RangerWickett
Legend
I have a player whose character was trained as a spell duelist, and who is very skilled at the proper technique of dueling. The problem is, I can't think of what spell dueling would be like. I know that one-on-one sword duels ran very differently from battlefield melees, with different fighting styles and distinctly different conduct, but how would magic-users' duels differ from the way they would fight in actual combat?
The only example of a mage duel I have from cinema is from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and though that looked kinda cool (Alan Rickman is dead sexy even to a straight guy like me), it basically came down to them just exchanging spells. If you did that with D&D magic, the duel would probably last only one round, and it would involve a fireball.
I also had the old 2e High Level Campaigns book which had a freaky spell duel system that looked like a board game and never really worked. It was worse than the Combat & Tactics dueling rules, in my opinion. [shameless plug]I wrote some nice rules for dueling in the print version of Tournaments, Fairs, & Taverns that I like better[/plug]
So what suggestions would you have for determining how a spell duel should be run? Should we have them make sense motive checks vs. bluff checks to see if they can figure out what their opponent is casting, and then if one person wins he can try to counter their spell? Would duels be fought on a straight line like a fencing duel, or in some sort of ring, or would it be more mobile, with mages jumping and dodging opposing attacks? Do charm spells have any place in spell duels?
An idea I have is that this PC's particular school of dueling fought the following way. As the duel starts, both duelists can cast up to three spells on themselves, but nothing offensive. Then the duel starts and the mages exchange spells until a mage fails to maintain concentration while casting a spell, or his spell is countered. Each time this happens, the other mage gets a point, and three points is a win. If a mage falls down or passes out, he loses by default.
So we have different styles of duelists.
Counterspeller: Some go on the defensive and just try to counter each other's spells; this is of course a problem when two get paired against each other, so they need to have some other path to victory in these cases. Sometimes these mages also learn ways to reflect spells back at their caster.
Summoner: If you can get one good creature summoned, it can disrupt your opponent for several rounds while you have time to cast more spells. Opposing summoners can have very interesting duels.
Burn: Mages who use straightforward damage spells are often called burn mages because of the prevalance of fire-based offensive spells. Burn mages can often handle both summoned creatures and their foe equally well.
Melee: These mages choose to eschew magic-use per se. Instead, they use buff spells to defend themselves and go after their opponent physically.
Defenders: Fighting defensively, these mages just try to outmaneuver their foes, using spell after spell to thwart their opposition. If a single spell of theirs can defend against two of their opponent, then a defender can slip in something offensive.
Charmers: Few mages go this way, simply because most of their opponents are smart enough to realize they've been charmed. A charm spell simply makes the person your friend, but friends can still be competitive. Usually the best a charmer can do is shout, "Don't hurt me!" which will make their opponent choose less painful spells. Though if you can bluff out your foe so he doesn't realize you charmed him (like with a still and silent charm), you might shout, "Wait!" and he might not realize the duel has started.
What do you think? I think it comes off sounding a little like Magic: the Gathering, but I suppose that makes sense. Art imitates art.
The only example of a mage duel I have from cinema is from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and though that looked kinda cool (Alan Rickman is dead sexy even to a straight guy like me), it basically came down to them just exchanging spells. If you did that with D&D magic, the duel would probably last only one round, and it would involve a fireball.
I also had the old 2e High Level Campaigns book which had a freaky spell duel system that looked like a board game and never really worked. It was worse than the Combat & Tactics dueling rules, in my opinion. [shameless plug]I wrote some nice rules for dueling in the print version of Tournaments, Fairs, & Taverns that I like better[/plug]
So what suggestions would you have for determining how a spell duel should be run? Should we have them make sense motive checks vs. bluff checks to see if they can figure out what their opponent is casting, and then if one person wins he can try to counter their spell? Would duels be fought on a straight line like a fencing duel, or in some sort of ring, or would it be more mobile, with mages jumping and dodging opposing attacks? Do charm spells have any place in spell duels?
An idea I have is that this PC's particular school of dueling fought the following way. As the duel starts, both duelists can cast up to three spells on themselves, but nothing offensive. Then the duel starts and the mages exchange spells until a mage fails to maintain concentration while casting a spell, or his spell is countered. Each time this happens, the other mage gets a point, and three points is a win. If a mage falls down or passes out, he loses by default.
So we have different styles of duelists.
Counterspeller: Some go on the defensive and just try to counter each other's spells; this is of course a problem when two get paired against each other, so they need to have some other path to victory in these cases. Sometimes these mages also learn ways to reflect spells back at their caster.
Summoner: If you can get one good creature summoned, it can disrupt your opponent for several rounds while you have time to cast more spells. Opposing summoners can have very interesting duels.
Burn: Mages who use straightforward damage spells are often called burn mages because of the prevalance of fire-based offensive spells. Burn mages can often handle both summoned creatures and their foe equally well.
Melee: These mages choose to eschew magic-use per se. Instead, they use buff spells to defend themselves and go after their opponent physically.
Defenders: Fighting defensively, these mages just try to outmaneuver their foes, using spell after spell to thwart their opposition. If a single spell of theirs can defend against two of their opponent, then a defender can slip in something offensive.
Charmers: Few mages go this way, simply because most of their opponents are smart enough to realize they've been charmed. A charm spell simply makes the person your friend, but friends can still be competitive. Usually the best a charmer can do is shout, "Don't hurt me!" which will make their opponent choose less painful spells. Though if you can bluff out your foe so he doesn't realize you charmed him (like with a still and silent charm), you might shout, "Wait!" and he might not realize the duel has started.
What do you think? I think it comes off sounding a little like Magic: the Gathering, but I suppose that makes sense. Art imitates art.
The player can say he invoked a bolt of green lightning from the heavens; his enemy might summon a fiendish, smoldering tiger. Whichever wins, hits his opponent, or they might cancel out and just obliterate each other. The next round the player might turn himself into a snake-necked dragon for a round and try to bite his enemy, who uses his spell as a counterspell and teleports to the side just in the nick of time. Repeat.
