Active defense debate o_Ô

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Kevmann10583

Upps, looks like you're right.

I was hoping not to have to make any more rules changes, but I guess I will have to change Feint as well in order to make this work.

Thanks!

May I suggest a step towards simplification instead of over-complication?
Too many house rules can spoil the recipe, you may also want to consider entirely scrapping your Parry=Skill defense house rule, it's pretty broken by itself.

As for the Deceptive Attack, are you trying to eliminate it entirely, or are you simply trying to reduce miss chances?
If so, how about if you take your current house rule, and tweak it just a bit. ie.:
Since you have the clause where a miss is not actually a miss, but gives the opponent bonuses to their defense.
Then you just give the attacker the option of whether or not to do a Deceptive Attack.

That way, if Raul has a normal skill of 14-, and he's attacking Pierre who has expert skill of 16-, (no CR, no retreat).
On a normal attack, Pierre would be Parry 11-.
Raul could choose to use Deceptive attack up to a 10-, giving Pierre a -2 to Parry at 9- he'll be likely hit.
If Raul rolls over a 10, Pierre's parry bonus would equal whatever Raul missed by. So if Raul rolls a 12, Pierre's parry is 11-; if Raul rolls a 14, Pierre parries at 14-, if Raul rolls a 16, Pierre parries at 16-.

This allows the attacker to decide whether or not to use a Deceptive Attack, but it makes it more attractive to use by reducing the repercussions for missing.

[I'll have to consider this house rule myself.]