Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
[4e] IG's Herald of Discord [RECRUITING CLOSED]
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oni" data-source="post: 4570397" data-attributes="member: 380"><p>My guess is that as written it was intentional because they did not allow the same target to be cursed by more than one warlock. This is different from Hunters Quarry which can be overlapped but a ranger cannot benefit from another ranger's quarry, I'd say the mechanical difference has something to do with the Pactboons (though I cannot not see any game breaking effect from a creature activating more than one boon, guessing this is a fluff issue). If a warlock cannot benefit from another's curse, and a curse cannot be placed on a target that is already cursed, two warlocks lose out when it comes to focus fire, and fall behind what any other pair of strikers would be able to do. It creates a situation where one player is denying the other an extremely fundemental ability for their role (extra striker damage) on every single enemy fought. Consider how this might affect an encounter with a solo creature. </p><p></p><p>I would humbly suggest that if you wish to make it so that a warlock can benefit only from his own curses that simply allowing a target to be cursed by more than one warlock would be the simplest solution. Then each warlock would be able to function as if they were the lone warlock in the party gaining neither advantage or disadvantage in this situation. IMO this is probably how they should have done it in the first place and were I to run a game this is the ruling I would make. </p><p></p><p>That said, how ever you want to do it is fine with me. I'm not usually so rules oriented, but this is helping me to learn the new edition. If you find it annoying I'll keep my rules oppinions to myself. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oni, post: 4570397, member: 380"] My guess is that as written it was intentional because they did not allow the same target to be cursed by more than one warlock. This is different from Hunters Quarry which can be overlapped but a ranger cannot benefit from another ranger's quarry, I'd say the mechanical difference has something to do with the Pactboons (though I cannot not see any game breaking effect from a creature activating more than one boon, guessing this is a fluff issue). If a warlock cannot benefit from another's curse, and a curse cannot be placed on a target that is already cursed, two warlocks lose out when it comes to focus fire, and fall behind what any other pair of strikers would be able to do. It creates a situation where one player is denying the other an extremely fundemental ability for their role (extra striker damage) on every single enemy fought. Consider how this might affect an encounter with a solo creature. I would humbly suggest that if you wish to make it so that a warlock can benefit only from his own curses that simply allowing a target to be cursed by more than one warlock would be the simplest solution. Then each warlock would be able to function as if they were the lone warlock in the party gaining neither advantage or disadvantage in this situation. IMO this is probably how they should have done it in the first place and were I to run a game this is the ruling I would make. That said, how ever you want to do it is fine with me. I'm not usually so rules oriented, but this is helping me to learn the new edition. If you find it annoying I'll keep my rules oppinions to myself. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Talking the Talk
[4e] IG's Herald of Discord [RECRUITING CLOSED]
Top