The cavalier and the duel for becoming an hellknight

By rule for taking a level in the hellknight prestige class you have to win a duel against a devil with an HD superior to yours.

My player, which is a level 6 cavalier, wants to become an hellknight at level 7, i wanted to make him fight against a bearded devil with 1 more HD than usual.

My only doubt is: should i let the cavalier fight with his mount? Or is it balanced even when the cavalier has feats that don't work without a mount?

I think that it should be fine considering the cavalier have the challenge class feature, the banner and silver weapons.

But i wanted to have a second opinion from you folks, thanks in advance.

i mean the mount is one of their class features, so seems legit to me

Would you the the fighters weapon he has dedicated feats/weapon training to away?

I view a mount or AnC in a similar manner. IE, I'd allow the cavalier to fight with his mount.

The Cavalier's Mount sounds like something the Cavalier has invested resources into, and they probably use that Mount as a huge part of their strategy, too. Doesn't quite seem fair to remove their investment, in my opinion. You wouldn't remove the shield from a sword & board Ranger, would you? Would you remove the Wizard's Arcane Bond? Take away a Warpriest's Sacred Weapon?

No. The answer is, no.

Do not take away the Cavalier's Mount.

Yes, you may be able to defeat it without a mount but I wouldn’t recommend it. The mount brings a bunch of hit points to help plus mobility might be your best defense (depending on where the duel takes place).

Everyone made good points there, i will let him fight with his mount since he invested a lot in it.

Thank you everyone.

For real intensity, you should make the extra HD be a level of Cavalier. The devil has 1 level in the Order of the Hammer. He's devoted to showing neophyte, wanna-bees what real strength is. He also has a mount (a barded horse).

He carries two nets (that he isn't trained in, but it's a touch attack) that he'll use to entangle the cavalier from range, then use his free sunder attack when he makes his full-attack from reach to sunder the silver weapons (which have lower hardness than steel ones; they might even be dealing less damage if slashing or piercing; if bludgeoning, then they're probably wood-hafted and have a hardness of only 5). Then, with no silver or good weapons to worry about, he proceeds to smash the cavalier's horse into meat, then beat the cavalier up with +1 higher ground bonus for being mounted against an opponent on foot.

That 7th HD will give him another feat and level 1 Cavalier will give the devil a teamwork feat with his mount, maybe Outflank so he can just pop off the mount and they both get +4 to hit the cavalier and his mount.

So yeah, don't take away the Cavalier's mount.. in fact... mounts for everyone! Your player will appreciate you allowing the cavalier... all cavaliers... to have their mount.

To play devil's advocate, what is the Hellknights' position on duels?
They could easily argue that a duel is one on one and a mount counts as an aide. Arguments that the Cavalier has spent a lot of effort and mechanical investment in fighting on a mount are metagaming and irrelevant in the eyes of an organization that is extremely by-the-book. Perhaps they aren't interested in warriors that are crippled without a partner. Perhaps they are of the opinion that working well with others is vital but you should be able to, as it were, stand on your own two feet.

To play devil's advocate, what is the Hellknights' position on duels?

They could easily argue that a duel is one on one and a mount counts as an aide. Arguments that the Cavalier has spent a lot of effort and mechanical investment in fighting on a mount are metagaming and irrelevant in the eyes of an organization that is extremely by-the-book. Perhaps they aren't interested in warriors that are crippled without a partner. Perhaps they are of the opinion that working well with others is vital but you should be able to, as it were, stand on your own two feet.

IMO: this is the perfect example of being GM vs Player rather than GM for the players. Sure, there's an attempt to justify it in fluff, but frankly it's extremely adversarial. Don't f!@$ over PCs just because they didn't take a more power gaming option, thats how you end up with nothing but power gamers.

just wanted to add to this nice thread.

there is actually a spell for this specific test
it summon a devil to fight with the hellknight wanabe to test him.
it is stated there that no other creature can be in the testing area beside the designated challenger.

"To successfully cast this spell, no creature other than the devil’s challenger (see below) can be within this area while the spell is being cast."

BUT that is if using the spell. it's not a rule set in stone.
it's probably to help making the test more common, if you can kill a devil elsewhere then your good too. and the spell is set to only allow one creature in when cast to avoid others helping you.

in other words using the spell won't allow your mount to help you (unless he can range?) but if you fight a devil any other way him helping you might be ok (depend on the gm etc, i would allow it)

just wanted to add to this nice thread.

there is actually a spell for this specific test
it summon a devil to fight with the hellknight wanabe to test him.
it is stated there that no other creature can be in the testing area beside the designated challenger.

"To successfully cast this spell, no creature other than the devil’s challenger (see below) can be within this area while the spell is being cast."

BUT that is if using the spell. it's not a rule set in stone.
it's probably to help making the test more common, if you can kill a devil elsewhere then your good too. and the spell is set to only allow one creature in when cast to avoid others helping you.

in other words using the spell won't allow your mount to help you (unless he can range?) but if you fight a devil any other way him helping you might be ok (depend on the gm etc, i would allow it)

There's nothing preventing the challenging from simply calling his mount into the area after the spell is cast. Another creature entering the area does not end the spell, it's only another creature damaging the demon that ends the spell.

For real intensity, you should make the extra HD be a level of Cavalier. The devil has 1 level in the Order of the Hammer. He's devoted to showing neophyte, wanna-bees what real strength is. He also has a mount (a barded horse).

He carries two nets (that he isn't trained in, but it's a touch attack) that he'll use to entangle the cavalier from range, then use his free sunder attack when he makes his full-attack from reach to sunder the silver weapons (which have lower hardness than steel ones; they might even be dealing less damage if slashing or piercing; if bludgeoning, then they're probably wood-hafted and have a hardness of only 5). Then, with no silver or good weapons to worry about, he proceeds to smash the cavalier's horse into meat, then beat the cavalier up with +1 higher ground bonus for being mounted against an opponent on foot.

That 7th HD will give him another feat and level 1 Cavalier will give the devil a teamwork feat with his mount, maybe Outflank so he can just pop off the mount and they both get +4 to hit the cavalier and his mount.

So yeah, don't take away the Cavalier's mount.. in fact... mounts for everyone! Your player will appreciate you allowing the cavalier... all cavaliers... to have their mount.

This would be interesting for story, BEFORE the "actual" duel. Personally, I would love to have(encourage) an eager player to "challenge" a devil before he is ready. (like say level 3 or 4) Then proceed to have this happen. Of course the player would be allowed to live, humiliated. And when he is actually ready (and slightly humbled) he can have his retribution.

I also don't think the devil would be able to really beat a cavalier as easily as you would suggest at level 6.

Barring terrible dice rolls or cheating Gm fudging. Especially if the Devil loses initiative(as a spirited charge at level 6 could possibly slay the devil. avg damage of a level 6 charging cavalier with an 18 str, and generally optimal feat choices is ~3d8+54, will hit on a 5(unless you further modify the devil with armor), for a range of ~57-78, without a magic weapon.

Of course, this is assuming the cavalier gets lucky and wins initiative.

IMO: this is the perfect example of being GM vs Player rather than GM for the players. Sure, there's an attempt to justify it in fluff, but frankly it's extremely adversarial. Don't f@%~ over PCs just because they didn't take a more power gaming option, thats how you end up with nothing but power gamers.

...yikes. I don't think that's a fair accusation at all. Bjørn Røyrvik even said they were playing devil's advocate. I hardly think their comment was inherently adversarial.

I mean...I've never heard of a *duel* where one side got an advantage the other did not. Duels, by definition, are supposed to start on fair ground, so only luck and skill come into play.

A duel between a bare-knuckle boxer and a sharpshooter with a high-powered rifle is not a duel.

I agree that saying "no mount" could easily come across as being a jerk for it's own sake, no matter how genuine and honest your intentions may be.
I'd give the devil a mount, too. A fiendish warhorse?

I agree that saying "no mount" could easily come across as being a jerk for it's own sake, no matter how genuine and honest your intentions may be.
I'd give the devil a mount, too. A fiendish warhorse?

Because giving a trained boxer a rifle, and putting him up against a trained marine with a rifle is suddenly a duel?

My point, is that, especially in a world like pathfinder. A duel is a bare knuckle boxer vs a sharpshooter with a rifle. Its up to the individuals to leverage their abilities and strengths.

ShadowcatX wrote:

IMO: this is the perfect example of being GM vs Player rather than GM for the players. Sure, there's an attempt to justify it in fluff, but frankly it's extremely adversarial. Don't f@%~ over PCs just because they didn't take a more power gaming option, thats how you end up with nothing but power gamers.

...yikes. I don't think that's a fair accusation at all. Bjørn Røyrvik even said they were playing devil's advocate. I hardly think their comment was inherently adversarial.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm talking about the post. The mindset expressed in the post is adversarial to the player.

I mean...I've never heard of a *duel* where one side got an advantage the other did not. Duels, by definition, are supposed to start on fair ground, so only luck and skill come into play.

A duel between a bare-knuckle boxer and a sharpshooter with a high-powered rifle is not a duel.

I agree that saying "no mount" could easily come across as being a jerk for it's own sake, no matter how genuine and honest your intentions may be.
I'd give the devil a mount, too. A fiendish warhorse?

Have you heard of duels involving fireballs? Duels involving summoned demons? It's almost like we're talking about a whole different world and their definition of a duel can be different from ours.

A Hellknight duel is not meant to be a fair fight. The Hellknight aspirant has time to prepare for the fight, while the devil does not. The chance of the aspirant winning should be better than 50% -- maybe much better. He has much more at stake than the devil does.

But if your campaign is not in a major time crunch, maybe the aspiring Hellknight's sponsor is willing to help him train for the fight, with the result being an effective retraining of abilities that cannot be used in the duel. Thus, he could retrain his archetype (perhaps to Castellan) to give him something useful in place of the mount that he cannot use in the duel, then over time this retraining "wears off" and he reverts to his former abilities. If you are feeling generous, you can do the same with any mounted combat related feats he has.

But one factor to consider is how many levels he has been preparing for this duel. If he just found out that he might make a good Hellknight, you might cut him more slack than if he has dreamt of becoming a Hellknight since the character was created.

Because giving a trained boxer a rifle, and putting him up against a trained marine with a rifle is suddenly a duel?

Yes, actually. From what I've read, anyway.

I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm talking about the post. The mindset expressed in the post is adversarial to the player.

I would think that the mindset expressed in any post is up for discussion, and that--as far as I can tell--the mindset of the poster in this case was not adversarial.

Have you heard of duels involving fireballs? Duels involving summoned demons? It's almost like we're talking about a whole different world and their definition of a duel can be different from ours.

This is argumentum ad fireballum.

Are you suggesting a wizard, if in a duel, should not be allowed to use their abilities?

ShadowcatX wrote:

Have you heard of duels involving fireballs? Duels involving summoned demons? It's almost like we're talking about a whole different world and their definition of a duel can be different from ours.

This is argumentum ad fireballum.

The concepts of fairness, however flawed or artificial, exist within the Pathfinder world. Magic does not change this.

You're the one who is insisting that the duels ran by the knights of hell would confirm to your personal standards of fair.

Are you suggesting a wizard, if in a duel, should not be allowed to use their abilities?

Goodness no. Just that duels have a bunch of rules. "No magic" might be one of them, or that the combatants be on foot, or whatever.

I ran a game a long ways back that involved duels for the spellcasters specifically, modeled after some rules I found for colonial-era Europe and the U.S, I believe.
Which...were pretty far from "roll Initiative and fight!" These duels were very rigid and limiting, but (in-game, at least) opened up some interesting options and forced the participants to choose their next move very carefully.

You're the one who is insisting that the duels ran by the knights of hell would confirm to your personal standards of fair.

I would ask that you please refrain from assigning me a position that I have not taken. Thank you.

To clarify: I have no knowledge of the Hell Knights or their requirements, specifically. So whatever the text says, well. Obviously that's that.
But I know that a duel is typically a formal--almost ritual--combat, and took the fact that Paizo used this term rather than "fight", "combat", etc. to be of significance.

I feel that Bjørn Røyrvik made a point worth at least considering, in terms of the in-game expectations, and that VoodistMonk and several others made a valid game play argument. And I felt (and still do) that mounting the devil would be a good compromise. You're not taking away a player's potential, but you're also avoiding what may feel lackluster or unbelievable, within the narrative.

At it's simplest, a duel could probably be defined as a contest of combat between two parties with terms as agreed upon by both parties, including location, time and conditions.

If there really is just nothing at all on the subject in the books, then that sounds like an opportunity to have some fun with it. It's a pretty significant point in the character's growth, after all. And hey; devils love violence, devils love rules. So violence with rules sounds like a thing they'd really dig. Especially if there was a way for them to technically-not-cheat, etc.

I think I see the issue here. Can duels have conditions? Sure, but do generic "I challenge you to a duel" duels have conditions? Certainly not. If you challenged someone to a duel, and they accepted, thats automatically an "anything goes" duel, as any conditions would need to be arranged before accepting.

To reiterate, a "duel" does not automatically have conditions or rules applied/attached to it. Duels "can" have conditions applied to them.

As far as the hellknight duel goes, any conditions set upon it outside what is plainly stated is GM fiat.

...do generic "I challenge you to a duel" duels have conditions? Certainly not.

Do you have evidence of that claim? Because the brief amount of research I've done on the subject turned up no such thing. But I'm open to learning new things.

As far as the hellknight duel goes, any conditions set upon it outside what is plainly stated is GM fiat.

And what is plainly stated? As far as I can tell, it's just "win a duel". That's like saying "paint a picture" or "make a sandwich". Not a lot to go on, there.

ShadowcatX wrote:

You're the one who is insisting that the duels ran by the knights of hell would confirm to your personal standards of fair.

I would ask that you please refrain from assigning me a position that I have not taken. Thank you.

You talked about how the fight would involve a rifle being given to boxers in order to make it confirm to what you call fair, did you not? And do you not insist that the magical fight against the devil would confirm to that standard?

But I know that a duel is typically a formal--almost ritual--combat, and took the fact that Paizo used this term rather than "fight", "combat", etc. to be of significance.

Tell me, in your studying of fair duels, how many involved immortal devils? You not liking the question doesn't make it invalid.

P.S. Since devils don't typically use weapons and armor are the humans forced to fight without those as well?

You talked about how the fight would involve a rifle being given to boxers in order to make it confirm to what you call fair, did you not?

No, I did not. I was saying that by the rules of dueling I have read it would be considered "fair" by the standards they set.

And do you not insist that the magical fight against the devil would confirm to that standard?

No, the above was an example of a duel's terms. There were many different forms a duel could take. I assume that a duel with a devil would have substantially different terms. But I would probably expect it to have terms of some kind, yes. I have seen no evidence of a duel that didn't have any.

Tell me, in your studying of fair duels, how many involved immortal devils? You not liking the question doesn't make it invalid.

None, obviously.

Since devils don't typically use weapons and armor are the humans forced to fight without those as well?

If those were the terms, I guess so. But then, the mortal would probably have to be pretty silly or desperate to agree to those. Or one that used unarmed strikes to good effect, I suppose.

I'm kind of surprised at the apparent hostility, here.

I'm on team Devil with a mount. And no, not to screw over the PC. Just for a fun fight. Remember, the Devil needs to be at one higher than their HD to count. So we're talking 7 HD minimum.

Actually, a Levaloch or Warmonger devil brings their own "steed". With preparation, that's a tough but far from unwinnable fight for 6th level Cavalier. Obviously, adjust to the level of optimization of the player.

And hey, if they one-shot it with a spirited charge or get entangled and stabbed to death it'll make for a cool story.

Obviously, don't take their mount. Cavaliers have it rough as it is.

rorek55 wrote:

...do generic "I challenge you to a duel" duels have conditions? Certainly not.

Do you have evidence of that claim? Because the brief amount of research I've done on the subject turned up no such thing. But I'm open to learning new things.

rorek55 wrote:

As far as the hellknight duel goes, any conditions set upon it outside what is plainly stated is GM fiat.

And what is plainly stated? As far as I can tell, it's just "win a duel". That's like saying "paint a picture" or "make a sandwich". Not a lot to go on, there.

Unless there's more information I'm unaware of?

definition of a duel-

"a contest with deadly weapons arranged between two people in order to settle a point of honor."

Nowhere does it state anything about "conditions". In pathfinder, a boxer's fists are deadly weapons, just like a gunslingers firearm. Or a wizards spells, or a fighters blade.

From the above, "win a duel" is plenty of information to go on. I'm not saying giving the devil a mount is a bad idea. I approve that idea. I am saying any conditions/limitations set on the duel are GM fiat.

You are claiming it is not, and have provided no real evidence to support that.

One quick question for the "it has to be fair" team, will the devil's natural weapons be cut off if the human enters without a weapon? Can't have one fighter armed, after all, and natural weapons are clearly weapons.

FWIW, both Path of the Hellknight and Hell Unleashed don't comment on the mount issue (or, more general, on pets in general). That's odd, because the first book has both a new cavalier archetype and a new order. Mounted hellknights also exist.

Both books don't mention a strict "you must be the only creature in the arena, beside the devil" rule. At the same time, the arena is only a 30-foot diameter circle, so at least the additional mobility from a mount doesn't help you much, especially against a barbed devil with its glaive.

You are claiming it is not, and have provided no real evidence to support that.

I am claiming no so such thing. "Win a duel" is vague enough that GM fiat will be present, regardless.

...so, according to the dictionary, a duel is "an important thing". Oh wait. It is an important thing "that happens".
I don't see how that's much to go on at all. Assuming it is a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds barred fight is every bit as much an assumption as assuming it's "walk ten paces, turn, and fire."

A link to a discussion on the Code Duello:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/duel-code-duello-rules -dueling/

A link to the Wikipedia article about duels in general (not always a credible source obvious, but it contains several links to other sources):
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

One quick question for the "it has to be fair" team...

I haven't seen anyone make that claim, so I'm not sure who you are talking to.

Now, in a fantasy setting, I think there are plenty of cases where it would be perfectly acceptable from a narrative perspective for a mounted figure to challenge one on foot. A knight on horseback challenging a giant or a dragon, for example.
Thematically, I definitely think it would feel weird for a dude on a 1,000lb animal do go "I challenge you to a duel!", and for their opponent to be a more or less regular-sized schmoe just standing there. Like a guy in a muscle car challenge someone on a Razor scooter to a race. And of course that doesn't necessarily translate to the mechanics; if the driver of the car is a lvl2 commoner and the Razor-rider is a lvl18 monk or whatever, then the apparent one-sidedness is an illusion.
I would say though that there are advantages to being mounted for pretty much everyone, and a horse isn't *that* big of an investment. So again, it seems like an easy adjustment to make.
But hey, if none of that apparently-unsportsmanlike-conduct-that-probay-isn't-actually bothers you and your group, then obviously it's a non-issue.

ShadowcatX wrote:

One quick question for the "it has to be fair" team...

I haven't seen anyone make that claim, so I'm not sure who you are talking to.

If you are addressing me, I would again ask that you do not speak for me, twist my words or assign them meaning that I did not. Thank you.

I would invite you to quit accusing me of things I haven't done. Did I say your name? Nope. I made an open statement and anyone who felt they were on that side of the discussion was welcome to comment. If it wasn't your position you didn't need to comment. Lot of hostility coming this way, what's up with that?

But just so we can be clear, what is your position? You take offense at a side being referred to as "things must be fair side" but also insist a boxer be given a rifle because that's fair. I'm getting whiplash here.

Now, in a fantasy setting, I think there are plenty of cases where it would be perfectly acceptable from a narrative perspective for a mounted figure to challenge one on foot. A knight on horseback challenging a giant or a dragon, for example.

Thematically, I definitely think it would feel weird for a dude on a 1,000lb animal do go "I challenge you to a duel!", and for their opponent to be a more or less regular-sized schmoe just standing there. Like a guy in a muscle car challenge someone on a Razor scooter to a race. And of course that doesn't necessarily translate to the mechanics;...

And yet you STILL didn't answer the question. You specifically quote me, then won't answer the question. Funny. I'll ask it again. Apparently, it's not a duel if one side has weapons and the other side doesn't, see your comment for the boxer / rifle. If the human doesn't have a weapon, do the devil's natural weapons get snip snipped?

I would invite you to quit accusing me of things I haven't done. Did I say your name? Nope. I made an open statement and anyone who felt they were on that side of the discussion was welcome to comment.

I apologize if that was not your intent; it just seemed that way, as the conversation seems to be primarily you and rorek55 speaking with me. So while you did not mention me outright, it seemed obvious in the subtext.

Lot of hostility coming this way, what's up with that?

Again, absolutely not my intention. I have been trying to take part in civil discourse. If at any point I have let my emotions get the better of me, it was likely due to the perceived hostility, sarcasm, etc. that I've picked up on from you. But once more, I may be wrong. I have not heard anything on the subject one way or the other from you, that I can see.

But just so we can be clear, what is your position? You take offense at a side being referred to as "things must be fair side" but also insist a boxer be given a rifle because that's fair. I'm getting whiplash here.

I never insisted any such thing.

Apparently, it's not a duel if one side has weapons and the other side doesn't...

I hope the above clears up any confusion. Please let me know if there is anything else I can elaborate on for the sake of effective, civil communication.

...so, according to the dictionary, a duel is "an important thing". Oh wait. It is an important thing "that happens".
I don't see how that's much to go on at all. Assuming it is a knock-down, drag-out, no-holds barred fight is every bit as much an assumption as assuming it's "walk ten paces, turn, and fire."

You are claiming/claimed that "A duel between a bare-knuckle boxer and a sharpshooter with a high-powered rifle is not a duel" - your words.

When infact, it is, at least in the world of pathfinder. (by definition, which is why I pointed out said definition) Which is the point of contention I was largely arguing against. And in real life, it could possibly be considered one as well. As legally, a trained soldier or martial artist is considered a deadly weapon on terms of assault cases.

A duel need not have conditions nor restraints. And the hellknight need not even "duel" a devil. "The character must slay a devil with HD greater than his character level. This victory must be witnessed by a Hell Knight." Nothing about one on one or the like. (though, likely it would be seen as proper for it to be a "one on one".)

we have- A duel is- "A Thing that happens, especially one of importance, with deadly weapons arranged between two people to settle a point of honor."

We have conditions in the definition. Namely-
A duel is:
A thing of importance (In the hell knight case, a fight)
which involves deadly weapons
that is arranged between two people
to settle a point of honor.

/end conditions.

That is plenty to go on. Now, the contestants can, as part of arranging said duel, agree on further conditions in how the duel will be carried out. That however has no bearing on whether or not the duel is, infact, a duel. The only conditions needed to qualify as a duel is the above conditions.

Also, your first link seems to not be working quite properly sadly.

...

What would clear up stuff is if you answered the yes or no question I've asked twice now. Does the demon have to have it's natural weaponry removed if the mortal doesn't have weaponry?

It feels like you don't want to answer the question, because according to the ideas of the code you are espousing, fighters have to be equally armed, and that would mean yes, the devil would lose his natural weapons. But it feels like that's such a ridiculous scenario, you don't want to have to endorse it, so you avoid the question.

It makes a person wonder why someone might endorse such a ridiculous position rather than admitting that in a world with demons and magic and supernatural beings the bounds of what is and is not a fair duel are going to be somewhat different than in a world with only humans.

You are claiming/claimed that "A duel between a bare-knuckle boxer and a sharpshooter with a high-powered rifle is not a duel" - your words.

When infact, it is. (by definition, which is why I pointed out said definition) Which is the point of contention I was largely arguing against.

A duel need not have conditions nor restraints.

Okay, yeah. I'm talking about the rules that were written up by...someone from Ireland? In the late 1700's. Actual, historical precedent of what a *duel* is, versus a *fight*. Duels were meant to be a way to settle disputea and avoid vendettas. They were structured. Hollywood and genre fiction have watered them down pretty hard, but I feel like "turn ten paces, turn, and fire" is the most recognizable format for a *duel*, no?

...your first link seems to not be working quite properly sadly.

Sorry. I am just awful with computers. A Google search of "Code Duello" will pull up multiple articles on the subject.

But as I said, it's really about the feel of it for me. My players would mock the eff out of a "duel" that started and ended with a mounted combatant riding down one on foot the second they said "I accept". And I get it. It's an amusing image. Which is why I'd change it up. I don't want a PC's admittance into their new class to begin with a joke.

What would clear up stuff is if you answered the yes or no question I've asked twice now.

Sorry, I felt like I have answered your question multiple times and in multiple ways. But I suppose I never did so as directly as I might have, so:

If the combatants were to adhere to the Code Duello, the human was the challenged and chose their bare hands, then I suppose the devil would be limited to their bare hands as well. Now, if said hands had claws or whatever, that would put the devil at a distinct advantage.
Of course, I don't know why the combatants would adhere to a book in the real world that doesn't account for all the craziness in Pathfinder. I assume they would come up with terms that make sense for their world and their situation.

I hope that answers your question clearly and completely.

It feels like you don't want to answer the question, because according to the ideas of the code you are espousing, fighters have to be equally armed...

Incorrect. According to the historic practice of the duel, terms are agreed upon before the duel takes place. These terms *may* include limitations/specifications on arms. That is all.

...it feels like that's such a ridiculous scenario, you don't want to have to endorse it, so you avoid the question.

It makes a person wonder why someone might endorse such a ridiculous position.

This comes across as remarkably sarcastic, passive-aggression and insulting. If I have misread your intention, please clarify. Thank you.

If I'm being honest, I feel like my initial comment saying that your response to another poster seemed unnecessarily rude has upset you, and that the tone of your remarks to me and the apparent lack of respect stem from that, rather than the actual content of the discussion. I may be wrong about course, but I feel like it might be better to just get that out in the open.

ShadowcatX wrote:

Of course, I don't know why the combatants would adhere to a book in the real world that doesn't account for all the craziness in Pathfinder. I assume they would come up with terms that make sense for their world and their situation.

That's what you've been arguing against this whole time..... *sigh* I'm done here.

but I feel like "turn ten paces, turn, and fire" is the most recognizable format for a *duel*,

You are attempting to define a broad category, with a specific subset. Just because an era/people had a specific way to carry out a duel does not mean that other types of "duels" are incorrect or not duels. By your logic Duels never happened until the 1700s. Which I doubt. Now if you -do- want to define duels as only that specific subset, then sure. But I would argue that is an incorrect stance to take.

As for most recognizable, I do not immediately think of those type of duels actually. When I think of duels, I think of one on one combat at an agreed place/time. Or even the "western" duel of pistols in the street. Just because I've been exposed to those more.

Note, again, I didn't say you shouldn't give the devil a boost, or a mount, or some other third thing. However, again, that would be GM fiat (A level 6 cavalier, RAW, would need a CR7/7HD or higher Devil to fight, fiat is not always a bad thing) Even if you gave the Devil a mount, the nature of a cavaliers combat means that the duel very well may end in the first charge. Which is actually a bit realistic. Cavalry were, in general, all about the initial charge. Especially heavy shock cavalry.

Calling that outcome a joke would be doing the character a disservice. especially as many duels likely end in one swift stroke, particularly the type of ones you called out. Instead of laughing and making it joke, make it a demonstration of the characters skill at arms. Besides, if LE, technically speaking the action of him riding the challenged down after they accepted the duel without any stipulation is, well, a lawful evil act. And by technicality is still considered a duel.

That's what you've been arguing against this whole time..... *sigh* I'm done here.

Okay? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Sorry I wasn't more clear, I guess? I feel like I was, but apparently not.

By your logic Duels never happened until the 1700s.

I never made any such claim.

Now if you -do- want to define duels as only that specific subset, then sure.

I'm sorry, but I never understood these kinds of statements. It's like saying "if you want to houserule it, go ahead." Um. Yeah, obviously? I don't know. Just a weird thing to grant someone permission to do/offer your approval of.

...the "western" duel of pistols in the street.

I would consider those two very closely related. Or at least, more closely related than a duel where...I don't know...one guy fights from the back of a dire elephant and the other tries to ambush the first when they're asleep, or whatever.

I didn't say you shouldn't give the devil a boost, or a mount, or some other third thing. However, again, that would be GM fiat (A level 6 cavalier, RAW, would need a CR7/7HD or higher Devil to fight, fiat is not always a bad thing)

Firstly, I whole-heartedly agree. Fiat is encouraged in the book itself. The expectation of fiat is RAW.

I wonder, though. Devils can use equipment, right? And they've got treasure and all that. So part of their treasure is their equipment. A horse is equipment, etc. At that point, it's hardly a stretch at all.

Calling that outcome a joke would be doing the character a disservice.

It certainly would. Which is why I would avoid the situation.

But I digress. Another poster offered a viable counter argument to the common one in this thread. I certainly see their point. But it's all down to personal taste.

I think a Cavalier should get his mount. It's a major part of his class and part of calculating his own overall CR. I would equate that to tying one arm behind a TWF's back, or not allowing a Wizard to prepare spells that morning.

Let's say that a lvl 6 Cavalier with a Mount is a CR6 encounter and he has to go up against a +1HD Bearded Devil, so CR7. So CR6 vs. CR7. Except, now you take away the Cav's mount, so now this duel is more like a CR4 vs. CR7. Or, to allow the Cav to have a mount but then also give the Devil a mount would make it CR6 vs. CR9.

So, I'd say Cav w/ Mount vs. Unmounted Devil = CR6 vs. CR7, and is the most fair duel.

A CR7 devil with a horse is CR9?

A CR7 devil with a horse is CR9?

If the horse is a CR7 creature as well.

I don't think a Devil is going to use a Horse for a mount. Maybe they'd use a Kocrachon or something, but not a horse.

I never made any such claim.

Though, in further reading, it seems like duels are a much more recent development than I had previously thought.

Defining duels as the Irish "Code Duello" would mean any "duels" that happened before the code was written would no longer be considered duels. As they wouldn't adhere to the Code Duello. If that was not your intent, thing disregard this. Therefore, the Code Duello cannot define duels, but a specific type of duel.

I'm sorry, but I never understood these kinds of statements. It's like saying "if you want to houserule it, go ahead." Um. Yeah, obviously? I don't know. Just a weird thing to grant someone permission to do/offer your approval of.

I'm saying you have every right to define something as you see fit, in game or out, however that does not make it correct, nor fact, nor widely accepted as such.

I would consider those two very closely related. Or at least, more closely related than a duel where...I don't know...one guy fights from the back of a dire elephant and the other tries to ambush the first when they're asleep, or whatever.

I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make here?

It certainly would. Which is why I would avoid the situation.

And sure, it's all technically correct (if that's what they agreed to, I guess). But then. The devil has the same bag of tricks at their disposal. At that point, I'd consider it a poor misrepresentation of...

Then I suppose don't allow cavaliers to duel? The idea that people would laugh at a duel simply because it ended in the first round/charge as a joke feels off to me. I suppose they/you would similarly call a barbarian winning a duel in the first round via a full attack a joke? Or say that a fighter beating a wizard in a sword duel is a joke? If you are only talking in regards to the action of said cavalier running down said challengee immediately after acceptance, then apologies for the misunderstanding and I wouldn't particularly disagree with such a statement.

I don't think a Devil is going to use a Horse for a mount. Maybe they'd use a Kocrachon or something, but not a horse.

They'd most likely use a devil steed. (which is CR 8 on its own)

Ryze Kuja wrote:

I don't think a Devil is going to use a Horse for a mount. Maybe they'd use a Kocrachon or something, but not a horse.

They'd most likely use a devil steed. (which is CR 8 on its own)

Precisely. Anywho, I still think that Cav + Horse vs. Unmounted Devil = fairest fight possible.

Defining duels as the Irish "Code Duello" would mean any "duels" that happened before the code was written would no longer be considered duels. As they wouldn't adhere to the Code Duello. If that was not your intent, thing disregard this.

Right. My point was that duels have *some* kind of terms.

The idea that people would laugh at a duel simply because it ended in the first round/charge as a joke feels off to me...

The funny part isn't the duration of the challenge, just the image of a guy in horseback issuing a challenge to a guy on foot and then bowling him over. It just feels lopsided, even if it's not necessarily, from a mechanical viewpoint. If the duel is especially short-lived or starts super abruptly, that just adds to the humorous nature of it.

Also, I'd think the devil could ride a fiendish warhorse or something with minimal changes to the CR.
And, I mean...if "devil riding a mundane mount" is like a grain of sand in your story-tone-sandwich, I get it. That's precisely what a duel that's sort of 2v1 (less than sort of, when your mount's a class feature) is to me.

rorek55 wrote:

Ryze Kuja wrote:

I don't think a Devil is going to use a Horse for a mount. Maybe they'd use a Kocrachon or something, but not a horse.

They'd most likely use a devil steed. (which is CR 8 on its own)

Precisely. Anywho, I still think that Cav + Horse vs. Unmounted Devil = fairest fight possible.

Hell isn't fair.

Plus, fairest =/= coolest.

I'll compromise with a Warmonger Devil.

Ryze Kuja wrote:

rorek55 wrote:

Ryze Kuja wrote:

I don't think a Devil is going to use a Horse for a mount. Maybe they'd use a Kocrachon or something, but not a horse.

They'd most likely use a devil steed. (which is CR 8 on its own)

Precisely. Anywho, I still think that Cav + Horse vs. Unmounted Devil = fairest fight possible.

Hell isn't fair.

Plus, fairest =/= coolest.

I'll compromise with a Warmonger Devil.

Oh I completely agree, Hell isn't Fair, and fairest =/= coolest. But in the interest of GM fairness to the PC, in a structured duel for entrance into an elite group of Hellknights that has a requirement of an opponent +1HD than the character, I think being as fair as possible is important, and this is only because of the GM vs. PC relationship, not because of the Cav vs. Devil relationship. Because what if the PC loses after being stripped of his abilities/class features, and/or having the Devil unfairly buffed/bolstered? That has potential to cause some PC/GM resentment.

If the Cav loses in a mostly fair fight (CR6 vs. CR7), then that's okay because then it's probably not going to be any fault of GM Overreach. The Devil is most likely going to be cheating (but with evil-legalese lawyering within the rules) and conniving as much as possible once the duel ensues anyway.

Another thing I thought of with this thread, not allowing the mount is "metagaming" but knowing exactly how many hit dice a devil needs in order to count for the PRC isn't?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: metagaming is a non-issue. Specifically, attempts to prevent it creature situations as worthy of prevention as metagaming itself. This situation is a pretty decent example of that.

And I think the duel should just adhere to the general creed all GM's should follow: build fair, play to win.