NWN: Parry & Shields
Michael Birke
10!
It gives only +3 AR, the large shield gives +2 and reduces parry too,
but not half as much.
What is the logic behind that???
I will go on with a Great Sword, more damage and parry actually works
much better with it.
Better defence without using a shield - this cannot be true!!!!!!!
Can anyone explain me if there is something wrong?
I see that they missed to implement the superior defense against
arrows of tower shields and the +10 Bonus of PnP when it comes to hide
behind one.
But that thing with parry is really disturbing. To parry and defend
well I should probably use an all attack weapon like a great axe...
ugh!!!!!!!!
That's strange - please can anyone explain this to me?
--
/> Michael Birke
/< IRC: Longasc (IRC-Net, QuakeNet)
[\\\\\\(O):::<====================================-
\< E-Mail: Michae...@gmx.net
\> ICQ: 8624167
Erland Andreassen
"> I will go on with a Great Sword, more damage and parry actually works
> much better with it.
>
> Better defence without using a shield - this cannot be true!!!!!!!
I had a paladin/fighter who was dualwielding two weapons... parry did work
well :o
Not as it explain anything though...
Jeff Alexander
>I was quite embarrassed as my Tower Shield dropped my parry skill by
>10!
>
>It gives only +3 AR, the large shield gives +2 and reduces parry too,
>but not half as much.
>
>What is the logic behind that???
>
>I will go on with a Great Sword, more damage and parry actually works
>much better with it.
>
>Better defence without using a shield - this cannot be true!!!!!!!
>
>Can anyone explain me if there is something wrong?
It sounds like Parry, being a skill that requires freedom of movement,
is one of those skills that suffers from the Armor Check penalties of your
shield and amor. It's right out of 3rd Edition, though I don't think it's
described in the manual anywhere: there are some skills that armor
makes harder to use. Of those listed in the actual pencil-and-paper
D&D, Neverwinter Nights only includes Hide, Move Silently, and Pick
Pocket. From the looks of things, Bioware added Parry to this list.
(Parry is something they added themselves anyway. It's not a 3rd
Edition skill.)
Armor Check penalties for armors are given on page 176 of the
manual. They range from -0 for leather to -8 for full plate. Armor Check
penalties for shields AREN'T listed, but in D&D they're -1 for small
shields, -2 for large, and -10 for tower.
Simon Appleton
straight forward attack, not a means of passively raising your defense
like holding a shield? Often simply attacking rather than parrying is the
way to go for a fighter. A few - such as high level monks - may do better
by parrying but my understanding is that it is generally a defensive move,
eg to hold off monsters while the other members of your party despatch
them.
My fighter never uses the parry skill. The Greatsword is best for taking
down enemies quickly; the Tower Shield may be good when fighting monsters
who are capably of doing a lot of damage to you (eg boss encounters;
fighting 3 thieves and so facing 2 sneak attacks per round etc).
Simon
Furfoot
news:2rq8ou440n8o3c6gi...@4ax.com...
> I was quite embarrassed as my Tower Shield dropped my parry skill by
> 10!
>
> It gives only +3 AR, the large shield gives +2 and reduces parry too,
> but not half as much.
>
> What is the logic behind that???
>
> I will go on with a Great Sword, more damage and parry actually works
> much better with it.
>
> Better defence without using a shield - this cannot be true!!!!!!!
>
> Can anyone explain me if there is something wrong?
>
> I see that they missed to implement the superior defense against
> arrows of tower shields and the +10 Bonus of PnP when it comes to hide
> behind one.
>
> But that thing with parry is really disturbing. To parry and defend
> well I should probably use an all attack weapon like a great axe...
> ugh!!!!!!!!
>
> That's strange - please can anyone explain this to me?
I never trained Parry and used a +3 Tower Shield (later the +5 vs. Dragons
one) and found many arrow attacks were parried automatically. I have no
idea how this all works, but arrow attack results often showed "parried"
with no damage. This was while wearing AC7 or 8 Heavy Armor, and the
negative value for Parry did show in the skill chart. Go figure.
Michael Birke
<simon.a...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi Simon!
I like my current Harbinger Kin Greatsword a lot. :)
With 13 INT (for disarm) my fighter has spent a lot of skillpoints
into parry.
I will check out, but I have noticed even if not actively used some
"parried" messages when I was attacked.
The problem is that I feel parry is not worth it at all. As you said,
going in with the greatsword actively is more rewarding not 99 but
100% of the time.
Shields give some more AC - but does that +4 -6AC really matter
compared to the damage two weapons or a big two-handed inflict?
I just think the parry skill was implemented by Bioware rather badly.
It is not very useful. While Knockdown and Disarm work quite well,
Taunt and parry are not very worthwile.
Simon Appleton
Michael Birke wrote:
<snip>
>
> With 13 INT (for disarm) my fighter has spent a lot of skillpoints
> into parry.
On the plus side, the 13 INT probably qualifies you for the improved knockdown
feat. It is undocumented and a source of irritation to my dumb fighter.
Have you tried IWD2? The combat is lot of fun - more tactical and challenging
than in NWN - although the story/roleplaying/graphics are not as good.
Simon
Michael Birke
<simon.a...@nottingham.ac.uk> wrote:
>On the plus side, the 13 INT probably qualifies you for the improved knockdown
>feat. It is undocumented and a source of irritation to my dumb fighter.
>
>Have you tried IWD2? The combat is lot of fun - more tactical and challenging
>than in NWN - although the story/roleplaying/graphics are not as good.
I have the improved disarm, this is why I have taken 13 INT. Read it
in a FAQ that 13 INT would be quite nice to have.
I have IWD2, but as you said, NWN has more eye candy and I will finish
NWN first. After that I can play Medieval Total War or IWD2.
But well, I collect all stuff from Bioware, besides Ultima Underworlds
and Eye of the Beholder Series they are my favorite games. :)
Nigel Kearney
>
> Shields give some more AC - but does that +4 -6AC really matter
> compared to the damage two weapons or a big two-handed inflict?
>
If the enemy needs 13 to hit you without a shield, then with a large
shield +1 he needs 17. That means you get hit only half as often which
is a big difference.
If you have, say, strength bonus +4 and weapon bonus +2, then a
longsword does on average 4.5+4+2=10.5 and a greatsword does on
average 7+6+2=15.
In this case, the sword and shield character would do better. If the
enemy hits you with a 9 or higher, then the shield will protect you
one third of the time so it's about even.
The campaign that comes with the game has big dungeons full of lots of
weaker creatures who may need as much as a 16 to hit you. In that
case, a shield will eliminate 80% of those hits.
Another point to consider is that it's useful to dual wield against
spell casters to hit them more often. A one-handed weapon
specialization helps with this. Also, if you have a mage at the back
casting attacking spells, then staying alive may be more important
than inflicting damage.
I haven't tested this in practice though.
Nigel.
Michael Birke
wrote:
>If you have, say, strength bonus +4 and weapon bonus +2, then a
>longsword does on average 4.5+4+2=10.5 and a greatsword does on
>average 7+6+2=15.
How do you calculate Damage?
A Greatsword with a STR Bonus +4 - not too common, and Damage/Hit
Bonus +2 would do
2d6 + 2 + 6 (6 being 4 + additional 50% Bonus, =6) = 10 - 18
Oh, I see you did an average calculation, but would be nice to
explain, cannot follow you right now.
>Another point to consider is that it's useful to dual wield against
>spell casters to hit them more often. A one-handed weapon
>specialization helps with this. Also, if you have a mage at the back
>casting attacking spells, then staying alive may be more important
>than inflicting damage.
>
>I haven't tested this in practice though.
I have now specialized in Longswords too - the Weapons are both +2 and
some features, and you are right - I take less damage, but sometimes
it's equal, because I need longer with the Longsword to kill them, the
fight lasts longer - the Greatsword offers less defense, but it kills
a lot faster.
Just thinking about Dual-Weapons.
Just did not care enough for them right now, you seem to be quite
experienced in that, if you like, could you explain me the to hit
modifiers and the feats I would need?
I thought it would be
Two-Weapon-Fighting
Ambidextry (15 DEX needed)
Improved Two Weapon-Fighting -> ugh, must have a look in the manual,
does it really exist?
If the to hit mali are nearly eliminated, is there a damage malus,
too?
Because it seems that two Longswords can dish out even more damage
than a Two-Handed Weapon.
Are STR boni halfed for for those weapons, or does the full STR bonus
to damage apply?
Scimitars are nice too with improved criticals, high chance to get
them very often. :)
Seems to become finally a really interesting discussion! :)
Best Regards,
Michael
Jeff Alexander
> Just thinking about Dual-Weapons.
>
> Just did not care enough for them right now, you seem to be quite
> experienced in that, if you like, could you explain me the to hit
> modifiers and the feats I would need?
The same as for two one-handed weapons.
> I thought it would be
>
> Two-Weapon-Fighting
> Ambidextry (15 DEX needed)
>
> Improved Two Weapon-Fighting -> ugh, must have a look in the manual,
> does it really exist?
Yes.
> If the to hit mali are nearly eliminated, is there a damage malus,
> too?
According to the manual, off-hand weapon strikes receive only
half your Str bonus to the damage roll. I don't know if this is
supposed to apply to second-end attacks from a double weapon.
In reality, it's much worse: at least with double weapons,
second-end attacks always do 1d3 damage, base, instead of what
they should do. Plus, from what I've seen, you don't get any Str
bonus to this at all. (You do get criticals. I don't know about
any other damage bonuses.)
> Because it seems that two Longswords can dish out even more damage
> than a Two-Handed Weapon.
That's only true because of the 1d3 bug. Using two medium
weapons gives you an extra -2 to your attack rolls that double
weapons don't suffer. If everything worked right, in the long
run they'd fall behind.