(Not a bug. Just vanilla) Parry acting strange

Zap

The Strangeness is I think that Attack 1 and attack 6 had the same total AB, but one triggered a parry attempt while the other was a miss.

Prof. Misclick

Likely because the parry check exceeded the to hit roll so was "parried and riposted". Same this with the the two 17s. One the parry check exceeded and likely the other had a parry check roll of 1.

Will need to confirm since it's been a long time since I did a parry build but I think it checks every attack (subject to the flurry limitations) not just the ones that are a successful to hit.

But seems that attacks are either "missed" which will need character AC to confirm, parried, or parried and riposted.

Zap

@prof-misclick
The Parry Skill was at 17, so any roll with an AB of 18 or lower should have been parried automatically. Which is why the Misses on attacks 1 and 3 are strange to see.

I was thinking that Maybe Parry fails on a Nat 1, but I have seen litterally nothing saying that to be the case anywhere so I wasn't sure.

sharkinajar

Edit: oh. Ok, yeah. Might be because of a nat 1 on your side for the parry, as we do have 1s as auto fails. Possibly why.

Don't know of there is anything we can do tho

toportime

@sharkinajar Not sure that applies to this situation, the creature only had 1 attack a round.

Swifty Willownall

It was strange to me, because I also thought that perhaps nat 1's just auto failed for parry, but in that example you can see another nat 1 being rolled and parried. My AC at the time was 18 as well.

Yesterday we came to the theory that if the incoming attack roll missed your AC, a parry check would not even be rolled. However, this example also shows two 17's. One that misses and one that is parried.

Zap

@swifty-willownall said in Parry acting strange:

It was strange to me, because I also thought that perhaps nat 1's just auto failed for parry, but in that example you can see another nat 1 being rolled and parried. My AC at the time was 18 as well.

We meant a Nat 1 on the parry roll, which isn't shown to the player, rather than a nat 1 on the attack roll.

Swifty Willownall

Oh good point. I've never read anything about a nat one being an auto fail for the parry, but then again I have no idea how it's coded, haha. Though, would it fall under skill rolls not failing on nat 1s thing? I actually don't know if we have that on CoA. I've never really seen a nat 1 taunt fail when it passed the DC or a nat 1 disarm trap fail when it passed the DC. etc

That does bring an interesting thought to mind of how extensively Parry was tested when adding info to the nwn wiki, because that means in theory a nat 20 parry check could parry any attack roll total, even if it was higher than the maximum parry check, unless that attack roll was also a nat 20.

toportime

@swifty-willownall The Parry Wiki says attack rolls of Nat 20 cannot be parried specifically.

sharkinajar

@swifty-willownall nwn is a jumbled mess with lots of spaghetti that is a mystery how it's inner workings truly work. XD

But in stuff like this, there's nothing we can do, really. Hard-coded stuff isn't things we can edit.

Swifty Willownall

@toportime I meant, the parry check being a nat 20.

Swifty Willownall

@sharkinajar Yeah, that was my gut feeling. Was told I might as well post it under the bug forum.

Zool

Yep, totally irrelevant weather something is going wrong or not, because we can't do anything to this stuff anyway.

Prof. Misclick

@zool said in Parry acting strange:

Yep, totally irrelevant weather something is going wrong or not, because we can't do anything to this stuff anyway.

This. It’s “working” as it always has. Reporting is sketchy. Guts of the mechanics are a mystery. As long as it parries and ripostes then that’s all we can do.

Closing it