Seafarer's Handbook Parry: Balanced?

[MonkeyBoy]

Re: Re: ...

I think you might have meant Total Defense. Fighting defensively you are still fighting and able to attack.

The flat-footed part and Dex Bonus should only be either or. In other words rogues with evasion can be flat-footed but still retain their Dex Bonus. A character with combat reflexes can still make AoO's even when flat-footed. I say this feat should be the same.

Total Defence; quite right - I actually wondered for a whole minute which term was which, then gave in assuming the right one would filter out

Flat-Footed / No Dex Bonus; Well you have to sacrifice attacks you could have made, on your action - so you can't do it while flat footed by default (i.e. strike my redundant words!)

The no-dex bonus should stand; just like dodge. It reflects the fact that you need to be able to react to attacks to use this.

The Rogue ability you refer to is actually the Uncanny Dodge (evasion is an improved save technology), but again this meshes well with the "not when denied dex bonus" clause - just like dodge, if you don't lose the dex bonus away you go...
So its both, but only one actually needs stating. I think turning attacks into parries while flat footed would open cans of worms; retroactively losing attacks? how many? what if you DON'T attack? eurgh

Compare it to the fact that combat reflexes won't let you set up total defence or expertise before your first action either...

 

[D'karr]

Improved save technology. I like that one. Uncanny dodge it is.

Since you have to give up your attacks it doesn't apply to flat-footed (redundant as you said).

The original feat makes no mention about losing your dex bonus but since you can't use expertise (a pre-req) if you are denied your Dex Bonus then you can't use this one either. No need to spell it out in the feat since losing a pre-req automatically disallows using the feat.

 

[SpikeyFreak]

losing a pre-req automatically disallows using the feat.

So if I can't use cleave because no one is close enough I can't use great cleave?

If I can't use point blank shot because someone is 40 feet away then I can't use precise shot?

--Skeptical Spikey

 

[IceBear]

So if I can't use cleave because no one is close enough I can't use great cleave?

Hmmmmm....when can you great cleave someone who was too far away to cleave?

IceBear

 

[D'karr]

Losing the ability to use the feat... Sheesh, does everything need to be spelled out.

In both your examples there is nothing actually making you lose the ability.

In the case here, if you are denied your Dex Bonus you lose dodge bonuses. Expertise is a dodge bonus. If you can't use expertise, you can't use Parry.

From the SRD:
Note: A condition that makes the character lose his or her Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes the character lose dodge bonuses.

Expertise [General]
Prerequisite: Int 13+.
Benefit: When the character uses the attack action or full attack action in melee, the character can take a penalty of as much as -5 on the character's attack and add the same number (up to +5) to the character's Armor Class. This number may not exceed the character's base attack bonus. The changes to attack rolls and Armor Class last until the character's next action. The bonus to the character's Armor Class is a dodge bonus.
Normal: A character not capable of the Expertise feat can fight defensively while using the attack or full attack action to take a -4 penalty on attacks and gain a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Shades of 2e

This rule is almost exactly like the parrying rule from the 2e complete everything handbook era.

While that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad rule (after all, fireball is almost exactly like fireball from 2e, etc) it does mean that experience with how the 2e rule functioned are relevant to some extent.

What happened with the 2e rule:
1. It made shields completely irrelevant and further added to the supremeness of 2wp fighting and/or bladesong style. The extra armor class from a shield was usually far less effective at blocking blows than the opposed attack roll granted by the parry.

Effects in 3e: 2wp fighting would gain in power (or, assuming that shields gave some bonus to the parry role (as they should since that's what they're for), 2wp fighting would be the most effective way to use shields.

Also, this will further exacerbate the difference between levels where BAB grants extra attacks. A 6th level fighter can easily dedicate his prime attack to parrying and use his secondary attack to clean up a 5th level fighter who will be unlikely to do any damage to him. The 5th level fighter won't be able to reciprocate (unless he is hasted, has a weapon of speed, or two weapon fighting, etc.) since that would eliminate all of his offensive capability. Without the feat, there is a big difference between fighters who have multiple attacks and ones who don't but not that big of a difference.

Also note that this is far superior to the 2e version. The 2e version had to be declared before it was known whether or not the attack hit. This version only comes into play when the attack hits.

2. In 2e, this added to the rules confusion. There were three or four versions of parrying and fighting defensively. For instance, you could parry (PHB version +2 to AC or something in return for no attacks), parry (handbook version--opposed attack roll to negate attack), use bladesong (to parry or to increase armor class), etc.

3e effect: This will also contribute to rules confusion: Right now, almost every mechanic that represents improved defense (running vs. missile fire, cover, dodge feat, expertise (which I always read as being good at parrying), fighting defensively, and total defense) is translated into an armor class bonus. Mounted combat is just about the only exception. This parry feat introduces a new (and, power gaming-wise far superior) way to defend.

3. In 2e, this largely made armor class irrelevant. What mattered was how good your THACO was (and how powerful your weapon was) not what armor you wore.

3e effect. This would further exaggerate the superiority of offense to defense in 3e. A raging barbarian wearing insignificant armor but wielding a highly magical greataxe and with this feat would end up harder to hit (for mid to high level foes like bullettes, annis hags, Achierai, trolls, etc.) than a warrior in full-plate with shield, a good dexterity, etc. Granted, more enemies have multiple attacks in 3e than had them in 2e but I think that armor should be the way to avoid getting hit--not weapon focus and magic weapons (defending weapons excepted).

I don't think that these changes would be positive developments. It doesn't make sense logically (what's everyone else doing--not blocking any blows; what does expertise represent if not this; and if there is a mechanic for this, people who use shields (defensively--not 2wp-fighting) should get it because that's what they're for). Furthermore, it introduces a new and inconsistent mechanic into the game. Consequently, I can't see myself allowing this feat.

 

[IceBear]

Which is the same reasoning I used to my player who wants to have parrying in his game (thanks for backing me up ). But, he's stubborn, so I'm looking at this feat as a possibility but it doesn't seem likely.

IceBear

 

[BlindKobold]

Re: Shades of 2e

Effects in 3e: 2wp fighting would gain in power (or, assuming that shields gave some bonus to the parry role (as they should since that's what they're for), 2wp fighting would be the most effective way to use shields.

Yes... 2 weapon fighting would actually be superior (sorta) to 2-handed fighting... after only 4 feats... 2-weapon fighting, ambidexterity, expertise & parry. I don't think that it is unbalanced to expect 4 feats to make something better.

Also, this will further exacerbate the difference between levels where BAB grants extra attacks. A 6th level fighter can easily dedicate his prime attack to parrying and use his secondary attack to clean up a 5th level fighter who will be unlikely to do any damage to him.

Hmmm... how do you figure? His iterative attack is only at +1. If the person has a decent AC, his +1 attack isn't going to be hitting often. Especially if the other person has expertise.

The 5th level fighter won't be able to reciprocate (unless he is hasted, has a weapon of speed, or two weapon fighting, etc.) since that would eliminate all of his offensive capability. Without the feat, there is a big difference between fighters who have multiple attacks and ones who don't but not that big of a difference.

There IS a big difference between fighters WITH multiple attacks and fighters without. END OF STORY. This feat doesn't make that difference significantly out of balance.

Also note that this is far superior to the 2e version. The 2e version had to be declared before it was known whether or not the attack hit. This version only comes into play when the attack hits.

Not sure how you read the feat, but I read that you must give up an attack. I'm guessing this is similiar to expertise where on your turn you give up and attack. ESPECIALLY since the feat says that any attacks dedicated to parry that aren't used are LOST.

3e effect: This will also contribute to rules confusion: Right now, almost every mechanic that represents improved defense (running vs. missile fire, cover, dodge feat, expertise (which I always read as being good at parrying), fighting defensively, and total defense) is translated into an armor class bonus.

NOPE. Look at the rogue feats. They can get out of the way of a killing blow using a REFLEX save. Several prestige classes have the same or similiar abilities (Bandit of the Crimson Road, etc.).

Mounted combat is just about the only exception. This parry feat introduces a new (and, power gaming-wise far superior) way to defend.

At a HUGE cost. The odds are ALWAYS in favor of the attacker since the defender can not defend indefinately... eventually the attacker will get thru and he will loose hit points. All things being equal...unless he is expecting backup... the defender will eventually loose to the attacker.

3e effect. This would further exaggerate the superiority of offense to defense in 3e. A raging barbarian wearing insignificant armor but wielding a highly magical greataxe and with this feat would end up harder to hit (for mid to high level foes like bullettes, annis hags, Achierai, trolls, etc.) than a warrior in full-plate with shield, a good dexterity, etc. Granted, more enemies have multiple attacks in 3e than had them in 2e but I think that armor should be the way to avoid getting hit--not weapon focus and magic weapons (defending weapons excepted).

As you pointed out. More attackers are going to have multiple attacks. And a raging barbarian may be pretty good at defending... but against multiple opponents... again... odds are in the favor of the attacker. The best strategy with that type of bab is to focus on one opponent until he drops, then move to the next one. And a tribe of kobolds are going to make mince-meat of the barbarian, since can only parry a few attacks. And unlike an AC bonus... Parrying doesn't help against missile attacks.

I don't think that these changes would be positive developments.

I disagree. I see it as a boon in some situations and useless in others.... much like all feats.

It doesn't make sense logically (what's everyone else doing--not blocking any blows; what does expertise represent if not this;

Your logic doesn't stand. What are other people doing? Fighting defensively...sure... there are several rules for it... fighting defensely, full defense, expertise, dodge. Sure... they are all "parrying" or hopping out of the way or in other ways getting themselves out of harms way. However... much like Great Cleave vs. Cleave.... Improved Disarm vs. Disarm... etc... feats give you a BETTER way to do things. Yes... expertise is "parrying".... and is a superior version of fighting defensively... AND since Expertise is a prerequisite, it suggests that PARRY is a more advanced version and can do things the other feat/styles can't.

and if there is a mechanic for this, people who use shields (defensively--not 2wp-fighting) should get it because that's what they're for).

Can't argue with this. Someone with two-weapon fighting/shield expert could be VERY effective with this.

Furthermore, it introduces a new and inconsistent mechanic into the game.

It is a different way of doing things... but WotC introduce new ways of doing things all of the time. Just look at some of the latest psion feats or some of the prestige class abilities..... DIFFERENT isn't always BAD.

Consequently, I can't see myself allowing this feat.

That's your choice... but consider that it really isn't as bad as you may think. Best thing is to playtest it and see if it breaks.

 

[Galfridus]

I'm not a 2nd Edition person, so I had no idea something like this was in 2nd Edition. I'd be curious to hear more from people who have seen this type of rule in play.

My concern is that a two-weapon fighter can use this feat to negate the few attacks that make it through, while still having an attack of their own. The fact that you only roll a parry after the attack hits makes it much more useful. If you are fighting a large group of low-level thugs, for example, only a few are going to hit you anyway. If you can parry that one, you become much harder to hit.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

When I played 2nd edition in a high level campaign, I was playing an elven fighter/wizard (elven battlemage kit or something like that that gave me an additional +1 to hit with a longsword) with the bladesong fighting style and weapon specialization. Like most such characters, I had a good strength (thanks to lots of magic), and a nifty magic sword. IIRC, I normally had a 5/2 attack rate and used the bladesong ability to give me one free parry per round. I'd usually devote one of my normal attacks to a parry as well. This worked out quite well because most of the time, I only had 2 or three attacks on me per round. I'd parry two of them and then attack with my remaining attack (or two remaining attacks every other round). It was next to impossible for the tough enemies (in 2e, you had to choose to parry an attack before you knew if it hit so I always picked the attacks that were big, damaging, and likely to hit) to hit the character because of the parrying and the scrubs couldn't hit his armor class anyway.

I'm not a 2nd Edition person, so I had no idea something like this was in 2nd Edition. I'd be curious to hear more from people who have seen this type of rule in play.

My concern is that a two-weapon fighter can use this feat to negate the few attacks that make it through, while still having an attack of their own. The fact that you only roll a parry after the attack hits makes it much more useful. If you are fighting a large group of low-level thugs, for example, only a few are going to hit you anyway. If you can parry that one, you become much harder to hit.