I have seen many times people who drink estus during PvP being called "chuggers", or being mocked or criticized. Why is that? Is it just because drinking estus tends to make the battle last longer?

  • It makes the fight unfair. Of course people aren't going to like when other people don't follow their code of honor or whatever.
    – user1337
    Jan 29, 2016 at 11:17
  • @user1337 Why unfair? Everyone has access to estus flasks... unless you are doing some sort of challenge or whatever.
    – MKII
    Jan 29, 2016 at 11:22
  • Ah. I've only got experience with DS1, so I assumed invaders couldn't use estus based on that. But yeah, it's the same reason some people in LoL complain that their enemy got a "noob champion" and such excuses. At least that's what it feels like.
    – user1337
    Jan 29, 2016 at 11:57
  • 1
    @user1337 It's sort of based on that principle however. In DkS1, invaders couldn't use Estus, so in PvP, the host would not use their Estus in the fight to make it fair - the Gentleman's agreement. This has carried over to DkS2 - some people even drink all their Estus before the fight, to prove they will not be using it.
    – Ben
    Feb 9, 2016 at 22:50

1 Answer 1


I've not had a great deal of experience with PvP, but from what I've seen it's so that a fight is as fair as possible.

Even if people are similar levels, one may have found more estus flask shards than their opponent, therefore if estus healing is allowed then one person has an immediate advantage, no matter their build, skill or play-style.

Having an unspoken agreement about using no estus means that duels can occur with minimal discrepancy between the players, and allowing a more balanced fight. It also means that skill is more relied upon, and mistakes are punished harder than just being able to rectify it with a quick chug.

This unspoken agreement also follows on from Dark Souls 1, where invaders (using the Red Sign Soapstone) were unable to use Estus. So, as a "Gentlemen's Agreement", both parties did not use their Estus during the fight.

However, I believe that if someone is invaded (e.g. via a red orb), all bets are off. This is no longer a mutual agreement to fight, as one player now has the advantage of surprising someone who may be attempting to simply play PvE.

There are of course people who will complain either way, and accuse people who have been invaded for not playing fair, despite never having agreed to be invaded. In addition people agreeing to a duel cannot be surprised if they did not establish this rule before the fight began. Most people may simply assume that everyone follows this rule, as many people accept it thus they feel that it doesn't need to be said.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .