See page 16's sidebar. I think any of those choices work great. :) Especially the Danger Dice.

Yes, I love the danger die idea. Even better may be an escalation penalty for repetition. Do it twice and get a penalty, three times in a row, big penalty, four...now they see it coming and get a free chance to clobber you.

Landrew, there is a simple solution to that. Tell your players you never read the rules. Then they have to go along with your version.

I think it would make more sense if you could find a way to penalize someone for using the same maneuver over and over, but not limit the option of doing so. If you keep lunging at someone they're going to know what to expect and will have an easier time dodging or parrying your attack.

In my head it would escalate in the following order: Slash- as normal. Feint- as normal. Slash - as normal because of the feint. Slash- costs an extra raise. Slash- GM adds a Danger die ( opposing players would get a hero point). Slash- opponent gets a free riposte out of turn. Slash- fifth time in a row costs an extra raise AND grants a Danger Die AND a free Riposte.

I was looking at the Duelling styles and didn't understand what the point of the Mireli and Leegstra styles were, until I realised that it's a way to bypass the "Can't do the same thing twice in a row" mechanic.

Mireli can go: Bash, Revision as a Bash, Bash, Revision as a Bash etc...

Leegstra can manage:  Slash, Riposte, Slash, Crash, Slash.

Thinking about that "Don't repeat yourself.", would folk be happy with a simple "Repeating your last action costs +1 raise" for everyone, duelist or no?

I'm fine with that constraint.  I see no need for a change.  Because if all you do is repeat the same manuever over and over, any decent fighter is going to cut you to ribbons.  Think of it like boxing or, even better, baseball (pitching specifically – and yes, we just watched Bull Durham last night, so that may be the root of this metaphor).

If a player insisted on using the same manuever more than once in an action sequence, I would charge an extra Raise for each consecutive time he uses it.  This – in my mind – reflects the other duelist figuring out your strategy and easily parrying it, so it becomes that much harder to land a blow.  So first slash, 1 raise.  2nd slash immediately afterwards, 2 raises.  3rd slash, if they really insisted, 3 raises.  Or, you can break things up and keep your opponent on his toes.  Slash, Beat, Feint, Slash.  Being predictable in a fight ("He always leads with a jab to the face.") should make you easier to beat.  So that would be a fair houserule, I think.

Well, if you are going to be living under "as written", you are stuck with no repeats. None of us can help you because once it hits the printer it is set forever. But in 38 years of running and playing RPGs, I have never seen a game where somebody didn't adjust a mechanic in play. So you have to ask yourself, " is my game going to be my game or am I going to run John's game?". And keep in mind, John left you carte blanche to change things that do not work for you IN WRITING in the book. It's in there twice under the rulings sidebar and again in the GM tips at the end. He wants us to take what he created and advance it to our own tastes. It sounds like you want the option of repeating an action, (the rule is really there to prevent riposte on every action) so allow it and don't fret what the book says. Nobody will drag you to a 7th sea tribunal if you do it.

I ran my first game of 2e last night and this didn't seem an issue. That said, I was allowing duelists to perform a regular attack, doing one wound for one raise. In my head this was a thrust or other more basic attack. Combat tended to slash, ripost, slash, Attack(thrust), slash. It allows players to remain offensive, and the net result is the same as making a second subsequent slash take an extra raise. Is this outside the scope of the rules as written?

The system will be fine until people without Duelist have to fight those that have it. (So effectively it's the reversal of the original complaint that swordsmen didn't have advantage over a player that maxed finesse and fencing attack in the old system). For anybody that gets too carried away with the balance, whisper "firearms" to them.

Yes but he escaped. That is the point. The heroes should win or force the bad guy to flee. You did it right by my judgement. Now when the next baddie has Duelist and goes after the player without it, you will hear complaints.

Okay.. I wonder.. Have you ever watched swashbuckling movies? The limitation on duels make them like movie ones. 

You forget one thing: you need not to do swordmanschool action. Thus you could go Slash, Create Opporiunity, Slash, Use opportunit, Slash. 

Don't forget the "fencing" advantage, to add an extra layer of ability between mundanes and Duelists.

Oh, and quick reflexes too. 

Of course your Duelist could take those as well....

I don't entirely think the idea of "Mastery Levels" are completely out of the question. The current structure could easily be extended to have something, where each tier is a  5-pt advantage and you must have the first tier of a Dueling Style to get the 2nd, 2nd to the 3rd, etc.

So, you could get the Duelist Background and start of at Level 1 for Ambrogia then spend your remaining 5 points to be Level 1 at Valroux, OR you could start with Level 1 Ambrogia and then spend your remaining 5 Advantage points to get Level 2 Ambrogia.

Something like that.

 

 

Antti makes an interesting point I had not considered. You can take not duel actions. Creating opportunities for the rest of the party, a Perform during the fight to impress a noble watching the fight, a Pressure, a Tempt, etc.

 

• same action twice in a row "giving the GM... free raise to their next action." @Landrew Logan

I really like that rule. It make the scene much more strategic.

 

• manuevers: I'm also really worried about disarm. You can do it with an Opportunity? p.175.

 

• mundanes VS Duelists: hypothetical duel
  • @Salamanca whisper "firearms" I don't think it's solution. Almost not for a Hero. Like run, all vs one, use PSST, OVER HERE, etc... Use Opportunities to help the best fighter will be the solution more imaginative an heroic.

 

• Mastery Levels: The duelist are now in "another level". So, how far they can be if you have two levels more? Maybe...
  • Tier 1 (5pt) Apprentice: You have the Maneuevers but only with the weapons of your School.
  • Tier 2 (+5pt) Expert: You have the Dueling Style.
  • Tier 3 (Being Expert in 2 Schools, free) Master: you can Exploit weakness VS your schools comparing them. You ever make them one extra wound. They always make you one wound less.

disarm with an opportunity... it may buck the rule about creating opportunity for yourself but as that is my default maneuver for my favorite character, I need it back in the game in some form.

And I intend to...a lot. To the point of annoyance so long as I have a point to spend.

I haven't had a chance to playtest the dueling rules, but on reading them, I was disappointed at how it didn't seem to capture the feel of dynamic swordplay.  In particular, if one combatant rolls significantly better than their opponent, they could open the duel with a few uncontested blows, as though beginning with a "sucker-punch".  Then it seems like it's basically trading blows, trying to beat the opponent into submission faster than they can do the same, deciding where best to use your riposte. 

Furthermore, it makes duelists not only clearly superior, but ridiculously so.  This probably isn't much of an issue in an actual duel, since a duelist should pretty much always win against a non-duelist in that situation anyway, so it might as well be over quickly-- but it also carries over into fight mechanics with brute squads, where it seems to make less sense that Inigo should fare so much better than Fezzik.

I was trying to come up with a better basic mechanic to represent cinematic swashbuckling duels, constantly reading and responding to your opponent, trying to find a gap in their defenses, shifts in momentum... without being absurdly complex and/or drawn-out.  I figured a bluffing mechanic might be the simplest way to capture that kind of contest.  Here's what I came up with, though I haven't playtested it for balance.  Does anyone see any value in this general framework?  Any suggestions?

---

Combatants alternate being on Attack and Defense.  Roll finesse plus weaponry at start to determine pool of raises, most raises attacks first (villain wins ties).  Can spend raise to reduce damage taken by one each turn, but most maneuvers don't inherently cost a raise.

Choose attack/defense stance at start of duel (duelists only)

• Attack stance: Plus one damage when attacking
• Defense stance: Additional defensive maneuver options
• No stance: No bonuses
• Off-balance: Deal one less damage when attacking, add one to any damage received

Duelists can adopt attack stance at end of attack turn or defense stance at end of defense turn

Non-duelists return to "no stance" when off-balance at end of attack turn

Attack turn:

1. Telegraph attack, either Slash or Thrust

2. Apply hidden modifier (revealed after defense selected):

• Commit: Perform telegraphed attack, deal base 2 damage + 1 damage if weapons skill at least 2
• Feint: Switch attacks, deal base 1 damage + 1 damage if weapons skill at least 2
• Bash (duelists only): Deal one damage, knock opponent off balance
• Probe (duelists only): Perform telegraphed attack, deal two damage; optionally switch to defense stance
• Lunge (usable if telegraphing Thrust, duelists only): Immediately shift to attack stance before dealing damage

Defense turn:

Select a defense to respond to attack:

• Block: Negate Slash and Bash
• Parry: Negate Thrust and Lunge
• Guard (usable in defense stance, duelists only): Negate Bash, reduce other damage by two
• Sidestep (usable in defense stance, duelists only): Negate Lunge, throwing opponent off balance, reduce other damage by one
• Riposte (usable in defense stance upon successfully Parrying Thrust, duelists only): Spend raise to deal two damage to opponent; optionally switch to attack stance
• Fend off (usable after attack is revealed): Spend raise to negate attack.  At end of turn, you become off-balance, and opponent may attack again.

Some Possible Style (or more generic duelist-only?) Maneuvers:

• Beat Attack (usable if telegraphing Slash): No damage, but knock opponent off balance and attack again; negated by Sidestep
• Flurry (usable if connected with Slash for at least one damage): Spend raise to attack again
• Disarm (usable if telegraphing Slash and opponent has fewer raises): No damage, disarm opponent if they attempt to Parry, putting them at your mercy
• Remise (usable if attack is Blocked or Parried): Spend raise to attack again
• Flèche (usable if telegraphing Thrust): Counts as lunge, spend raise and deal 5 damage; revert to "no stance" at end of attack turn

Hmm, a surcharge for certain actions. Intriguing concept. But I need to play this as it is a bit before I can really see what is needed.

Just a couple of things. 1) as an expert modern fencer, and Arma enthusiast I feel that while dueling mechanics are good they are missing a small point, the remese is a technique where if you missed your opponent with your attack you quickly repeat the attack without resetting so as to catch your opponent off guard. In this system that is impossible. So as a house rule I've made a new maneuver called the remese, used after an opponent reduces wounds to 0 with a parry, the duelist may spend a single raise to do a single wound. This maneuver can be used until you wound the opponent or run out of raises, which ever comes first. 2) as a house rule nonduelists add brawn to wounds when spending a raise for damage in combat, and add finesse when using a raise to avoid damage. Does that sound fair?

I like the remese. The rule of dealing Brawn infringes on the Duelist bonuses. I think the non duelists need to settle for spending extra raises to deal extra wounds or finding an advantage to help them.

Frankly, I love the idea that a Duelist PC is forced to invoke some creativity in regards to using their maneuvers.  As has been pointed out, being able to use the Slash maneuver repeatedly on each Raise is horrifically broken; heck there's a Duelist style whose whole schtick is to effectively give the PC an extra Slash they can use between Slash manuevers.  Seen way too many fantasy RPG sessions where PCs do little more than "I attack the monster with my best offensive ability" over and over.  As much maligned as it might be in some circles, I can give some credit to 4e for having basic attack powers that allowed for at least some amount of variety amongst the non-spellcasting PCs.

Even with charging an extra raise or adding a die to the GM's Danger Pool, that's still not going to be enough of a deterrent to some players that will still simply use Slash all the time as it's by far the most effective combat option of the maneuvers (Riposte comes pretty darn close, but it's once per round and requires you to have first taken damage to really be useful).

With the restriction of not repeating the same maneuver twice in a row, that forces the player to get creative in what their character does with their Raises, and one of the strengths of 7th Sea as an RPG has been when the players embrace the over-the-top tendencies of the swashbuckling genre and do more than just simply beat down their opponents.

Quoting Mike Curry (7th Sea Lead Developer) from Reddit yesterday (05-SEP-2016) commenting on Duelists:

Hello! I am Mike Curry, Systems Lead for 7th Sea 2nd Edition! by 7thSea_dev in 7thSea

 

 

[–]7thSea_dev[S] 4 points 1 day ago* 

There is probably a "Duelist Lite" advantage coming soon that will give you access to a small number of Maneuvers under a certain circumstance. I haven't designed it yet, but it's on my mind.

As for non-Duelists being good in a fight, there are ways that they certainly can be, but those ways are often circumstantial. Riot Breaker and Reckless Takedown have been mentioned, Signature Item can make you a serious badass if you have Hero Points to burn.

If you're asking when non-Duelists will ever be as good as Duelists in combat... never. A Duelist has invested in a 5 point Advantage specifically to be good at swordfighting. Someone who isn't willing to make a similar commitment on the mechanical side should not be able to outshine them.

There are more advantages coming that give additional situational benefits or allow you to do other things during Sequences, but there are also more Dueling Advantages coming soon, so everyone will be getting new toys.

This settles some questions we have had about Duelists and whether anyone with other fighting skills can ever beat a duelist at dueling.

 

Oh, you can beat them... But it takes a creative player.

I figure it will give people a piratey rogers type thing, and some little tricks here and there.

I posted an in-depth analysis of the back-and-forth of combat and the style bonuses in another thread.  The link is this: http://www.7thsea2e.com/port/forum/analysis-duelist-combat-styles