Emirikol First Blood

[subplotkudzu]

One thing we ran into during the first official set of duels in the Emirikol game was that duels to first blood in D&D - if you count any loss of HP as first blood - are based way too much on initiative. Therefore I'm recommending we use the nicely flexible concept of hit points to instead work with fractions of the character HP. 

First Blood is actually 'drawn' when the character has taken over 1/3rd (round up) of his HP total. Since Cyble has 10 HP she actually gets cut or bloodied once she's taken more than 4 points of damage. Deitrich, with 17 HP isn't actually cut until he's taken more than 6. This might not mean much now, where a single hit with a sword is enough to take a 12 HP character past their 4 point first blood, but it would have extended Hiram's fight with his 18 HP opponent past that first rapier touch.

Second Blood, or the desire to fight "until one is well blooded, disabled, or disarmed" is generally set at taking more than 2/3rds of your HP (round up). Cybele is well blooded once she's taken more than 7 HP of damage, Deitrich can hold out until he's at more than 12 points taken. This is the level of fighting Melas and his adversary were engaged in, which means his critical hit was needed to push the fellow up over the 2/3rd HP mark. 

Fighting to the death is often considered 'concluded' once once of the opponents is at 0 HP. Of course, the terms of the duel can stipulate that no healers be present at the match but can be called later, which gives you a pretty narrow window between 0 HP and being dead. Unless it is specifically stated in the terms of the duel that one of the duelists will not leave the field alive it is ungentlemanly to strike an opponent who's already down (and such a duel is technically illegal anyway). 

Does everyone agree that this makes sense? I'm looking for something that's workable and not complicated.

Comments

[40yearsagotoday.livejournal.com]

I admit I'm a little biased here, but it seems like initiative *should* largely decide first blood duels, which is why they're so wimpy (as my opponent was quick to point out)

I thought things worked out with all reasonable verisimilitude.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

No, he was calling you a wimp for not fighting *to the death* because you had been mouthing off to him and you look like a beardless little boy. First blood duels are fine between peers or people who haven't been egregiously insulted by a bard declaiming made-up faults to the passers-by. That you were unwilling to put your blood on the line your mouth had drawn was what pissed him off. Melas also had good call for a second blood or to the death duel, but while his opponent may still think Melas is a malformed beast, yours actively hates you for being a mouthy little wimp who hides behind other people's honor to avoid the least possible repercussions.

The problem there is that it becomes all too much about speed - as ladegard and Cambias both pointed out, the only feat worth having in most duels, as most dues will be to satisfaction, is improved Initiative. Take it 2, 3, 5 times as going first becomes all important.

After all, at the start of the duel the initiative loser is still technically flat footed (unless we want to seriously degrade the sneak attack ability), so the slower person is at a lower armor class. By a strict reading of the rules the slower person can't even have adopted a defensive stance or made use of Expertise, so armor class has concievably dropped even further. Since few people are wearing armor in Emirikol and the arrmor they wear is not high in armor bonuses anyway, we're looking at the first round of the fight giving the initiatve loser an AC of about 11, or maybe 13 if we let him adopt a defensive stance.

At the level of the game Base Attack Bonuses will run from 1-4, with strength bonuses, feats and masterwork weapons call it 1-7. But even at first level it's a +2 or so, and that's enough for a good initiative to make a 'duel' to first blood a coin toss, finished with a 50% chance in one round. As levels go up, initiative becomes even more useful - with a +6 to hit that same initiative victory means you'll take the duel 75% of the time in a single round.

That just gets boring - if there's only one successful strategy then why bother with anything else? Max that initiative, max the attack bonus, charge if you can and who cares about damage or HP higher than 8 (which elimiates a huge fighter advantage). But more on HP in the next response.

[40yearsagotoday.livejournal.com]

"After all, at the start of the duel the initiative loser is still technically flat footed (unless we want to seriously degrade the sneak attack ability)"

That's ridiculous. But there's no reason this has to touch the sneak attack rules; just declare that it is not possible to catch someone flat-footed in any combat pre-arranged by both parties.

I wouldn't change the definition of first blood. It's nice and empirical as it is. Once it's happened, everyone at the table immediately knows it. If it's changed to fractions of HP, then it becomes a "was that it?""was that it?""was that it?" situation. I find that less dramatic.

I think what you're looking for is more skillful clashing of swords, which to my eye would require more parrying.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

That's ridiculous. But there's no reason this has to touch the sneak attack rules; just declare that it is not possible to catch someone flat-footed in any combat pre-arranged by both parties.

But that absolutely touches the Sneak Attack rules: it degrades them to the points of uselessness in dueling, seriously weakens rogues and pretty much shoots Tom's character design in the foot.

Sneak attack only works if you have someone flat footed, flanked or you successfully feint them (which is a time consuming pain in the butt in D&D). I've already taken steps to improve the aspect of feinting, but if you say that losing initiative doesn't make you flat footed in a duel than rogue fencers are hosed because their best weapon has just vanished. I'm perfectly happy to let you pick your starting stance and use of Expertise before the fight (as those are grey areas in the rules), but saying you aren't flat footed takes away too much from the rogues.

If the consensus is that we don't want to change first blood from first loss of HP (and I'm waiting for others to chime in) expect all serious fencers will have Improved Initiative and accurate attack as it's the only strategy that makes sense - go first, boost your chance to hit and screw damage as 1 point is still a win. Jim stated after that duel that obviously the only smart thing to do was take Improved Init when he made level, and I expect all of you will do so, as not doing so consigns you the losing end of a great many duels. Nearly all duels will be over in the first round and Halfling Fencers with 18 dexes, improved init and the attack and AC bonuses from being Small will rule the field of battle.

As far as this requiring more parrying: the aspect of D&D that covers your ability to defend yourself based on your skill level rather than your equipment is... Hit Points. High level fighters parry more and better than low level ones because they have more Hit Points. Armor Class, as D&D is designed, is based 80% on gear and 20% on skill (by way of feats and Dex mods, which are by and large static), with the assumption that you will upgrade your gear at every opportunity. But Emirikol doesn't have much by way of gear and has social reasons for not upgrading to masterwork studded leather and wearing it everywhere, so AC doesn't provide as much benefit.

Unless you have some other Parrying rules in mind? Weapon vs weapon rolls rather than armor classes, perhaps? Again, that starts to get really freaky when dealing with non-human, non-fencing opponents (did the giant spider parry?) but I'm willing to entertain the discussion....

[ladegard.livejournal.com]

First up, the duel is a very formalized setting, so I'm not sure that being flatfooted is situationally appropriate. Secondly, it makes my character design pretty much require Improved Feint, but I'd planned on that anyway.

Also, and I know that this one may be my fault, but Improved Initiative is a one time only deal.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Also, and I know that this one may be my fault, but Improved Initiative is a one time only deal.

Yes, you had mentioned that it could be layered at the game. I didn't know one way or the other so I was taking your word on that. Apparently it can't (just double checked myself).

If you're not going to kick about the flat footed rules being changed for a fight then I'll defer on it, since you're the PC would would be most hurt by it. Well, the other PCs might all be a lot of hurt on it if I kept them and then had those halfling rogue duelists attack... if you're willing to take a hit for the team it work out better for the PCs in the long run.

If we remove flat footedness and let you pick stances up front we can get some skill into AC during the fight in several ways which will help. I'm still concerned about the fact that HP have absolutely no bearing on battles to 'first blood', which seems awfully silly when you get up to higher levels. Any thoughts on that?

[ladegard.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to take that hit, at least in the dueling arena. Remember my claim that this is a fairly ritualized form of combat. In situations that aren't so formalized, the flat-footed rules may still apply. As for HP, I'm not sure. I still think that the reduced hit points, such as they use in Babylon 5, is probably a good way to keep combat dangerous and make levels less important as regards to the ability to absorb damage.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that this shoould only apply to the formalized duel - get back iin the dungeon or even a good taven brawl and flat footed is in full force.

For those not aware, Tom's suggestion is everyone getting their first level HP (or perhaps their CON as HP) and then getting a set small number per level after that to keep HP low even as levels go up. Sorcerers would probably get 0, rogues and bards 1, clerics and aristocrats 2 and fighters 4, with CON modifiers.

This would of mean needing to find ways to boost ACs, but it could be done.

Any thoughts on this?

[40yearsagotoday.livejournal.com]

"Weapon vs weapon rolls rather than armor classes, perhaps? Again, that starts to get really freaky when dealing with non-human, non-fencing opponents (did the giant spider parry?)"

That's the crux of the matter. This combat system was designed for multi-character fights against monsters, not single combat between semi-identical opponents. I was thinking this morning that it might be better to have a Pendragon-like mutual strike system, but wouldn't that mess up all kinds of feats? It seems like anything is going to have a ripple effect.

I'm not going to add any further comment because I realized I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this. I was thinking in real-world terms, but this about is about a rule set, one that I don't really know that well.

So who is my now-mortal enemy anyhow? :)

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

It seems like anything is going to have a ripple effect.

Which is why I was aiming for an abstraction of HP, as that wouldn't change the in game value of any particular feat or ability; it would just lay down some guidelines for the defensive value of HP. If everyone would rather have every HP loss indicate a bleeding cut I'll defer, but it will have strong ramifications in feat selection.

I'm not going to add any further comment because I realized I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this.

Of course you are - you're a player. If you really think that there's more emotional impact and tension in having any HP loss count as 'blood' then I'm interested to hear it. I don't want to make duels less tense after all. I just don't want to have you guys at 6th level losing to those 1st level halflings over and over because they're quicker.

So who is my now-mortal enemy anyhow? :)

Hey, we have rules to hack out here - how could the actual plotline be more important than that?

I'm still compiling a database of proper sounding names; I'll pick something well before next game.

[(Anonymous)]

"I just don't want to have you guys at 6th level losing to those 1st level halflings over and over because they're quicker."

After the first time, I suspect one side will be hacked off enough to raise the ante.

This is supposed to be similar in feel to the Khaavren books, right? They usually fought until somebody said "I yield" if I recall correctly....

Bec
mechanics? what're those?

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

"Terms" he said.
The other Hawk frowned. "We have agreed - "
"State them aloud, please," said Aerich
The Hawk nodded. "Plain steel weapons, sword and dagger, to first blood, no healer present, but a healer may be summoned at once upon conclusion."

[that seems pretty formal, and is standard for an official, legal duel. But to illustrate other points let's continue]

Aeirch looked an inquiry at the Dzurlord, who seemed disgusted, but nodded.
The Lyorn stood between them so they were separated from him by five paces and from each other by ten. He raised his hand.
"As your chosen Imperial intermediary, in accordance with the laws of the Empire, I ask if yoou will not be reconciled." His tone of voice indicated a certain lack of interest in the answer.
"No."
"No."
"Very well," he said, and lowered his hand in a motion that was at once graceful and sudden.
Both Hawk and Dzur seemed to be startled but the Dzur recovered first. With a yell she sprang at her enemy, he blade visible only as a blur. The Hawklord barely had time to assume a defensive posture, and at once there was the ringing of steel on steel, which sent a thrill through Khaavren's heart.

[That looks like someone getting caught flat footed at the start of a combat to me, but it could also be the nature of the duel meaning that he *can't* be flat footed and thus is able to defend. Tazendra clearly charged her opponent, but in D&D mechanics she either then missed her attack or if she hit and didn't do enough HP for it to count as a visible wound.]

The Hawk stepped back, and swung his blade wildly and from so far away Khaavren could see it was a useless gesture. The Dzur smiled contemptuously and stepped in, and, to Khaavren's inexperienced by expert eye, she moved with a grace and fluidity that would have made her a worthy opponent of his own sword-master.

[I figure the PCs are 2nd-3rd level at the start of this, and her opponent is equally low level. Maybe even 1st... which means her initial attack was probably a miss.]

With her next step, she beat aside the Hawklord's sword and, with the same motion, gave him a good cut across his right shoulder and down to his chest. The soundd that came from his throat was more a sqeak than moan as he fell over backward, the point of her sword still lodged in hhs chest, breaking two hibs and nearly cutting open his lungs.

[Having learned her opponent's miserable armor class with her first attack Tazendra activates her Power Attack and executes a 2 handed swing with her Bastard Sword. That's d10, +3 for STR and another +2 for the power attack. he goes from 10 HP down to -3....]

The Hawklord's weapons fell from his hands as he lay on the ground, staring upward in horror as the Dzur pulled her sword free and raised it for the killing stroke.
"Lady!" called Aeirch, in a tone that was far sharper than Khaavren would have suspected possible from the quiet gentleman. It was used to good effect, too, as the Dzurlord stopped, looked at him, then sighed and nodded.
"Ah yes," she said, with a hint of contempt in her voice. "First blood."
- The Phoenix Guards, Chapter the First

and there's first blood at low levels.

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

In the later fight of guardsmen against Kurich and company we get this exchange:
"Very well. And for the judge and the Imperial witnesses?"
"Why," said Khaavren. "I have brought none. And you?"
The one called Kurich, who faced Tazendra, shrugged. "What would you? I have no desire to wait. Let us deal with matters as they stand. Come now, to arms."

And that fight ended when Pel quickly intimidated and then disarmed his opponent, Aierch reduced his opponent to below 0 HP after waiting for the perfect opening, Tazendra took a hit to her shoulder and then pinned Kurich to the ground with her greatsword and Khaaven took a few minor cuts in a long duel before seizing an opening and dropping his foe to very nearly 0 HP, give or take.

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

A duel is a contest using deadly weapons between to combatants over some perceived wrong or loss of face or honor. “I demand satisfaction!” is often the code phrase used by the injured party to request a duel.

The usual goal of a duel wasn’t so much as a desire to kill one’s opponent as to have the offended party gain "satisfaction" over their enemy. “Satisfaction” itself usually defined as restoring one's honor by demonstrating a willingness to risk one's life for it.

Thereby winning the duel is thereby one means of righting this perceived wrong, but simply showing a willingness to fight may be another. If a duel isn’t fought to the death, it is fought to the satisfaction of the one demanding the duel until honor is deemed to have been restored. This could mean First Blood, or at some other pre-determined point, FREX until at least one person is incapacitated or rendered unable to fight (i.e. unconsciousness).

Sometimes “Satisfaction” means simply showing up and surviving unscathed a pre-determined set of conditions (i.e. being shot at three times by a pistol/wand/cross-bow). There have been odd duels in the past, where combatants didn’t use conventional (and lethal) weapons, but fought with bladders full of manure or ink, with “Satisfaction” achieved by the one making the first visible mark. There have even been duels with persons aloft in balloons using pistols at the other’s aerostat.

This is all a very long-winded preamble to my point that it should be the combatants, and not the GM who needs to set the bar to what constitutes “Satisfaction” to the injured party demanding the duel.

If the player/PC demanding that they duel to “First Blood” (meaning literally the first strike that draws a visible injury) as the point at which Satisfaction occurs (and for which Initiative means so much), then re-defining First Blood to be 1/3 of hit points is simply redefining the meaning of this term and cheats the person who thinks that First Blood means exactly that.

However, if the two combatants wish to change the level of desired and formalized lethality so that the duel ends with “Satisfaction” being defined as the first injury that requires magical healing (i.e. beyond 8 HP) or the first that requires the intervention of a high level cleric (say 1/3 to ½ total HP) that could be another possibility for to the two duelists and their seconds to consider.

::B::

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

If the player/PC demanding that they duel to "First Blood" (meaning literally the first strike that draws a visible injury) as the point at which Satisfaction occurs...

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm stating that 1/3rd of your HP is the first strike that draws a visible injury. Given the abstract nature of D&D HP this makes sense. To a 60 HP level fighter taking 5 HP from a rapier strike is some shock up the arm from an poorly performed parry - it's not the same effect as a 4 HP peasant taking that 5 HP shot as a rapier through the torso.

We're already in a setting with low AC so doing HP on an early attack is easy. Between low level duelists that first hit is likely to do more than 1/3rd of their opponents HP. But at higher levels a fight to first HP loss is meaningless - ACs aren't going to grow as fast as BAB or HP, but since
1) HP are already an abstract of combat ability
2) HP are one of the main forms of defense in the game
3) HP are one of the main indicators of skill in the game
giving HP some defined break points for when your defenses have been penetrated is worthwhile.

Otherwise it's all about initiative, which also controls AC. Making first blood = HP loss means that most battles are over in one round. Making it to over 1/3rd HP gives more time for people to change stances, jump onto benches, and do anything that would require more than taking a single attack.

Of four duels only Melas' got that effect, and that was because having seen the others I had his opponent make bad tactical decisions (using all his Expertise + fighting defensively) to boost his AC and reduce his chance to hit. As a result Melas scouted out holes in his enemies armor, leaped from ground to bench, watched his foe do the same, parried and dodged, saw his foe jump to a nearby table and ultimately landed a telling blow. That's what I want to see - if I hadn't done that his opponent's initial attack would have been at +5 to hit rather than -2, and he would have scored first blood right after the initiative roll. If we had made first blood equal to more than 1/3rd Melas HP that initial attack probably wouldn't have done enough to count, and the duel could have continued.

It also means that Deitrich's high initiative + sneak attack is still a legitimate way to end duels in a single hit - he's specifically trained to give potentially lethal wounds in that split second of indecision. Deitrich's style will continue to matter throughout the rest off the game with the fractional HP levels, where Hiram's two good dice rolls early on would not.

The only other option I can see is following ladegard's suggestion of borrowing the Wound/Stun rules, where your first level HP are wounds and everything else is stun. You don't take wounds - do not show signs of visible injury - until you are out of stun points or take a critical hit. But I don't want to do that because its another level of complication. I have to refigure monster stats etc. But if we don't set break points for when HP = wounds than frst blood is no indicator of skill.

However, if the two combatants wish to change the level of desired and formalized lethality so that the duel ends with 'Satisfaction' being defined as the first injury that requires magical healing (i.e. beyond 8 HP) or the first that requires the intervention of a high level cleric (say 1/3 to ½ total HP) that could be another possibility for to the two duelists and their seconds to consider.

I would rather see duelists going for a 'first error' in fights that are sparring - the first HP loss ends the duel, so the 60 HP poorly performed parry is enough to say that his opponent has forced him out of proper form and thus ended the duel. But that's a matter for judging, honor or friendly bouts. It works the same, but 'to first loss of an abstract defensive measurement' is the exception, not the rule.

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

But at higher levels a fight to first HP loss is meaningless.

Meaningless in what way? If the point of a duel is to derive satisfaction, and satisfaction is defined as dueling with lethal weapons to the point one opponent produces a physical mark on the other to regain and restore honour. This physical mark may be only a scratch, the so-called 'first blood'.

I think we both agree that HP are abstract representation. But perhaps they shouldn't be used in this instance of representing a duel if the point of the contest is not lethality (i.e. a judicial duel).

Consider these two extreme examples where HPs fall down in a duel:

1) A veteran soldier (the so called 'first level PC) may suffer many minor cuts, scratches and abrasions that may each sequentially leave a physical mark, but their sum total does not affect their combat ability in any way.

They have sustained the visible manifestation of 'First Blood' without the need to have lost 1/3 of their life force (using your definition of what constitutes FB)

2) A very skilled duelist using a rapier against an inferior foe may toy with their foe to sequentially cut off buttons, locks of hair, belt and suspenders. His foe is vastly humiliated in the process (especially if their trousers drop!) and has lost honour and the duel and yet not a single loss of anything one could call a Hit Point has been lost.

I can see what you are trying to do with this home-brew solution to the D20 rules; providing some drama to the duel by prolonging the circumstances of the contest. But in this instance the D20 combat system doesn't appear to help emulate many of the swashbuckling traditions of dueling that appear in such historical based literature as "The Scarlet Pimpernel", "Scaramouche", etc. There are no bonuses to fighting a duel for hurling taunts, using feints, playing mind-games with your opponent to unnerve them. And using HP as the metric to see who wins or loses a duel may be similarly unhelpful.

::B::

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

Meaningless in what way? If the point of a duel is to derive satisfaction, and satisfaction is defined as dueling with lethal weapons to the point one opponent produces a physical mark on the other to regain and restore honour. This physical mark may be only a scratch, the so-called 'first blood'.

It's meaningless in the Emirikol setting, as it is in the primary source material: the young nobles have hot tempers and large egos, looking for reasons to show how skilled they are with a blade. in other words, just like the Musketeers and the Phoenix Guards, who would duel over being bumped in the street or just not liking the cut of someone's jib. In such a fight getting a scratch isn't going to restore anyone's honor.

We even have a defined fencing style that's common in the capital focusing on heavy defense and an attempt to deliver small cuts with no risk to the attacker in hopes of securing a quick first blood - it's derided outside the capital as a style for those with water in their veins, or for politicians who want the show of honor but not the substance of it. It's the greensward style, and I have it defined in a previous post.

1) A veteran soldier (the so called 'first level PC) may suffer many minor cuts, scratches and abrasions that may each sequentially leave a physical mark, but their sum total does not affect their combat ability in any way.

OK, and how would those cuts, abrasions what have you not amount to taking 4 points of damage needed to bloody a 1st level fighter when the average hit from a weapon is 1d6 to 1d8? Low level PCs aren't the problem, as almost any hit from a weapon will take them over 1/3rd their HP.

But if the master fencer in your next example, with his +7 BAB et al loses initiative the veteran from your first and gets tagged for 1/20th his HP, is it ia real show of skill? Or just two high dice rolls in rapid succession?

I think this might be our stumbling block here - these duels are not just about having honor enough to face death to restore an insult, but they're also about displaying your skill as a fencer. You're comments are discussing the honor but not the competition. A trembling peasant who stands and faces his foe despite certain death would certianly display great courage and redeem his honor (until he was dead), but that's not who the hot young turks of Emirikol would be fighting. They're out to prove that they're both courageous *and* dangerous, unwilling to take any insult while still being grace personified.

There are no bonuses to fighting a duel for hurling taunts, using feints, playing mind-games with your opponent to unnerve them. And using HP as the metric to see who wins or loses a duel may be similarly unhelpful.

Ah, but there are metrics for taunting, playing mind games and unnerving your foe! We've already worked these out, and the basic rules have others.
* You can use the Bluff skill against your opponents Will save+5 to force them to abandon a defensive stance by pissing them off, thus lowering their AC (Jim did this in his fight).
* You can use the Intimidate skill as a weapons display to reduce their chance to hit and damage for their next action, with rules very similar to a feint.
* You can disarm them, trip them or break their weapon, as already exists in the rules, to worsen their situation and otherwise force them to surrender. Dave's opponent shattered Dave's rapier with his longsword in the single pass of the fight.

We have the means to handle taunting and flummoxing foes, but not the mechanism to have a fight last longer than a single round.

[(Anonymous)]

Count me as another voice in the no-flatfoot chorus. It seems that in a set-piece fight where there is no element of surprise and both participants have the opportunity to make ready before the fighting begins, the dex bonus to AC would apply. Initiative still has value because after all you do get the first crack at your opponent.

Yes, it means rogues can't sneak-attack people in a duel, but just how do you sneak-attack someone who's standing there watching you, holding a sword pointed at you and alert to your every move?

So adopt a house rule that in formal duels (or any other situation where there is no chance of surprise) neither combatant is flat-footed. Call it the "arch support" rule.

Cambias

[brianrogers.livejournal.com]

OK, so we'll rop flat-footed in formal duels.

Where do you stand on the First Blood issue? first HP loss, 1/3rd of HP, reduced HP totals or something else?