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

[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.