What represents parrying in core D&D?

[Thanee]

Well, you could always snatch the parry mechanics from NWN, if you were looking for a parry house rule.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Celtavian]

Would it work to introduce an "active parry" - an opposed roll similar to the Disarm check (so it would be modified for size)? When an attack would hit you, you make an opposed attack roll and use your modified roll as your AC. Would this be a readied action, a free action (as a high-level feat), or some other type of action?

We modeled our house ruled parry on disarm. The maximum size weapon you can parry is one size category larger than your weapon using our house rule. The new weapon size rules actually work well within the framework of this house rule. It also balances out using a 2 handed weapon against a one handed weapon making it more difficult to parry large weapons. Modeling a house rule parry off disarm works quite well.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ehm... before we get move to house rules forum... I was not looking for exatr rules to detail parrying, I was just wondering how to explain parrying within core D&D, there should be one or more ways since parrying is quite as common as dodging.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unfortunately in DnD, non-spellcasters get most of their AC from equipment - Dex boosting items, full plate, magic bonuses on the full plate, etc. There's no place for parrying. Unfortunately, this also means means you never learn how to parry or dodge effectively. (Woot! +1 AC from Two-Weapon Defense.)

D20 Modern does this so much more effectively, IMO. Even so, there are no rules for a difference between armed and unarmed parrying.

My suggestion is to inflict a -4 penalty on AC when opponents don't threaten an area.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

IMHO, that way of thinking is partially right, but partially wrong.

If all the melee attacks are something you can reasonably parry with your weapon and strength, the difference between armed defender and unarmed defender may be in considerable level. So, in games which mainly handles melee between human sized combatants, we see such rules to clearly represent "weapon parry".

But this is D&D, and the combat rule is covering a bite from tiny kitten to a tail slap of 70 foot Tarrasque. So, it is not so "realistic" to assume that a man with a sword can parry melee attacks and a man without can't. So, in D&D, all the combatants are just assumed to be parrying, dodging, or otherwise trying to defend himself actively all the time.

Also, this is a very fictional, heroic, fantasy game. So monks or unarmed heros may actually parry a tail slap of 70 foot Tarrasque

If we care about realism, I am better off with something in my off hand to parry with when a Dire Lion tries to bite me, whether that item is a shield, a dagger, a cloak, a chair, or a lit torch. The size and power of the Dire Lion is already accounted for by its HD and Str scores. Do you subtract the shield bonus because that Purple Worm is really, really big and it is trying to swallow me whole? No. It is exactly the same thing.

In the hands of a trained soldier a shield is a weapon and most of the benefit is gained from actively parrying with it. The only difference is a shield is optimized for defense and not offense. Professional soldiers always prefer to fight with some kind of weapon in off hand.

IMHO a reasonably realistic active parrying system would break the D&D level scaling and so I am satisfied to do without. For that kind of thing I would suggest looking at a system like Pendragon, GURPS, Harn, or Chivalry & Sorcery.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Although I have actually enforced these lines before I thought they were a leftover from previous AD&D when a round was 1 minute IIRC... in any case the explanation works with melee attacks but not ranged :\ .

Right. Which explains why you threaten with a melee weapon but not a ranged weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Ehm... before we get move to house rules forum... I was not looking for exatr rules to detail parrying, I was just wondering how to explain parrying within core D&D, there should be one or more ways since parrying is quite as common as dodging.

Well, many (including myself ) have detailed how parrying is always going on in the abstract exchange of blows that D&D assumes melee combatants are engaged in. Also, when I describe a monster/NPC's miss against a PC, I will include parrying in the various descriptions I use. For instance, the NPC fighter attacks the PC fighter, but I don't hit his AC. Sometimes I'll describe the blow as being taken on the fighter's shield. Sometimes I'll describe the fighter as having jumped aside and dodged the blow. Sometimes I'll describe the fighter catching the NPC's sword on his own and turning it aside.

 

[Aelryinth]

Parrying?

AC 10.

If two normal people with no modifiers start swinging at one another, they miss half the time.

Why? they are dodging and parrying. Simple, no? if they were AC 0 naturally, you'd have to come up with some modifier name for those ten points of AC. Dodging and Parrying seems a nice way to justify it.

Yes, I know Rocks can't dodge and parry, but they DO get that dex penalty and a lot of hardness. And just because your AC is 5 doesn't mean the other person is going to be able to land a decent blow all the time, anyways!

==Aelryinth

 

[Shin Okada]

Well, D&D is using abstract system. And tend to ignore small "real world" advantages. Because the fight between a PC and a monster often look like this.

So IMHO, we should better assume that PCs are actively defending himself in whichever method appropriate to each situations. DM may just say "Ok Jack has dodged the blow" or "Dennie has parried the axe swing" when an attack is fail.

 

[Destil]

There's a +4 bonus to attacking someone who's unarmed. This is part of basic parrying, as I see it. The rules asume you're defending yourself with a weapon and if you don't there's a bonus to hit you. I don't allow it to be used when someone's using a ranged weapon, myself, though I haven't really checked the rules to see it that's how it should be run.

Fight defensive, total defense and expertiese are all part of this too, of course. I think part of the issue is that parrying is not an 'exclusive' defense. You say expertiese is part parrying, part dodging, but when the two are very interconnected as I see it. Bat their sword to the left, move right, all in one fluid motion.

Works for me, at least.