Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 90876" data-attributes="member: 3146">Shades of 2eThis 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.</blockquote>

Verification