Arelith

Hello everyone, looking for feedback and or thoughts on the matter of Parry. Wall-Of-Text time.

I'm having a bit of a struggle, mainly in regards to benefiting fully from parry's AC bonus due to it requiring a certain BAB. If I'm playing a build that cannot meet the BAB requirement at lvl 30, is or should there be any way to receive the full benefits from it?

From what I understand the main reason behind the BAB lock is so that mages can't run around with hilarious amounts of ac, with absolutely no penalty. But I have three arguments against this.

Now, I'm not saying that preventing that isn't important, because we don't want 75AC mages. But for example, a full 30 rogue build should benefit from the full parry bonus and yet doesn't. As it is, the build can only ever reach 20 BAB, meaning they only get a bit over half of the full bonus. The same applies to any build that cannot possibly reach 21BaB. I feel like parry was intended to help support builds like these before any others, but I could be mistaken. (Other great examples are 30 bard, 25bard/rogue 5Loremaster, 19Rogue 11SD, 20bard 10RDD, 20bard 10SD, etc.)

Which brings me to my first point; what builds does this high of a BAB requirement actually prevent? Temporarily ignoring all BAB requirements, if I have a 27wizard 3parry dip, the AC comes out to this: 10base + 4dex(being very generous) +20EMA +6tumble +6parry +4haste =50. 60 if they are silly and use Imp Exp. That's not beyond insane, but it's incredibly powerful once you recognize that it's nearly all non-interactable AC. However.. the same is possible with 3 less AC at this very second. A whole 6 less BAB than the current cap requirement, but still able to get half the bonuses under it. Even as a wizard, the minimum BAB any character can have at level 30 is 15(technically 13 with bad multiclassing). This means that literally ANY class can get a free 3shield ac by investing 15 skillpoints(or 30 crossclass), and being level 30. Therefore the BAB requirement is at most preventing wizards from gaining 3 ac, and other builds that use shields or dual wield (nearly all) neither gain nor lose anything.

Next, the maximum BAB of a mage-type class. So let's push the limits on parry; We already tried the minimum dip investment above, so let's raise the BAB. We'll take 5ranger, and put 4 pre-epic. This will net us 2BAB. That puts us at.. 17. Well, alright, let's put another few levels in; this time 7Swash. This nets us one more BAB, leaving us at 18. We still need two more, and that's just to reach the same point as a 30rogue. A total of 9 now, 8pre-epic gets us to 19. Not enough. Taking the absolute maximum now, while still calling ourselves a "caster". 10 levels of swash, all pre-epic. That leaves us exactly at 20BAB, but what have we lost? We have at most 20 wizard levels, meaning we don't have access to Epic spells, Nor to Epic spell focuses. We have 10 less CL than our full 30Wizard brethren, and gain.. 3 more ac than they do (1 parry, 2 swash). Even if we did gain the full parry bonus here, (2 additional ac) that's not a trade any wizard would touch with a 10 foot pole.

And finally, an example of a build that does benefit from full parry bonuses when it really shouldn't..: 23Spellsword 4Paladin/BG 3Specialist. This has 21BaB. They are going to have almost every single bonus the wizard version has, minus a few niche spells, and about 4~ caster levels. They do matter, but I'm going to focus on parry. The AC here comes out to: 10base +12dex(conservatively) +16EMA +6tumble +6parry +1Shadowshield + 4haste +5~ish divine shield(also conservative) =60. 70 with expertise. This build normally would get some shield AC free, so it would only be truly gaining 2 AC. 30 skillpoints is somewhat of a price to pay for 2AC, But it doesn't change that it's possible; and if this build has it, the 30 rogue more than deserves it.

Is it safe for me to say that a lower BAB requirement is not abusable? Or am I missing something obvious, or something abusable under different restrictions? Even something as small as a 1 reduction, down to 20BaB, would make the difference for all the builds in my first paragraph.

Was it intentional to prevent builds such as the aforementioned 30 rogue from receiving full benefits from Parry? Or merely a side effect? Are there other 3/4 progression classes that stand to abuse the full parry bonus that also don't use shields?

Please tell me what you all think. For myself; It just saddens me to think that many classes can benefit less by an ability that is the most appropriate for them.

As somone that plays this meme


You are forgetting that a wizard/PM can wear fullplate and use a towershield.

Factor that in with EMA and adding CCd tumble and parry and youll have a good answer.


Edit: i should clarify. Without parry i have 72 AC.this amount of AC is absurd, but i do lose a lot with this build. Adding parry to the mix would cross the absurd into further bounds of rediculousness we dont wanna get into.

And this is far and beyond what other builds can do thay can reach close, or break 100 AC

This parry AC is really only intended for a visual change (i.e. not having to use a shield). It is not meant to be a way to optimize your AC.

Ah, fair enough. I suppose I was simply looking at it the wrong way, thank you for clarifying, Xerah.

Actually, I've given it some thought.. I think that I have a few statements and or questions regarding that.

I fully approve of and encourage cosmetic changes and variability, but cosmetics shouldn't come at a cost, if that's what they are intended to be. Invisible helmets come to mind. Meanwhile the Parry AC is partially class-locked(BAB), requires a mechanical investment, and is highly conditional.

When parry was changed, it was one of the defining changes of Arelith; altering an utterly useless skill into an incredibly unique and inventive one. And I celebrate that; It's not so powerful as to drive the meta, but useful enough to add flavor, and can be great in certain situations. However it still had issues even then, because past that initial use, the parry AC was needed for two reasons. First, because shields have an armor check penalty, which reduce the effectiveness of parry. And second, because parry mode limits the maximum amount of AC a character can have, being the only active combat mode. (compared to expertise and improved expertise) Put the two together, and you get a character that would run around with an average 13-16 less AC when they needed it, and relying entirely on their parry score.

If it's purely a cosmetic change as you mention, why does it require skill points at all? Would it not have been simpler to instead make an invisible shield model? This way, all characters would also be given this cosmetic as an option; Without needing to invest highly into a skill.

Second, why is a cosmetic change restricted to requiring a full BAB class to receive full benefits?

Third, Why is it still worse than shields themselves, even at it's best? Including but not limited to: An extra gear slot, fighter scaling, % damage immunity loss, as well as a potential target for magic vestment?

One thing you mention does stand as a point though; because there are only 4 (Cavalier, Wizard, Sorc, and PM) classes that do not have parry as a class skill on Arelith. On the other hand, many of them also have shield proficiency, and shields are superior to no shields, even if the no shield can be mostly matched. That said, It would still make sense why some would call it an "altered visual". But at least to me, it's too subjective to be that; at least while it has so many mechanical applications, restrictions, limitations, and investments.

What about builds that have access to parry, but don't have shield proficiency? Are they required to take another class to fully benefit from their own kit? (Rogue, Bard, Assassin, Shadowdancer, Loremaster, etc) Any combination within those classes would result in an active loss in the benefits of Parry, despite being some of the first classes we think of that might use it. Swashbuckler being another, yet superseding them all.

Shields are integral to combat builds, standing to add 6+ ac to their wielders. I'm not particularly a fan of it, since every Tom and Joe ends up running around with a sheet of metal the size of a small door. Even the thin and weak Dex based guys.

The parry AC allows a nice change of pace, but it now begets the question: Should Parry mitigate the difference between wielding a shield and not?- Or should it nullify it completely? That's not for me to answer really, but looking at the current numbers, it seems to be the later, at least in intent. (adding around 1-3 ac in mid/low levels, and 5-6 at epics, much akin to your average obtainable shield for those levels.)

Sorry, I'm not trying to nitpick too much, because I'm happy to have something over nothing, but even in the case of what you said, I'm not sure it reached it's desired result. It's more of a "Cosmetic Overhaul™" (conditions may apply).

(edited because I forgot Cav doesn't get parry either)

I think parry, including the shield AC is in a really good spot right now. It can be really powerful if done right, but it is really limited. Some things to keep in mind.

Parry mode and parry AC aren't mutually required. You get the AC no matter what. So you can use parry AC while in expertise. You cannot use parry mode while in expertise.

In addition, most parry builds that plan to use the skill parry, really do prefer something in the offhand as that parry score is more important than your AC, especially if you have any ability to gain concealment. Either the fencing buckler, which provides +5ac, +3 parry and can be runed easily, or one of the gauche weapons that add parry bonus, especially on ranger builds. So, it really is a nice replacement to the shield for most others, at a high tax for skills.

Finally, I think there may be reason to switch the +5 to a BAB of 20 to hit pure 3/4 bab classes. This will really only benefit rogue and bard builds that go near pure pre-epic. This is a pretty niche build but it is out there and honestly, in both cases, deserves the parry shield bonus. I guess the other group that would gain for this is warlocks and feylocks though they already get spell failure reduction and greensteel shields are viable and also +5 for the large ones. However, even a 1 level dip pre-epic can get you over that bab requirement and almost all builds do this for the extra APR.

I too would like to see duelists fighting with only one light weapon. Unfortunately, mechanics drives designs and form follows function. Kudos to all of you (us) who put RP ahead of mechanics.

Mechanically, a shield is better than parry AC in almost every way. Yes, depending on your build, it might cost a feat, but generally has higher AC (from level 1) and can be further enchanted to give additional bonuses. The only mechanical disadvantage (if you have shield as an option) is the skill check penalty. For tower shields, that's a 10 point hit, which is big - but there are other alternatives.

Later edit: The more I think about this, I think it's already right the way it is now. The mechanics reflect reality - which is almost always going to work better and seem more intuitive than strange rules. Shields were invented (and used) for a very good reason. Instead, if we want to have single-wield duels, we should encourage that through RP. Perhaps declared duels in polite society should be expected to use identical weapons? That would be cool and fit the genre.