[3.5] Let's settle this, my best warrior vs. yours...

[Deimess]

Most people have seen or heard of those times where two massive armies meet that are almost equal in power. To avoid mass bloodshed, there are times where both sides agree to pit their best fighters against each other, and it is winner take all.

In movies and even in reality, these are epic showdowns that can last awhile. I know from being a twin that when two people of almost equal skill fight, it can take awhile and can be very epic. Unfortunately, in terms of D&D 3.5, they are an exchange of "I full round you" or "I try to trip you"

Are there any variants or unique ways of handling a situation like this in D&D? Say two level 11 fighters (3 attacks per round) go up against each other. How can this be made more interesting by...

...RAW, no rules are changed, but actions other than full-attack are taken that make it more dynamic and interesting

...not RAW, some minor changes are made to make the combat more strategic and dynamic

[hushblade]

Martial adept classes are much more dynamic than your standard fighter if you want variety.

[Curious]

Pathfinder released some dueling (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/duels) rules in Ultimate combat. They aren't a huge shift, but they seem interesting.

[Coidzor]

Hmm. One thing I can think of would be to crib something from the Performance Combat rules from Pathfinder and then basically rule it to have morale effects on the two sides for when they do inevitably clash after that sort of thing...

Another is that I believe there was some kind of martial staredown skill challenge in Tome of Battle.

[DeltaEmil]

Replace fighters with the classes found in that book (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a)...

However, because D&D should be a team-based game, and solo-duels are boring for all the other players, it's better to have not one champion fight another champion, but a team of 4-5 champions (number equals the amount of players - and yes, your player characters are these champions) against the other equal-numbered team.

Try to avoid a situation where Billy gets to duel Evilspikeyblackarmor-Guy the Mean One.

It's better to have Billy, Jimmy, Franky, Susie and Ellie fight Evilspikeyblackarmor-Guy the Mean One, Doom-Doom the evil warlock, Badguydoesevilthings the Despicable, Babysacrifying-Joe who sacrifices babys for evil gods, and Cartman the fat bastard, in an ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny. Team vs. Team, and the winner gets all. Which is how D&D, a game for several people, should be played.

[Randomguy]

With any two classes there can be tons of variety. For example, orc fighter using a greatsword vs. a sleight build kobold sneak attack variant thug fighter with the giantbane feat as well as some ambush feats.

There are thousands of ways to build any class, including a fighter. Things get boring when you force the exact same build on both players.

And there are even more options with classes that have maneuvers or spells: even a match between two wizards with the same build would be interesting, as long as they had different spells prepared.

[Deimess]

Replace fighters with the classes found in that book (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a)...

However, because D&D should be a team-based game, and solo-duels are boring for all the other players, it's better to have not one champion fight another champion, but a team of 4-5 champions (number equals the amount of players - and yes, your player characters are these champions) against the other equal-numbered team.

Try to avoid a situation where Billy gets to duel Evilspikeyblackarmor-Guy the Mean One.

It's better to have Billy, Jimmy, Franky, Susie and Ellie fight Evilspikeyblackarmor-Guy the Mean One, Doom-Doom the evil warlock, Badguydoesevilthings the Despicable, Babysacrifying-Joe who sacrifices babys for evil gods, and Cartman the fat bastard, in an ultimate showdown of ultimate destiny. Team vs. Team, and the winner gets all. Which is how D&D, a game for several people, should be played.

I completely agree, and i have done this, although they weren't quite as villainous as "Babysacrificing-Joe" (what a ****)... However, I have come across times (much like the recent battle in OOTS actually) where the party is temporarily separated and tow melee types have come face to face while the spellcasters are doing something else.

(EDIT):


With any two classes there can be tons of variety. For example, orc fighter using a greatsword vs. a sleight build kobold sneak attack variant thug fighter with the giantbane feat as well as some ambush feats.

There are thousands of ways to build any class, including a fighter. Things get boring when you force the exact same build on both players.

And there are even more options with classes that have maneuvers or spells: even a match between two wizards with the same build would be interesting, as long as they had different spells prepared.

Agreed again, but for one, I don't own Tome of Battle, and for two, the builds that are likely to end up against each other head to head usually aren't superbly different.

[playswithfire]

This is probably too convoluted and roll-intensive*, but it might be interesting, but would make fights more real-time and possibly more interesting.

Short version: a player's turn ends when they miss or deal an attack that their opponent can shrug off. In the latter case, the attacked player has certain modifiers to their actions.

Attacker rolls:
Attack roll and Damage Roll
Defender rolls:
Defense roll (replace the flat 10 in AC with a d20) and a Fort save

If defense roll exceeds attack roll, attacker's turn ends
Else
____Attack hits and deals damage
____If Fort save is less than damage
________ Attacker proceeds to next iterative (repeat process) or takes a move action
____Else
________Defender can let attack proceed to iterative/take a move action OR
________Defender can end attackers turn, in which case it's the defender's turn, but they take a -2 penalty on attack rolls, but gain a +2 bonus on attempts to trip or grapple their opponent or to disarm them of the weapon that just struck them

ToB classes are also a good idea (and work well with the above as they more interesting options for standard action attacks).

I may be nuts, but I think it could work.

*To the point that it's probably only viable for actual tabletop and not PbP

[Flickerdart]

OA has rules for an iaijutsu duel - after the first round it does become full-attack-exchangey, but there's mechanics for buildup. You get to size up your opponent, then an Iaijutsu Focus check determines who draws the fastest (and thus gets to apply his bonus damage). If the duel is to first blood, merely hitting with this attack ends it, but if it's to the death, then it continues with a regular match.

[Snowbluff]

I completely agree, and i have done this, although they weren't quite as villainous as "Babysacrificing-Joe" (what a ****)... However, I have come across times (much like the recent battle in OOTS actually) where the party is temporarily separated and tow melee types have come face to face while the spellcasters are doing something else.

(EDIT):



Agreed again, but for one, I don't own Tome of Battle, and for two, the builds that are likely to end up against each other head to head usually aren't superbly different.

I think the ToB classes are free to play, as in they are legally available on the internet.

[playswithfire]

I think the ToB classes are free to play, as in they are legally available on the internet.

I know the warblade (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20060802a&page=2) is printed online by WotC and so are the manuever cards (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20061225a), but I don't think I've seen the full swordsage and crusader classes legally online, though some wikis seem to have fairly complete copies.