Duel Done Well? Your opinion on 1 vs 1 fights.

[Unoriginal]

An adventure group usually faces challenges and encounters as a team. However, sometime a single PC has to fight a NPC on their own, for reasons going from the formal judiciary challenge to being separated from the rest of the party, passing by the light-hearted competition.

Yet from what I've heard, that is often seen like a drag where the other players get bored from the lack of things to do, and not thought to be interesting encounters even for the PC who's fighting.


What do you think? Have you ever been entertained by a duel? How have you seen DMs handle that situation?



Note I'm talking about actual 1 vs 1 stuff, not "the other PCs are cheating by boosting the combatant in the background".

[Laserlight]

I ran a campaign which had several occasions of PvP. No one seemed bored and a couple of incidents were hilarious.
In one, the halfling had burglarized an office and the other two were waiting outside when the Watch came along. The girl kissed the guy as a ploy, he rebuffed her because he was high status and she was barbarian scum, then the Watch sergeant referred to her as a prostitute and the nobleman commented that he frequented a higher class of brothel. And that's when the fight started...
The burglar heard yelling but didn't know what was going on, had to decide turn by turn whether to finish his search or go out and join the fight.

If the other players aren't trying to accomplish tasks while the duel is going on, then I would just run the duel. As long as the player isn't "the guy who has to look up his spells every turn and doesn't know his attack bonus or AC", it should move pretty quickly.

[Cespenar]

I've recently tried to do multiple 1-on-1s. The truth is, D&D isn't detailed enough to pull tactically deep 1-on-1 duels.

I compensate by trying to add more drama, atmosphere, and roleplaying to the deal. Up the stakes, make the entrances more intriguing, add some combat banter, maybe add some in-combat perception checks to discover the opponent's fighting style and/or quirks.

[Unoriginal]

I've recently tried to do multiple 1-on-1s. The truth is, D&D isn't detailed enough to pull tactically deep 1-on-1 duels.

5e isn't really tactically deep in general.



I compensate by trying to add more drama, atmosphere, and roleplaying to the deal. Up the stakes, make the entrances more intriguing, add some combat banter, maybe add some in-combat perception checks to discover the opponent's fighting style and/or quirks.

Did the players like it?

[Cespenar]

5e isn't really tactically deep in general.

Did the players like it?

-Eh, for party-scale stuff, it's adequate.

-Didn't ask them directly afterwards, but at least one of them liked it, I think. :smalltongue:

[Unoriginal]

-Eh, for party-scale stuff, it's adequate.

Sure, I like what we got a lot.


-Didn't ask them directly afterwards, but at least one of them liked it, I think. :smalltongue:

Nice.

[Asmotherion]

It's great.

My first experiance with this was with a genious DM who had us each Fight a Duel with a Boss before the end of the campain, to face off the End Boss.

The 5 battles were happening Simultaneusly, and each one had to be completed succesfully. If one of us failed, we don't know what would have happened (but he told us, out of game afterwards, he had plans for that as well).

We played a few rounds of each battle, and left from one scene's cliffhanger to an other, which was Narrative at it's best! We were worried about our characters, but also about our party members, as we had to all succeed with the mission; One failure could make us all fail! So we were following as the battles unfolded themselves.

I personally think that this is the best kind of D&D I've ever experianced, as long as it is well planed and well delivered. If you let the non participants in the backround, uninterested, as simple spectators, they are bound to get bored, and loose their attention. Instead, engage them somehow, and make them participate in the thing; Make them relevant!

You have a Magical Duel? Have pauses between the Duel, and have the remaining of the players able to strart a small side quest (spot someone who is trying to rig the duel in favor of the opponent by casting spells undetected wile someone else takes bets on his failure for profit).

Good DMing can allow every situation to be from utterly borring to amazingly engaging and interesting. That's my view on the matter.

[StoicLeaf]

I ran a duel once.

My group held a banquet to get to know the neighbours; the dinner service they had purchased had however been waylaid on the trip to their castle, the bandits had taken their place and during the night's festivities the bandits not only made off with a bunch of gold, they also took hostages.
After a lengthy pursuit through the woods, the group caught up to the bandits who were attempting to flee to an anchored ship via boats.
An impassé, as the bandits weren't going to be able to get away without taking heavy casualties but the bandit's weren't going to release the hostages without assurances.

I proposed a dual; regardless of the outcome, the hostages would be released. If the bandit leader wins, he leaves with his takings. If the PCs win, the remaining bandits will relinquish what they stole but will be allowed to leave.

I'd made an (N)PC swashbuckler and named my terms for the fight; far enough for the ranged characters to think they'd be able to gun the bandit leader down before he can close the distance (hint: they can't), close enough for the bearbarian (sentinel feated!) to assume he'll be able to lockdown his opponent.

The group debated their options and decided that the bearbarian would accept the duel, thinking it was a sure thing. It wasn't, and he lost horribly; his comrades watched as the bandit's rapier pierced through his chest and he collapsed where he stood. Enraged, they reneged on the terms of the duel and as soon as the hostages were out of range absolutely murdered the rest of the bandits. Even executing unarmed ones.

I liked how it all worked out because they had choices to make.
I'm not sure how often I could make this work; the swashbuckler class was perfect for countering all of their usual tactics, it would become a bit boring and repetitive if every duelist they faced was a swashbuckler.
I think perhaps for non min-maxery groups, duels are more likely to be a possibility because they haven't crunched the numbers and even a slightly optimised (N)PC will pose a significant risk.

I agree that for the most part, there are no tactical options.
But thankfully, PC fights are generally rather short as PCs are a bit low in the HP department.

[Unoriginal]

You could also use NPC statblocks for the opponent's stats. Don't have to optimize them or build them like PCs.

[StoicLeaf]

You could also use NPC statblocks for the opponent's stats. Don't have to optimize them or build them like PCs.

I find that monsters from the various books are way too high on hp and too low on damage.

Particularly in a 1v1, the player is counting the other guy's hp.
At some point their suspension of disbelief is ruined because they've killed the other guy twice over but he's still standing.

[Lombra]

We did a few and used xanathar's pit fighting rules, three opposed checks: athletics, acrobatics and constitution/attack roll. Losing 2-1 isn't too bad but losing 3-0 means you got owned pretty hard. The players may describe the bout briefly, with the help of the DM, unbound by the combat rules. It resolves quickly and gets as intreasting as one wants to describe it.

[Unoriginal]

I find that monsters from the various books are way too high on hp and too low on damage.

Particularly in a 1v1, the player is counting the other guy's hp.
At some point their suspension of disbelief is ruined because they've killed the other guy twice over but he's still standing.

What.

They haven't killed the other guy twice over. If they're assuming incorrectly, it doesn't change the facts.

I can understand not liking the NPC statblocks, but I don't see why suspension of disbelief would be shattered for NPCs being like they are.

[Pelle]

If you know the possible outcomes, you either win or lose the duel, there's no chance of interruption etc, it's not very important for the story, and there are really no interesting choices to be made in the combat, then you can just handle it with an opposed Str check or whatever is appropriate...

[darknite]

Sometimes players need to ease back and let someone in the party have a solo moment. It's just polite. But don't do it too often.

You can also have other players pitch in. Have one play the NPC being battled, for example. Have another keep track and implement some sort of cool environmental effect (strange battleground, crowd reactions, etc).

[Kurt Kurageous]

To follow the OP's OP, I'd like to ask as a means of comparison what y'all thought of the duel in HotDQ?

I thought it made for an interesting benchmark to compare the other duels described.

My suggestion is not original, but here it is:

The outcome of a combat should be decided if not concluded in three rounds or less. If one side can't tell that they are winning after three rounds, your combat is probably too long and likely will bore most players. A duel will follow this pattern as well. Thus the pit fighting rules.

[StoicLeaf]

What.

They haven't killed the other guy twice over. If they're assuming incorrectly, it doesn't change the facts.

I can understand not liking the NPC statblocks, but I don't see why suspension of disbelief would be shattered for NPCs being like they are.

When you fight other humans, you expect them to function the way you do.
Even picking CR appropriate creatures, you end up with opponents that have flat out more HP than your PCs.
Which I suppose would be fine, but your PC is likely using all of his class abilities, whereas the NPC is just .. standing there.

It's dull and people start questioning how that NPC go to where he is.
At least that's my guess.
NPCs that are built like PCs are taken waaaaay more seriously by my players than the walking sacks of HP.

[Unoriginal]

When you fight other humans, you expect them to function the way you do.

Given that one of 5e's conceits is explicitly the contrary, I don't see why people would expect that.

But well, it seems it's a question of taste.

[strangebloke]

I've recently tried to do multiple 1-on-1s. The truth is, D&D isn't detailed enough to pull tactically deep 1-on-1 duels..

I'm going to disagree with this slightly.

There's lots of tactics you can use in a 1-on-1 fight that are impractical otherwise, particularly if you're a class that is conventionally associated with dueling.

Swashbucklers, for instance, can kite an opponent with astounding ease, so long as they have space to maneuver.

Kensei or battlemasters have a lot of interesting strats available as well.

But I agree with your other comment, that NPC statblocks have too much HP for the purposes of a duel. Mano-a-mano fights should be punchy and brutal.

[StoicLeaf]

Given that one of 5e's conceits is explicitly the contrary, I don't see why people would expect that.

But well, it seems it's a question of taste.

My players find it easier to accept that conceit when it comes to monsters.
No one questions the dragon with 800 hp.

A humanoid with nearly as much hp as the party combined?
Nah, they're clocking out.

You're kinda derailing your own thread though :P
Duels work!
They can be fun!

[tieren]

I had a fun encounter recently.

I am running a 3 man party through Curse of Strahd (fighter, cleric, and bard). the fighter and cleric were laying low for reasons and sent the bard in to town to see what was going on. The bard got ambushed in an alleyway, my goal as DM was to kidnap him so the other players would come rescue him.

Well the crafty bard flipped the script and ended up killing the would be kidnappers. The unexpected outcome was entertaining for everyone (I asked because I felt guilty it was taking more time than I had planned) and it was a welcome spotlight on what was usually a support character.

I couldn't have been more delighted.

[Personification]

As a corollary to this, what about a specifically wizards' (or other casters') duel. Assuming that there is no interference, both parties know that they will be in a duel and have prepped spells accordingly, and pre-buffing is allowed (although all pre-buffs, contingencies, etc. must be made on the day of the duel, so that to use them you have to burn the spell slot). Could this work, at what levels is it viable, and how would cantrips (which depending on the level could be the majority of the spells used) affect this. While some hand to hand combat or similar tactic use is allowed in this thought experiment, it is discouraged and shouldn't be the primary form of damage dealer.

[GlenSmash!]

I think I'd play it where the other PCs have other stuff to do while the Duel is happening.

Like the whole thing is a big distraction while the rest of the party goes and steals obtains the macguffin.

Or have the other side cheat resulting in a big brawl anyway.

[JakOfAllTirades]

My Warlock got challenged to a duel once. It took place at an inn, so the party decided to use the duel as a public distraction while our Rogue searched my opponent's room. (He had a plot mcguffin we were looking for.) So the idea was to prolong the duel as much as possible. I used a ton of defensive spells/cantrips/powers: Blade Ward, Armor of Agathys, Mirror Image, and Misty Escape. A little Bardic Inspiration helped too. That was probably the longest melee of the whole campaign, and in the end I under-estimated the opponent. When I finished him I had two HP left. And the Rogue found what he was looking for, without getting caught.