Parrying Feats from Dragon Magazine

[Hypersmurf]

So what?

An Aranea casts spells as a 3rd level sorcerer.

"So can it summon a familiar?"

No.

"But it says 'as a sorcerer', and sorcerers can summon familiars!"

It casts spells as a sorcerer.

-----

TWF penalties for double weapons are calculated as if the off-hand weapon is light.

"So do I get a parry bonus?"

No.

"But it says 'the off-hand weapon is light', and light weapons get a parry bonus!"

... see where I'm going?

-Hyp.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Parrying with a shield?

It's a shield. It's used to block attacks. Allowing someone to use the parry feats with a shield is just wrong. It's already a defensive device.

anyway, I think parrying has a connotation of using a weapon to block an attack. A shield is a defensive item you use instead of parrying with your weapon.

Sorry this isn't very coherent, but I just think the whole idea of parrying with a shield is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Apok]

I would make Parry a combat option, you may use one of your attacks to parry a melee attack made against your character, declaring it in your turn and making it ready... of course that attacking AND readyng a parry would make it full attack...

it would be raised a litle later, making a feat: Improved Parry, that would allow you to use an AoO in place of the common attack, freeing you from the ful attack, but giving the check a penalty... about -2 for the first parry, with cumulative -2 for each following attempt.

I don't really like that at all.

The reason why I liked the Parry system from Dragon was because it didn't force you to use iterative attacks as opposed attack rolls. Sure, it's a way to go, but it's very messy and complicated. The Parry rules from Dragon are simple, streamlined and make use of an existing mechanic (the AoO) which is suited for the purpouse. No complications and quite balanced.

I also like them because they make a finesse fighter (read; no armor or shield "fencer" type) viable at all levels of play.

Regarding AoO's and Combat Relfexes...

I use the common rule "One AoO per Instance." So, if someone provoke's an AoO you may make one AoO against them. If they provoke 5 AoO's in one round, you get 5 AoO's against them (provided you have Combat Relfexes & a Dex of 20+). In the case of the Expert Parry feat, I wouldn't apply this particular limitation. True, you "spend" an AoO to parry but you can parry as many attacks as you have AoO's regardless of who is delivering these attacks.

Yeah, that's pretty powerful but it's a feat-heavy chain (especially if you require the Parry feat to even attempt the basic parry). Only a Fighter specializing in finesse-style swordplay is going to reap the big benefits, which is as it should be. For any class other than a Fighter, it's going to eat up all their feats to 20th level.

 

[Dakhran the Dark]

I don't see anything wrong with a shield parry, it was actually one of the options in the old Complete Fighters, IIRC.

I guess what it boils down to is whether you use the shield as a passive defense (and thus get the armor bonus), or as an active defense (which should then negate the armor bonus, but allow your full number of parries, with a possible bonus to the parry roll depending on shield size). I could see allowing both in my game, and having a character choose which to use.

I've actually seen a decent homebrew system where shields were treated as a free active parry for anyone with proficiency in shields. Granted, armor was treated as DR in this system, so the shield parry was the only real effective way to implement shields in the rules. But, if I decide to implement the parry system from Dragon into my 3E, I'd definitely want to add in shield parries as well. Although to be honest, I'm already verging on an overload of house rules as it is...

 

[Simulacrum]

Only one AoO per round per enemy at MAX. Thats what it was actually meant...sorry to break your munchkin fantasys.

 

[IceBear]

Well, that rule has actually been interpreted differently by - I believe - Sean and Monte, but that's neither here nor there. I personally use one AoO per opportunity, because isn't it silly that once you take an AoO against one opponent, he could drop his pants and moon you but you can't do anything, BUT, if someone else does it you can smack him? Anyway, again, that's neither here nor there.

These parrying feats aren't letting you take an AoO to parry (in which case you could be right) it's letting you parry at the COST of an AoO.

IceBear

 

[Ran]

[

The Parry rules from Dragon are simple, streamlined and make use of an existing mechanic (the AoO) which is suited for the purpouse. No complications and quite balanced.

Well, I do have a single problem here, I don't have Dragon, and here in brazil we don't get it for any reasonable price, what number is it, maybe I will try to get it

 

[Alariel]

It's issue 301.

*can't wait to DM the party against a marilith with the Parry tree*

 

[Apok]

I personally use one AoO per opportunity, because isn't it silly that once you take an AoO against one opponent, he could drop his pants and moon you but you can't do anything...

Well, if you don't have the Combat Reflexes feat, an enemy could do just that. Normally you only get 1 AoO per round. However, with CR, I totally agree with your assessment.

 

[IceBear]

Well, if you don't have the Combat Reflexes feat, an enemy could do just that. Normally you only get 1 AoO per round.

Yeah, that's a given. Sorry, should have been clearer.

IceBear