed costs.

Prerequisites;
1) an opponent makes a melee attack against the swashbuckler
2) The Swashbucker can spend 1 panache point and expend a use of an attack of opportunity to attempt to parry that attack.
3) The swashbuckler must declare the use of this ability after the creature's attack is announced, but before its attack roll is made.

Effect
1) The swashbuckler makes an attack roll (with size and other modifications).

Evaluation
1) If Swashbuckler's result is greater than the attacking creature's result,

Final Effect
1) the creature's attack automatically misses.

Optional Effects
1) Riposte (not relevant to this part of the discussion)

Nothing in there says that the Swashbuckler is making an actual attack, it is just an "attack roll".

If the same "effect" language were used, but the Ability were called "Opportune Dodge and Counter-attack", I don't think this discussion would even occur. My personal view (based on constitutional law, not on D&D (so my view is certainly biased)) is that the Language of the rule itself is of paramount importance and the Name of the rule has no legal basis.

[Psyren]

Nothing in there says that the Swashbuckler is making an actual attack, it is just an "attack roll".

Ah, so since attacks and attack rolls are distinct by this reasoning, none of your attack bonuses would apply to the parry then. Like, say, this one (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/gettingStarted.html#base-attack-bonus), or these (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/coreRulebook/combat.html#attack-bonus) :smallwink:

This kind of legalese is a double-edged sword.



If the same "effect" language were used, but the Ability were called "Opportune Dodge and Counter-attack", I don't think this discussion would even occur.

But it isn't called that. In rules, words matter.


personal view (based on constitutional law, not on D&D (so my view is certainly biased)) is that the Language of the rule itself is of paramount importance and the Name of the rule has no legal basis.

"Parry that attack" is in the language of the rule. You are doing {something} to / acting upon the attack itself. Thus my ruling is that you are interfering with the opponent actively, rather than passively dodging what they're doing. If it was a dodge, it would say so (and furthermore, things like being flat-footed would apply.)

[Barstro]

Stuff

I have retorts, but stating them would go against one of my tenets;
You and I disagree on a fundamental aspect. Every argument I make will be based on a core belief that you disagree with.

If one believes that the title of an ability has legal meaning and "Parry" requires contact in some way, then your arguments are correct.

It's really the result of game designers not going to law school. :smallwink:

EDIT:
But really, we are talking about avoiding* a number of attacks equal to CHA modifier. Hardly game-breaking.

*Some attacks would have missed anyway. Some Parries would fail anyway.

[Psyren]

If one believes that the title of an ability has legal meaning and "Parry" requires contact in some way, then your arguments are correct.

The term "parry" is included in the body of the ability too, so it's not merely a titling issue. You would have to change those references to "dodge" as well for your argument to resonate.



EDIT:
But really, we are talking about avoiding* a number of attacks equal to CHA modifier. Hardly game-breaking.

*Some attacks would have missed anyway. Some Parries would fail anyway.

What we're actually talking about here is verisimilitude; smacking a ghost's hand away with my pocket knife violates mine, and so I believe the GM should have legal recourse here. Under at least one interpretation of the rules (specifically, the terms "parry" and "manipulate"), they do, so that is the interpretation I advocate.

[CasualViking]

As an actual law student, I can say that law titles absolutely DO matter, as do chapter headings. They don't have the weight to contradict law text, but they can certainly guide interpretation.

[Barstro]

As an actual law student, I can say that law titles absolutely DO matter, as do chapter headings. They don't have the weight to contradict law text, but they can certainly guide interpretation.

A fair statement.

[Jader7777]

Okay.

I'm just going to give them a -2 for not having ghost touch, just a magical weapon. Same as the size catagory negative.




Then I'm going to throw lots of large ghosts at them.

[Powerdork]

But it isn't called that. In rules, words matter.

Actually, per FAQ... (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rb1)

And I'd argue that the ability's use of "parry" is laying a definition of the word down so it can later refer to it again without being excessively wordy ("Upon performing a successful parry").

[Psyren]

Actually, per FAQ... (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rb1)

Irrelevant, the text of that ability specifically tells you that it can be destroyed. So of course that would supersede the title, it's far more specific. It wouldn't be the first unnecessary FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9p08) they've written either.

[Powerdork]

Irrelevant, the text of that ability specifically tells you that it can be destroyed. So of course that would supersede the title, it's far more specific. It wouldn't be the first unnecessary FAQ (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9p08) they've written either.

Oh, it's absolutely necessary. Nowhere in the paladin class aside from Channel Positive Energy is positive energy mentioned, and it's not just plain safe to assume an effect that heals the living and harms undead is positive energy, or nobody would have asked and it wouldn't have made it to the FAQ.

Just saying, the principle they state in FAQ (the one I linked, mind, as the Lay answer doesn't state a principle) carries over to other similar situations. The rule I'm seeing seems to be "you don't get to ignore FAQ when discussing Pathfinder", so you don't get to ignore FAQ when discussing Pathfinder just because it suits your needs.

[Psyren]

Oh, it's absolutely necessary. Nowhere in the paladin class aside from Channel Positive Energy is positive energy mentioned, and it's not just plain safe to assume an effect that heals the living and harms undead is positive energy, or nobody would have asked and it wouldn't have made it to the FAQ.

Just saying, the principle they state in FAQ (the one I linked, mind, as the Lay answer doesn't state a principle) carries over to other similar situations. The rule I'm seeing seems to be "you don't get to ignore FAQ when discussing Pathfinder", so you don't get to ignore FAQ when discussing Pathfinder just because it suits your needs.

Where am I ignoring the FAQ? Was this swashbuckler ability FAQed somewhere that I missed? :smallconfused:

[Powerdork]

Where am I ignoring the FAQ? Was this swashbuckler ability FAQed somewhere that I missed? :smallconfused:


The name of a class feature ... is flavor text.

Right in the black blade FAQ. The principle I'm mentioning. You can't be selective about it.

[Psyren]

Right in the black blade FAQ. The principle I'm mentioning. You can't be selective about it.
'
As I said repeatedly above, "parry" is used in the body of the ability too, not just in the name. If "your blade is unbreakable" was used in the "Unbreakable" ability's text, then your FAQ cite would be relevant (and they would need to clarify that.) It's not, so it isn't.

[Powerdork]

'
As I said repeatedly above, "parry" is used in the body of the ability too, not just in the name.

I also addressed that earlier, which you must have missed. The deed follows a fairly basic ability description template: It lays out a thing you can do ("parry" when the right conditions are met), details how you do that (action cost and resource cost, then effect and resolution), then goes on to add another option dependent on how you fared earlier ("Upon performing a successful parry"), with its own details on how to use the option (action cost and resource cost, then effect and resolution).

[Draco_Lord]

Here is one thing, Incorporeal creatures might avoid physical things, like how they can touch through non magical armor, but they are effected by deflection bonuses, which is very similar to what a parry does.

[Psyren]

I also addressed that earlier, which you must have missed. The deed follows a fairly basic ability description template: It lays out a thing you can do ("parry" when the right conditions are met), details how you do that (action cost and resource cost, then effect and resolution), then goes on to add another option dependent on how you fared earlier ("Upon performing a successful parry"), with its own details on how to use the option (action cost and resource cost, then effect and resolution).

I'm saying that your FAQ principle ("this word is just flavor text") doesn't apply here, because "parry," - unlike "unbreakable" - is used in the ability's resolution text too, not just it's title.

Now, I do get what you're saying, that that use of parry could be interpreted to just be a meaningless reference to the ability as a whole. But that facet is ambiguous, and that is where GM adjudication is needed. You would rule it one way, I would rule it another, it doesn't seem we'll come to a consensus, and table variation is totally fine.

[Gnaeus]

As an actual law student, I can say that law titles absolutely DO matter, as do chapter headings. They don't have the weight to contradict law text, but they can certainly guide interpretation.

Ooh. Are we talking real law interpretation rules? Then let's not forget...
What is the impact of this rule? Well, Swashbucklers are a fun, flavorful pile of suck. Letting them parry incorporeals doesn't overshadow anyone. It makes a player feel a little better about his junk class.

What are the larger repercussions of this rule? Almost none. Parry mechanics are pretty rare. I can't think of any larger examples. But since casters can affect incorporeals more easily than muggles, any expansion of the rule is probably good for balance.

Both of those would be persuasive to a real judge.

[Psyren]

Ooh. Are we talking real law interpretation rules? Then let's not forget...
What is the impact of this rule? Well, Swashbucklers are a fun, flavorful pile of suck. Letting them parry incorporeals doesn't overshadow anyone. It makes a player feel a little better about his junk class.

What are the larger repercussions of this rule? Almost none. Parry mechanics are pretty rare. I can't think of any larger examples. But since casters can affect incorporeals more easily than muggles, any expansion of the rule is probably good for balance.

Both of those would be persuasive to a real judge.

For the record, I'd be fine letting them do it with a ghost touch weapon. But parrying a ghost with your mundane pocket knife would not be persuasive to me or any GM I play with.

[Stealth Marmot]

Since the ability appears to be treated as essentially an attack of opportunity but with different results, consider it as such concerning how they can hit the creature in general.

Thus a mundane weapon would not be able to hit at all, a magical weapon would have a 50% chance of failing even before the roll to parry, and a ghost touch weapon would work as normal.

[Ualaa]

What about if they had the whole Crane Style, Crane Wing, and Crane Riposte line.
Then the parry does matter.

And for a class that can parry, getting a bonus from it makes mechanical sense.