Parry variant - Help!

[malebode]

I have been experimenting with a way to incorporate active defense in a balanced way. What I want to accomplish is differentiation of parrying, blocking with a shield, and dodging out of the way. I have been using the old Grim ‘n’ Gritty system in my current game, and I am sure I will use some form of “Armor as DR” system in this new game. Therefore, armor is a passive defense.

I browsed through a Sword & Sorcery “Advanced Player’s Guide” and found a variant rule that makes an attempt at this. The implementation had some features that I like, and I’ve basically stolen them to get a start here.

So far, I have the following set down:
 Block actions are performed with a shield and can be used to avoid melee and ranged attacks.
 Parry actions are performed with a weapon and can be used only against melee attacks.
 Dodge actions can be used to avoid any attack, even if a parry or block was used and failed.

Dodge will be based on either a class defense bonus or some combination of reflex save and BAB. Block and parry are solely based on attack bonus. As many dodge actions can be taken as needed, but there is a –2 cumulative penalty for each dodge action taken.

The problem is with figuring out how many block and parry actions can be taken and how. It seems intuitive that you could take a block for each attack with the shield bonus added to the BAB, and maybe dex. The problem is with parries. One option is to use a “conversion method” where attacks are reserved as parry actions. However, at a BAB of +11, a fighter with shield would get 3 blocks and 3 attacks while a dual wielding fighter would get 4 attacks and no parries (or 2 attacks and 2 parries, etc). The two-weapon fighter gets screwed because he gets fewer and fewer actions as the BAB goes up (not to mention dual-wielding penalties), and he spent two feats to do it! Another option is to allow a parry for each attack or for each attack beyond the first, but it still breaks down at higher level, because according to my analysis a shield user is always on top.

Has anybody found a balanced way of integrating parrying into defense?

Can anybody make a suggestion for my parry variant?

 

[malebode]

bump

 

[Stormborn]

I am using a parry variant for a Swashbuckling/Pulp style campaign where a character can parry by sacrificing Attacks of Opportunity. It tends to work. It does make Combat Reflexes a very valuable feat.

 

[malebode]

I am using a parry variant for a Swashbuckling/Pulp style campaign where a character can parry by sacrificing Attacks of Opportunity. It tends to work. It does make Combat Reflexes a very valuable feat.

That's interesting. Each parry would be at the highest bonus, then?

 

[Planesdragon]

IMO, if you want to differentiate parry/block defense, you should give characters a class-based defense bonus and have it act as a "shield" or "parry" bonus.

If you want parry/block as actions, make them BAB+Str+magical enhancement rolls, and have them be attack actions (or move actions...). An attacker needs to beat both the defender's AC and the defender's parry/block to succeed.

The game only slows down if you allow players to have attack AND defense actions with no penalty in the same round.

 

[Stormborn]

That's interesting. Each parry would be at the highest bonus, then?

Yeah, but thats only going to be an issue for thsoe with multiple AoO. The fighter has been parrying at her normal BAB, they should go up to 6th level next session, so I will rule that she still parries at her highest attack.

Oh, BTW, this allowed me to create rules for a fencing tournament that the players really liked.

 

[JimAde]

I think it's fine that the shield user has better defense. The 2-weapon fighter has the option of defending or dishing out damage with the off hand, depending on circumstances. The shield user is concentrating more on defense. Makes sense to me.

 

[Arnkel]

I've done things this way, and I'd like to hear some ideas on it.

Shields: On a full defense action, a Shield can automatically block a number of attacks depending on size(Buckler: 1 Small: 2 Medium/Kite: 3 Large: 4 Tower: All from 1 direction). Critical hits affect shields the same as if the attacker had scored a crit on a Sunder attempt. The attack the shield blocks must be declared BEFORE the attack roll.

Parrying: I added a phase to combat for this. After every attack made by an opponent up to the number of attacks/round the character has, he may choose to make a parry. The Character makes his own roll with a bonus equal to his most recent attack Bonus(Flat footed characters are not allowed to do this unless they were on Full defense on the last round). The point is to see who hits the Highest AC, ties going to the defender. If a crit is made, check against the sunder rules.

 

[malebode]

Thanks for the input, Planesdragon.

IMO, if you want to differentiate parry/block defense, you should give characters a class-based defense bonus and have it act as a "shield" or "parry" bonus.

I was already planning to have a defense bonus that would be used for dodging. I think the parry bonus should be based on BAB. Having a different bonus would be fine, it's just that I don't think it's necessary. It's the number of parries vs. the number of shield blocks that poses a problem, not the bonus used to get each. Since you can dodge even on a failed parry or block. The result is that after you used up your parries and blocks, all you can do is dodge, and you are at a disadvantage. So I am trying to balance a single sword wielder, dual weapon wielder, and sword and shield wielder with respect to how many defense actions they get.

If you want parry/block as actions, make them BAB+Str+magical enhancement rolls, and have them be attack actions (or move actions...). An attacker needs to beat both the defender's AC and the defender's parry/block to succeed.

The game only slows down if you allow players to have attack AND defense actions with no penalty in the same round.

I am not concerned about slowing down the game. I have basically already accepted the added complication. The situation for which I am primarily planning to use this rule is in an email game in which I can resolve all combat rounds simultaneously by acting out the "battle plan" of each character for that round (similar to, and perhaps even using the exact rules of, SNAP!, a simultaneous narrative battle system). Therefore, the added complexity is not a big issue.

 

[malebode]

I think it's fine that the shield user has better defense. The 2-weapon fighter has the option of defending or dishing out damage with the off hand, depending on circumstances. The shield user is concentrating more on defense. Makes sense to me.

I've been thinking about it, and it seems to me that a shield user ought to suffer a penalty for using both hands. It's obviously easier to use a sword and shield than a sword and parrying dagger, so I'm not suggesting a requirement of the Ambidexterity feat. Perhaps a -2 penalty on all attacks and parries if using the shield? Is there a reason that any fighter should be able to attack as easily with a shield as without in this modified system?

The cunundrum I have is this; If I allow a shield user to block as many attacks as he has in his attack sequence, he will be far far more powerful than an equivalent dual-wielder who has taken two feats to get there! I realize the dual-wielder gets an extra attack, but he will be giving up an increasing number of defensive actions as the BAB goes up.

If I do not provide any parry actions for "free", then the dual wielder will only be able to dodge, while the shield user will have a lot of defenses.

                Ftr w/ Sword & Shield           Ftr w/TWF and Ambi
BAB             Attack          Block           Attack	          Block
+1              +1              +1              -1/-1             -None-
+6/+1           +6/+1           +6/+1           +4/+4/-1          -None-
+11/+6/+1       +11/+6/+1       +11/+6/+1       +9/+9/+4/-1       -None-
+16/+11/+6/+1   +16/+11/+6/+1   +16/+11/+6/+1   +14/+14/+9/+4/-1  -None-

However, if I give a parry for each attack, it still doesn't balance out, as shown below.

                ---------Ftr w/ Sword & Shield--------------    ----------Ftr w/TWF and Ambi------------
BAB             Attack          Parry           Block           Attack	          Parry             Block
+1              +1              +1              +1              -1/-1             -1/-1             -None-
+6/+1           +6/+1           +6/+1           +6/+1           +4/+4/-1          +4/+4/-1          -None-
+11/+6/+1       +11/+6/+1       +11/+6/+1       +11/+6/+1       +9/+9/+4/-1       +9/+9/+4/-1       -None-
+16/+11/+6/+1   +16/+11/+6/+1   +16/+11/+6/+1   +16/+11/+6/+1   +14/+14/+9/+4/-1  +14/+14/+9/+4/-1  -None-

Yes, this situation is over-complex. But in order to achieve the effect I want, it will have to get more complicated before it can be simplified, I think. Any further suggestions, given my concern of not screwing the two-weapon wielder (or anyone else without a shield, for that matter)?