6mo ago

I don't actually know how controversial or not this might be, but it does annoy me mildly.

30 comments

Yeah, they're both very bland.
For remove curse, there's an easy bandaid fix: Remove curse must be upcast to remove stronger effects. Sure, you can break the ring of power's hold over the knight, if you cast remove curse at 9th level. Otherwise, you have to follow the plot.
The plot route should be like all cursed items have a custom way of removing them. The sword of betrayal can be removed if you return it to the original owner's crypt. The stones of drowning can be broken if you bury them in the desert under a new moon. The ring of power can be destroyed if you throw it into the volcano where it was forged.
For counterspell, well... Make it an extended check with some options on each exchange. You both declare in secret if you're putting more spell slots or hp into the check, or folding. If you fold, the other person gets their way, but any extra resources they committed are wasted. If neither folds, you roll with bonuses based on what resources you put in. More spell slots or HP or hit dice give you some sort of bonus.
Probably get rid of counterspell as a spell on its own and just make this a thing you can do. Give wizards some more tactical depth. If you use the same spell you get a bonus to countering. If it's the same school, bonus.
Like all of D&D 5e, there's so much you could do that the game just doesn't.
- Remove curse must be upcast to remove stronger effects.
  It would've been fine if it worked that way, but RAW it just ends the curse, no added effects from upcasting.
  Like all of D&D 5e, there's so much you could do that the game just doesn't.
  “Like all of D&D, you gotta fix it yourself”; essentially, yeah. He system is rigid so even small flaws must be fixed, tries to stay compatible with older editions so much of the system doesn't make sense to new players, and feels like it wasade hastily to me with its typos and mistakes. /rant
  
  As written in the spell description of dispel magic, a 3rd level dispel magic also can dispel a 9th level spell with only a check, that didn't stop them from writing some things that explicitly stated that dispel only works for that effect if cast at 9th level.
  
  better option than wasting a bunch of time fixing the same issues that have been there for decades over and over, play a system that is well designed from the start. it'll take less time to boot.
- Counter spell as a class feature of wizards would be amazing. Then Sorcerers could get a reaction to cause everyone to auto save with a point. So not as good but also much better than nothing.

Dispel Magic is the worst offender in my opinion. Imagine you spend one year casting the same spell at the same location, every day, so that it can become permanent. And then one green adventurer stumbles into your dungeon and tries out this new "Dispel Magic" spell he just learned. All your hard work and components gone.
- DM has options here.
  Make the dispelling temporary Make the permenancy of the spell easy to reinstate Have the dispell magic "detonate" the magic in some way Dispell magic must also be cast for a year to permanently remove the spell
  Probably others too!
  
  We're talking about RAW though. And there is just dispels it.

"I cast remove curse." The DM dumps 6 pages of story on the floor and looks sad.
Edit: wait, this is instantaneous?
So like in a fight the BBEG sword is nasty, likely cursed. Cast Remove Curse on the sword. It removes the attunement to the sword. BBEG has a not-so-good weapon now, and likely loses some cool mechanics. Is that right?
- The bbeg snaps out of it, it was an evil sword all along, the bbeg helps the party kill the confused minions.
  The bbeg befriends the party. They go out to the bar after freeing the prince. The prince never stops looking side-eye at the bbeg, but the bbegs has won over the party. The bbeg was under the sword's control the whole time. Bbeg tells all the plans the sword's had made. The barons that were bought off, and the ones blackmailed.
  The party goes to the bought off Baron first. Bbeg goes Anikan and gives the Baron the doku treatment before there's any questioning. Bbeg says Baron knew sword was in control, went along with it, tortured bbeg.
  Drama ensues.
- I once used Remove Curse to end an enemies attunement to a cursed amulet possessing them mid combat.
- Yeah, that's the gripe we have with both of them.

You gotta have your game plan for why the curse isn’t solvable
Maybe it’s a disease, not a curse. Maybe it’s an evil magical sword, but it’s not cursed per se, it’s just an asshole. Maybe the magic that operates the McGuffin is set to detonate like a bomb if you make an attempt to disable it. You can feel the balance of energies, such that a slight slip will release an incredible conflagration. Do you really want to continue? You’ll have to do a wisdom check with a pretty high DC. If you’re down for that though, you might be able to remove the curse.
Yeah I know that’s not what it says in the books. This amulet isn’t from the books. Do you want to keep going with remove curse? Or try to find another way?
There are always solutions. Remove Curse is bullshit; IDK what they were thinking with it. But yeah you just gotta plan ahead a little bit. Let your players still have their agency; don’t just declare that it doesn’t work (unless you all wanna agree to house rule that it just doesn’t exist or something). Just plan your way around it. Best case is something like your players looking for some way to buff their wisdom enough so they feel confident taking on the Remove Curse, and then you all get to find out what transpires.
- Yeah I know that’s not what it says in the books. This amulet isn’t from the books. Do you want to keep going with remove curse?
  But that's ALSO stupid. Much better to simply not have the spell. As a player, it feels much more shitty to have a DM "cheat" around an ability that to never have an ability
  
  Like I said:
  Let your players still have their agency; don’t just declare that it doesn’t work (unless you all wanna agree to house rule that it just doesn’t exist or something).
  Like I said, I agree with you about not just cancelling it entirely unless there's an OOC discussion about making a house rule about it.
  You can't let the players ruin your fun (and, likewise, their own, because it turns a challenging situation into some stupid anticlimax and basically removes curses from the game as a mechanic). Likewise you can't ruin your players' fun and just unilaterally say this curse is removal-proof. Fortunately, there are multiple middle ground third options available, that preserve the fun for all parties involved.
- and then you all get to find out what transpires.
  You knuckleheads just unleashed a Djinni. Roll for initiative,

Counterpoint: The overwhelming majority of curses are either crippling or a complete nonissue. Something like mummy rot will quickly kill a character, and curses that impose penalties on stats or rolls either affect something they use, making the character almost useless, or doesn't, so doesn't matter. If you don't want the party remove cursing a specific curse, just make it more powerful than them.
Counterspelling is bad for a similar reason curses are bad, not remove curse - the overwhelming majority of counterspelling mechanics make it either too easy to too hard. Too hard and it's just not worth trying, and too easy makes combat a matter of who has more casters.

I am so done with D&D discussions. It's a 10 year old system at this point and the new version won't be meaningfully different. Heck, a lot of it's systems are actually as old as it and it fucking shows.
Play different games. There is an almost unlimited number of them out there. If you stop talking about D&D, if you stop giving it this singular attention, you will feel better and,who know,s the authors of D&D might be forced to actually make something good, as opposed to focus testing subclasses like pasta sauce flavors.
- Well, jeez. Didn't mean to spark something. Just for the record - I also dislike D&D. Currently trying to move away from it with a Fallout campaign I got going.
  
  No worries, I am just opinionated about D&D ;)

I'm baffled by both the fighting in these comments and the overall vehemence. If you want to put a cool cursed item in your game, just drop it when the players are still too low level to have remove curse...or make it subtle enough that they don't initially realize it's cursed.
EDIT: NVM I just realized you're all trying to ape the critical roll thing and didn't plan for getting player buy-in or homebrew
- If you want to put a cool cursed item in your game, just drop it when the players are still too low level to have remove curse…or make it subtle enough that they don’t initially realize it’s cursed.
  Or make the item powerful enough that the players are tempted to use it anyway.
  
  @MouseKeyboard @sirblastalot +2 sword, can't stop attacking until blood is drawn

So...Just have curses be permanent? Why?
- What exactly does this mean? If you're ignoring remove curse it's because being able to remove a curse with just a spell is boring - the point of a curse in fiction is to be a challenge to remove.

30 comments