my new rules for combat: Parrying rules

[Ferret]

Would a big halbred be better at parrying then a smaller nimbler weapon? Sure there is more force but thats in the stength (an 8 str 18 dex rogue isn't going to wield a greatsword, is he?). The same with large creatures, thats why they get a minus on attacks.

 

[RuminDange]

also in the dragon mag you forgot the off-hand light weapons give a +4 to the parry attempt when used to parry

also that house rule about -2 to parries beyond dex mod since combat reflexes is based off dex does that mean it only comes into play at epic levels?

Actually the rule was made for those that took the Improved Combat Reflexes...a group decision after seeing what it could do in game when none of thier melee fighters could touch a BBEG (40th level Night Hag/Wizard/Rogue/Mind Bender using +6 Bladed Guantlets). Average party level was 33rd with several up front tanks. They ended up surrounding her and finally an NPC Paladin sundered one of the bracers followed by a another PC bullrushing her though a portal to the rest of the group waiting to pound on her. At least they keep her from casting spells most of the time.

You don't need any kind of balancing at non-epic levels since most will run out of AOO in a round if enough people attack someone feated for lots of parries.

RD

 

[Gustave Arcanus]

Parry As AOO Is Bad (Depending)

Unless Improved Combat Reflexes gives you the ability to use more than one AOO per target, that wouldn't be a way to go for parry. If used as AOOs, parries would be limited to one per target.

Originally posted by Inconsequenti-AL
I wouldn't give any specific bonus for holding a weapon in 2 hands - if it's a 'normal' 2 handed weapon it already gets a size bonus.

The only bonus I'd intended for two-handed weapons was it's normal size (which doesn't change if it's a one-handed to begin with) and the damage it would deal to an attacker using unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

This is the way I see parrying would work.

Parry actions are taken from a character's normal attack pool. In other words, when they would normally have an opportunity to attack someone, they can parry instead. Parries must either be declared at the beginning of the round, or defaulted to before any other standard actions are taken (in which case, all attacks in the round must be parries, regardless). Attacks of Opportunity can be declared at the beginning as a number of attacks, attacks against given targets, or situations (such as "attacked by someone unarmed").

Parry attacks and normal attacks use the attack bonuses in order, regardless of what comes first. So, if a character had two parries and four regular attacks in a round, and he got attacked once before his regular actions, that parry (if used) would use his highest attack bonus. His regular attacks would then start one lower.

Parrying characters make an attack roll against the attacker's roll, and their AC drops by 4 while they make the parry. If the parry fails, the attacker must still break the character's AC (minus the lost 4 points) to deal damage. If the parry succeeds, no other benefits are gained other than not getting struck with the parried attack.

Using a shield during a parry works one of two ways. First, its AC bonus, which applies normally. Second, as the parrying "weapon" itself, in which case it would count as a shield bash attack. Bucklers and Small Shields are treated as light weapons, Large Shields as one-handed. Tower Shields, which can't normally be used for bashing, would count as two-handed weapons. All shields would be considered off-hand attacks (see below).

Bonuses are given when certain weapons are used. Light weapons grant a +4 bonus to parry attempts, and all weapons gain bonuses based on their size. Light weapons are considered one size smaller than the attacker, one-handed the same size, and two-handed one size larger. This, of course, does not mean that a longsword used in two hands gains a size bonus, since it is still a one-handed weapon. Unarmed strikes are considered one size smaller than the character, or the same size if they have Improved Unarmed Strike. Natural weapons are considered to be the same size as the creature using them.

When an unarmed character (feat or not) or a creature attacking with natural weapons is parried with a manufactured weapon, they take weapon damage as normal, with one exception. Light weapons deal no Strength damage, one-handed weapons deal half-Strength, and two-handed weapons deal full Strength. A one-handed weapon used in two hands gains the full Strength bonus on damage, but (again) no size increase. Unarmed characters with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat deal their normal damage (minus Strength, and a monk still gains their improved dice) to unarmed attackers, though not against creatures with natural weapons.

There are a few ways combatants may gain additional parries in a round. Combat Reflexes may grant additional parries simply because of gained Attacks of Opportunity, the fighting defensively option grants another attack at the character's highest bonus for a parry, and the full defense option grants two at the highest bonus, and all attacks must be used for parries when using full defense.

I think that about covers it. Whether using Armor as DR, or whatever else, that should work as a bare-bones system of parry. Some ideas were used from White Wolf (especially their Exalted system), mostly because... well, they rock. D&D is great and all, but wow. Talk about a great system with a proper execution. But that's for another time. This post is long enough already.

 

[RuminDange]

Unless Improved Combat Reflexes gives you the ability to use more than one AOO per target, that wouldn't be a way to go for parry. If used as AOOs, parries would be limited to one per target.

Improved Combat Reflexes doesn't give you the ability to use more than one AOO per target, it gives you unlimited number of AOO to use. The feat Expert Parry from Dragon #301 gives you the ability to parry any number of attacks from any number of opponents taking one AOO per parry to do so up to the limit of your AOO allowed.
Your system adds even more complexity to parry since you have to declare which attacks you are going to use to parry and which you are going to attack with, keep track of that, and then you lose AC while attempted a parry, but then have to know the weapon size rules for bonus/penalty. Too much IMO :\ as some players have a hard time determining what they are going to do even when it is their turn, much less figuring out some of the basic rules, at least in my experience over the last 20 years.
The parry rules as done in Dragon work quite well and instead of losing AC to attempt a parry until you have dedicated a few feats to the parry chain, you might lose your weapon since a parry attempt gives your opponent an automatic disarm attempt against you.
It only gets nasty using the Dragon system when you go into epic levels and someone has maxed the parry chain and caps it with Improved Combat Reflexes, or worse the whole deflect/reflect arrows epic chain as well. Can't touch them in melee too easily, cannot touch them with ranged weapon and targeted spells with the right epic feats.

YMMV of course. But the Dragon version is worth a look and try for anyone wanting to incorporate the ability to parry into thier campaign.

RD

 

[Gustave Arcanus]

#include <iostream>
using namespace std;

void rant(ostream&);

void main() {
cout << "*** Beware, rants ahead. ****\n";
rant(cout);
}

void rant(ostream& os) {

os << "*shrug* I tend to be against taking tons of feats to do something that should be perfectly natural to anyone weilding a weapon. I just can't see people relying on armor and their natural agility 100% of the time for defense, and I can't see people needing special training (which is what feats entail) to be able to do that. Taking feats to do it better, yes. But that's another concept entirely.\n\n";

os << "Also, if you've been gaming 20 years, then when compared to D&D 3E and v3.5, AD&D was so confusing to learn that most never did unless they'd already been playing for a number of years. And if people can keep track of all that, between weird AC numbers (going in reverse from what we learn in standard mathetmatics and everyday life: larger numbers are better, or sequences normally go in ascending order), THAC0 (needing to cross-reference this number against AC for every attack, instead of just having a standard bonus) and saving throws/ability checks (another lower is better situation), then they should have no trouble with a parry system like that.\n\n";

os << "Oh, and before I forget, the -4 AC thing only applies against the attack that's parried (in case the parry fails, since you're not dodging as much), not for the whole round like a charge penalty would. Anyway, I think that makes much more sense, possibly needs some fine-tuning, but shouldn't need a series of feats to do it in the first place.\n\n";

}

 

[RuminDange]

os << "*shrug* I tend to be against taking tons of feats to do something that should be perfectly natural to anyone weilding a weapon. I just can't see people relying on armor and their natural agility 100% of the time for defense, and I can't see people needing special training (which is what feats entail) to be able to do that. Taking feats to do it better, yes. But that's another concept entirely.\n\n";

Actually I tend to agree with the idea of feats being an indicator of better training of something you already know something about. That is why you have Dodge, Weapon Focus and Specialization, Improved Trip, Sunder, etc...
Since the combat round of D&D 3.X and even AD&D and before is a little abstract, you are already considered to be dodging, parrying etc... The feats give you a better ability at doing what you already been doing per se, only now no longer relying on your Dex and Armor but a counter roll.

RD

 

[RuminDange]

os << "Also, if you've been gaming 20 years, then when compared to D&D 3E and v3.5, AD&D was so confusing to learn that most never did unless they'd already been playing for a number of years. And if people can keep track of all that, between weird AC numbers (going in reverse from what we learn in standard mathetmatics and everyday life: larger numbers are better, or sequences normally go in ascending order), THAC0 (needing to cross-reference this number against AC for every attack, instead of just having a standard bonus) and saving throws/ability checks (another lower is better situation), then they should have no trouble with a parry system like that.\n\n";

Well since I said

as some players have a hard time determining what they are going to do even when it is their turn, much less figuring out some of the basic rules, at least in my experience over the last 20 years.

Never was it an indication that I had trouble with the mess that was AD&D 1e and 2e rules. I personally had no trouble with them or the house rules I used to straighten them out to suit my needs or campaign at the time. However, The groups of players I have had during that time have had problems even with the most simple of rules, including 3E.
The players sometimes understand one set of rules better than others just depending on their degree of interest and "buy in". I have players that even get editions mixed up still even today after 3+ years of 3E and then want to argue about it until they've read the stuff again. But since other game system we've used in between AD&D 2E and 3E involved the Attack Roll vs. the Parry Roll type mechanics, which is something they understand a lot more, and have no problem paying for the ability with training.

RD

 

[RuminDange]

os << "Oh, and before I forget, the -4 AC thing only applies against the attack that's parried (in case the parry fails, since you're not dodging as much), not for the whole round like a charge penalty would. Anyway, I think that makes much more sense, possibly needs some fine-tuning, but shouldn't need a series of feats to do it in the first place.\n\n";

Understand the -4 AC only applies against the attack that's parried. However; so what, if your parry fails they hit you anyway.
The series of feats are as I said above, training to do what you are already assumed to be doing, only your better at it.

RD