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

[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.