Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thondor" data-source="post: 2266631" data-attributes="member: 31955">My concern with having this so based on Dexterity is that well . . . it's so based on dexterity. The stat that already benefits AC and ranged attacks (and melee for those who spend the feat weapon finess, granted just for one kind of weapon but still) And now we are completely basing another form of defense off Dexterity. Reflex high classes will love this. Suddenly no fighter can hit a rogue.&nbsp;The concept of having some sort of parrying aspect to combat is wonderful. But it calls for a complete reworking of the current system not a few (well written feats) The problem I see with this is that it makes a very important stat even more important.&nbsp;If it does get used I would suggest that either all classes use the base 'good save' for the block melee weapon save not modified by any stat but by weapon type (below.) Or give the warrior classes the 'good save' and the other classes the 'weak save'. ( the paladin would not gain his bonus to saves nor would magic items that increases saves, this is essentially a new &quot;parry save&quot; that is created using the same progression as a 'good save')&nbsp; Weapon&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Parry Modifiershield&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +4dagger&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 0shortsword&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +1maces&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +1Axes&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0Flails&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 0Longsword&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +2Staff&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +2Polearms&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +2Greatsword&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; +1Bastardsword&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; +1&nbsp;Their are my thoughts. I've never really been happy with the current just roll higher then this # and you hit. Especially the idea that you don't get better AC just for going up levels. We use HP and magic items instead of coming up with a logical system. After all if a first level character hit's you it should bother you.I know Paladium has some sort of parry system but of course their armor works very differently.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thondor, post: 2266631, member: 31955"] My concern with having this so based on Dexterity is that well . . . it's so based on dexterity. The stat that already benefits AC and ranged attacks (and melee for those who spend the feat weapon finess, granted just for one kind of weapon but still) And now we are completely basing another form of defense off Dexterity. Reflex high classes will love this. Suddenly no fighter can hit a rogue. The concept of having some sort of parrying aspect to combat is wonderful. But it calls for a complete reworking of the current system not a few (well written feats) The problem I see with this is that it makes a very important stat even more important. If it does get used I would suggest that either all classes use the base 'good save' for the block melee weapon save not modified by any stat but by weapon type (below.) Or give the warrior classes the 'good save' and the other classes the 'weak save'. ( the paladin would not gain his bonus to saves nor would magic items that increases saves, this is essentially a new "parry save" that is created using the same progression as a 'good save') Weapon Parry Modifier shield +4 dagger 0 shortsword +1 maces +1 Axes 0 Flails 0 Longsword +2 Staff +2 Polearms +2 Greatsword +1 Bastardsword +1 Their are my thoughts. I've never really been happy with the current just roll higher then this # and you hit. Especially the idea that you don't get better AC just for going up levels. We use HP and magic items instead of coming up with a logical system. After all if a first level character hit's you it should bother you. I know Paladium has some sort of parry system but of course their armor works very differently. [/QUOTE]

Verification