Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Armor as DR
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Orich Starkhart" data-source="post: 6471154" data-attributes="member: 6762059"><p>Thanks, and I'm glad I could help.</p><p></p><p>Regarding the effect of creature and weapon size on parry or combat/save mechanics, I think that weapon bonus to parry ought not apply for a combatant and weapon two or maybe three size categories smaller than the attacker and its weapon.</p><p></p><p>On the your idea of moving to defense rolls instead of attack rolls in melee: this seems to supply a satisfactory consistency - but might dramatically change the way melee feels in the game. I know that <u>Unearthed Arcana</u> specified this alternate for 3.5e, but i have no direct experience with this variant.</p><p></p><p> We can make them more similar by adjusting proficiency before adding it - simply subtract 2 from the character's proficiency bonus. This replaces a range of 2-6 with the range 0-4.</p><p></p><p>As you know, I agree size should have some effect in combat; it seems the D&D 5 rules do not oblige us; apparently size adjustment was previously omitted from D&D 4 as well. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite3" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p>Regarding your assertion that the to-hit numbers should be no more than, and perhaps less than those achievable in the unmodified D&D 5, I agree in principle, as long as we are not considering that adding proficiency should not be allowed to increase defense beyond the range provided without magical enhancement in the base game.</p><p></p><p>At first glance, I thought the numbers you list as "reevaluated" look like a good start, but while you called the negative numbers simply "annoying", I see a deeper problem - the negative modifiers would imply one has lower defenses against a melee weapon, due to "parry" penalty, than the one has against thrown, missile, and other attacks to which parry would not apply.</p><p></p><p>Therefore, in a system where weapons supply a defensive/"parry" bonus dependent upon the weapon, I think we have to stipulate that the conventional AC10 applies to an unarmed - and untrained in unarmed melee defense, well as unarmored and shieldless - opponent.</p><p> I would make the following adjustments and clarifications:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> shields provide +3 (one point better than they increase AC in D&D 5), not +4</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> pole weapons (long, heavy, usually two-handed, hafted weapons) provide +2, equivalent to swords, not +3 (the two pole weapons in D&D 5 Basic, halberd and glaive, are described as two-handed.)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> hafted weapons (mace, axe) and improvised weapons provide parry +1</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> "light" weapons, even swords, provide parry +1</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> two weapon fighting (two "light" weapons) applies the parry bonus for each weapon - total +2</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">using a two handed weapon, or two-handing a "versatile" weapon, provides no boost to parry for the bigger weapon, because a possible bonus for parrying would be counteracted by a penalty to dexterity modifier to parry/defense/AC. (one's reactive agility is somewhat restricted by keeping hands both grasping a single rigid item in order to control it) So, a two handed sword supplies parry +2, a two handed war hammer or battle-axe supplies parry +1</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> stacking is limited to the largest bonus +1. Shield plus longsword has the same defensive value as shield plus mace or axe - the benefit of the sword over the hafted weapon becomes less significant when it's combined with a shield.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"> shield with longsword or hafted weapon - not "light" or "finesse" - results in a -1 penalty to dexterity bonus - using both the substantial shield and the heavy weapon results in a reduction by 1 to any dexterity bonus to parry/AC</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">No additional bonus for holding only one item.</li> </ul><p></p><p>If there are "large" shields, I consider they may not qualify for greater parry bonus: the utility in covering more area may be compensated by reduced reactive agility due to weight and bulk of the shield, reducing Dexterity modifier by 1. </p><p></p><p>If there are "bucklers", they provide +1 parry.</p><p> </p><p>Using the above, the best a character can do with maximum dexterity (20) is base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 19, (base plus DEX plus shield plus "light" or small weapon (e.g., shortsword), if unencumbered by armor.\("base parry" means parry before modifying it for proficiency bonus)</p><p>same character with shield and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 - 1 = 18</p><p>same character with buckler and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 2 + 1 = 18</p><p>same character two-weapon fighting has base parry 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of possible additional attacks. </p><p>same character wielding a two-handed sword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17</p><p>same character wielding a two-handed axe has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 1 = 16</p><p>same character wielding only a longsword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17</p><p>same character wielding a halberd or other polearm has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of reach.</p><p></p><p>It strikes me that your point about Damage threshold, that it's "all or nothing" and "that is what is AC is already doing" may describe the actual rationale for the damage threshold rule. Perhaps it's in lieu of of a more complicated rule that would reduce toughness as the object took damage, a more realistic approach. I prefer a more realistic approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Orich Starkhart, post: 6471154, member: 6762059"] Thanks, and I'm glad I could help. Regarding the effect of creature and weapon size on parry or combat/save mechanics, I think that weapon bonus to parry ought not apply for a combatant and weapon two or maybe three size categories smaller than the attacker and its weapon. On the your idea of moving to defense rolls instead of attack rolls in melee: this seems to supply a satisfactory consistency - but might dramatically change the way melee feels in the game. I know that [U]Unearthed Arcana[/U] specified this alternate for 3.5e, but i have no direct experience with this variant. We can make them more similar by adjusting proficiency before adding it - simply subtract 2 from the character's proficiency bonus. This replaces a range of 2-6 with the range 0-4. As you know, I agree size should have some effect in combat; it seems the D&D 5 rules do not oblige us; apparently size adjustment was previously omitted from D&D 4 as well. :( Regarding your assertion that the to-hit numbers should be no more than, and perhaps less than those achievable in the unmodified D&D 5, I agree in principle, as long as we are not considering that adding proficiency should not be allowed to increase defense beyond the range provided without magical enhancement in the base game. At first glance, I thought the numbers you list as "reevaluated" look like a good start, but while you called the negative numbers simply "annoying", I see a deeper problem - the negative modifiers would imply one has lower defenses against a melee weapon, due to "parry" penalty, than the one has against thrown, missile, and other attacks to which parry would not apply. Therefore, in a system where weapons supply a defensive/"parry" bonus dependent upon the weapon, I think we have to stipulate that the conventional AC10 applies to an unarmed - and untrained in unarmed melee defense, well as unarmored and shieldless - opponent. I would make the following adjustments and clarifications: [LIST] [*] shields provide +3 (one point better than they increase AC in D&D 5), not +4 [*] pole weapons (long, heavy, usually two-handed, hafted weapons) provide +2, equivalent to swords, not +3 (the two pole weapons in D&D 5 Basic, halberd and glaive, are described as two-handed.) [*] hafted weapons (mace, axe) and improvised weapons provide parry +1 [*] "light" weapons, even swords, provide parry +1 [*] two weapon fighting (two "light" weapons) applies the parry bonus for each weapon - total +2 [*]using a two handed weapon, or two-handing a "versatile" weapon, provides no boost to parry for the bigger weapon, because a possible bonus for parrying would be counteracted by a penalty to dexterity modifier to parry/defense/AC. (one's reactive agility is somewhat restricted by keeping hands both grasping a single rigid item in order to control it) So, a two handed sword supplies parry +2, a two handed war hammer or battle-axe supplies parry +1 [*] stacking is limited to the largest bonus +1. Shield plus longsword has the same defensive value as shield plus mace or axe - the benefit of the sword over the hafted weapon becomes less significant when it's combined with a shield. [*] shield with longsword or hafted weapon - not "light" or "finesse" - results in a -1 penalty to dexterity bonus - using both the substantial shield and the heavy weapon results in a reduction by 1 to any dexterity bonus to parry/AC [*]No additional bonus for holding only one item. [/LIST] If there are "large" shields, I consider they may not qualify for greater parry bonus: the utility in covering more area may be compensated by reduced reactive agility due to weight and bulk of the shield, reducing Dexterity modifier by 1. If there are "bucklers", they provide +1 parry. Using the above, the best a character can do with maximum dexterity (20) is base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 = 19, (base plus DEX plus shield plus "light" or small weapon (e.g., shortsword), if unencumbered by armor.\("base parry" means parry before modifying it for proficiency bonus) same character with shield and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 3 + 1 - 1 = 18 same character with buckler and longsword has base parry = 10 + 5 + 2 + 1 = 18 same character two-weapon fighting has base parry 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of possible additional attacks. same character wielding a two-handed sword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17 same character wielding a two-handed axe has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 1 = 16 same character wielding only a longsword has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17 same character wielding a halberd or other polearm has base Parry = 10 + 5 + 2 = 17, as well as the advantage of reach. It strikes me that your point about Damage threshold, that it's "all or nothing" and "that is what is AC is already doing" may describe the actual rationale for the damage threshold rule. Perhaps it's in lieu of of a more complicated rule that would reduce toughness as the object took damage, a more realistic approach. I prefer a more realistic approach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Armor as DR
Top