D&D PvP: How to balance one powerful vs two weaker players.

Quote from sabin76 >>

I light of the clarification from the OP, one thing you want to look for is nova mitigation. Casters tend to be one-shot-wonders with their highest spell slot doing the majority of the work, and then reliant on sub-par things for the rest of the battle (until high level, when a level 9 slot is world-ending potential, but levels 6-8 are no slouches either). This is in contrast to martials, for the most part, where they tend to be more consistent. 

One way to deal with this is simply adding HP to everyone. This will prolong the fight and make everyone use more resources to get the job done. It's not great, but this is honestly a very hard problem to solve because the handicaps you employ will depend a lot on the classes involved.

How much health would you add if I went with this idea?

Quote from Shalvael >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

I light of the clarification from the OP, one thing you want to look for is nova mitigation. Casters tend to be one-shot-wonders with their highest spell slot doing the majority of the work, and then reliant on sub-par things for the rest of the battle (until high level, when a level 9 slot is world-ending potential, but levels 6-8 are no slouches either). This is in contrast to martials, for the most part, where they tend to be more consistent. 

One way to deal with this is simply adding HP to everyone. This will prolong the fight and make everyone use more resources to get the job done. It's not great, but this is honestly a very hard problem to solve because the handicaps you employ will depend a lot on the classes involved.

 

How much health would you add if I went with this idea?

 

I'd start by doubling it. Beyond that, you are probably going to have to run a few scenarios yourself. Things like ADV on all saves might also help prolong the fight (and better combat control spells), but you'd have to see if any players are getting that natively and give them another boon to make up for everyone getting their shtick.

If you're interested, you can find the videos of the PvP battle royale on youtube for some ideas (called NPC Grudge Match). Off the top of my head, the battle map was set up as quadrants and there were environmental hazards in each one, chests with items and potions popped up randomly, and I think there was some kind of escalation mechanic.

While searching for the title of the video for you, it looks like Matt Mercer also ran a battle royale, though I'm not sure if it was DnD or how modified it was. Note that both of these are as much for entertaining viewers as they are for entertaining the players.

Quote from heydanseegil >>

This is exactly what I was saying. Only one of the potions becomes permanent, but after that it is a permanent effect. You are no longer mixing potions and you have that effect indefinitely because it was metabolized.

 After that it is a potion with permanent duration. Nothing in the rules says that it isn't still a potion, or that it now ignores the potion miscibility rules, and given that it's a rule originally from AD&D where it includes a comment about potential bad side effects, I would expect an AD&D DM to gleefully use it against the player.

Quote from Davyd >>

I'm aware of their situation as described and I stand by my advice. Find a different system or find an actual skirmish game.

You are right that D&D was not designed for PvP. This does not mean that doing something fun with a game is a terrible idea simply because it is less orderly and not the original intent. The 2v1 will inevitably not be a perfect system but is a fun concept people who love D&D want to try. I will not give up on a fun idea simply because it has some logistical problems. A lot of the funnest experiences people have in D&D are the chaotic and uniques scenes rather than the practical ones.

The point we're trying to get across that you seem to be missing is that while the idea might seem fun, the actual practice is going to be significantly less entertaining and you'd most likely have a lot more fun trying out some other game system that's actually built for PVP.

Quote from Pantagruel666 >>

Quote from heydanseegil >>

This is exactly what I was saying. Only one of the potions becomes permanent, but after that it is a permanent effect. You are no longer mixing potions and you have that effect indefinitely because it was metabolized.

 After that it is a potion with permanent duration. Nothing in the rules says that it isn't still a potion, or that it now ignores the potion miscibility rules, and given that it's a rule originally from AD&D where it includes a comment about potential bad side effects, I would expect an AD&D DM to gleefully use it against the player.

Talk about having terrible indigestion with a belly full of unabsorbed potion ready to cause a reaction if you roll a 00 on Miscibility. It also turns even beneficial Miscibility roll into a negative because now you cannot consume any other potion at the risk of possibly blowing up.

You are correct about the AD&D rules but no one is still factoring in armor rotting nor the time it takes to actually transcribe spells at level up. Plus, those negative effects said there still had to be liquid to directly interact with and not metabolized i.e. made permanent; but they also gave more plausible negative effects if you wanted to restrict it like transforming the mixture into poison.

With respect to you and the DMG I think all of it falls under DM discretion per the rule for dispelling the effects. If the DM feels it is game breaking okay. ...But let's be real here if you as a DM gave your Alchemist enough downtime to pull this off multiple times over then it is either something you know how to plan encounters around or bad DMing. I do allow my Players to try to break my game as a DM and I adapt around it. The last time I ran my adventure they actually were able to convince the captain to drop them off outside of New Fork rather than making port. Then the Ratkin (Ratish/Ratican.. haven't decided which yet) infiltrated their camp after realizing they weren't on the ship the next day and took them as slaves erasing their memories anyway. They had a good few days and nearly got massacred by a Giant Bald Eagle. It was hilarious the Monk climbed a tree to throw daggers at it as it snatched one of them up taking them high into the sky before dropping them. It was a solid encounter.

Quote from heydanseegil >>

Talk about having terrible indigestion with a belly full of unabsorbed potion ready to cause a reaction if you roll a 00 on Miscibility. It also turns even beneficial Miscibility roll into a negative because now you cannot consume any other potion at the risk of possibly blowing up.

If it's really that much of a problem, get it dispelled. Plenty of potions are good enough that sacrificing the ability to use potions in the future is a fair trade.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

The point we're trying to get across that you seem to be missing is that while the idea might seem fun, the actual practice is going to be significantly less entertaining and you'd most likely have a lot more fun trying out some other game system that's actually built for PVP.

I can see your perspective. This is a chaotic idea in a game not made for pvp, so while it's novelty factor makes it seem amazing, this in practice may not be as entertaining because rather than an exciting duel it may come down to either instant win level 3 spells and higher initiate always winning.

I hope no one is doubting that I do have enough intrapersonal intelligence to know what is fun for me. I'm also smart enough to test run things.

Tested today. It was amazing. I'm wondering how to make it better. Keep in mind that this first question in my original post was what levels work best. It seems to me like lower levels balance better, but who knows? 3x3v5 may not be as great as something else, and that's what I'm wondering.

And yes, a lot of other rpgs and game systems are way better for this. But my question is about how to make this work for D&D, and I will find a way whether or not it is fun in other people's minds.

I was in fact right that this was fun for us. You are right that others may not feel the same. But the real magic is that there is much more fun than just the combat mechanics: the environment, the situation, the roleplay, the players joking together, and the drama of the injustice roll and massive successes in each of the few turns.

Quote from Shalvael >>

 

And yes, a lot of other rpgs and game systems are way better for this. But my question is about how to make this work for D&D, and I will find a way whether or not it is fun in other people's minds.

I was in fact right that this was fun for us. You are right that others may not feel the same. But the real magic is that there is much more fun than just the combat mechanics: the environment, the situation, the roleplay, the players joking together, and the drama of the injustice roll and massive successes in each of the few turns.

Primarily let the players know that you are setting up a pvp game not a regular game.If you don't, the player that shows up with the high CHR based social interactions PC is going to feel pretty poopy.

If you are making teams, let them know they will have teammates. Some classes work better when supporting one another.

Quote from Wysperra >>

Quote from Shalvael >>

 

And yes, a lot of other rpgs and game systems are way better for this. But my question is about how to make this work for D&D, and I will find a way whether or not it is fun in other people's minds.

I was in fact right that this was fun for us. You are right that others may not feel the same. But the real magic is that there is much more fun than just the combat mechanics: the environment, the situation, the roleplay, the players joking together, and the drama of the injustice roll and massive successes in each of the few turns.

 

Primarily let the players know that you are setting up a pvp game not a regular game.If you don't, the player that shows up with the high CHR based social interactions PC is going to feel pretty poopy.

If you are making teams, let them know they will have teammates. Some classes work better when supporting one another.

Indeed. Seeing as this is far from normal D&D, players are made aware. 👍

Quote from Shalvael >>

Tested today. It was amazing. I'm wondering how to make it better. Keep in mind that this first question in my original post was what levels work best. It seems to me like lower levels balance better, but who knows?

Lower levels will be a lot easier to run and play, but higher levels characters tend to have relatively stronger defense compared to offense so somewhat less rocket tag.

Quote from Shalvael >>

Quote from Davyd >>

I'm aware of their situation as described and I stand by my advice. Find a different system or find an actual skirmish game.

 

You are right that D&D was not designed for PvP. This does not mean that doing something fun with a game is a terrible idea simply because it is less orderly and not the original intent. The 2v1 will inevitably not be a perfect system but is a fun concept people who love D&D want to try. I will not give up on a fun idea simply because it has some logistical problems. A lot of the funnest experiences people have in D&D are the chaotic and uniques scenes rather than the practical ones.

Here's my take on PVP in D&D—any fun that's derived from it is derived simply from the fact it doesn't work and at that point you could approach the PVP without needing to use D&D at all. D&D is asymmetrically designed, meaning PCs and NPCs are designed using fundamentally different approaches and thus you can't simply match PCs against PCs (or NPCs against NPCs) and get a fair experience. 99% of the time the winner of PVP is whoever goes first, and the remaining 1% of the time it goes to whoever can get some form of lockdown on first. There's no challenge, no strategy, no drama, no narrative to it. I'm not saying people can't find fun in it, but what fun they are finding isn't coming from the game being D&D.

It's like saying "We're going to try making sandcastles using flour" and when people point out you can't make sandcastles using flour, they respond with "Oh, we just love the chaos of throwing flour at each other".

The whole "It won't be a perfect system" as a response is kinda poisoning the well because my rejection of PVP isn't that it won't be perfect, it's that it wont' be anything approaching good. If you must run a PC vs PC encounter within a D&D campaign, you're best off just setting the rules of D&D aside for the encounter and have the players describe narratively what their character does and why it should work, and the DM adjudicates. Basically a playground game of "My laser beats your laser-proof shield because I gave it a shield breaking upgrade". At least then it'll be fair and dramatic.

OP already said that their party enjoyed their foray into D&D PvP.  Trying to convince OP that the fun they experienced is not actually fun is a type of gatekeeping. 

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Shalvael >>

Quote from Davyd >>

I'm aware of their situation as described and I stand by my advice. Find a different system or find an actual skirmish game.

 

You are right that D&D was not designed for PvP. This does not mean that doing something fun with a game is a terrible idea simply because it is less orderly and not the original intent. The 2v1 will inevitably not be a perfect system but is a fun concept people who love D&D want to try. I will not give up on a fun idea simply because it has some logistical problems. A lot of the funnest experiences people have in D&D are the chaotic and uniques scenes rather than the practical ones.

Here's my take on PVP in D&D—any fun that's derived from it is derived simply from the fact it doesn't work and at that point you could approach the PVP without needing to use D&D at all. D&D is asymmetrically designed, meaning PCs and NPCs are designed using fundamentally different approaches and thus you can't simply match PCs against PCs (or NPCs against NPCs) and get a fair experience. 99% of the time the winner of PVP is whoever goes first, and the remaining 1% of the time it goes to whoever can get some form of lockdown on first. There's no challenge, no strategy, no drama, no narrative to it. I'm not saying people can't find fun in it, but what fun they are finding isn't coming from the game being D&D.

It's like saying "We're going to try making sandcastles using flour" and when people point out you can't make sandcastles using flour, they respond with "Oh, we just love the chaos of throwing flour at each other".

The whole "It won't be a perfect system" as a response is kinda poisoning the well because my rejection of PVP isn't that it won't be perfect, it's that it wont' be anything approaching good. If you must run a PC vs PC encounter within a D&D campaign, you're best off just setting the rules of D&D aside for the encounter and have the players describe narratively what their character does and why it should work, and the DM adjudicates. Basically a playground game of "My laser beats your laser-proof shield because I gave it a shield breaking upgrade". At least then it'll be fair and dramatic.

Davyd, you have to accept people play the game differently from you, and that you harping on against PvP is not helping. 
I get where you are coming from, from the system not being really designed around it, and it comes with bad baggage in the most common instances, and it can foster ill feelings in those circumstances. 

But as people including the OP, has stated this is not those circumstances. Boundries have been established, between players and within this thread, and people have spoke up. We aren't going to go full Tasha as you Signature quote suggests and Cloudkilling anyone, but we are reaffirming the boundaries that other's have established.
Please respect that.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

OP already said that their party enjoyed their foray into D&D PvP.  Trying to convince OP that the fun they experienced is not actually fun is a type of gatekeeping. 

I read nothing that suggests they've already done PvP (not saying that wasn't said somewhere, but I can't see anything in their original post not reply to me that suggests it) so this seems to be a conceptualisation process currently, developing ideas. I personally think it's a bad idea and I've laid out why. That's not gatekeeping, which is the act of trying to bar someone from participating in an activity for arbitrary reasons in order to maintain exclusivity of the activity. I'm not doing any of that. If they've already done PvP and enjoyed it, then power to them, I missed that detail and I wouldn't have contributed knowing that.

But I'm not gatekeeping by saying I think the notion of PvP is a fundamentally bad one within the context of D&D from a standpoint of how the game is designed.

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

OP already said that their party enjoyed their foray into D&D PvP.  Trying to convince OP that the fun they experienced is not actually fun is a type of gatekeeping. 

I read nothing that suggests they've already done PvP (not saying that wasn't said somewhere, but I can't see anything in their original post not reply to me that suggests it) so this seems to be a conceptualisation process currently, developing ideas. I personally think it's a bad idea and I've laid out why. That's not gatekeeping, which is the act of trying to bar someone from participating in an activity for arbitrary reasons in order to maintain exclusivity of the activity. I'm not doing any of that. If they've already done PvP and enjoyed it, then power to them, I missed that detail and I wouldn't have contributed knowing that.

But I'm not gatekeeping by saying I think the notion of PvP is a fundamentally bad one within the context of D&D from a standpoint of how the game is designed.

Post 48 ;).

All I'll say is I'm making sand castles out of flour by adding water and oil to help it hold it's shape. It's not perfect. D&D does not support PvP well at all, I know. But I am content to play an unbalanced game if I can design an entertaining experience. I will remain optimistic about creative efforts regardless of their flaws.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

OP already said that their party enjoyed their foray into D&D PvP.  Trying to convince OP that the fun they experienced is not actually fun is a type of gatekeeping. 

I read nothing that suggests they've already done PvP (not saying that wasn't said somewhere, but I can't see anything in their original post not reply to me that suggests it) so this seems to be a conceptualisation process currently, developing ideas. I personally think it's a bad idea and I've laid out why. That's not gatekeeping, which is the act of trying to bar someone from participating in an activity for arbitrary reasons in order to maintain exclusivity of the activity. I'm not doing any of that. If they've already done PvP and enjoyed it, then power to them, I missed that detail and I wouldn't have contributed knowing that.

But I'm not gatekeeping by saying I think the notion of PvP is a fundamentally bad one within the context of D&D from a standpoint of how the game is designed.

Post 48 ;).

 Yeah, there we go, not one I saw.

I have done this exactly twice. Once was somewhat fun and the other was not. They were both one-shots (same DM, who wasn't me) where everyone knew going into it exactly what the plan was. The high-level version was not really fun because it was only a round or two before it was over, for the reasons already mentioned above. The second was fun because we used low level characters (level 3 if memory serves) and we each had a stable of 3 or 4 characters to choose from for each round. Most of the rounds were one on one, but there was a final battle royal where each player chose one PC. Also, some rounds specified martials only or casters only (I realize that is different than what you are talking about, just throwing out why I think it worked). Another thing that helped and made it more fun was that everyone had seen the arena map and knew that there were several deep pits, multiple columns for cover and a fast moving river-like area of water. Obviously those things only make a difference in low level PC fights.