Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Claudius Gaius" data-source="post: 4824177" data-attributes="member: 57946">Outside of the general resemblance of folklore and the fact that they're both using curses, there really isn't much resemblance. Hm. Lets see, checking on Ravenloft: Ravenloft -does not describe how curses actually operate-does not describe how curses can be nullified without using an "escape clause".-does not allow saving throws and bypasses spell resistance by some unknown means for Curses of Vengeance.-does not provide a general template for curse spells.-does not account for range.-does not cover cursing groups or areas or laying multigenerational curses. -uses five loosely-defined severity levels instead of basing the effects for standard curses on "Bestow Curse" and the effects of exotic curses on various spells or the standard level 1-9 progression.-employs an out-of-game measurement - whether or not the PLAYER is good at dramatic presentations - as a modifier.-does not take personal relationships into account - despite the classical (for example, the Old Testament) options of cursing or blessing blood relatives. -assumes that curses are inherently evil. (The Practical Enchanter makes no alignment assumptions: Wrathful spirits can be of any alignment).  Both systems do include the "Escape Clause" notion - just like Beauty and the Beast, or tales of cursed werewolves, or many other stories. The Practical Enchanter uses twelve spell level modifiers. Ravenloft uses twenty-two difficulty class modifiers. Two of them - the one about game mechanics and the one about having an escape clause - are quite similar. Ravenloft offers a bonus for "Dying Words", while The Practical Enchanter offers a bonus for the target "Having personally inflicted a mortal wound on you" - but this doesn't mean you have to die, unlike in Ravenloft. You could be healed, make your fortitude check to stabalize, or be brought back from the dead.None of that is too surprising; those are classical folklore elements. As far as restrictions go, The Practical Enchanter is rather restrictive. -All curses in The Practical Enchanter rely on calling the attention of spirits who like - or exist - to enforce curses to yourself. As noted, curses may thus backlash even if you don't use the backlash modifier. Anyone who goes around "spamming curses" is simply going to destroy themselves, which is a bit awkward to powergame. -For curses cast as spells, the "Maladiction" listing is a spell template, not a spell. That means that each seperate variant on it is a seperate spell, which must be researched or acquired seperately. That also means that most of the best level-reducing modifiers aren't going to work for spellcasters; they'd have to go and research a special spell to take advantage of them.-Unskilled Curses require the backing of a powerful emotion - preferably, as noted, "festering bitterness". Failing that, no curse. If you have enough power to do something other than curse people, you very likely won't be able to manage an effective curse. This also eliminates unskilled curses from mindless creatures, constructs and other emotionless creatures, really powerful creatures or individuals, or creatures who are constantly malevolent (like most intelligent undead, creatures from the lower planes, and similar entities, since otherwise everything they said would be a curse).  As for the modified version:-I don't believe an immediate action is retroactive: you can't normally use one after the damage from an attack is announced to do something before the attack - and if you can curse someone after death, being flat-footed or such when you were attacked wouldn't stop you. -The casting time modifiers should probably be much more expensive: they're inconsistent with the requirements for creating swift-action and immediate-action versions of normal spells otherwise. -If you want to use a flat level cost, such curses should probably negate spell resistance and most methods of removal. -Under the standard rules, level zero characters do not exist (although the books are largely silent on the topic of children). Even everyday commoners are at least level one and they may be of considerably higher level.</blockquote>

Verification