Like, I just wrote a whole psionic duel system, and I want a cool one for wizards and priests as well. They operate differently from one another, and I’m inclined not to do a priest duel, but honestly the most memorable duel I’ve ever run was between two clerics in 5e, so that seems silly.

But they have to feel different from psionics duels. I don’t see them as two minds duelling, I see more of a joust: Making tilts at each other, but it’s all about power. I’d love to fit in into a single roll, but I think it’s more important for it to feel more all or nothing than the psychic duel. It should be struggle struggle struggle EXPLODE! To emulate that comic book visual of two beams of different coloured light being forced back and forth between two powerful creatures.

Ok, so the meta here is wizard A casts a spell at wizard B, but the wizard B has a defence prepared against that particular spell. It shouldn’t be expending syllables, I think, because the spells don’t get cast. Do you need them memorised? I like the idea of it being a battle of raw power and knowledge and not simply “my prepared spell against yours”, but wizardly magic here is heavily flavoured Vancian, and so it doesn’t quite fit. Best memorised only; that also favours wizards of higher levels.

If two spellcasters engage in a magical duel, they both act last in initiative. If either of them act during the round prior to participating in the spell duel, they cannot choose a spell in the spell duel. If the PC spellcaster suffers an injury during the round prior, or is forced to move to avoid injury, they take disadvantage on their rolls for the round. If the NPC spellcaster suffers an injury during the round prior, or is forced to move to avoid injury, the PC takes advantage on their rolls for the round.

A spellcaster has arcane defence equal to their level. Each round in the duel they lose, their arcane defence decreases by one. When they reach zero, they are defeated.

Each round, the spellcaster chooses an offensive spell that they have memorised. If their foe has no spell memorised that logically cancels that spell out (for example, “Fire resistance” against “Fire bolt”, “Cure Minor Ills”, against “Power Word Harm”), reduce their opponents arcane defence by 2. If the NPC has a spell memorised that logically cancels that spell out, a PC must make an Intelligence (for wizards) or Wisdom check (for priests). If they succeed, reduce their opponents arcane defence by 2. If they partially succeed, reduce their opponents arcane defence by 1. If they fail, they reduce their own arcane defence by 1. If they critically succeed, reduce their opponents arcane defence by 3. If the NPC makes the attack, the PC must make a saving throw vs Spell. If they succeed, they do not reduce their arcane defence. If they partially succeed, they reduce their arcane defence by 1. If they fail, they reduce their arcane defence by 2. If they critically fail, they reduce their arcane defence by 3.

Repeat each combat round until one or the other is defeated. When a wizard is defeated, they expend all their memorised spells and the final spell cast in offence against them takes effect as if it were a critical success. The winning spellcaster expends only the final spell. For priestly duels, ignore references to memorisation. When a priest is defeated, they expend all their piety, and the final spell cast in offence against them takes effect as if it were a critical success. The winning spellcaster expends on the final spell.

Ok, I need to test this out, but I think this vibe matched what I’m going for. I think there’s grounds for spell duels in Advanced Fantasy Dungeons, as justified in the limited approach to the problem in 2nd Edition that are spells like Counterspell and Shield. There’s less grounds for the priestly duels, but I’d rather leave that out in case the need for it arises: As I said, it’s arisen in my D&D campaigns before, and I wish I’d had rules like this for the occasion.

Side note: I did a deep read of the Priest and Wizard handbooks as well as the Dark Sun psionics book, The Will and the Way today. I found two alternative names for psionicist which I think are justifiable because they fit the brief of feeling different from priest and wizard, but still exist thematically in AD&D 2e. They are Psiologist and Mystic. Mystic was also the name for the 5e unearthed arcana version of the psionicist, so I’m leaning in that direction. I’d also considered scrapping Monk as a class altogether -— as that’s mostly realised as a type of cleric in AD&D 2e (although it exists in its martial artist form to some extent) — and naming the psionicist monk, as it communicates the dedication and discipline side of things quite well. But it has connotations in the three editions since. What do you think?

The Advanced Fantasy Dungeons index is here!

Idle Cartulary

Playful Void is a production of Idle Cartulary. If you liked this article, please consider liking, sharing, and subscribing to the Idle Digest Newsletter. If you want to support Idle Cartulary continuing to provide Bathtub Reviews, I Read Reviews, and Dungeon Regular, please consider a one-off donation or becoming a regular supporter of Idle Cartulary on Ko-fi.