D&D PvP Tournament Suggestions

[koga305]

Hi all,

I was inspired by reading the "What would be your PvP Build" thread. I am a member of a tabletop gaming club in college that would enjoy a real life version of this. We do have a few ongoing D&D campaigns that are a lot of fun, but it might also be fun to try a "competitive" tournament and showing off our character building skills.

Here are the basic parameters I was thinking:


Characters begin at level 7. This level should allow for lots of options without being overwhelming or bringing high-level magic into play.
Characters would be built with point buy and a reasonably large amount of gold, but no magic items. Multiclassing and feats would be allowed, as would character options from the Elemental Evil supplement and the SCAG. DMG optional rules and Unearthed Arcana would not be allowed.
Battles would take place in one of four possible arenas with varying themes (think Super Smash Bros.). Each arena would be set up a little differently - some would have obstacles and hazards, others would emphasize range or close quarters. The idea would be to provide some varying terrain and places where certain options and spells could shine, without those options and spells being totally reliable. (For example, some arenas would have lots of dim light or darkness, others would have only a little bit. This would give the shadow monk some utility without allowing it to dominate.)
Characters would have 1 minute to cast buffs, etc. on themselves before the battle started.
The tournament would likely include 8 players and be single elimination. Each battle would have a DM who would serve as a referee and rules consultant.
Between the first and second battle, characters gain a short rest. Between the second and third (finals), they gain a long rest. This would allow casters to use a lot of spells without being able to nova every fight.


GiantITP has a good reputation for character optimization, so I'm curious what you all would recommend. Are there any character options that you would ban or limit? (Aarakocra and Conjure Woodland Beings come to mind) What kinds of arenas would be cool? Am I making any mistakes in the tournament options above? I'd love your feedback!

[thedanster7000]

One point I do have is that you shouldn't roll for initiative, just assume everyone rolls 10 to make sure Dex optimisations benefit from their initiative bonus and to make it more fair.

Also: In D&D 1v1 PvP wouldn't all builds just be DPR?

[MaxWilson]

Maybe it's just me, but instead of a single elimination tournament of 1:1, I'd suggest a triple elimination free-for-all. Have three separate arenas, and one fight in each. Each fight is to unconsciousness or worse; after each fight, everyone is Revivified (if necessary) and then given an hour and a half to recuperate before the next fight. (You can have little goblin medics in yellow tunics posted in the arena who carry the casualties out on stretchers.)

I expect the reason you're going for 1:1 is to keep multiagent decision problems to a minimum (alliances, backstabbing, etc.). That is exactly the reason I think a free-for-all would be fun at the actual table. Players love wheeling and dealing with each other.


Also: In D&D 1v1 PvP wouldn't all builds just be DPR?

Not necessarily. You could have some defensive builds which are built more for loss ratios than DPR (e.g. take Defense style instead of GWM). Depending on the arena environment, you could have some builds which are built for stealth and hit-and-run. You could have summoners. As a counter to summoners, you could have some AoEs. You could have some save-or-dies like Diviners with Polymorph + Geas. (Polymorph target into a toad, then Geas the toad to charm it. Now when the Polymorph wears off, he cannot hurt you. Now you auto-win regardless of DPR unless he knows Dispel Magic.)

There exist things in 5E which bypass HP; and DPR doesn't even measure loss ratios, which are more important than DPR for predicting winners and losers.

[thedanster7000]

Maybe it's just me, but instead of a single elimination tournament of 1:1, I'd suggest a triple elimination free-for-all.

Yes, completely agree. 1v1 might work in other systems but not D&D as much because there isn't much choice in what you do (you'd just pick the highest damage attack after Bless or whatever has been cast.)

[JoeJ]

I'd prefer the idea of a Last Creature Standing fight. All the participants enter the arena at the same time and fight until only one is left. That would test tactics as well as (and probably more than) build.

[thedanster7000]

I'd prefer the idea of a Last Creature Standing fight. All the participants enter the arena at the same time and fight until only one is left. That would test tactics as well as (and probably more than) build.

This could lead to groups of people ganging up on each other though, whereas that will happen less in 3v3s where you're a lot more likely to be backstabbed early on.

[Naanomi]

What are the ring out rules? How high can I fly or low can I dig before I am eliminated?

[8wGremlin]

Tieflings variants from SCAG - in or out?

[JoeJ]

This could lead to groups of people ganging up on each other though, whereas that will happen less in 3v3s where you're a lot more likely to be backstabbed early on.

I'm okay with that. Making alliances is an important skill, and trying to come to some sort of temporary agreement in the middle of combat, knowing that it has to break down before the match is over, would be very interesting. (Or maybe I've just watched too much WWE.)

[thedanster7000]

I'm okay with that. Making alliances is an important skill, and trying to come to some sort of temporary agreement in the middle of combat, knowing that it has to break down before the match is over, would be very interesting. (Or maybe I've just watched too much WWE.)

I just know that if everyone ganged up on me right at the start and I got instantly killed I'd be upset.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, completely agree. 1v1 might work in other systems but not D&D as much because there isn't much choice in what you do (you'd just pick the highest damage attack after Bless or whatever has been cast.)

I'm confused. You say "completely agree" with my suggestion here, but when JoeJ suggests exactly the same thing (Last Creature Standing/Free-for-all) in the next post, you demur and say you wouldn't want that.

As far as I'm concerned, what I'm suggesting is basically Diplomacy in D&D: everyone makes deals and secret alliances before it all starts, and then the game begins and treachery starts to occur (e.g. Haste your Barbarian buddy and then drop Haste at the worst-possible moment).J

I guess you'd need a rule for when two allies don't want to betray each other. You could try to force them to reduce one of them to 0 HP (Hunger Games style/There Can Be Only One), or let them settle the "winner" of that round via random die roll, or even let them split the victory points. I'm not sure which would be most entertaining. Since everyone is going to go three rounds, there is an advantage to getting a full 1.0 Victory Points from a given round instead of 0.5 split with a partner, so splitting VP is probably what I'd go with. (I pointed my players to this thread, so if any of you guys have a preference, let me know okay?)

[thedanster7000]

I'm confused. You say "completely agree" with my suggestion here, but when JoeJ suggests exactly the same thing (Last Creature Standing/Free-for-all) in the next post, you demur and say you wouldn't want that.


I don't agree with the idea of a LARGE Free-For-All; you specified splitting it into 3 or so fights.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

[MaxWilson]

I don't agree with the idea of a LARGE Free-For-All; you specified splitting it into 3 or so fights.

Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

I suggested a triple-elimination free-for-all with healing between rounds. Triple-elimination means you have to lose three times to be out of the contest. My intention was that you'd have three fights, all with the same set of contestants, but with Revivify and an hour or so for resting in between fights.

[thedanster7000]

I suggested a triple-elimination free-for-all with healing between rounds. Triple-elimination means you have to lose three times to be out of the contest. My intention was that you'd have three fights, all with the same set of contestants, but with Revivify and an hour or so for resting in between fights.

Ah I see I thought you meant 3-person FFAs.

[JoeJ]

I just know that if everyone ganged up on me right at the start and I got instantly killed I'd be upset.

If characters weren't allowed to communicate with each other before the match begins, that would be less likely. Alliances would have to shake out during the combat, and probably wouldn't last more than a few rounds at best.

[MaxWilson]

If characters weren't allowed to communicate with each other before the match begins, that would be less likely. Alliances would have to shake out during the combat, and probably wouldn't last more than a few rounds at best.

Also remember that there are multiple rounds. If everyone gangs up to kill you, they still have to fight it out with each other, and there will probably be treachery between them. Between fights you can scheme with the other players who got betrayed to shank somebody else on round #2.

That's why I want a multi-round competition--it changes the decision calculus.

[CaptAl]

Also remember that there are multiple rounds. If everyone gangs up to kill you, they still have to fight it out with each other, and there will probably be treachery between them. Between fights you can scheme with the other players who got betrayed to shank somebody else on round #2.

That's why I want a multi-round competition--it changes the decision calculus.

I'm with Max here. Throw all 8 guys in, and give out points. 8 for the winner and the round. 7 for runner up. Etc etc.

Multiple rounds, winner is the person with the most points at the end of the final battle. I feel like the single elimination tournament would be too influenced by the dice gods. A sub par build/character could dominate a better tactician/build with a lucky crit or two.

[koga305]

I hear what you all are saying, but I disagree. A free-for-all would create much different play dynamics than a 1v1 tournament. As a Magic: the Gathering player, I know that kind of game is decided much more often by who gets targeted first, and who can avoid looking like the biggest threat long enough to ride out the initial melee. The goal would be for the tournament to be decided primarily by character building and tactical skill, not by political negotiation and threat calculus.



I just know that if everyone ganged up on me right at the start and I got instantly killed I'd be upset.
Yeah, this is pretty much what I'd be worried about in a free-for-all. In a 1v1 match, you can't blame the other person for going right for you; in a multiplayer match, that kind of decision often seems arbitrary.


What are the ring out rules? How high can I fly or low can I dig before I am eliminated?
Good question! I guess the arenas would have to be constructed to take that into account. Definitely wouldn't want, the Fly/Fire Bolt/Spell Sniper build to dominate the tournament, although I'm not sure there are any strong burrowing builds available at level 7 without magic items. Maybe set a limit on flying (or construct the arenas such that) any flying character can be targeted by a Strength-based ranged weapon?


Tieflings variants from SCAG - in or out?
The flying one would have to be out. Flight in general seems like it ought to be something to spend a spell on, not just an "always on" option without Concentration.

Thanks for the replies, everyone! Keep them coming!

[JoeJ]

Good question! I guess the arenas would have to be constructed to take that into account. Definitely wouldn't want, the Fly/Fire Bolt/Spell Sniper build to dominate the tournament, although I'm not sure there are any strong burrowing builds available at level 7 without magic items. Maybe set a limit on flying (or construct the arenas such that) any flying character can be targeted by a Strength-based ranged weapon?

Anybody who exceeds a certain altitude leaves the arena and loses by default.

[Naanomi]

Anybody who exceeds a certain altitude leaves the arena and loses by default.
Hurling people super-high to ring them out may be a viable tactic

And Druids/rangers riding badgers may still dig strategically

[MaxWilson]

I hear what you all are saying, but I disagree. A free-for-all would create much different play dynamics than a 1v1 tournament. As a Magic: the Gathering player, I know that kind of game is decided much more often by who gets targeted first, and who can avoid looking like the biggest threat long enough to ride out the initial melee. The goal would be for the tournament to be decided primarily by character building and tactical skill, not by political negotiation and threat calculus.

Yeah, different goals lead to different game structures. My goal in suggesting the free-for-all is to find a structure that I expect to actually be fun at the table. 1v1s would lead to a lot of time spent sitting around watching two guys duke it out in a constrained environment. My players are more competitive and enjoy one-upping and backstabbing each other occasionally, so I want an contest that matches our playstyle, hence FFA.

One of my players actually suggested adding even more complexity, like traps or a rogue beholder which, if you kill it, you can actually take control of its replacement. (I'm considering it, but I don't want the DM to be a major factor in the match so I'd need to restrict the beholder to a specific area or something before you take control.) Clearly, different people like different levels of complexity in their arena matches.

[koga305]

Anybody who exceeds a certain altitude leaves the arena and loses by default.
Not a bad idea. What would the ideal height be, 60 feet (Max range for javelins and handaxes)?


Hurling people super-high to ring them out may be a viable tactic

And Druids/rangers riding badgers may still dig strategically

Good point about the badgers. Not sure how you'd accomplish the ring-out technique, though - maybe Polymorph? Could just rule that forced movement doesn't count.


Yeah, different goals lead to different game structures. My goal in suggesting the free-for-all is to find a structure that I expect to actually be fun at the table. 1v1s would lead to a lot of time spent sitting around watching two guys duke it out in a constrained environment. My players are more competitive and enjoy one-upping and backstabbing each other occasionally, so I want an contest that matches our playstyle, hence FFA.

One of my players actually suggested adding even more complexity, like traps or a rogue beholder which, if you kill it, you can actually take control of its replacement. (I'm considering it, but I don't want the DM to be a major factor in the match so I'd need to restrict the beholder to a specific area or something before you take control.) Clearly, different people like different levels of complexity in their arena matches.
I'm still in favor of 1v1, but I definitely like the idea of adding arena hazards and things for the players to interact with. Rogue beholder might be a bit much for level 7 characters, though. What kinds of traps could be fun?

[Douche]

I created the PvP build thread, and I was actually hoping you wanted to run a PvP game on this board so I didn't have to do it :smalltongue:

Anyway, with the 4v4 match suggestion, you got me thinking how fun it'd be to have a game of Capture the Flag or some other objective based gameplay.