Spicing Up One-On-One Combat

[Ralif Redhammer]

For me, it all depends on where you set the battle. Plain flat space like a generic room or field, that's going to get boring. But set the battle in say, a library, now things get interesting. The opponents can jump to other floors via balconies, knock shelves over on each other, set books on fire (though I'd be aghast at such), and more. A good one-on-one fight (or really, any setpiece battle) should have a dynamic element that changes over its course. In the aforementioned library, maybe the fire spreads and the whole thing is on fire. Maybe the library's anti-fire magic is triggered and there's no more breathable air in the library. Maybe the security golems get activated and now both parties have to worry about those, too.

 

[Umbran]

It's a lot harder to cover that mess up when it's just one dude fighting a single opponent.

And... maybe that's okay? I am not sure that a one-on-one combat with someone that's not supposed to be a major challenge is really supposed to feel like one. Adventurers live in their worlds 24/7. They must get some ability to size up opponents, right? One-on-one, they can tell how it's going to go.

Perhaps a major point here would be to add another element to the fight that isn't fighting - time pressure is a simple one - the tension isn't about beating the opponent, but in overall avoiding some other issue, and the opponent is an added problem. So, beat this guy before help arrives, or before he can reach the bell-pull that will call the guard, or what have you.

Or the opponent otherwise plays it super-smart, avoids just standing toe-to-toe slugging it out, and instead uses terrain and movement a lot. Say you build such opponents with the ability to disengage as a bonus action, so you have to chase the jerk all over the battlefield. How does that change the nature of the fight?

 

[Umbran]

Speak for yourself. My encounters are designed to kill PCs, because the NPCs in question are trying to kill the PCs. It's up to the players to get their people out alive, and if they don't, that's on them.

With respect, he's describing encounter design as it is presented in the rules. He's not just speaking for himself, but for the game as it is presented to us.

 

[Jd Smith1]

With respect, he's describing encounter design as it is presented in the rules. He's not just speaking for himself, but for the game as it is presented to us.

Wouldn't he have noted that he was quoting RAW if that was what he meant?

And speaking of RAW, where does it say that? It has been a while, but IIRC that was presented as one of various models for encounter design; optional rules, IOW.

 

[Fauchard1520]

Wouldn't he have noted that he was quoting RAW if that was what he meant?

And speaking of RAW, where does it say that? It has been a while, but IIRC that was presented as one of various models for encounter design; optional rules, IOW.

If the party were fighting a mirror match of themselves, it would be classed as a "deadly" encounter according to the CR system. That is indeed what I'm talking about. The odds are stacked in the party's favor. It's the basic assumptions The Alexandrian describes over here:

Revisiting Encounter Design

One of the first reviews I ever received for a book I had written was for the mini-adventure The Dragon's Wish, which was published by Fantasy Flight Games during the early D20 boom. The reviewer hate

thealexandrian.net

That's all well and good for standard play, but it's a lot harder to sweep the disparity under the rug when it's a one-on-one fight.

 

[GMMichael]

Just use a better system than dnd, practically any other system is going to be more interesting and nuanced.

Good solution, but with two problems. 1) OP doesn't denote D&D. 2) Like sugar and religion, D&D isn't easily discarded.

Typical encounter design favors the party over the monsters. You provide a bit of challenge without seriously threatening death. And when we're talking about a group overcoming challenges together, the issue of "we're stronger than the monsters mechanically" usually disappears into the details of complex combat. It's a lot harder to cover that mess up when it's just one dude fighting a single opponent.

Okay, yeah. This sounds like a D&D discussion. And a glaring problem, to me anyway, is that there's a lot of ground between "we're stronger . . . mechanically" and "oops he's dead." Although, realistically, "oops he's dead" is a valid and persistent concern in combat.

And... maybe that's okay? I am not sure that a one-on-one combat with someone that's not supposed to be a major challenge is really supposed to feel like one. Adventurers live in their worlds 24/7. They must get some ability to size up opponents, right? One-on-one, they can tell how it's going to go.

That's definitely okay. Feeling like a hero, for some, means knowing that you can pretty easily dispatch an ogre magi, for example. And living in that world 24/7 means knowing that the Ogre Invictus has a 50/50 chance of making you, oops, dead.

D&D addresses the issue with a bevy of anti-death rules. The DM addresses the issue by making careful NPC choices and - god forbid - fudging. You could make a PC feel the pain, without the hit point loss, by inflicting one of the status conditions on him. I count 14, and that's just in the rules-light edition.

 

[aramis erak]

Speak for yourself. My encounters are designed to kill PCs, because the NPCs in question are trying to kill the PCs. It's up to the players to get their people out alive, and if they don't, that's on them.

That's just as unrealistic as all easy encounters....
Not all combats should be kill focused. In fact, most of the real world fights I've been in have been failed muggings. Usually ending badly for the muggers. None of them fatal.
Vigorous self defense resulting in injury to the attacker is pretty common.

D&D tends to have a severe kill-focus - because there's no intermediate step in the damage system.

 

[Jd Smith1]

That's just as unrealistic as all easy encounters....
Not all combats should be kill focused. In fact, most of the real world fights I've been in have been failed muggings. Usually ending badly for the muggers. None of them fatal.
Vigorous self defense resulting in injury to the attacker is pretty common.

D&D tends to have a severe kill-focus - because there's no intermediate step in the damage system.

My encounters aren't intended to be muggings. The only time a group of heavily armed and armored individuals gets into combat in my settings (PC groups IOW) is through contact with equally heavily armed groups motivated by political, religious, or racial beliefs; essentially on a war footing. Or war zone environment. A situation, I might add, that is familiar to both me and my players.

Bandits aren't going to attack ten PCs with a single cart; even a cursory glance will tell them it isn't worth the fight.

 

[aramis erak]

My encounters aren't intended to be muggings. The only time a group of heavily armed and armored individuals gets into combat in my settings (PC groups IOW) is through contact with equally heavily armed groups motivated by political, religious, or racial beliefs; essentially on a war footing. Or war zone environment. A situation, I might add, that is familiar to both me and my players.

Bandits aren't going to attack ten PCs with a single cart; even a cursory glance will tell them it isn't worth the fight.

You apparently forget the idiocy of people in groups... If they're hungry, and have a 2:1 or 3:1 numerical advantage, the superior weaponry doesn't mean much to them anymore.

3:1 odds during food riots by unarmed starving people facing military hardware often lead to massacres...

And that's before adding realistic medieval hatreds and fears.

 

[Jd Smith1]

You apparently forget the idiocy of people in groups... If they're hungry, and have a 2:1 or 3:1 numerical advantage, the superior weaponry doesn't mean much to them anymore.

3:1 odds during food riots by unarmed starving people facing military hardware often lead to massacres...

And that's before adding realistic medieval hatreds and fears.

Starving peasants don't generally attack small groups of heavily-armed unaffiliated men who are not carrying food (never say never). But my players tend to avoid the lower quarters of any given city; they are social elitists in every setting.

Now, they have taken part (for pay) in putting down the odd peasant uprising, but that is more slaughter than combat, and I have rules for that sort of thing. Which are also useful when mopping up the non-combatants of non-humans or certain factions after the main fight.