Community

GeneralHenry wrote:

which gets us back to square one.

Making your player's character work.

Which is where this all started. He asked me, "Why can't I block an opponent's attack with my own weapon?" And we thought about it...yes, a bonus to AC could work in a more mechanical fashion, but the idea of a parry is using your skill with a weapon against your opponent. So we decided that it should be an opposing check. Then the TWF question came up and muddied the waters, so we added the crit ability to counter with your off-hand weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate all of the comments and such - but it seems a lot of it boils down to (1) opposing rolls are always bad; (2) counter-attacks are bad; or (3) parrying isn't important. I don't see a lot of real mechanical problems with the ability itself.

The only real critique I think I've seen so far was in the comparison with AC where it looks like this ability only helps 40% of the time...which I think isn't unreasonable, given the PC is making a choice to substitute his skill for his AC. And again, this can be worked through by polishing in play-testing the ability.

Most importantly, I'm trying to give a PC an ability that they want, to make the game more fun for them while not making them a munchkin uber-beastie.

So we decided that it should be an opposing check.

take his +hit add ten and use it as a defense. It's the same effect.

(1) opposing rolls are always bad

true, role v defense is much better

(2) counter-attacks are bad

Are the realm of powers

(3) parrying isn't important

is presumed to be built in.

Most importantly, I'm trying to give a PC an ability that they want, to make the game more fun for them while not making them a munchkin uber-beastie.

I understand that. I just think you're headed down the wrong path.

GeneralHenry wrote:

take his +hit add ten and use it as a defense. It's the same effect.

Disagree - it's a "skill" check and should be a variable, not a set amount. You're swinging your sword/axe/hammer at a moving object - that's not an automatic effect, in my mind.

true, role v defense is much better

And that's still the general rule - I'm not implementing an overall parry feature in combat - now that would be insane.

Are the realm of powers

Which is what I had originally proposed this as.

is presumed to be built in.

Maybe, maybe not - there's no STR bonus to AC for fighters, at least that I'm aware of.

I understand that. I just think you're headed down the wrong path.

And as much of a snark as I might be, I do appreciate the feedback. But I was hoping for more mechanical criticisms about the power than immediate attacks on the fundamental concept.

variable, not a set amount

The attack roll makes it variable enough. Mechanic wise, the opposed roll is just shy of meaning less.

immediate attacks on the fundamental concept.

You can't build without a solid foundation.

True, but at the same time, if you don't agree with the foundation, then why spend time criticizing the idea?

reread my first couple posts.

I didn't spend time criticizing. I side stepped it to get to the core issue.

Making the character work.



I don't think parry makes the character work.


A) build him as a paladin/ranger and accept that it's suboptimal.
--not great, but it does work
B) rebuild him as some thing close that's more optimal
--fighter/ranger is a fair bit better