Identify does not reveal a curse, as a rule around here.
A PC just attuned to it, and I revealed that he felt a power from within the item, but I did not reveal the curse specifics. I mentioned that his character feels a need to always keep it near him, but to this point, he has not drawn a weapon in combat. It's the Berserker Axe. I think it would be most useful as a game item to wait for him to grab a weapon in battle and see how it plays out. Otherwise he'll just make a mad dash to remove curse and discard the item.
They are currently in battle and down on resources. He's a Cleric though, and has been using his magical attacks, which do not trigger the curse to have any further affect. I wonder if he will kill his comrades when he runs out of spells and fails his save on the axe.
It's fair play if you want curses in your campaign to be first revealed once triggered and remain dormant and undetectable until then. Just hope it doesn't result in a TPK by the Berserker Axe's fault!
You mention that the Cleric, who's short on resources, and in a fight. Has said Cleric taken any damage from a hostile creature? Cause Berserker Axe causes a Wisdom save whenever you take damage. Did the Cleric not question the save or what might be causing this tug at their willpower?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Also the Cleric doesn't need to use the Berserker Axe to go berserk, failing the Wisdom save upon taking damage while it's in his possession will cause him to attack the nearest creature with the axe.
In my games, a cursed person cannot "make a mad dash to remove curse", because part of a curse is being unable to voluntarily lift it.
Additionally, depending on the curse, they may resist the lifting of the curse. In the case of a berserker weapon, that resistance will include violence toward party members.
Curses are nasty things, not to be treated lightly.
I have seen a D&D (2E I think) party beat another party member senseless (using the nonlethal game rule) just so they could take away a cursed weapon and cast remove curse on the person. Then again, the cursed weapon would not let the wielder stop fighting until there were no living creatures within 30ft, so it was justified.
To help out the party, i always try to give clues to the item beforehand.
GM: You see the cleric asleep in his bedroll, with one hand curled protectively around the axe's handle. You have never seen them do that before, in fact you've never seen them sleep with a weapon in hand. Nearby, yes, but never in hand.
Here's how this plays out in my head. He will only become aware of each of the effects as they happen. The party is fairly spread out at this point. It's possible that if he fails his save only the fighter will die.
So that was pretty cool. The cleric fell twice. The second time, the enemies are gone before the clerics next turn, and he failed his first death save. He had to be given a potion.
"You are berserk until you start your turn with no creatures within 60 feet of you that you can see or hear."
With the battle being over for more than a round, he is no longer berserk. He wants to be rid of the axe. As I understand it, he would still be attuned to it, even though he was unconscious.
Question though; would he be able to cast remove curse from it or does the axe forbid that action? Or, is it a DC
Also, feel free to give me your input on how you would handle the berserk mechanic above.
Question though; would he be able to cast remove curse from it or does the axe forbid that action? Or, is it a DC
As far as I can tell, the Berserker Axe does not forbid such an action, so long as you aren't trying to part with it. The usual rules of needing a free hand and spellcasting focus to perform Remove Curse still apply, but the axe states it only needs to be "within reach." Because there's no evil spirit or demon bound to it or some such, I can't see the axe objecting to it (though maybe it could be a flavour thing: "as you begin to remove the curse, the axe hums to life. A primal energy roils through it, the closest thing it can get to communication. As the curse eventually breaks before it finds the ability to resist, an bloodthirsty howl bellows [wherever the party is]. The berserker goes silent once more."
Having said that, Greenstone_Walker's idea of curses not being treated lightly makes for a far more interesting tale than what I've said above. I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be established as soon as possible though, so that players aren't preparing spells that their characters would know in-game don't work and that it doesn't appear as though the DM's changing the rules to spite them for being prepared/playing a class that gives them that option.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Thank you. I might add some flavor when the remove curse spell is cast. If it would have gone the level of sentient or non breakable by the cleric who posses it, I thought maybe a visit from his deity might be needed.
It was a fun taste of what it means to be cursed, but I don't think my clerics player would be happy if he could not cast spells in battle.
Thank you. I might add some flavor when the remove curse spell is cast. If it would have gone the level of sentient or non breakable by the cleric who posses it, I thought maybe a visit from his deity might be needed.
It was a fun taste of what it means to be cursed, but I don't think my clerics player would be happy if he could not cast spells in battle.
To quote the emphasised part of your post, that's entirely the point of curses. If the Cleric wants to bypass the curse's effects of not being able to cast spells they should take the War Caster feat or use spells with only vocal and material components. If they insist on suffering the effects of the curse over a long period of time, I would eventually give them that feat for free as they have held true to their faith despite not benefiting from their deity's gifts as much as they would like to.
Curses are, I imagine, rather controversial in D&D as they take away player agency. I myself don't like them: on the one hand I'd like to use them sparingly so they're more impactful but I don't want players to feel bad for not having prepared 'the correct spells'. At the same time, if they're easily removed by a single spell, do the players feel like they've played smart and will they be OK with spending money/preparation on a spell that might never come up again because 'it might come up again'?
Hey, you at least had the confidence to try them out. Kudos for that! And who knows, maybe you can get a few giggles about it in future sessions ("are you sure you want to take that? It might be cursed! OoOoOoOooh!")
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
GM: You see the cleric asleep in his bedroll, with one hand curled protectively around the axe's handle. You have never seen them do that before, in fact you've never seen them sleep with a weapon in hand. Nearby, yes, but never in hand.
For sure. It would have played that way, and I did tell him once I knew he had attuned to it. He didn't really have time to react to it before the battle. I would agree it should be played that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Identify does not reveal a curse, as a rule around here.
A PC just attuned to it, and I revealed that he felt a power from within the item, but I did not reveal the curse specifics. I mentioned that his character feels a need to always keep it near him, but to this point, he has not drawn a weapon in combat. It's the Berserker Axe. I think it would be most useful as a game item to wait for him to grab a weapon in battle and see how it plays out. Otherwise he'll just make a mad dash to remove curse and discard the item.
Is this a fair play?
(newbie)
They are currently in battle and down on resources. He's a Cleric though, and has been using his magical attacks, which do not trigger the curse to have any further affect. I wonder if he will kill his comrades when he runs out of spells and fails his save on the axe.
It's fair play if you want curses in your campaign to be first revealed once triggered and remain dormant and undetectable until then. Just hope it doesn't result in a TPK by the Berserker Axe's fault!
It's fair play so long as your players have fun.
You mention that the Cleric, who's short on resources, and in a fight. Has said Cleric taken any damage from a hostile creature? Cause Berserker Axe causes a Wisdom save whenever you take damage. Did the Cleric not question the save or what might be causing this tug at their willpower?
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Also the Cleric doesn't need to use the Berserker Axe to go berserk, failing the Wisdom save upon taking damage while it's in his possession will cause him to attack the nearest creature with the axe.
Okay, thank you.
In my games, a cursed person cannot "make a mad dash to remove curse", because part of a curse is being unable to voluntarily lift it.
Additionally, depending on the curse, they may resist the lifting of the curse. In the case of a berserker weapon, that resistance will include violence toward party members.
Curses are nasty things, not to be treated lightly.
I have seen a D&D (2E I think) party beat another party member senseless (using the nonlethal game rule) just so they could take away a cursed weapon and cast remove curse on the person. Then again, the cursed weapon would not let the wielder stop fighting until there were no living creatures within 30ft, so it was justified.
To help out the party, i always try to give clues to the item beforehand.
GM: You see the cleric asleep in his bedroll, with one hand curled protectively around the axe's handle. You have never seen them do that before, in fact you've never seen them sleep with a weapon in hand. Nearby, yes, but never in hand.
Luckily, the owner of the weapon is the cleric. At least not all of them will die.
Here's how this plays out in my head. He will only become aware of each of the effects as they happen. The party is fairly spread out at this point. It's possible that if he fails his save only the fighter will die.
So that was pretty cool. The cleric fell twice. The second time, the enemies are gone before the clerics next turn, and he failed his first death save. He had to be given a potion.
"You are berserk until you start your turn with no creatures within 60 feet of you that you can see or hear."
With the battle being over for more than a round, he is no longer berserk. He wants to be rid of the axe. As I understand it, he would still be attuned to it, even though he was unconscious.
Question though; would he be able to cast remove curse from it or does the axe forbid that action? Or, is it a DC
Also, feel free to give me your input on how you would handle the berserk mechanic above.
As far as I can tell, the Berserker Axe does not forbid such an action, so long as you aren't trying to part with it. The usual rules of needing a free hand and spellcasting focus to perform Remove Curse still apply, but the axe states it only needs to be "within reach." Because there's no evil spirit or demon bound to it or some such, I can't see the axe objecting to it (though maybe it could be a flavour thing: "as you begin to remove the curse, the axe hums to life. A primal energy roils through it, the closest thing it can get to communication. As the curse eventually breaks before it finds the ability to resist, an bloodthirsty howl bellows [wherever the party is]. The berserker goes silent once more."
Having said that, Greenstone_Walker's idea of curses not being treated lightly makes for a far more interesting tale than what I've said above. I think this is the sort of thing that needs to be established as soon as possible though, so that players aren't preparing spells that their characters would know in-game don't work and that it doesn't appear as though the DM's changing the rules to spite them for being prepared/playing a class that gives them that option.
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Thank you. I might add some flavor when the remove curse spell is cast. If it would have gone the level of sentient or non breakable by the cleric who posses it, I thought maybe a visit from his deity might be needed.
It was a fun taste of what it means to be cursed, but I don't think my clerics player would be happy if he could not cast spells in battle.
To quote the emphasised part of your post, that's entirely the point of curses. If the Cleric wants to bypass the curse's effects of not being able to cast spells they should take the War Caster feat or use spells with only vocal and material components. If they insist on suffering the effects of the curse over a long period of time, I would eventually give them that feat for free as they have held true to their faith despite not benefiting from their deity's gifts as much as they would like to.
Curses are, I imagine, rather controversial in D&D as they take away player agency. I myself don't like them: on the one hand I'd like to use them sparingly so they're more impactful but I don't want players to feel bad for not having prepared 'the correct spells'. At the same time, if they're easily removed by a single spell, do the players feel like they've played smart and will they be OK with spending money/preparation on a spell that might never come up again because 'it might come up again'?
Hey, you at least had the confidence to try them out. Kudos for that! And who knows, maybe you can get a few giggles about it in future sessions ("are you sure you want to take that? It might be cursed! OoOoOoOooh!")
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
For sure. It would have played that way, and I did tell him once I knew he had attuned to it. He didn't really have time to react to it before the battle. I would agree it should be played that way.