...or more specifically, "solo combat." I made a kind of duelist affiliation that allows PCs to gain aff. score bonuses by engaging enemies in "solo combat," but I'm having a hard time defining what a "one-on-one" encounter should be. Off hand, I'd say the following should apply:
1) Other PCs do not attack, aid another, or cast spells that effect the combatants
2) Cohorts/Animal Companions count as "other PCs" for purposes of 1) above
3) PCs cannot summon monsters to assist themselves
4) Other PCs can verbally shout advice to the "duelist"
What do you guys think about this? Anything I'm overlooking? I have a player who is really hung up on #2 (because he has an animal companion) and thinks that his "PC" equals "anything generated on [his] character sheet" but that doesn't seem to make sense for a "solo fight."
...or more specifically, "solo combat." I made a kind of duelist affiliation that allows PCs to gain aff. score bonuses by engaging enemies in "solo combat," but I'm having a hard time defining what a "one-on-one" encounter should be. Off hand, I'd say the following should apply:
1) Other PCs do not attack, aid another, or cast spells that effect the combatants
2) Cohorts/Animal Companions count as "other PCs" for purposes of 1) above
3) PCs cannot summon monsters to assist themselves
4) Other PCs can verbally shout advice to the "duelist"What do you guys think about this? Anything I'm overlooking?
Yes. With your restrictions, you favor some classes and punish others.
I have a player who is really hung up on #2 (because he has an animal companion) and thinks that his "PC" equals "anything generated on [his] character sheet" but that doesn't seem to make sense for a "solo fight."
Your rules are unfair, so .. yes, he should complain.
What are you trying to accomplish here?
If you're talking about a very specific kind of challenge of honor--think old-school swordsmen tossing down gauntlets and going toe to toe--then no, there should be no additional assistance.
However, if you are more generally just saying, "You go into a fight by yourself, using what you alone are capable of" -- then yes, all characters should be able to use all class featured available to them, including companions and summon spells. Because yes, I agree with your player (and I am a GM more often than a player these days) that his character includes all his class features, including his animal companion.
Other PCs should not be able to help via buff spells or summoning.
As for offering advice--that's another issue of honor. If it's sort of a boxing ring affair, informal shouting of advice probably isn't a big deal. If it's "you must only use your own faculties" then they probably shouldn't offer advice. On the other hand, I think even in oldskool sword duels, most duelists had a "Second" who I think could not interfere but certainly could talk to their partner under particular circumstances (of which I am not prepared to go into detail, unfortunately).
I think that using an animal companion would be considered cheating in an honorable duel, unless the other person got the same. I disagree with Malaclypse on this.
I could see how different societies would consider this differently. A group more accustomed to wizards, for instance, would have no problem with summons, while a group of fighters would consider summoning bringing in a friend to fight in your place and dishonorable. I would let these disagreements come out in game and let the players deal with the ramifications. A group of druids may consider a fair duel to be one between 2 trained animals, and allowing the druids to offer magical support. Some groups may consider magic dishonorable, while others encourage any enhancement you can get, and allow you to come in with ally's buff spells on. Many will frown on poison, while others consider it foolish to go to battle without it.
Let each society have its own rules for what constitutes an honorable duel, and let the players figure it out after they start them.
|
...or more specifically, "solo combat." I made a kind of duelist affiliation that allows PCs to gain aff. score bonuses by engaging enemies in "solo combat," but I'm having a hard time defining what a "one-on-one" encounter should be. Off hand, I'd say the following should apply:
1) Other PCs do not attack, aid another, or cast spells that effect the combatants
2) Cohorts/Animal Companions count as "other PCs" for purposes of 1) above
3) PCs cannot summon monsters to assist themselves
4) Other PCs can verbally shout advice to the "duelist"What do you guys think about this? Anything I'm overlooking? I have a player who is really hung up on #2 (because he has an animal companion) and thinks that his "PC" equals "anything generated on [his] character sheet" but that doesn't seem to make sense for a "solo fight."
I think that I would adjust #2 to eliminate animal companions, because if you don't allow animal companions, why allow familiers?
I would also take out #3, as I doubt most summons would go off anyway, as 'solo fights' would happen in small arenas, where the caster can be easily interrupted. But they are a staple of one on one fights in books, movies, and games for spellcasters
I disagree with Malaclypse on this.
These rules mean that a summoning-focused sorcerer has no chance in competing. Really fair.
I think there is a big difference between a "Duel" and "Single Combat".
If you want to define them, "Single Combat" would be everything that character is capable of, including magic, animal companions, etc...unless such things are specifically against the rules of whatever engagement is involved. Like a tournament or competition.
A "Duel" on the other hand has an honorable code of conduct, not really rules per se, but a point a which a participant is considered to be cheating. A Ranger challenged to a Duel, which he/she accepts and then calls his/her animal companion into would be called dishonorable or a cheater by all witnesses.
I think this is less a matter of rules, whats fair or anything to do with game mechanics. Duels and Single Combat are both social structures in the world you play in. They shouldn't be based exactly on the system you use to play in that world, but upon what fits properly for the world.
And yeah, I have to agree with Malaclypse, this makes participating in such duels or single combat (honorably at least) rather difficult for some classes, characters, etc. However, if that is the way the game world works, so be it! Some characters are not built to duel others, whereas others can, whether by class, feat selection, etc. A creative DM can always come up with alternate ways for other character types to have dueling style battles as well.
Heck, you could even have a roguish skill-duel (I've done this before), where the rogues don't fight, but 'duel' by matching their skills against one another. A challenge to see who can break into Somerandom Noble Manor and steal the Chalice of Calidon (or whatever) first. Or simple competitions of who can lie more convincingly, hide and object/steal if from the other while a crowd watches, etc. The possibilities are endless.
Yar!
Fair by game mechanics or unfair to all classes but follow a code of honor. What realy needs to be cleared up is exactly what type of "duel" we are talking about, because it already seems like there are more than one deffinition going around.
If this is a dueling society, then (in game) rules like the above need to be in place. Most likely they would be restrictive to be 'unfair' to classes that have summons/companions/etc, because to the people that observe the Duel/solo fight (in game) want to see one-on-one, not one guy and his animal friend and a summon monster ganging up on one. Of course from an out of game / metagame / rules & mechanics perspective it's going to be unfair, but characters In-Game do not know about class abilities of one person being balanced against different class abilities of another person.
OR is this an "Out-Of-Game" tool to award extra bonus' tp players who want to enter a game mechanical "duel" to risk death for a mechanical bonus? If so, then it should allow all class abilities to be fair for all players.
Also, if it is the first option, who said that anyone can challenge anyone (and if they did, then some classes WILL have an advantage, as they should. If their class specializes in solo combat, why shouldn't they be better at a solo combat than someone who regularily relies on companions/summons/etc)? ALSO again, there can be wizard duels (a seperate entity from melee duels) where the rules state only polymorphing is allowed (sweord in the stone cartoon), or only summons and buffs are allowed, and you watch the buffed summons fight it out (Pathfinder version of Magic the Gathering), or it is an all out blast fest where summons are not allowed, and even physical contact is not allowed, but self buffs and blasting spells are paramount.
SO yeah... is this for an In-Game dueling society (which iwll need restrictive rules based on codes of honor)? Or is this something like a Skill Challenge where it is purely a game mechanic for a tangibil benifit (which then should be balanced so that all classes can participarte equaly)?
~P
I disagree with Malaclypse on this.These rules mean that a summoning-focused sorcerer has no chance in competing. Really fair.
IMO only of course, WHY would a summoning focused sorc care that much about personal honor, reputation, etc? I'd think those strictures of society would pale in comparison tot he untrammeled joy of bending the universe, and it's inhabitants, to your will. Just my $.02.
Agree that duel =/= single combat in all cases. Single combat happens in, well, combat, while other stuff i going on. A duel is something between 2 people under otherwise peaceful circumstances, in which the ritual is almost as important as the out come.
IMO only of course, WHY would a summoning focused sorc care that much about personal honor, reputation, etc? I'd think those strictures of society would pale in comparison tot he untrammeled joy of bending the universe, and it's inhabitants, to your will. Just my $.02.
Possibly because not every sorcerer is built the way you seem to imagine? A celestial LG sorcerer can reasonably be expected to respect local customs and care about honor, reputation, while an infernal LE sorcerer might not care about honor, but still will not break the law.
I think the dueling concept really only works best within the same and/or similar classes. In a fighter vs. fighter duel, it certainly makes sense to eliminate any third party. In a druid vs. druid duel, it might not. If the classes were to mix, I think there would be a long and involved discussion between seconds to set all the limitations, which would have to be agreed by both. I kind of like the roleplaying flavor o seconds negotiating the terms, too. Gives someone the chance to exercise some bravado and creative insulting: "my wizard principal is so far superior to yours that he is willing to limit his spell list for the duel to only those spells your developmentally challenged wizard principal actually knows, those that use small words." More honor could be gained by defeating someone when accepting a handicap, such as fighting left-handed.
If a PC outside the duel can shout advice, then a Ranger can use his Hunter's Bond to give half his favored enemy bonuses!
I think if you are trying to set up a dueling society, then you have to restrict the duels to certain weapons and tactics deemed "fair" by those that officiate the duels. That would limit the duels to certain classes that would do well with those restrictions.
If you want to set up solo combats between the characters irrespective of class, than anything the character normally "gets" or controls in combat should count. I'd hope that the terrain is more than just a 30' circle though.
...If the classes were to mix, I think there would be a long and involved discussion between seconds to set all the limitations, which would have to be agreed by both. I kind of like the roleplaying flavor o seconds negotiating the terms, too. Gives someone the chance to exercise some bravado and creative insulting: "my wizard principal is so far superior to yours that he is willing to limit his spell list for the duel to only those spells your developmentally challenged wizard principal actually knows, those that use small words." More honor could be gained by defeating someone when accepting a handicap, such as fighting left-handed.
"Why are you smiling?"
I love it. Well done :)
I disagree with Malaclypse on this.These rules mean that a summoning-focused sorcerer has no chance in competing. Really fair.
And when the fighter goes to to a magocricy, where personal violence is banned from dueling, the sorc will be in good shape and laughing. Different societies respect different things, and the rules for formal dueling should reflect what those societies hold valuable. The rules presented work perfectly for groups like the Aldori Sword Lords or Mivon, but they wouldn't fit in other places.
And when the fighter goes to to a magocricy, where personal violence is banned from dueling, the sorc will be in good shape and laughing. Different societies respect different things, and the rules for formal dueling should reflect what those societies hold valuable. The rules presented work perfectly for groups like the Aldori Sword Lords or Mivon, but they wouldn't fit in other places.I disagree with Malaclypse on this.These rules mean that a summoning-focused sorcerer has no chance in competing. Really fair.
Good point.
|
I know some things about dueling, though my knowledge is far from complete. There are probably variations on the dueling rules too, but here are some pointers on the rules.
First of all, I thought the challenged party, not the challenger, has choice of weapons. It has to do with fairness. You'll think twice before you challenge someone who knows how to wield an spiked chain.
Magically enhanced weapons might be banned, or they might be mandatory depending on the law or the preference of the challenged party.
Spellcasters shouldn't challenge non-spellcasters for a ''magical duel''. Traditional duels wouldn't allow a noble to challenge a peasant because it wasn't fair. The same idea might be true with spellcasters. Besides, there's nothing cool about l-bolting a defenseless fighter.
Both parties have to pick a second. A second is a partner who examines the weapons,looks out for foul play and may stand in for a duelist if necessary. Consider switching the duelist with his second at the last moment. This could shock players who like to prepare.
Seconds may have to fight each other, though this is not always so. I'd choose not to let them fight, so they won't upstage the duelist.
It's nice to have a spellcaster as a second. Detect Magic and Detect Poison come in handy before you start the fight, though you might consider a second who is good with a weapon instead.
A doctor should be present at the duel. Duels are usually held at quiet places with as little people as possible.