Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 8491628" data-attributes="member: 5889">I talked about a first order interpretation, what would be a second-order one for context?Page 402 gives us rules for &quot;ability checks that are not rolls&quot; 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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 8491628, member: 5889"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification