D&D 5E Parrying and Protecting versus spells and othe rstuff

[slobo777]

By my reading of Parry/Protect:

"When you are damaged by an attack while you are wielding a weapon or a shield, you can spend expertise dice to reduce the damage."

Damaging spells are not attacks by default (unlike, say 4E). Casting a spell is its own action type, and not an attack action.

However, some damaging spells are specifically "attacks", even sharing rule space with melee and ranged attack rules, that means in a direct reading of the rules, a fighter could reduce damage from:

* Armour piercing effect from e.g. Ogres and Minotaurs
* Inflict <Type> Wounds. Even on a miss.
* Melf's Acid arrow. Including on a miss, and potentially including the additional damage (though I'd probably rule against the latter, as although it was due to an attack, the extra damage was not directlycaused by an attack).
* Radiant Lance.
* Ray of Enfeeblement
* Ray of Frost
* Searing Light
* Shocking Grasp
* Spiritual Hammer
* Vampiric Touch


Right / wrong? Intended as part of the game, or an oversight that will get tightened up (presumably when mosnters start making magical attacks or get Parry-like abilities). Any variation by spell ?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Probably more appropriate as 'melee attack' with later options to wuxia protect yourself against missiles and magic rays.

 

[Rhenny]

I agree with Nightwing. For game balance and simplicity sake, it probably should only apply to melee attacks at this point. I wouldn't even include shocking grasp (even though it is kind of like a melee attack) since the electrical charge would not be stopped by a metal weapon or shield. Vampric touch??? maybe.

I can see however improved skills later on that can block missle weapons and some spell effects if the fighter uses a shield to block.

Examples:

Any ray or missle that is not auto-hit.
Fireball (hiding behind the shield)

 

[slobo777]

Examples:
Fireball (hiding behind the shield)

That was one of the interesting things - due to the break between "magic attack" and "make a save" spells, parry as worded right now won't affect Fireball.

Of course the wording may well get altered or tightened up.

It could well make sense once that is done, that basic parry is a melee weapon defence only, and some fighting styles give you more coverage of missiles, magic attacks, and even save-versus-damage effects.

 

[kerleth]

I think that parry should definitely work against shocking grasp style effects. Your character isn't completely blocking the attack, only reducing the effect. A successful non parried shocking grasp is where the mage strikes you on the chest and yells "Clear!". A parried one knocks their arm to the side so that you are grazed, numbing your left arm and making you a little twitchy, or perhaps completely spoiling a weaker or poorly aimed (read as rolled low damage) shocking grasp. As far as arrows and searing rays, that I could see going either way. Is it technically possible to see that someone is about to release an arrow or throw a javelin and begin moving to deflect where they are aiming towards, yes. Could a material object block part of a laser so not as much burny hits the target, (aka searing lance), yes. Would it be a lot harder to pull off and should a generic 1st level fighter pull it off, I dunno.

 

[Bluenose]

Probably more appropriate as 'melee attack' with later options to wuxia protect yourself against missiles and magic rays.

Some day someone will have to explain why raising shields for protection against missile fire is a wuxia technique.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Casting a spell is its own action type, and not an attack action.

I think that is quite possibly the kind of rules dissection that they want to avoid for dndNext... The whole "rulings, not rules" thing.

If I was a DM I would decide wholly on a case by case basis, and if I were a player I'd hope that my DM would do the same thing. Heck, if a player was by a corner and said "can I use expertise dice to reduce the fireball/dragon breath damage by ducking back a little I'd say "sure!"

 

[slobo777]

I think that is quite possibly the kind of rules dissection that they want to avoid for dndNext... The whole "rulings, not rules" thing.

If I was a DM I would decide wholly on a case by case basis, and if I were a player I'd hope that my DM would do the same thing. Heck, if a player was by a corner and said "can I use expertise dice to reduce the fireball/dragon breath damage by ducking back a little I'd say "sure!"

I'm fine with that as a guiding principle to keep the rules light. Especially for events that crop up rarely.

But a core ability that can be used at will, and interacts with "attacks". Well, I will want to know what an "attack" is, because this will crop up in play a lot. And I'm probably not alone

For now, it's academic - there are only a handful of monster abilities that would cause you to need to think and make such rulings.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm into it.

I like the idea that parrying and shields are useful against actual things coming at you that might hurt you. Some wizard wiggles his fingers at you, you're not just going to let him put them in your ears. You're going to PARRY his hand directly, turning it aside. A glob of acid or a ball of energy comes hurtling down the pipe at you, you're going to turn that stuff aside. If it doesn't GO THROUGH WALLS, it shouldn't go through your shield.

YES to parrying magical attacks.

 

[RangerWickett]

Hell, you can parry thrown spears, even deflect arrows. Maybe you should need a shield to 'parry' a ranged attack with full effect (1d6 gets reduced to 1d4 if you try to deflect a sling stone with your longsword?), but it should still be possible.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Some day someone will have to explain why raising shields for protection against missile fire is a wuxia technique.

Ahem, the ability is called 'Parry' - I would support being able to reduce arrow damage with a shield at 1st level, but it wouldn't be parrying.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

IMO Parry should work against all melee attacks including spells like shocking grasp, but only against ranged powers/attacks with a shield, and never against effects with a saving throw. That'd be a quick and easy adjustment for the next iteration or the playtest.

 

[LostSoul]

Do they really need to spell this out?

I guess so. Maybe they should make a set of rules that works with and incorporates a DM's judgement, instead of having strict legal rule definitions.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Ahem, the ability is called 'Parry' - I would support being able to reduce arrow damage with a shield at 1st level, but it wouldn't be parrying.

Nobody tell this man about Cleave with a hammer or Tumble in full plate!

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I very much like the idea of using parry, protect, or other martial abilities to counter spells. First, it fits with the fiction tropes: raising your shield to protect yourself from a fireball and smacking a magic missile back at the caster like a baseball player.

Second, it gives a way to even up the power between fighters and magic-users without nerfing the magic-users or turning the fighters into kung-fu action heroes. Giving the fighters magic-resistant abilities, with more at higher levels, would work wonders for evening the tables.

 

[Warbringer]

Two ways to look at this

1) damage is damage, which begs the question that why not deflect fireball damage or dragon breath (the archtypical picture of the knight fighting the dragon), but then opens up the "psychic" attack being deflected.

2) parry only deflects certain types of damage (piercing, slashing, fire ..etc)

I'd like to see a differentiation between attacks vs AC and other attacks... only the former can be parried ...if not, then 1)

 

[El Mahdi]

I...I wouldn't even include shocking grasp (even though it is kind of like a melee attack) since the electrical charge would not be stopped by a metal weapon or shield...

Uhmm, okay...Why? I can see why a metal weapon would conduct it, but a shield?

You do realize that shields are predominantly leather or fabric covered wood, and not metal unless specifically designed that way...?

 

[slobo777]

Do they really need to spell this out?

I guess so. Maybe they should make a set of rules that works with and incorporates a DM's judgement, instead of having strict legal rule definitions.

That is I think a parallel related issue. I expect DM discretion to occur at some point, but not when a simple character ability is being used to do something it is intended to do. I think it is reasonable for each classes' main schtick to be well enough defined that it isn't subject to frequent rulings. What each group's tolerance for "frequent" is may vary immensely.

Rules that interact with "attacks", which occur very often in D&D, do IMO need to be spelled out and cover cases that are guaranteed to come up in play when a monster is used. Because if a monster is used, it is very likely to attack the front line fighter. Because as a player, if I have a CS die and take damage I'll be saying "I parry that".

I took a look through the bestiary just now. Most monster abilities that do damage so far are in fact clearly labelled "melee attack" or "ranged attack", and so can obviously be Parried according to the current playtest material. A very few spell effects (mostly Inflict Wounds on the Dark Adept etc) also say "melee attack" in the description - these are slightly less clear, and would need a ruling.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Nobody tell this man about Cleave with a hammer or Tumble in full plate!

Snide remarks aside, I don't want swords deflecting magic missiles (maybe at high level you can become a Jedi), and I don't want tumbling in full plate either.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ahem, the ability is called 'Parry' - I would support being able to reduce arrow damage with a shield at 1st level, but it wouldn't be parrying.

I am with Chris and Plane Sailing.

If "Parry" is meant to represent parrying, it should not block magic attacks unless they actually create a weapon out of nothing (could be the case with Spiritual Hammer and maybe even Radiant Lance, but not with Shocking Grasp). It needs to be resolved by the DM on a case-by-case basis, or at least leave some room for interpretation even if starting from a ground rule.

It should also not block missile attacks. Only a shield may help with that, but it already gives you a bonus to AC to represent blocking missiles. It might be fair to allow a Fighter who learned the Parry ability to use it against missiles when holding a shield, but also it might not.

Then of course I'm aware that a lot of gamers totally refuse the idea of the gaming group having freedom of interpretation, and wanting a hard rule, and many others see an ability called "Parry" only as a mechanical option that accidentally has a label "Parry" put on it, but who cares what it represents. It's a different gaming philosophy of "solid rules first, we'll figure out the explanations ourselves", but my preference is quite the opposite.