Please rate Off-Hand Parry

[Ysgarran]

I agree with the other posters. There is nothing this feat does that Expertise doesn't do, and Expertise does several other things. If it didn't apply the -2 to your primary attacks, then it would get all the way up to 'marginally useless'. As written I couldn't see any reason to take it over expertise, unless you have a two weapon fighter that wants to boost his AC and doesn't have Int 13.

Question: since you are actively using both your off-hand weapon and shield do all of the said magic bonuses to add in with the off-hand parry feat?

For example: A two-weapon fighter with
+2 Long Sword
+3 defender short sword
+2 Light Fortification buckler.

Would a fighter who had 'Off-hand Parry' be able to add the effects of the defender short sword and the +2 light fortication buckler affects in to his defense? A fighter with just expertise could not.

thanks,
Ysgarran.
________
http://www.storymania.com/cgibin/sm2/smshowtitlebox.cgi?category=novels&page=1&title=JohnnyReb

 

[Al]

I beg to differ.

Firstly, the point about fighting with two weapons is open to interpretation. It merely states 'when fighting with two weapons'. This does not necessarily mean that you take the -2 to attacks. The PHB states 'if you wield a second weapon...you can get one extra attack...you suffer' etc. It could be construed therefore that the penalty *only* applies when you actually attack with the off-hand weapon.

Secondly, I turn to the question of using a shield. You fail to grasp two issues: firstly, since it stacks with using a buckler, it is possible to attain a better AC with this feat than the ordinary sword-and-shield user. There is also the issue of flexibility. A sword-and-shield user finds it very difficult to change his style from defensive to offensive: he can drop the shield and wield the weapon two-handed, though this is cumbersome. The Off-Hand Parry two-weapon fighter has great flexibility in choosing between offense (two weapons) and defense (Off-Hand Parry). That is why this feat is useful.

 

[Zaruthustran]

It's useless. A twf fighter who wants +2 to AC should just wear a shield and spiked armor. There you go: you get your extra attack and you get your +2 to AC.

The above tactic is superior to the "off-hand + buckler" tactic because you can enchant your shield for even more AC, your shield AC applies even when you're flat-footed, your shield AC works against missile attacks, you get your two attacks a round, and you can enchant your spikes for more damage. And you don't need to spend a feat.

-z

 

[Archer]

As written the feat is useless. That is the overwhelming opinion.

If by simply holding a weapon in your off hand that you aren't using to attack, whether or not you are attacking, granted a +2 AC bonus then this feat would be reasonable as it turns a dagger into a lg shield equivalent for those people without shield proficiency. Somewhat of a wasted feat but better effect than dodge which compensates for being a dead-end feat with 2 pre-reqs.

If you want mega bonuses to defense then take improved expertise and throw your entire BAB into AC and fight defensively with tumble for a net -4 BAB and BAB +3 AC bonus. You will hit nothing but nothing will hit you.

I don't see how someone could vote 9 for this feat.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Al,

While I agree that a "tunable" offense/defense using TWF and (probably) a buckler is a good style, this feat just gives a very slim and limited advantage.

If I want a good defensive feat, Expertise is the way to go. Or, better still, just take a couple shield feats and attack AND defend with a spiked shield while dishing out bashes (free Bull Rushes) too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How does it grant a dodge bonus? Shouldn't it work almost exactly the same as Twin Sword Style?

 

[Silveraxe]

it's useful for some.

Off Hand Parry is NOT Expertise, because it stacks nicely with Expertise ... and Fighting Defensively ... and Ellaborate Parry from the Duelist and lots of other Dodge bonuses.

My Rgr/Ftr/Brd/Duelist loves Off Hand Parry because he also gets Canny Defense (Int bonus to AC) when not wearing any armor, so shields are off for him. Turning a dagger into a large shield can be useful.
This guy is the frontline fighter of the party because his AC is high in the thirties and way over 40 if he just doesn't want to get hit.
Dressed in a silk tunic.

Keep in mind that the feat doesn't say how many off hand attacks you need to sacrifice. It just says "all." So Off Hand Parry and ITWF are almost mutually exclusive.

Also, roleplaying situations: if you have to defend the prince at a palace fe'te, it may be difficult to blend in if you're carrying large spiked shields, but a dainty dagger is either acceptable or concealable.

Silveraxe.

 

[Darklone]

Could someone post Twin Sword Style here again for comparison? I mean, what was the difference between the two feats?

And yes, I think this feat is useless!

 

[MThibault]

Al,
Or, better still, just take a couple shield feats and attack AND defend with a spiked shield while dishing out bashes (free Bull Rushes) too.

I don't buy this line of argument, and it seems to keep cropping up. Obviously no one should vote #10, but saying, "if you want to fight with two weapons and have a decent AC use a shield". Is sort of beside the point. Obviously if you want to use a shield you would be using a shield in the first place.

This feat is useless for any character who wants to use a sheild, or any character who only wants to use one weapon. But I contend that it is very useful to those who fight with two weapons.

The "use a shield" argument is akin to saying that Iron Will is completely useless because you could be a cleric instead.

Maybe I don't have the proper perspective, but I don't think that a feat has to be very useful to everyone in order to be very useful.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Darklone]

Could someone tell those two shield fighters please that two shield boni to AC don't stack?

*sigh*