How do you guys feel about the spell Remove Curse? I feel it is really overpowered as written as it can end any curse at the cost of a level 3 spell slot. This effectively means curses as plot hooks are severely limited if there is a Cleric in the party. I think curses are super cool and can add a lot of flavor and intrigue to a game. However if the level 5 Cleric can remove the strongest curse of the Baba Yaga with a snap of its fingers, then everything falls apart. I know that the spell is very situational as curses are not something that the player characters come across all the time, but I simply find it too imbalanced the way the spell works now. As is, I think it is overpowered and I lean towards simply telling my players "it doesn't work" when I want to protect a curse-related plot hook, but I also don't want to take power away from my players by simply saying their spell doesn't work half the time.
My solution is to have Remove Curse work similarly to Dispel Magic regarding the DC and add a consumable 50-100g component cost (to both spells). This way, the players have to actually think about how much wealth is worth risking to solve the problem the easy way. What are your solutions and what do you think of mine?
Van Richten's suggests adding conditions like the caster must be killed or the cursed must do some act before remove curse works. Then each time remove curse is used they have to make a roll against a DC for the curse with a cool down on how often they can try to remove it.
It could also be cool to come up with something like the scrying spell. Where the DC depends on things like if the caster has a possession of the cursed and how well they know them.
If you want the curse to be a plot device, then simply make it a Legendary Curse that is unaffected by Remove Curse. Casting Remove Curse instead gives the caster the knowledge of what needs to be done to break the curse. That way, the spellcaster doesn't feel that you've simply removed any value of the spell, but at the same time the curse can serve as a plot device.
I love the idea of remove curse instead working like Identify, so it allows you to know what the curse needs to be removed. Definitely adding that to my game!
Good suggestions. Personally I prefer that a spell description leaves no room for doubt if possible, so I'm not really fond of telling my players their spells don't actually work the way they are written. To incorporate your ideas (which are both awesome!) into my own, I think I'll let Remove Curse identify the nature of the curse and how it might be ended if the Remove Curse roll fails by less than 5. Additionally, your roll would be modified according to your knowledge of the curse.
My ideal spell description would look something like the below:
Remove Curse Choose one creature or object. Any curse of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each curse of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability plus 1 for each type of connection or knowledge you have of the curse. The DC equals 10 + the curse's level.
Knowledge/Connection
Ability Check Modifier
You have specific secondhand knowledge of the curse
+1
You have specific firsthand knowledge of the curse
+1
You have a body part of the caster (lock of hair, bit of nail, or the like)
+1
On a successful check, the curse ends. On a check that fails by less than 5, you learn the nature of the curse and how to lift it. If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owner's attunement to the object so it can be removed or discarded.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a curse on the target if the curse's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.
* - (spell components worth 50g per level of the curse)
I often see this kind of approach - the DM doesn't want something to happen, like a spell negating their plot hook, so they make up a bunch of complicated rules where the end result is the players can still do the thing, it just takes slightly longer/is more expensive/requires more rolls. This does not enable the thing to be a plot hook.
I'd encourage you to reconsider Sanavel's proposal. If you're hung up on the wording, then call it a Pestilence or a Calamity or a Plague or a Jinx or any other term you want to come up with. Basically, it's a super curse that requires Plot to cure it (the hobbit must be taken to Rivendell, for example). If you're worried about taking power from players, give them other curses that they can remove. It's totally within regular expectations of a fantasy story to have encountered and overcome many of a certain type of challenge only to run into an extreme version of that challenge that requires additional measures. The DM's power matters too, and it needs to be wielded more aggressively as PCs get to higher levels and accumulate spells with more and more potential to completely circumvent critical plot points.
If you want to use something as a story hook and regular PC powers can easily solve it, just make the thing very clearly outside of the PC's immediate available solutions. If you give them a horrible curse and just add DC to Remove Curse, they will double down and collect all the bonuses they can to surpass the DC. Or keep trying until they do.
One other alternate solution is to spread the love. This applies to diseases as well, which Paladins render obsolete from day 1. PCs have the resources to heal themselves, but when they come across a town with 300 people suffering from a terrible curse that will kill them in 3 days, Remove Curse isn't going to cut it. That's when the townsfolk mention the purple mountain flower or whatever macguffin you need to draw the party into an adventure.
I often see this kind of approach - the DM doesn't want something to happen, like a spell negating their plot hook, so they make up a bunch of complicated rules where the end result is the players can still do the thing, it just takes slightly longer/is more expensive/requires more rolls. This does not enable the thing to be a plot hook.
I'd encourage you to reconsider Sanavel's proposal. If you're hung up on the wording, then call it a Pestilence or a Calamity or a Plague or a Jinx or any other term you want to come up with. Basically, it's a super curse that requires Plot to cure it (the hobbit must be taken to Rivendell, for example). If you're worried about taking power from players, give them other curses that they can remove. It's totally within regular expectations of a fantasy story to have encountered and overcome many of a certain type of challenge only to run into an extreme version of that challenge that requires additional measures. The DM's power matters too, and it needs to be wielded more aggressively as PCs get to higher levels and accumulate spells with more and more potential to completely circumvent critical plot points.
If you want to use something as a story hook and regular PC powers can easily solve it, just make the thing very clearly outside of the PC's immediate available solutions. If you give them a horrible curse and just add DC to Remove Curse, they will double down and collect all the bonuses they can to surpass the DC. Or keep trying until they do.
One other alternate solution is to spread the love. This applies to diseases as well, which Paladins render obsolete from day 1. PCs have the resources to heal themselves, but when they come across a town with 300 people suffering from a terrible curse that will kill them in 3 days, Remove Curse isn't going to cut it. That's when the townsfolk mention the purple mountain flower or whatever macguffin you need to draw the party into an adventure.
The players at my table are very focused on character development and roleplay. To them, the freedom of choice is extremely important, and I therefore run the game in a sandbox style with a loose plot that the players can choose to interact with if they want to, but they are never forced to. I do of course involve their characters' personal motivations to engage them in the plot as much as possible, but the plot moves along even if they choose not to engage with it (their actions as well as non-actions have consequences). As is, Remove Curse is much too powerful and it forces the DM to railroad their players if they want curses to carry any weight in their game. I don't like either of those two aspects.
As stated, I think I've come up with a solution that might work well for me and my table. To me, if the players want to risk all their wealth to remove a curse the easy way, that would be a hard choice that I think they'd benefit from simply by having it available to them. Depending on how important I feel the specific curse is to the plot, the more difficult and costly the easy way will be. E.g. if the level 5 party comes upon a level 9 curse (important plot hook), they can attempt to solve it the easy way (Remove Curse) or the hard way (follow the planned resolution). Now, the players have to choose if they want to risk 450g to attempt to succeed on a DC19 check (no bonuses to the roll from sources such as bardic inspiration). If they decide to spend most of their hard earned gold (at my table I don't shower my PCs with gold) to solve this issue as fast as possible, then I'll give them a fair chance. If they succeed, they get rewarded for making a hard choice and being lucky, and the problem is most likely solved (sometimes the curse is the root of the problem, sometimes its only a symptom). If they lose the gamble, they instantly feel the consequences of their actions (loss of gold, but cushioned by the inclusion of Sanvael's suggestion) and if they attempt to remove the curse the easy way once again, they stand to lose more relative wealth. At my table, my players would definitely spend time to weigh the cost/benefit and use this opportunity to explore their characters' morals/values and reassess the in-game group dynamics. This is what my players enjoy, and therefore what I want to enable with my changes to how Remove Curse works at my table. Also, collecting all the bonuses is not a bad thing as that is actual interaction with the curse (plot hook).
At the end of the day, I simply lean more towards sandbox style games than railroading, and while both styles have their place at my table, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth if I completely negated a spell's intended effect by saying "it's too weak, it doesn't work" when RAW indicates the spell is all powerful within its sphere of influence. Adding more of a thing to make the players forget you deliberately took power away from them at some point is also not a good solution in my opinion. While it does dilute the perceived severity of the action, it also forces you to add more of a thing to your games, i.e. it ties your hands as a DM. And as I already mentioned, I run a sandbox game with a loose storyline, and I don't want to force anything upon my players or myself.
I acknowledge the workaround of simply saying "it's not a curse", but that would make it lose some of its flavor which (sometimes) is very important for the overall atmosphere. Spreading the love, as you call it, is a very good solution to the issue, but I don't believe that tactic can be employed every time without limiting the DM or losing its authenticity down the road. It's definitely a good idea for a single scenario though!
It's not imbalanced, as the poll offers. It's just that 5e isn't built to support curses in the way that most people are going to imagine them.
Bestow Curse isn't permanent until you cast it with a 9th level slot. That right there is indicative of the 5e curse philosophy: they're more like temporary modifiers to combat than life-ruining sources of misery. At least when they're allowed to happen as a result of player choices. When they're used as a narrative device it's a different story.
Kenku are cursed, but you can't Remove it. The Death Curse in Tomb of Annihilation doesn't follow the rules either. Strahd von Zarovich is cursed, lycanthropes are cursed... Can't have you solving those with a 3rd level spell, though. Should we redesign Remove Curse? Nah. Should we... Rewrite these story elements so they're not curses? Nah. Just say they're Super Curses™ that can't be removed in the normal way.
Personally I'm pretty unhappy with the cursed item rules. It seems like the cursed item never sticks for any time at all. I think if you removed things like the Mummy Rot curse that will actually kill you over a period of time, you could allow curses to persist for longer, so you could make Removing them more difficult, and it would be an overall boon to the game.
Van Richten's suggests adding conditions like the caster must be killed or the cursed must do some act before remove curse works. Then each time remove curse is used they have to make a roll against a DC for the curse with a cool down on how often they can try to remove it.
It could also be cool to come up with something like the scrying spell. Where the DC depends on things like if the caster has a possession of the cursed and how well they know them.
The material there makes curses way more serious of a condition. I would definitely use that book for plot hook curses.
In the hopes of helping someone else if they have a similar issue (this thread was pretty high on my Google search), this is my insight and current solution to justify a necro post.
Remove Curse as written for 5e '14/'24 tells players one simple thing: "all curses affecting one creature or object end." That's it. A simple, all-inclusive statement that implies there are no possible exceptions. (You can see the problem already, that's why you're here.)
This is absolutely terrible writing, because it creates less of a rules issue (because specific beats general, and DM trumps all) and more of a perception issue. Many DMs try to solve this by adding extra mechanics, or rules into a curse... but those details are not (or should not) be easily accessible to the players (or at least their characters), at least not without some studying of the curse first. But that isn't what players are experiencing! They expect their spell to do exactly what it says it does and end all the curses. If anything less than that happens, they have been denied the very thing they earned. AND THAT SUCKS.
Two major solutions, to me, are either 1: Ban the spell (this is the worst option, because Remove Curse is a COOL power!) or 2: Fix the spell (instead of curses). So I made this version:
Remove Curse Level 3 Abjuration Casting Time: Action Range: Touch Components: V, S (Some curses may also require a material component, which may also be consumed in the casting) Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: Remove Curse instantaneously ends or suppresses all simple curses on one creature or object that you touch for while casting the spell. • Cursed Items: Remove Curse does not remove the curse from a cursed item (such as a shield, weapon, or suit of armor). Instead, it temporarily suppresses the curse and instantly breaks attunement with the item, enabling an afflicted creature to remove and get rid of it safely. This suppression lasts for 1 hour, during which the item’s magical properties are suppressed (temporarily limiting it to a non-magical item), though some powerful items, such as artifacts, may have some or all properties remain active. • Powerful Curses: Powerful or unusual curses may require this spell to be cast as a higher level spell, have additional requirements such as a material component, or the curse may simply be too powerful for this spell to be capable of affecting. • Multiple Curses: If the target has more than one curse and any are able to be negated by this casting: Those curses are successfully negated as normal while the other curses remain. • Spell Failure: Remove Curse failing to remove a curse does not reveal any new information, including that if failed (though that will often be apparent due to the effects of the curse continuing).
—Spell-based curses: Remove Curse treats the effects of some spells, such as Bestow Curse and Hex, as a curse. To remove the effect of a spell-based curse, Remove Curse must be cast at a level equal to or higher than that of the cast spell which created the curse. Otherwise the curse is not removed.
I don't know how much others might agree with it, but I like to hope that it helps make it clear to the player that it definitely does remove curses but also makes it clear that not all curses are equally vulnerable. It also makes it clear that there can be unknown details to a curse, such as being simply stronger (ie: higher spell slot) or have an extra material cost.
How do you guys feel about the spell Remove Curse? I feel it is really overpowered as written as it can end any curse at the cost of a level 3 spell slot. This effectively means curses as plot hooks are severely limited if there is a Cleric in the party. I think curses are super cool and can add a lot of flavor and intrigue to a game. However if the level 5 Cleric can remove the strongest curse of the Baba Yaga with a snap of its fingers, then everything falls apart. I know that the spell is very situational as curses are not something that the player characters come across all the time, but I simply find it too imbalanced the way the spell works now. As is, I think it is overpowered and I lean towards simply telling my players "it doesn't work" when I want to protect a curse-related plot hook, but I also don't want to take power away from my players by simply saying their spell doesn't work half the time.
My solution is to have Remove Curse work similarly to Dispel Magic regarding the DC and add a consumable 50-100g component cost (to both spells). This way, the players have to actually think about how much wealth is worth risking to solve the problem the easy way.
What are your solutions and what do you think of mine?
Van Richten's suggests adding conditions like the caster must be killed or the cursed must do some act before remove curse works. Then each time remove curse is used they have to make a roll against a DC for the curse with a cool down on how often they can try to remove it.
It could also be cool to come up with something like the scrying spell. Where the DC depends on things like if the caster has a possession of the cursed and how well they know them.
If you want the curse to be a plot device, then simply make it a Legendary Curse that is unaffected by Remove Curse. Casting Remove Curse instead gives the caster the knowledge of what needs to be done to break the curse. That way, the spellcaster doesn't feel that you've simply removed any value of the spell, but at the same time the curse can serve as a plot device.
I love the idea of remove curse instead working like Identify, so it allows you to know what the curse needs to be removed. Definitely adding that to my game!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Good suggestions. Personally I prefer that a spell description leaves no room for doubt if possible, so I'm not really fond of telling my players their spells don't actually work the way they are written. To incorporate your ideas (which are both awesome!) into my own, I think I'll let Remove Curse identify the nature of the curse and how it might be ended if the Remove Curse roll fails by less than 5. Additionally, your roll would be modified according to your knowledge of the curse.
My ideal spell description would look something like the below:
Remove Curse
Choose one creature or object. Any curse of 3rd level or lower on the target ends. For each curse of 4th level or higher on the target, make an ability check using your spellcasting ability plus 1 for each type of connection or knowledge you have of the curse. The DC equals 10 + the curse's level.
Knowledge/Connection
On a successful check, the curse ends. On a check that fails by less than 5, you learn the nature of the curse and how to lift it. If the object is a cursed magic item, its curse remains, but the spell breaks its owner's attunement to the object so it can be removed or discarded.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, you automatically end the effects of a curse on the target if the curse's level is equal to or less than the level of the spell slot you used.
* - (spell components worth 50g per level of the curse)
I often see this kind of approach - the DM doesn't want something to happen, like a spell negating their plot hook, so they make up a bunch of complicated rules where the end result is the players can still do the thing, it just takes slightly longer/is more expensive/requires more rolls. This does not enable the thing to be a plot hook.
I'd encourage you to reconsider Sanavel's proposal. If you're hung up on the wording, then call it a Pestilence or a Calamity or a Plague or a Jinx or any other term you want to come up with. Basically, it's a super curse that requires Plot to cure it (the hobbit must be taken to Rivendell, for example). If you're worried about taking power from players, give them other curses that they can remove. It's totally within regular expectations of a fantasy story to have encountered and overcome many of a certain type of challenge only to run into an extreme version of that challenge that requires additional measures. The DM's power matters too, and it needs to be wielded more aggressively as PCs get to higher levels and accumulate spells with more and more potential to completely circumvent critical plot points.
If you want to use something as a story hook and regular PC powers can easily solve it, just make the thing very clearly outside of the PC's immediate available solutions. If you give them a horrible curse and just add DC to Remove Curse, they will double down and collect all the bonuses they can to surpass the DC. Or keep trying until they do.
One other alternate solution is to spread the love. This applies to diseases as well, which Paladins render obsolete from day 1. PCs have the resources to heal themselves, but when they come across a town with 300 people suffering from a terrible curse that will kill them in 3 days, Remove Curse isn't going to cut it. That's when the townsfolk mention the purple mountain flower or whatever macguffin you need to draw the party into an adventure.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The players at my table are very focused on character development and roleplay. To them, the freedom of choice is extremely important, and I therefore run the game in a sandbox style with a loose plot that the players can choose to interact with if they want to, but they are never forced to. I do of course involve their characters' personal motivations to engage them in the plot as much as possible, but the plot moves along even if they choose not to engage with it (their actions as well as non-actions have consequences).
As is, Remove Curse is much too powerful and it forces the DM to railroad their players if they want curses to carry any weight in their game. I don't like either of those two aspects.
As stated, I think I've come up with a solution that might work well for me and my table. To me, if the players want to risk all their wealth to remove a curse the easy way, that would be a hard choice that I think they'd benefit from simply by having it available to them. Depending on how important I feel the specific curse is to the plot, the more difficult and costly the easy way will be.
E.g. if the level 5 party comes upon a level 9 curse (important plot hook), they can attempt to solve it the easy way (Remove Curse) or the hard way (follow the planned resolution). Now, the players have to choose if they want to risk 450g to attempt to succeed on a DC19 check (no bonuses to the roll from sources such as bardic inspiration). If they decide to spend most of their hard earned gold (at my table I don't shower my PCs with gold) to solve this issue as fast as possible, then I'll give them a fair chance. If they succeed, they get rewarded for making a hard choice and being lucky, and the problem is most likely solved (sometimes the curse is the root of the problem, sometimes its only a symptom). If they lose the gamble, they instantly feel the consequences of their actions (loss of gold, but cushioned by the inclusion of Sanvael's suggestion) and if they attempt to remove the curse the easy way once again, they stand to lose more relative wealth. At my table, my players would definitely spend time to weigh the cost/benefit and use this opportunity to explore their characters' morals/values and reassess the in-game group dynamics. This is what my players enjoy, and therefore what I want to enable with my changes to how Remove Curse works at my table. Also, collecting all the bonuses is not a bad thing as that is actual interaction with the curse (plot hook).
At the end of the day, I simply lean more towards sandbox style games than railroading, and while both styles have their place at my table, it would leave a bad taste in my mouth if I completely negated a spell's intended effect by saying "it's too weak, it doesn't work" when RAW indicates the spell is all powerful within its sphere of influence. Adding more of a thing to make the players forget you deliberately took power away from them at some point is also not a good solution in my opinion. While it does dilute the perceived severity of the action, it also forces you to add more of a thing to your games, i.e. it ties your hands as a DM. And as I already mentioned, I run a sandbox game with a loose storyline, and I don't want to force anything upon my players or myself.
I acknowledge the workaround of simply saying "it's not a curse", but that would make it lose some of its flavor which (sometimes) is very important for the overall atmosphere.
Spreading the love, as you call it, is a very good solution to the issue, but I don't believe that tactic can be employed every time without limiting the DM or losing its authenticity down the road. It's definitely a good idea for a single scenario though!
It's not imbalanced, as the poll offers. It's just that 5e isn't built to support curses in the way that most people are going to imagine them.
Bestow Curse isn't permanent until you cast it with a 9th level slot. That right there is indicative of the 5e curse philosophy: they're more like temporary modifiers to combat than life-ruining sources of misery. At least when they're allowed to happen as a result of player choices. When they're used as a narrative device it's a different story.
Kenku are cursed, but you can't Remove it. The Death Curse in Tomb of Annihilation doesn't follow the rules either. Strahd von Zarovich is cursed, lycanthropes are cursed... Can't have you solving those with a 3rd level spell, though. Should we redesign Remove Curse? Nah. Should we... Rewrite these story elements so they're not curses? Nah. Just say they're Super Curses™ that can't be removed in the normal way.
Personally I'm pretty unhappy with the cursed item rules. It seems like the cursed item never sticks for any time at all. I think if you removed things like the Mummy Rot curse that will actually kill you over a period of time, you could allow curses to persist for longer, so you could make Removing them more difficult, and it would be an overall boon to the game.
The material there makes curses way more serious of a condition. I would definitely use that book for plot hook curses.
In the hopes of helping someone else if they have a similar issue (this thread was pretty high on my Google search), this is my insight and current solution to justify a necro post.
Remove Curse as written for 5e '14/'24 tells players one simple thing: "all curses affecting one creature or object end." That's it. A simple, all-inclusive statement that implies there are no possible exceptions. (You can see the problem already, that's why you're here.)
This is absolutely terrible writing, because it creates less of a rules issue (because specific beats general, and DM trumps all) and more of a perception issue. Many DMs try to solve this by adding extra mechanics, or rules into a curse... but those details are not (or should not) be easily accessible to the players (or at least their characters), at least not without some studying of the curse first. But that isn't what players are experiencing! They expect their spell to do exactly what it says it does and end all the curses. If anything less than that happens, they have been denied the very thing they earned. AND THAT SUCKS.
Two major solutions, to me, are either 1: Ban the spell (this is the worst option, because Remove Curse is a COOL power!) or 2: Fix the spell (instead of curses). So I made this version:
Level 3 Abjuration
Casting Time: Action
Range: Touch
Components: V, S (Some curses may also require a material component, which may also be consumed in the casting)
Duration: Instantaneous
Effect: Remove Curse instantaneously ends or suppresses all simple curses on one creature or object that you touch for while casting the spell.
• Cursed Items: Remove Curse does not remove the curse from a cursed item (such as a shield, weapon, or suit of armor). Instead, it temporarily suppresses the curse and instantly breaks attunement with the item, enabling an afflicted creature to remove and get rid of it safely. This suppression lasts for 1 hour, during which the item’s magical properties are suppressed (temporarily limiting it to a non-magical item), though some powerful items, such as artifacts, may have some or all properties remain active.
• Powerful Curses: Powerful or unusual curses may require this spell to be cast as a higher level spell, have additional requirements such as a material component, or the curse may simply be too powerful for this spell to be capable of affecting.
• Multiple Curses: If the target has more than one curse and any are able to be negated by this casting: Those curses are successfully negated as normal while the other curses remain.
• Spell Failure: Remove Curse failing to remove a curse does not reveal any new information, including that if failed (though that will often be apparent due to the effects of the curse continuing).
—Spell-based curses: Remove Curse treats the effects of some spells, such as Bestow Curse and Hex, as a curse. To remove the effect of a spell-based curse, Remove Curse must be cast at a level equal to or higher than that of the cast spell which created the curse. Otherwise the curse is not removed.
I don't know how much others might agree with it, but I like to hope that it helps make it clear to the player that it definitely does remove curses but also makes it clear that not all curses are equally vulnerable. It also makes it clear that there can be unknown details to a curse, such as being simply stronger (ie: higher spell slot) or have an extra material cost.
DM and content developer