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

FireLance · Sep 19, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
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.

Frankly, I would take it in the other direction: it covers the ability to block attacks with a shield and hence, it should not be named "Parry".

IMO, if you think that the name of a game element doesn't jibe with what it actually does, that is a case for changing the name of the game element, and not for changing its effect.

slobo777 · Sep 19, 2012

FireLance said:
Frankly, I would take it in the other direction: it covers the ability to block attacks with a shield and hence, it should not be named "Parry".

IMO, if you think that the name of a game element doesn't jibe with what it actually does, that is a case for changing the name of the game element, and not for changing its effect.

Agreed.

However, in a future iteration of these rules, I'd like to see "Shield Block" as a separate fighter ability, and for it to be better than Parry, so my sword-and-board fighter has something to feel good about

Bluenose · Sep 19, 2012

FireLance said:
Frankly, I would take it in the other direction: it covers the ability to block attacks with a shield and hence, it should not be named "Parry".

IMO, if you think that the name of a game element doesn't jibe with what it actually does, that is a case for changing the name of the game element, and not for changing its effect.

That an item intended to provide protection for it's user can in fact provide that protection does seem like a good idea. I'd be less inclined to let someone without a shield get the same benefits, but then given how under-rated shields have traditionally been in D&D it might be possible to make them give a bonus on the dice roll to reduce damage taken, and that would certainly make them useful.

I predict some rather angry reactions if it's allowed, mind you. "Anime wuxia **** has no place in D&D" seems nearly certain.

Chris_Nightwing · Sep 19, 2012

FireLance said:
Frankly, I would take it in the other direction: it covers the ability to block attacks with a shield and hence, it should not be named "Parry".

IMO, if you think that the name of a game element doesn't jibe with what it actually does, that is a case for changing the name of the game element, and not for changing its effect.

Yes, this is also an option.

Let's call it 'Defence'. If you're wielding a weapon it can be used against melee attacks. If you have a shield it can be used against melee, ranged, magical and area attacks. You could even throw in an evasion-like effect, usable against any source of damage, if you are lightly armoured and have a free hand (but this seems more roguish).

GMforPowergamers · Sep 19, 2012

I want to see a bigger level of perry/protect that is deflect back and a save
Bonus

ZombieRoboNinja · Sep 20, 2012

Chris_Nightwing said:
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.

No offense intended. But my point was that abilities like "tumble" and "parry" can be easily reflavored to match your character concept. A plate-wearing dwarf using his expertise dice to move through enemy squares isn't rolling somersaults, he's barreling past his opponents. A guy with a sword and shield using his dice to reduce damage from incoming arrows isn't "parrying" per se, he's holding up his shield.

But it's easier and clearer for WOTC to provide a simple and straightforward name and explanation, and let you reflavor it as you wish. The same is true of spells, class features, and so on. Rather than describing the fey warlock making a vague pact with an unnamed fey creature, they give you a specific patron and specific costs to your pact, and you can alter them with the DM if you want. Just like you can cast green Fireballs and rename Bless to Moradin's Blessing.

Dalamar · Sep 20, 2012

Another tangential issua relating to Parry and Protect is whether they block other effects of attacks whose damage gets negated fully. In our last playtest, the fighter parried the bite of a giant centipede, and I said he still needed to make a save since there was no language to suggest that those kinds of effects would be negated. The players felt it was jarring that he blocked the whole attack but still was somehow poisoned by the bite.

slobo777 · Sep 20, 2012

Dalamar said:
Another tangential issua relating to Parry and Protect is whether they block other effects of attacks whose damage gets negated fully. In our last playtest, the fighter parried the bite of a giant centipede, and I said he still needed to make a save since there was no language to suggest that those kinds of effects would be negated. The players felt it was jarring that he blocked the whole attack but still was somehow poisoned by the bite.

The pubished playtest rule is actually clear on that: Non-damaging effects of an attack are not parried, even if damage is reduced to 0.

I think this may be a balance issue. Monster attacks with special effects generally have reduced damage compared to similar level monsters with no such effect. If parry locked out the extra effects at 0 damage, it may be a little too easy for a fighter (or a pair of fighters, one with Protect) to lock those abilities out and make those monsters ineffective.

Edit: Although, perhaps this is another possible "advanced parry" effect.

Poison though has always played oddly with hit points. It's a good counter-example to the otherwise abstract feel they have in other situations. With poison effects a hit is a hit, and has definitely drawn blood . . .

UngeheuerLich · Sep 20, 2012

slobo777 said:
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 ?

actually it seems reasonable as it is right now. How will you deflect fireball with a blade?