Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="malebode" data-source="post: 1624527" data-attributes="member: 20256">Greetings, all.  I have worked up a possible variant to incorporate parrying into active defense.  Basically, the change involves four defense methods: blocking with a shield; parrying with a weapon; dodging out of the way; armor.  I filched the idea from Swords & Sorcery's Advanced Player's Guide.  My changes basically add the parry rules that are included in the attachment because I was dissatisfied with their implementation.  It may be quite complex in the case of two-weapon fighting, but there already is a great deal of added complexity with off-hand penalties and strength modifiers to damage.  This variant represents something at least close to what I hope to use in the future.  If anyone is willing to playtest it, I'd be happy to hear feedback.  The basic framework of logic I used to develop this was based on the following assumptions:  1) You should be able to parry about the same number of times per round with a weapon as you can attack with it, and not have to "sacrifice" attacks in order to parry; 2)  Using a shield and attacking should incur some kind of penalty for using both hands; 3) Dual weapon wielders should not be at a severe disadvantage to sword plus shield wielders in defense.  This is my attempt at a balanced and more realistic simulation of defense in combat.  Let me know what you think.Some notes:1)  Base defense bonus is probably based on the old Grim  'n' Gritty system.  I'll include the bonuses in the next revision.2)  Armor as DR is quoted in the variant, but the rules could be just as easily used for an extra "free" roll for armor on any attack, or even just a standard AC (with no dex).3)  I need to do some work on what AC bonuses apply to which defense.  That should be relatively straightforward.  I'll get to it.</blockquote>

Verification