D&D 3E/3.5 Is there a Parry in 3.5?

[Teslacoil1138]

Two computer games based on the DnD 3.X Rules Set, Neverwinter Nights and Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Both are horribly trashy and I don't recommend them. /dodges flames

Hehe, I'd have to respectfully disagree there, NWN is great if only for its great toolset. The original campaign left something (ok, ok, a lot of things) to be desired, but the subsequent expansions were well done, IMO.

I'll give you ToEE though, that was a peice of trash Even after they took like 6 months to patch it

 

[Hypersmurf]

Obviously, Vader has levels in the Devoted Defender PrC from Sword and Fist.

He used the 3rd level class ability Deflect Attack [Ex] to protect his charge.

-Hyp.

 

[Thanee]

@Ascii King: Was that parry rule from Player's Options? Since I cannot recall any such rule from 2nd ed., but I never used PO, so it could very well be from there.

Only parry rule I recall from the 2nd ed. PHB allowed you to trade in attacks to improve your AC or something like that, but only worked for yourself not others.

That would be the defensive attack or full defense option now, or Combat Expertise.

Been a while, though, maybe I'm not remembering it right.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Hehe, I'd have to respectfully disagree there, NWN is great if only for its great toolset. The original campaign left something (ok, ok, a lot of things) to be desired, but the subsequent expansions were well done, IMO.

[ OT: ] NWN was never meant to be a campaign like Baldur's Gate or RttToEE. The campaign was just an example of what can be done with the toolset.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Sammael]

Parrying rules are NOT a part of core AD&D 2nd edition ruleset, so complaining that 3.x doesn't allow them is highly suspicious. There was an OPTIONAL parry rule in the DMG.

I'll quote the relevant parry rules from optional 2nd edition books here (thanks to the core rules 2.0 CD-ROM and expansion):

Parrying (Optional Rule)
During a one-minute combat round, each character is assumed to block many attempted attacks and see many of his own attacks blocked. In normal combat, characters parry all the time--there's no need to single out each parry.

When a character deliberately chooses not to parry, his chance of being hit increases. A mage casting a spell, for instance, gains no AC adjustment for Dexterity. Thus, choosing to parry, in and of itself, is not a separate option under the AD&D game rules.

At the same time, the assumption is that characters in combat are constantly exposing themselves to some risk--trying to get a clear view of a target or looking for the opening to make an attack. There are times, however, when this is not the case. Sometimes, the only thing a character wants to do is avoid being hit.

To make himself harder to hit, a character can parry--forfeit all actions for the round. He can't attack, move, or cast spells. This frees the character to concentrate solely on defense. At this point, all characters but warriors gain an AC bonus equal to half their level. A 6th-level wizard would have a +3 bonus to his AC (lowering his AC by 3). A warrior gets a bonus equal to half his level plus one. A 6th-level fighter would gain a +4 AC bonus.

This benefit is not a perfect all-around defense, and it's not effective against rear or missile attacks. It applies only to those foes attacking the defender from the front. This optional defense has no effect against magical attacks, so it wouldn't do anything to protect a character from the force of lightning bolt or fireball spells.

Parry
Sometimes the best thing to do is take cover and try not to get clobbered. Any character can choose to parry as a combat action. Parrying is a no-move action that is in effect for the entire combat round. If a character parries, he cannot move, attack, or cast spells.

Parrying reduces a nonwarrior character’s Armor Class by one-half his level. A 6th-level wizard with an AC of 5 who parries reduces his AC to 2. Warriors who choose to parry reduce their AC by one-half their level, plus one. A 6th-level fighter gets an AC bonus of 4 by parrying.

Parry
Take a look at Chapter Nine of the Dungeon Master's Guide, page 61, at the Parrying optional rule.

That's one way to simulate a fighter going on the defensive; the optional Parry maneuver presented here is done a different way.

To perform this Parry, you must announce before initiative is rolled that you're going to Parry. (If you have more than one attack per round, you must announce how many of them are going to be Parries.)

Then, during the round, the first time an attacker strikes at you (even if it's before your turn to strike), you roll your Parry. Roll to attack rolls your attacker, and roll vs. his AC (including all bonuses for shield, magical items, etc.). You can use your weapon at its normal chance to attack rolls, or your shield at a +2 to your chance to attack rolls (plus any magical bonus the shield confers). If you hit, his attack is parried and does you no damage.
You can Parry thrown weapons, but not missile attacks (quarrels, arrows, sling stones, magic missiles, etc.).

(All three are Copyright 1999 TSR Inc.)

 

[Sammael]

Obviously, the author of this thread is using the Parry rule from the Complete Fighter's Handbook. Curiously enough, the other two rules were incorporated into 3E, as the Total Defense standard action.

However, even this rule (as written) does not allow you to parry a blow directed at someone else.

 

[Thanee]

Ah, memory was right then. The first is what I had in mind (tho, I thought it was in PHB not DMG ).

So, if you used a house rule back then, you can use a house rule now. That works the same for 2nd and 3rd edition.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Obfuscated]

In Revenge of the Jedi, Darth Vader...........

Ok, really. This has been bothering me since I first saw it. The movie is titled Return of the Jedi. The concept of Jedi and revenge do not intertwine. That's why wer'e getting Revenge of the Sith next year.
/hijack

On the other hand, I think I need to check out that Swashbuckling issue of Dragon now. I've got an Eberron game starting soon.....

 

[hero4hire]

Ok, really. This has been bothering me since I first saw it. The movie is titled Return of the Jedi. The concept of Jedi and revenge do not intertwine. That's why wer'e getting Revenge of the Sith next year.
/hijack

(Re-hijack) actually the orginal title was Revenge of the Jedi.

 

[ToddSchumacher]

(Re-hijack) actually the orginal title was Revenge of the Jedi.

(Re-Re-Hijack)
Just finished watching the Star Wars Documentary on my DVDs...it was first called Return, then changed to 'Revenge', to appease ececutives, then at the last moment changed back to Return, because Jedi don't take revenge.