Level Up (A5E) Parrying Weapons & Duelist subclass.

Personally I'm not going to allow the parry property to stack with two weapons because I think it's over-powered compared to other weapon properties. (I haven't worried about the Duelist yet.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Doskious

Explorer
By the same argument, you can't apply expertise dice to AC at all because AC isn't a rolled value. Only "an attack roll or saving throw, or in a specific skill or tool proficiency" gets an expertise die.

However, due to the specific rule for parrying weapons we can add an expertise die to AC. The specific rule doesn't mention the stacking rule, so the general rule for stacking should still apply.
Well, generally, yes, you can't apply expertise dice to AC, as AC isn't a rolled value, and expertise dice are only generally described as applying, and stacking, to rolled values.

Specific overrides general, though, and the Parrying property, the Duelist Parry and Thrust and Elusive features, and the Parrying Counter combat maneuver specifically say you can, which means ... that you can.

The scaling mechanic, rules-as-written, however, still only applies to rolls, no matter how you slice it, and none of the features include verbiage to indicate otherwise. Indeed, the Elusive feature actually explicitly calls out that whenever you use your reaction to Parry an attack using a Parrying weapon (something that is possible to do under RAW only when using a Finesse -- and therefore, in the hands of a 15th level Duelist, a Parrying -- weapon in conjunction with the Parrying Counter combat maneuver), the expertise die to your AC increases by one stage.

If, as you've presented it, the general rule for stacking applied, why would Elusive need to call out the feature in that way, rather than simply stating that you gain an expertise die the way that everything else that grants expertise does?

To be clear: I'm nearly certain that the RAW interpretation I'm presenting as the logical construction of the actual rules text we have was not the intent of the authors. I do hope that, if that's the case, the whole collection of abilities gets flagged as errata and addressed.
 

Stalker0

Legend
The scaling mechanic, rules-as-written, however, still only applies to rolls, no matter how you slice it, and none of the features include verbiage to indicate otherwise.
Oh we can slice this a few ways ;)

Pg 11 of the AG "
When you make a d20 roll with which you have gained an expertise die, roll 1d4 and add the number rolled to the result of your check." I will also note that all rules regarding stacking expertise dice are found in this section of the book, meaning that they are all collected together to explain the function of expertise dice.

The specifics of parrying allow us to gain an expertise die to our AC. However, that does not actually tell us how to use that expertise die with a non-rolled value.

By the absolute strictest interpretation of RAW, gaining an expertise die to my AC still does nothing, because no D20 roll has occurred, and so there is no trigger for me to roll a 1d4 and add it to my AC. General design principles suggest that any ability specifically given that has absolutely no game impact is in error....and the strictest RAW fails that test.

We then take it one step out with a first order interpretation. We apply the normal rules of expertise dice....but now apply them to a static value (in this case, AC). However, now that we have opened the door of normal expertise usage, the closest to RAW would be to use ALL normal rules (aka you can't start cherrypicking which section of the expertise die section you would like to use). Again looking at the section that explain how to use expertise die, also includes the section that explains what to do if you have multiple expertise die. Both must be followed to remain within normal rules. Therefore, stacking of expertise die on AC is the closest to RAW we can manage.


In summary: I am forced to make a non-RAW interpretation of the parrying ability in order to make it work at all. The least interpretation is to use the normal rules for expertise dice and apply it to the non-rolled thing that the ability specified (in this case AC). So I am now using normal expertise dice rules, and therefore....the closest to RAW would be to use ALL normal rules for expertise dice, which includes stacking.
 
Last edited:

Stalker0

Legend
I talked about a first order interpretation, what would be a second-order one for context?

Page 402 gives us rules for "ability checks that are not rolls" aka Passive Checks like Passive Perception. Pg 19 tells us what Armor Class means. Unfortunately, it doesn't mention it's an ability check of any kind. However, it does say unarmored AC is 10 + dexterity. This is very similar to what a passive dexterity check would look like.

As a 2nd order interpretation, we could argue that AC = passive dexterity check (its 2nd order because nothing in the rules tells us this is true, but the mechanic of one thing appears near equal to the mechanic of another, so we assume an equivalency). And since we have rules on how to apply an expertise die to a passive ability check (d4 = +3), you could rule that parrying weapons just add +3 to your AC against a single attack.

If you go with this interpretation, there are no rules for stacking mentioned for passive checks and expertise die. The only specific value given is +3 for 1 die.... no value for 2 or 3 die is given. Therefore, using this interpretation, you should NOT stack parrying weapons together.... unless you have already allowed for multiple expertise die to apply to passive checks. If you do, then using the same method of multiple parrying weapons would be the most consistent way to play it.


Generally speaking, its best to use 1st order over 2nd order, as the further down the slope you get the more messy things get. Quick example, heavy armor has no dexterity component, just a single AC value. Does that now mean your AC is no longer a passive dexterity roll = no longer a passive check = no longer gains +3 from parrying. Aka parrying does not work with heavy armor. Its easy to start the slope of interpretations once you get into these grayer areas.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
Specific overrides general, though, and the Parrying property, the Duelist Parry and Thrust and Elusive features, and the Parrying Counter combat maneuver specifically say you can, which means ... that you can.

Specific only overrides general in the specific case it applies to.

  • General- Expertise die rules
    • You can apply an expertise die to rolled values.
    • An expertise die is one 1d4 applied to your d20 roll.
    • If you have more than one expertise die that applies to your roll, it upgrades the die type: 1d4-1d6-1d8.
  • Specific- Parrying Weapon
    • You can apply an expertise die to your AC.
The specific rule only overrides one part of the general rule. Nothing else.


If, as you've presented it, the general rule for stacking applied, why would Elusive need to call out the feature in that way, rather than simply stating that you gain an expertise die the way that everything else that grants expertise does?

The reason is that each thing that grants you an expertise die only gives you one. Using a parrying weapon only gives you a single expertise die to your AC. If you want another die, you need a second weapon (which I'm not 100% convinced is RAW, but I love it so much I don't care anymore).

Elusive doesn't grant an expertise die, it lets you roll your expertise die one size up than you normally could. A single weapon duelist is rolling a 1d6 for their AC for that parry not because they have multiple dice, but because they have a special rule saying they get a bigger die type.

I bet this is to future proof the ability so that it interacts with other possible ED to AC abilities. Normally you have a maximum of 1d8 for your ED. Elusive lets you get past the cap without increasing the cap in general. If you have somehow gained a1d8 to your AC for all the ED that apply, congrats, now you have a 1d10. If you had a 1d10 before, it is now 1d12.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
The rules on page 402 are for Passive Checks only and have specific cases in which they apply.
  1. The average result for a task done repeatedly or continuously, such as taking in the details of a room on first sight.
  2. When a character is under no pressure and can take as long as they need, such as opening a locked chest in a safe location during downtime.
  3. To determine a character’s knowledge or awareness (possibly in secret) without rolling dice, such as recalling a local culture’s legend or noticing an ambush.
AC sort of looks like a passive check if you just go by adding numbers without considering anything else. AC isn't a passive check because when a character is being attacked, they are under pressure and can't take as long as they need.

A passive check is closer to what 3.x called "taking ten" than it is to AC, even though AC also starts out at 10.
 

Stalker0

Legend
The rules on page 402 are for Passive Checks only and have specific cases in which they apply.
  1. The average result for a task done repeatedly or continuously, such as taking in the details of a room on first sight.
  2. When a character is under no pressure and can take as long as they need, such as opening a locked chest in a safe location during downtime.
  3. To determine a character’s knowledge or awareness (possibly in secret) without rolling dice, such as recalling a local culture’s legend or noticing an ambush.
AC sort of looks like a passive check if you just go by adding numbers without considering anything else. AC isn't a passive check because when a character is being attacked, they are under pressure and can't take as long as they need.

A passive check is closer to what 3.x called "taking ten" than it is to AC, even though AC also starts out at 10.
I agree, I was really just using that as a context for 1st order vs 2nd order interpretations, with the goal of showing that 2nd order tend to be "weaker" interpretations than 1st order.

I think the 1st order interpretation I outline in the post above that is the superior reading.
 


Doskious

Explorer
Oh we can slice this a few ways ;)

Pg 11 of the AG "
When you make a d20 roll with which you have gained an expertise die, roll 1d4 and add the number rolled to the result of your check." I will also note that all rules regarding stacking expertise dice are found in this section of the book, meaning that they are all collected together to explain the function of expertise dice.

The specifics of parrying allow us to gain an expertise die to our AC. However, that does not actually tell us how to use that expertise die with a non-rolled value.

By the absolute strictest interpretation of RAW, gaining an expertise die to my AC still does nothing, because no D20 roll has occurred, and so there is no trigger for me to roll a 1d4 and add it to my AC. General design principles suggest that any ability specifically given that has absolutely no game impact is in error....and the strictest RAW fails that test.

We then take it one step out with a first order interpretation. We apply the normal rules of expertise dice....but now apply them to a static value (in this case, AC). However, now that we have opened the door of normal expertise usage, the closest to RAW would be to use ALL normal rules (aka you can't start cherrypicking which section of the expertise die section you would like to use). Again looking at the section that explain how to use expertise die, also includes the section that explains what to do if you have multiple expertise die. Both must be followed to remain within normal rules. Therefore, stacking of expertise die on AC is the closest to RAW we can manage.


In summary: I am forced to make a non-RAW interpretation of the parrying ability in order to make it work at all. The least interpretation is to use the normal rules for expertise dice and apply it to the non-rolled thing that the ability specified (in this case AC). So I am now using normal expertise dice rules, and therefore....the closest to RAW would be to use ALL normal rules for expertise dice, which includes stacking.
I concede the point: the rules as written, under the strictest interpretation provide no identified meaning to the phrase "...you can gain an expertise die to your AC..."

Under the first order interpretation, though, it either still provides not identifiable meaning, or it doesn't address why the Elusive ability specifically calls out that the die increases by one stage. Assuming your first order interpretation, expertise dice stack: up to a d8 from having three sources that provide unspecified or d4 specified expertise dice to something, or from two sources one of which provides a d6 expertise die to something, or from one source that provides a d8 expertise die to something, or up to a d10 or a d12 in the event that abilities are employed that make use of specific caveats to the general cap at d8. Why, then, is Elusive phrased as explicitly scaling up the expertise die rather than as adding another (stacking) expertise die?

The only conclusion I came to was that the dice didn't stack in this context, but I agree that this conclusion not supported by RAW.

I do agree that descending beyond the first order interpretation is folly, though.

I should also note that my planned conclusion (posted on Morrus' discord in #homebrew) is to make all possible sourced of expertise dice stack and scale as applying a modifier to your AC when using any of these options, which makes it less impenetrable, but still potentially satisfying to add 8 to your AC against an attack.
 

Stalker0

Legend
it doesn't address why the Elusive ability specifically calls out that the die increases by one stage.
Technically, the "increase by one stage" language gives us 1 additional benefit over normal expertise die stacking..... the ability to go beyond 1d8.

Normal e die stacking caps at 1d8. However, increasing by 1 step allows us to go to 1d10, whereas just adding an extra expertise die would not. So now the test of that, is there a scenario where we can get 1d10 through elusive + expertise die to AC? So at base we have two parrying weapons + elusive = 1d8. Is there another source of "expertise die to AC" that exists in the rules currently?

There are a few, namely the parrying counter maneuver. Two parrying weapons + parrying counter + elusive is only 1d8 under the "its just an expertise die" interpretation, and 1d10 under the "it increases the expertise die, which ignores normal stacking limits". So there is a small but present niche.

This means the existence of Elusive in no way invalidates our interpretation of how parrying weapons stack.
 

It seems another possible reading could be that the "reaction" portion of the definition is specific to a parry that is followed by the use of an exertion point and the "thrust". This limits you to one thrust reaction, so even if you parry twice to get a thrust you must spend your reaction.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
In hindsight, it might be better to say improves rather than stacks, to match the text on page 11. An expertise die does not stack, it improves once per additional feature or trait that grants one to a normal maximum of 1d8.

However, I'd say I'd only count traits that immediately apply when you are totaling up what gives you a die. I think the issue there isn't one of improving or stacking, but one of timing, but it does get in the way of my interpretation of Parrying Counter.

Let's say my 15th level Duelist has an AC 12, just for the sake of it. Maybe they are having a bad day, I don't know.

  • At the end of my turn I'm wielding two parrying weapons, I use a reaction, spend one exertion and activate Parrying Counter (if a combat maneuver called Parrying Counter doesn't count as a parry, I'd riot. Politely.)
    • I get an expertise die from Parrying Counter and since that is a reaction to parry Elusive improves it to a d6. I roll that die right away and add it to my AC. I roll a three, nice and average. My AC against that creature only is now 15. This lasts until my next turn begins because the specific rule of Parrying Counter overrides the general rule of once per roll.
    • The creature hasn't actually attacked me yet, so the parrying weapons don't apply. Their abilities only trigger when there is an actual attack and the creature might not attack me.
  • At some point after my turn the creature actually attacks me! This is a completely different event than me activating Parrying Counter, so the number of traits that are granting me an expertise die starts out at zero.
    • Use the parrying weapon quality using one weapon- My AC against that attack is 15+d4 because I've already used up my reaction and I'm just using the weapon trait, so Elusive doesn't apply to this.
    • If I have two weapons and I'm using them both on one attack, my AC vs that attack will be 15+d6 instead. My reaction is still spent, Elusive doesn't apply.

Let's say that there was a different Maneuver, though. Let's call it "Cross Blade" and say it is a reaction to parry a specific attack with an expertise die and some other side effect riding it, it doesn't matter what. You can use any two weapons with it, but it doesn't specify that it needs parrying weapons. I'm using parrying weapons, though.

I activate Cross Blade and use both weapon properties. That is three things and a reaction at the same time. The expertise die is 1d8 for the three things and with the reaction Elusive bumps it up to 1d10.

If you are just activating parrying weapons I do think you can use a reaction and get Elusive even without special manuevers. The text of Elusive just also leaves it open to future maneuvers that might be published as well.
 

Doskious

Explorer
Technically, the "increase by one stage" language gives us 1 additional benefit over normal expertise die stacking..... the ability to go beyond 1d8.

Normal e die stacking caps at 1d8. However, increasing by 1 step allows us to go to 1d10, whereas just adding an extra expertise die would not. So now the test of that, is there a scenario where we can get 1d10 through elusive + expertise die to AC? So at base we have two parrying weapons + elusive = 1d8. Is there another source of "expertise die to AC" that exists in the rules currently?

There are a few, namely the parrying counter maneuver. Two parrying weapons + parrying counter + elusive is only 1d8 under the "its just an expertise die" interpretation, and 1d10 under the "it increases the expertise die, which ignores normal stacking limits". So there is a small but present niche.

This means the existence of Elusive in no way invalidates our interpretation of how parrying weapons stack.
I don't at all disagree with you, in fact, that's largely where I come out on this as well.

Honestly, regardless of intentions, I do plan to run the features as:
  • "Expertise dice", whenever and under whatever circumstances they are gained, will be interpreted as intended to be rolled and the results used to modify whatever value they were indicated as having been gained in relation to, unless being evaluated in the context of a passive interaction in which case the statistical average (rounded up) of the relevant expertise die (were it to be rolled) will be used as a modifier instead of a roll (but this interpretation for passive application does not apply to any Parrying capability, though, as all Parrying features are described as an action taken by the character parrying: an active undertaking to obtain a situational increase to the normally relatively static value of AC, not a passive one).
  • "Expertise dice", whenever and under whatever circumstances they are gained, from multiple sources, that modify the same value in the context of applicability, shall increase the size of the largest granted expertise die by one step per other expertise die up to a normal ceiling of 1d8 (but with a hard ceiling of 1d12 able to be reached through the application of any specific abilities that either explicitly state that they bypass the normal 1d8 ceiling for expertise die growth, or that state that they increase the stage of the obtained expertise die rather than actually granting an expertise die, when such an ability logically triggers in a sufficiently late position in the order of operations and the associated resolution of effects).
Regrettably, as applied to the 15th level Duelist dual-wielding parrying weapons (any weapons with either the parrying or the finesse properties, in the hands of that character) in possession of the Parrying Counter combat maneuver, their ability to enhance their Armor Class under my above interpretations is capped at 1d8 of expertise, I believe.

Elusive, the ability that grants the "increase by one stage" feature, specifies that to gain the increased-stage to the expertise die, you must be using your reaction to parry an attack using a Parrying weapon. The only actual mechanism in the game, RAW, that comes close to approaching an ability to use your reaction to parry an attack (and therefore the only way in which anyone might be able to satisfy the requirement to do so "using a Parrying weapon") is through the use of Parrying Counter, which specifies that you point "your weapon at your foe to challenge them" and thereby gain an expertise die to your AC against any attacks made by that opponent until the start of your next turn.

Technically, under the strictest possible reading, there is no correlation mandated by the Parrying Counter maneuver between the use of the reaction and the use of your weapon (which must be a parrying weapon) to explicitly parry anything; the expertise die to your AC granted against that opponent is not in any way described as you using your weapon to deflect the attack (which is the definition of parrying). That said, the strictest reading of RAW would make Elusive unusable, so we can rely on the fact that the "Parrying" Counter maneuver grants a similar effect as the use of the Parrying property (in terms of the mechanical benefits) to conclude that this is the "use of a reaction to parry an attack" that could be executed while wielding a Parrying weapon, which would trigger Elusive.

Thus, the Elusive die increase happens in conjunction with you using your reaction to (enable you to) parry an attack with your weapon while that weapon is possessed of the Parrying property. However, having used your reaction to (enable you to) parry an attack, you are still wielding at least one weapon with the parrying property. It is not an action, simply an ability to be declared as used in the moment, to elect to add an expertise die to your AC using the Parrying property. This necessarily happens after the enemy has actually initiated their attack, and therefore necessarily after you have already used your reaction to set up your ability to parry with an expertise die (d4, from Parrying Counter) that has been increased by one stage (d6, from Elusive) -- recall, the reaction trigger that Parrying Counter is reacting to is "the end of your turn". At that point, under my interpretation, your election to employ the Parrying property, then, once the expertise die is already at a d6 potential, would bump it to a d8, using the interpretations I outlined above.

But the expertise die from the Parrying property is just that: an expertise die. It has no special caveats that allow it being added to another expertise die that would bypass the 1d8 ceiling. Therefore, the decision, if the Duelist is wielding two weapons both of which possess the Parrying property in their hands (or other manipulating membranes), to parry one attack with both weapons would waste the contribution of the expertise die from the second Parrying weapon, whereas using the second parrying weapon to parry a second attack would grant a d8 expertise die to AC against both parried attacks. (A different d8 to AC, though, as the d8 of expertise against the second attack is from a different source than the d8 of expertise against the first attack.)

(It is possible that my players will prevail upon me to adopt a houserule that rephrases Elusive as starting the relevant phrase with "while" rather than "when", which would provide a measure of discretion to the player as to the point at which the expertise die increase from Elusive is applied, in which case one would assume that a Duelist of at least 15th level wielding two parrying weapons who elected to set up a Parrying Counter and then parry their foe's first attack with both parrying weapons would also elect to apply the Elusive increase at the end to obtain a d10 expertise die.)

But that's just me.
 

Doskious

Explorer
In hindsight, it might be better to say improves rather than stacks, to match the text on page 11. An expertise die does not stack, it improves once per additional feature or trait that grants one to a normal maximum of 1d8.

However, I'd say I'd only count traits that immediately apply when you are totaling up what gives you a die. I think the issue there isn't one of improving or stacking, but one of timing, but it does get in the way of my interpretation of Parrying Counter.

Let's say my 15th level Duelist has an AC 12, just for the sake of it. Maybe they are having a bad day, I don't know.

  • At the end of my turn I'm wielding two parrying weapons, I use a reaction, spend one exertion and activate Parrying Counter (if a combat maneuver called Parrying Counter doesn't count as a parry, I'd riot. Politely.)
    • I get an expertise die from Parrying Counter and since that is a reaction to parry Elusive improves it to a d6. I roll that die right away and add it to my AC. I roll a three, nice and average. My AC against that creature only is now 15. This lasts until my next turn begins because the specific rule of Parrying Counter overrides the general rule of once per roll.
    • The creature hasn't actually attacked me yet, so the parrying weapons don't apply. Their abilities only trigger when there is an actual attack and the creature might not attack me.
  • At some point after my turn the creature actually attacks me! This is a completely different event than me activating Parrying Counter, so the number of traits that are granting me an expertise die starts out at zero.
    • Use the parrying weapon quality using one weapon- My AC against that attack is 15+d4 because I've already used up my reaction and I'm just using the weapon trait, so Elusive doesn't apply to this.
    • If I have two weapons and I'm using them both on one attack, my AC vs that attack will be 15+d6 instead. My reaction is still spent, Elusive doesn't apply.

Let's say that there was a different Maneuver, though. Let's call it "Cross Blade" and say it is a reaction to parry a specific attack with an expertise die and some other side effect riding it, it doesn't matter what. You can use any two weapons with it, but it doesn't specify that it needs parrying weapons. I'm using parrying weapons, though.

I activate Cross Blade and use both weapon properties. That is three things and a reaction at the same time. The expertise die is 1d8 for the three things and with the reaction Elusive bumps it up to 1d10.

If you are just activating parrying weapons I do think you can use a reaction and get Elusive even without special manuevers. The text of Elusive just also leaves it open to future maneuvers that might be published as well.

I get something different out of the RAW text of Elusive:
At 15th level, you can move effortlessly and untouched through any battlefield. Your move- ment out of a creature’s threatened area does not provoke opportunity attacks. In addition, whenever you use your reaction to parry an attack using a Parrying weapon the expertise die to your AC increases by one stage.
(emphasis mine)

To me, that says "you must use your reaction to parry an attack" and "you must parry an attack using a Parrying weapon".

As I indicated above, under the strictest reading of RAW, I don't think that's presently possible, since use of the Parrying property is not described as something that uses your reaction to do.

I don't have a terrible objection to an interpretation that you can use a reaction to get the benefits of Elusive, and I may adopt that interpretation also, though.
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
under the strictest reading of RAW

I think that is your problem right there. This isn't programming code. If you read between the lines a bit the book isn't going to crash.

The easiest way that doesn't just shut down a class feature entirely is to let Elusive work when you are a) using a reaction to parry and b) you are using a parrying weapon.

The question then becomes "Is there a good reason for Parrying Counter to not count as a parry?" I don't see one. A 15th level character shouldn't be cheated out of their specialty because the wording wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
 

Doskious

Explorer
I think that is your problem right there. This isn't programming code. If you read between the lines a bit the book isn't going to crash.

The easiest way that doesn't just shut down a class feature entirely is to let Elusive work when you are a) using a reaction to parry and b) you are using a parrying weapon.

The question then becomes "Is there a good reason for Parrying Counter to not count as a parry?" I don't see one. A 15th level character shouldn't be cheated out of their specialty because the wording wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
I don't disagree with you.

I'm on record in several places with the stated intent to run my games a particular way that is in largely line with your suggestions. :D

I don't need convincing, and I don't think that I have a problem that remains in need of a solution about this topic for my own personal purposes.

That said, I've played with enough different people to know that there are some, with whom I've enjoyed playing, for whom the hair-splitting interpretations of the rules is part of the fun. It is with those people in mind that I have continued to comment, because reading between the lines (while something I view as basically required for situations like these) is not an activity that is universally accepted, and this (the degree and manner in which a Narrator is planning to read between the lines) is one of the things that would be ideal to come up in a Session 0 discussion.

I would hope that Session 0 discussions would, some of them, draw on conversations like these to identify content in need of discussion, and that is why I replied (with a notable lack of exposition detailing my motives to be sure ;) ).
 

Stone Dog

Adventurer
I've been called a rules lawyer in the past and I object (ha) to the definition. A lawyer wants to win the case for their side. I don't want that. I want the game to go well for all players and avoid fouls and misdeeds, accidental or not.

I'm a REFEREE.
 

Stellardrifter

First Post
Hello all, coming through with a late bump. Mike Myler From the A5E Design team came through on the Discord with the answers!

Thank you all for taking the time to give it some thought and your answers.
 

Attachments

  • Parrying property.png
    Parrying property.png
    49.9 KB · Views: 76

Is anyone else concerned at all that being able parry twice is going to be better than using a shield unless you get attacked more than twice in a round? It seems to me, since a parrying weapon is also granting you an attack, that it should always be defensively inferior to a shield. (Yes, negating crits is good, but that shouldn’t be the only reason to use a medium shield.)
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Is anyone else concerned at all that being able parry twice is going to be better than using a shield unless you get attacked more than twice in a round? It seems to me, since a parrying weapon is also granting you an attack, that it should always be defensively inferior to a shield. (Yes, negating crits is good, but that shouldn’t be the only reason to use a medium shield.)
No I don't think it is a concern. I find players with a parry weapon are more likely toprrss the attack than those without
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top