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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-02-16 01:31 am (UTC)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.