<<That idea is the most logical for parry. If you were holding a sword and someone fired an arrow at you, there would be no attempt to parry, you would abandon all efforts to parry and focus entirely on getting out of the way (increasing your base evasion as compared to using evasion/parry)

This, but the fact is that DR is also a fantasy game and ++ the fact that parry is the only defensive skill my guild doesn't learn at snail-pace :D



--

In memory of Lisa/Martee. Passed 6/17/2013. A friend. A sister.

>and ++ the fact that parry is the only defensive skill my guild doesn't learn at snail-pace

Which, lets face it, is the real reason folks are asking for parry to be useful vs. ranged.

Going out on a limb and suggesting that it's unlikely you can block a fireball, spirit death attack (chill spirit), or hot oil (war mechanics) very well with a shield. That said, if partying ranged is where the line of realism breaks in DR, messaging a dodge is fine.

And skillset placement is not driving everyone. At least some of us have armor and weapons on the same skillset level.

> Also, I hate to say it, but besides defending yourself with a shield, is there really any realistic way to avoid the whiz of an arrow or bolt? Much as we'd like things to be balanced when PvPing... ranged weapons were invented with good reason. They -do- give a serious advantage to the ranged weapon user, and there's really no way to parry a 250 feet-per-second arrow or dodge a 350 FPS bolt. PvPers should just go into it knowing they must train shield, but for those who don't want to engage in that, there's plenty of monsters that don't use ranged attacks and adding ways of making parry and evasion more effective seems perfectly acceptable to me.

There is a fine line between realism and playability, DR has to find the perfect balance between logic and fantasy in order to be great. As annoying as it is, in some cases logic alone just won't work. Parry has been treated too logical, the end effect has been me completely ignoring it because its so pointless with other mechanics that are in play, the training i get for it is convenience. The effort to balance systems in DR has to become before logic or fantasy, since that is the end goal of all efforts, even if it means you can borderline parry an arrow. (P.S. There are documentarys on youtube about a real life samurai who can cut a bullet that is shot at him, so parrying an arrow is possible)

I just want to say that I don't like the idea of a single defense, or auto-changing defenses. It's too boring. 1) The player makes no choice, and 2) The player has no opportunity to switch around based on his/her own knowledge and skill.

Each defense should have a niche that makes it valuable, and work poorly in some situations. I'm not against parry working better in its "poor" situations though.


-- Player of Eyuve

Q: How many times have you gone "Damn, if only my parry was at 100%!"
A: That's why parry needs help.

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

Yeah honestly the only time I ever use parry is to just train the skill and that is a pita.

Codiax.
Forged Weapons:
http://www.elanthipedia.org/wiki/User:Codiax#Codiax-Forged-Weapons

So a few things...

Parry gets a large defensive bonus from weapon balance. Shield penalizes evasion/parry from the hindrance it adds.

Parry is bonused in a MO situation. Shield is somewhat penalized in a MO situation.

Armworn shields interfere with 2-handed weapon use, parry does not.

---

"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

>Armworn shields interfere with 2-handed weapon use, parry does not.

I don't use an armworn shield because I'm an idiot, but it seems that no matter your weapon the penalty for not having a shield out (mostly, I die. I don't know about anyone else) makes any penalty for using the shield seem pretty prefunctory.

---

>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.

>Armworn shields interfere with 2-handed weapon use, parry does not.

While noticeable, I have to wonder at the utility of this, given that most two handed weapons have pretty mediocre balance. The idea of parrying with a sledgehammer is kind of silly, thematically at least.

<< Should armworn be slightly penalized vs current.

What purpose would that serve other than being more of an inconvenience to people? If the penalty gets any more severe people will just start holding the shields and that's about it. Doesn't really help parry in any way.

<<Armworn is already significantly penalized by 25% if Elanthipedia's notes are still correct.>>

The protection value of the shield is penalized 25%. Shadow is suggesting penalizing shield usage, which is silly. Please name another skill that gets a double mundane penalty (seriously, I'd be interested to know if there is another one).

--Just a Squire

I think the honest to god truth is that people don't really want parry fixed because in the end, it's going to nerf shield in one way or another.

The reality is if you want to make parry more viable make attacks that ignore shield and/or evasion.

Instant fix. Once someone has to train parry, it will be worth while again.

As long as we can go 100/80 Evasion/Shield - 95% of us are gonna do it, the other 5% are just stubborn.

---

Player of Diggan, Ranger & Halfing of Aesry

Have you considered copying the spell stance system? That seems to work quite well there and may port over quite easily.

Also I think the big problem with parry is that the other defenses don't have the same degree of downsides.

Evasion is good. All the time. Why would anyone ever not include evasion in their stance (besides training)?

Shield works all the time (except DFA I guess), but is penalized in certain situations. Sometimes it is really good (ranged, for example).

Parry has times where it just don't work and you get smashed up pretty fast (ranged). It has times when it is better (MO situations) but just doesn't have times where it is great.

Parry vs any kind of ranged means absolute destruction(have seen massive+ in competitive fights). If Parry is to ever be anything more than a 'cool' rollover after 100/100, it has to be fairly competitive with Shield.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

>> Parry - best vs melee
>> Shield - best vs ranged
>> Evasion - best vs spell

While this is true, parry is unusable vs ranged, making it practically useless in most situations(and pretty much all PVP situations). Anyone who argues otherwise needs to lay off the koolaid.

---

IM: Dannyboy00001111

"Fool proof system do not take into account the ingenuity of fools, nor the power of numbers."

>If I have no weapon/parry stick out/worn (can't parry) and I have no shield out/worn (can't block) give me a bonus to evasion.

But the math just doesn't work. They've looked at this. Either it makes it so that you need to have the weapon/shield out anyway or you only have to train evasion and don't have to worry about the other defenses.

If you want to make all three defenses useful (which is what players want) and keep all 3 defenses necessary (Kodius has said things to make this seem like a goal), then you have to make it so that all 3 defenses are required and used at all times.

The problem is players want to be able to get away with not training or using a shield, and the GMs don't want it to be possible to ignore shield completely.

I'm pretty sure the reason parry is gimped for certain things more than any other defense, is because its the only defensive ability that also falls with a guilds skillset that is all offense. Basically barbarians would have a means that's very effective to defend while also bringing their weapon damage to the table, also barbarians have nice abilities to boost defenses. Most other guilds pretty much have a prime skill that's a defense, but have their damage dealing in a secondary skillset. Or magic prime which have TM as a primary and a defense that is secondary. This is excluding lore prime of course which have no defensive skill primary, but have tactics for what that's worth.

Also barbarians are for the most part unrivaled in melee combat at like ranks, which is part of their niche, which also happens to be part of parry's niche. Obviously abilities that make folks stay at melee range would help, which are already in effect, but I'm not sure if the system would ever make things reliable other than to switch stance after. Maybe it could be interesting if somehow you could pick what stance setup you would like to use for which range you are in. Evasion/parry stance at melee and evasion/shield at other ranges, dunno.

>I'm pretty sure the reason parry is gimped for certain things more than any other defense, is because its the only defensive ability that also falls with a guilds skillset that is all offense.

Then you'd be completely wrong, but thanks for playing. They don't gimp an ENTIRE SKILL because of one guild.

>Then you'd be completely wrong, but thanks for playing. They don't gimp an ENTIRE SKILL because of one guild.

The entire skill is not gimped, it works very well for certain things which have been talked about. Just because it doesn't work well with ranged doesn't mean the GM's are going to change it because its in a guilds prime skillset that want it to work as well for range as the other skills. If it makes any difference I think it should work to some degree, but think between skillset placement and buffs available that it would make barbarians to much to deal with if it worked nearly as effective as shield. Sorry if that burns your bottom side. But thanks for replying anyway.