Most of the problem here is just that there’s not a good way that jumps to mind to name the spell to indicate it’s supposed to work on comparatively temporary debuff curses but not big plot point ones.
If your plot revolves a round a "big plot curse" - just make "this cannot be removed by Remove Curse" part of the plot. It's simple.
You can even have an NPC tell your players that explicitly, or do something like "strangely, your spell seems to have no effect. You feel as though the energy you tried to use casting it wasn't expended."
Most of the problem here is just that there’s not a good way that jumps to mind to name the spell to indicate it’s supposed to work on comparatively temporary debuff curses but not big plot point ones.
Just don't include any temporary debuff curses. There's something like one combat-usable curse (bestow curse) and it's kind of a garbage spell.
If your plot revolves a round a "big plot curse" - just make "this cannot be removed by Remove Curse" part of the plot. It's simple.
Honestly, 90% of curses are going to be plot curses, because debuff curses are mostly garbage. I'm fine with just letting dispel magic work against stuff like bestow curse. There's really no reason to include curses in the game that can be removed by remove curse, other than "I want to drain 3rd level spell slots and force someone to use one of their spell preparation slots", and for curses that take more than 24 hours to be relevant, there's no reason at all.
Most of the problem here is just that there’s not a good way that jumps to mind to name the spell to indicate it’s supposed to work on comparatively temporary debuff curses but not big plot point ones.
Just don't include any temporary debuff curses. There's something like one combat-usable curse (bestow curse) and it's kind of a garbage spell.
If your plot revolves a round a "big plot curse" - just make "this cannot be removed by Remove Curse" part of the plot. It's simple.
Honestly, 90% of curses are going to be plot curses, because debuff curses are mostly garbage. I'm fine with just letting dispel magic work against stuff like bestow curse. There's really no reason to include curses in the game that can be removed by remove curse, other than "I want to drain 3rd level spell slots and force someone to use one of their spell preparation slots", and for curses that take more than 24 hours to be relevant, there's no reason at all.
Does that mean you'll be going through any modules that contain curse-using monsters e.g. werewolves etc and changing them too? Or simply avoiding any such creatures at your table?
Drawing out the expenditure of spells is a valid design point, plus it’s a little bit of a stretch to assume they’ll only ever last to just past the first LR after their acquisition. Only Clerics and Paladins can tag it in freely like that, so honestly I’d call it about even odds a party not specced for such encounters won’t have one. Beyond that it’s technically a Warlock option, but how many Warlock players are going to spend a known slot on it just in case? Finally there’s Wizard, but again I doubt it’s near the top of a typical list of picks when people level, leaving it dependent on if it crops up as a scribe option that the player then takes. The effectiveness is circumstantial, but it’s not negligible unless “hey, watch out for curses” is advertised at some point as a big consideration.
Does that mean you'll be going through any modules that contain curse-using monsters e.g. werewolves etc and changing them too? Or simply avoiding any such creatures at your table?
Neither. I just don't apply the curse if it's not a plot point I care to deal with. Probably some generic DM guidance such as
Curses, Diseases, and other lasting afflictions
A lasting affliction can be a a great plot seed for a quest. It can also be an annoying waste of time. As such, they should not be used randomly -- only apply lasting afflictions if they'll actually make the game better. In many cases, this means such afflictions only apply to NPCs, because many such effects just remove a PC from play, and that's almost never a good experience. If simply making the PCs immune doesn't fit your game, some options that produce better a game play experience are
Pre-questing: If the PCs need to make their way through the Curse-Swamps of Slimy Evil, don't handle that as "roll a save to avoid being turned to slime" -- give them a chance to make preparations ahead of time to avoid the curse, and give them ample warnings about what will happen if they don't.
Staged Afflictions: afflictions should have a warning stage, during which period the PC can act normally, and which lasts long enough that the PCs can realistically do something to prevent it (though this is a decent way to add a ticking clock to an adventure).
Acquired Immunity: the first time the PCs encounter a hazard, figuring out how to deal with it is an adventure. The fifth time, it's a chore. As such, once someone has successfully resisted or recovered from an affliction, go ahead and make them immune for the rest of the campaign.
Dire Consequences: on the flip side of the above, if the PCs ignore an affliction, the results should not be a trivial annoyance.
Removing Afflictions with Magic: if you wish to include cure spells, you should assign every affliction a level, which indicates the level of spell required to remove that affliction (for a consumable magic item that isn't a spell, assume common items are level 1, uncommon are level 2, rare are level 4, very rare are level 6, and legendary are level 9). Spells of lower level than the affliction have no effect. Afflictions that are intended to be relevant to the PCs should be higher level than the highest spell slot available to any PC.
Does that mean you'll be going through any modules that contain curse-using monsters e.g. werewolves etc and changing them too? Or simply avoiding any such creatures at your table?
Neither. I just don't apply the curse if it's not a plot point I care to deal with.
So effectively, you're changing those monsters to remove their curse features.
Again, that's fine, but probably not what the designers intended when they put those features on those monsters in the first place.
Drawing out the expenditure of spells is a valid design point, plus it’s a little bit of a stretch to assume they’ll only ever last to just past the first LR after their acquisition. Only Clerics and Paladins can tag it in freely like that, so honestly I’d call it about even odds a party not specced for such encounters won’t have one. Beyond that it’s technically a Warlock option, but how many Warlock players are going to spend a known slot on it just in case? Finally there’s Wizard, but again I doubt it’s near the top of a typical list of picks when people level, leaving it dependent on if it crops up as a scribe option that the player then takes. The effectiveness is circumstantial, but it’s not negligible unless “hey, watch out for curses” is advertised at some point as a big consideration.
Scrolls exist too, so even if the character in question never actually picked up Remove Curse themselves, it's probably a lot easier to find a scroll or keep one in reserve than it is to locate a friendly NPC powerful enough to cast it themselves.
Does that mean you'll be going through any modules that contain curse-using monsters e.g. werewolves etc and changing them too? Or simply avoiding any such creatures at your table?
Neither. I just don't apply the curse if it's not a plot point I care to deal with.
So effectively, you're changing those monsters to remove their curse features.
Again, that's fine, but probably not what the designers intended when they put those features on those monsters in the first place.
Drawing out the expenditure of spells is a valid design point, plus it’s a little bit of a stretch to assume they’ll only ever last to just past the first LR after their acquisition. Only Clerics and Paladins can tag it in freely like that, so honestly I’d call it about even odds a party not specced for such encounters won’t have one. Beyond that it’s technically a Warlock option, but how many Warlock players are going to spend a known slot on it just in case? Finally there’s Wizard, but again I doubt it’s near the top of a typical list of picks when people level, leaving it dependent on if it crops up as a scribe option that the player then takes. The effectiveness is circumstantial, but it’s not negligible unless “hey, watch out for curses” is advertised at some point as a big consideration.
Scrolls exist too, so even if the character in question never actually picked up Remove Curse themselves, it's probably a lot easier to find a scroll or keep one in reserve than it is to locate a friendly NPC powerful enough to cast it themselves.
Scrolls exist if a random roll or the DMs fiat makes them exist, or the PCs are left with significant free time. Personally I’ve yet to see any caster who can use Remove Curse take the time to look for it in scroll form purely as an abstract precaution. Not saying it can never happen, but it’s not the sort of thing people seem to acquire as a matter of course like a Bag of Holding.
Scrolls exist if a random roll or the DMs fiat makes them exist, or the PCs are left with significant free time. Personally I’ve yet to see any caster who can use Remove Curse take the time to look for it in scroll form purely as an abstract precaution. Not saying it can never happen, but it’s not the sort of thing people seem to acquire as a matter of course like a Bag of Holding.
Sure, the DM has to make them available - but dropping a scroll on a shelf or into a pile of loot somewhere is less of a contrivance than, say, a full-blown NPC / sphinx / deva etc popping up.
So effectively, you're changing those monsters to remove their curse features.
Again, that's fine, but probably not what the designers intended when they put those features on those monsters in the first place.
There is no evidence that curses are counted into the CR of monsters. Creatures have curses because someone thought it was thematic for them to do so.
This is the case with a lot of monster powers. I think the CR system mostly accounts for AC, Hit Points and Damage. Everything else I think is just mostly flavor. This might explain why so many monster don't seem to match their CR rating.
So effectively, you're changing those monsters to remove their curse features.
Again, that's fine, but probably not what the designers intended when they put those features on those monsters in the first place.
There is no evidence that curses are counted into the CR of monsters. Creatures have curses because someone thought it was thematic for them to do so.
The exact term I used was "designer intent" which is broader than mere CR. If you think the designers would view a mummy with no mummy rot or a werewolf with no ability to pass on lycanthropy as functionally identical to their printed versions, you're welcome to do so, but I disagree.
The exact term I used was "designer intent" which is broader than mere CR. If you think the designers would view a mummy with no mummy rot or a werewolf with no ability to pass on lycanthropy as functionally identical to their printed versions, you're welcome to do so, but I disagree.
In tier 1, a mummy or a werewolf is a scary monster that you'd use as a plot point so it might well have its curse. In tier 2 and above, it's just a resource drain that's annoying to track.
The exact term I used was "designer intent" which is broader than mere CR. If you think the designers would view a mummy with no mummy rot or a werewolf with no ability to pass on lycanthropy as functionally identical to their printed versions, you're welcome to do so, but I disagree.
In tier 1, a mummy or a werewolf is a scary monster that you'd use as a plot point so it might well have its curse. In tier 2 and above, it's just a resource drain that's annoying to track.
Resource drains are necessary at higher tiers, considering how much moaning and groaning there is that parties can delete boss monsters in two rounds.
In tier 1, a mummy or a werewolf is a scary monster that you'd use as a plot point so it might well have its curse.
You don't get Remove Curse until Tier 2 at the earliest so this is moot/redundant.
That's the point. Curses are fine as long as the PCs are too low level to have remove curse. Once remove curse is available, there's no point to having curses.
In tier 1, a mummy or a werewolf is a scary monster that you'd use as a plot point so it might well have its curse.
You don't get Remove Curse until Tier 2 at the earliest so this is moot/redundant.
That's the point. Curses are fine as long as the PCs are too low level to have remove curse. Once remove curse is available, there's no point to having curses.
I find this logic quite bizarre. So once Dispel Magic becomes available, there's no point to having "Until Dispelled" spells? And I guess there's never been a point to having poison since Lesser Restoration is available at 1st level to damn near everybody...?
Something being available in the system doesn't mean every adventuring party has it or chose to pick it up. And even if yours did, Remove Curse and Greater Restoration still cost resources to use, resources your party might not even have / can afford to spend that day when the curse lands. And that's assuming, again, that we're talking about a standard curse instead of a plot curse that can resist whatever countermeasures your DM wants it to.
In short, this whole thing is just much ado about nothing.
I find this logic quite bizarre. So once Dispel Magic becomes available, there's no point to having "Until Dispelled" spells?
Depends on its tactical effects. An until dispelled offensive spell is not significantly more potent than an offensive spell with a duration of one minute, unless improved in some other way (such as removing concentration). Curses like mummy rot and lycanthropy have no tactical effect, they're just "You should probably get that cured in the next few days to weeks".
Can't regain hitpoints and losing max HP on a regular basis is a bit more than just "should probably get that fixed when you can squeeze it in"; unless you had foreknowledge, happened to be playing one of two classes, spent one of your precious known Warlock spells for it, stumbled across a chance to scribe it with time and gold to spare as a Wizard, or had the DM serve up a magic item to fix it that's a hard clock on how long until a character bites it so hard it takes a True Res to fix.
Can't regain hitpoints and losing max HP on a regular basis is a bit more than just "should probably get that fixed when you can squeeze it in"; unless you had foreknowledge, happened to be playing one of two classes, spent one of your precious known Warlock spells for it, stumbled across a chance to scribe it with time and gold to spare as a Wizard, or had the DM serve up a magic item to fix it that's a hard clock on how long until a character bites it so hard it takes a True Res to fix.
The fact that it will kill you in (generally) 3+ days is almost never going to matter, though I did miss that it has a tactically relevant effect. Lycanthropy mostly doesn't, though, unless you were infected on the full moon and the DM decides that you're going to transform immediately (which isn't really appropriate, the classic is generally the next full moon).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If your plot revolves a round a "big plot curse" - just make "this cannot be removed by Remove Curse" part of the plot. It's simple.
You can even have an NPC tell your players that explicitly, or do something like "strangely, your spell seems to have no effect. You feel as though the energy you tried to use casting it wasn't expended."
Just don't include any temporary debuff curses. There's something like one combat-usable curse (bestow curse) and it's kind of a garbage spell.
Honestly, 90% of curses are going to be plot curses, because debuff curses are mostly garbage. I'm fine with just letting dispel magic work against stuff like bestow curse. There's really no reason to include curses in the game that can be removed by remove curse, other than "I want to drain 3rd level spell slots and force someone to use one of their spell preparation slots", and for curses that take more than 24 hours to be relevant, there's no reason at all.
Does that mean you'll be going through any modules that contain curse-using monsters e.g. werewolves etc and changing them too? Or simply avoiding any such creatures at your table?
Drawing out the expenditure of spells is a valid design point, plus it’s a little bit of a stretch to assume they’ll only ever last to just past the first LR after their acquisition. Only Clerics and Paladins can tag it in freely like that, so honestly I’d call it about even odds a party not specced for such encounters won’t have one. Beyond that it’s technically a Warlock option, but how many Warlock players are going to spend a known slot on it just in case? Finally there’s Wizard, but again I doubt it’s near the top of a typical list of picks when people level, leaving it dependent on if it crops up as a scribe option that the player then takes. The effectiveness is circumstantial, but it’s not negligible unless “hey, watch out for curses” is advertised at some point as a big consideration.
Neither. I just don't apply the curse if it's not a plot point I care to deal with. Probably some generic DM guidance such as
So effectively, you're changing those monsters to remove their curse features.
Again, that's fine, but probably not what the designers intended when they put those features on those monsters in the first place.
Scrolls exist too, so even if the character in question never actually picked up Remove Curse themselves, it's probably a lot easier to find a scroll or keep one in reserve than it is to locate a friendly NPC powerful enough to cast it themselves.
Scrolls exist if a random roll or the DMs fiat makes them exist, or the PCs are left with significant free time. Personally I’ve yet to see any caster who can use Remove Curse take the time to look for it in scroll form purely as an abstract precaution. Not saying it can never happen, but it’s not the sort of thing people seem to acquire as a matter of course like a Bag of Holding.
Sure, the DM has to make them available - but dropping a scroll on a shelf or into a pile of loot somewhere is less of a contrivance than, say, a full-blown NPC / sphinx / deva etc popping up.
There is no evidence that curses are counted into the CR of monsters. Creatures have curses because someone thought it was thematic for them to do so.
This is the case with a lot of monster powers. I think the CR system mostly accounts for AC, Hit Points and Damage. Everything else I think is just mostly flavor. This might explain why so many monster don't seem to match their CR rating.
The exact term I used was "designer intent" which is broader than mere CR. If you think the designers would view a mummy with no mummy rot or a werewolf with no ability to pass on lycanthropy as functionally identical to their printed versions, you're welcome to do so, but I disagree.
In tier 1, a mummy or a werewolf is a scary monster that you'd use as a plot point so it might well have its curse. In tier 2 and above, it's just a resource drain that's annoying to track.
Resource drains are necessary at higher tiers, considering how much moaning and groaning there is that parties can delete boss monsters in two rounds.
Resource drains are mostly ineffective at higher tiers. People just need to use harder boss monsters.
You don't get Remove Curse until Tier 2 at the earliest so this is moot/redundant.
"It's annoying" is your opinion, which you're allowed to have, but the devs are not beholden to it.
That's the point. Curses are fine as long as the PCs are too low level to have remove curse. Once remove curse is available, there's no point to having curses.
I find this logic quite bizarre. So once Dispel Magic becomes available, there's no point to having "Until Dispelled" spells? And I guess there's never been a point to having poison since Lesser Restoration is available at 1st level to damn near everybody...?
Something being available in the system doesn't mean every adventuring party has it or chose to pick it up. And even if yours did, Remove Curse and Greater Restoration still cost resources to use, resources your party might not even have / can afford to spend that day when the curse lands. And that's assuming, again, that we're talking about a standard curse instead of a plot curse that can resist whatever countermeasures your DM wants it to.
In short, this whole thing is just much ado about nothing.
Depends on its tactical effects. An until dispelled offensive spell is not significantly more potent than an offensive spell with a duration of one minute, unless improved in some other way (such as removing concentration). Curses like mummy rot and lycanthropy have no tactical effect, they're just "You should probably get that cured in the next few days to weeks".
Can't regain hitpoints and losing max HP on a regular basis is a bit more than just "should probably get that fixed when you can squeeze it in"; unless you had foreknowledge, happened to be playing one of two classes, spent one of your precious known Warlock spells for it, stumbled across a chance to scribe it with time and gold to spare as a Wizard, or had the DM serve up a magic item to fix it that's a hard clock on how long until a character bites it so hard it takes a True Res to fix.
The fact that it will kill you in (generally) 3+ days is almost never going to matter, though I did miss that it has a tactically relevant effect. Lycanthropy mostly doesn't, though, unless you were infected on the full moon and the DM decides that you're going to transform immediately (which isn't really appropriate, the classic is generally the next full moon).