long term curses?

[aboyd]

A long while ago, I was browsing rpgnow, or reading a splatbook, and found a ton of spells that concentrated on rituals and long-term voodoo. There were hexes, curses, poisons, and so on. The important part was that if you were willing to invest the time, you'd not need to have any direct interaction with the enemy. It felt a lot like witchcraft, and I need something like that now. Does any of this ring a bell with anyone? Anyone know of a source of ways to debilitate enemies from afar?

 

[aboyd]

I kinda found what I was looking for: The Practical Enchanter.

The problem I have is that it says curses can be cast by non-magical commoners, yet it then goes on to say that curses are spells from level 0 to level 9. So how does that work? Anyone out there used this book? Anyone have an idea of how a commoner would cast a curse? What level could they cast? What would be the DC?

 

[Vascant]

There are two other books I use for Curses or getting ideas for new Curse spells. Curses and Book of Curses. (Unsure if still available at RPGNow)

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I have not actually looked at the book to which you are referring, so I have no idea what I am talking about.

They may be using the rules for incantations which allows for non-magic-using folks to (sort of) perform spells, or something similar.

 

[Alzrius]

I really love The Practical Enchanter. It's one of the best d20 sourcebooks out there, and it's absolutely free! I've been recommending it to people for a while now - everyone should take a look at it.

Regarding the curses, I agree that it seems weird that they mention how anyone can use them, but then lay them down in terms of spell mechanics. However, I think that the relevant text regarding this is the following:

All that’s really necessary for a malediction is a clearly-stated ill-wish backed by some powerful emotion, one strong enough to draw the attention of a wrathful or malevolent spirit. It’s the active support that such spirits provide that makes curses so enduring and difficult to remove.

In other words, the person laying down the curse is actually drawing the attention of a spirit who's then casting the actual spell, per se, that lays the curse effect.

Regarding the level and DC of the curse, you determine the level by applying the effects listed in the book, using the spell template provided for malediction, and use that to determine the level. Regarding the DC, you use the determined level of the spell, and then apply the relevant ability modifier of the person laying the curse. This last part is cheating a little, as you determine what ability score they use (though I'd default to Charisma, since curses seem to rely on force of personality more than anything else), and have it be the person laying the curse, rather than the spirit actually casting it - still, that seems to be the best way to go about it, I'd think.

 

[aboyd]

They may be using the rules for incantations which allows for non-magic-using folks to (sort of) perform spells, or something similar.

Michael, thanks for that link. I had never read about Incantations. They sound very promising!

In other words, the person laying down the curse is actually drawing the attention of a spirit who's then casting the actual spell, per se, that lays the curse effect.

My problem, as a DM, is that with something so open-ended as "commoners petition spirits to cast for them," it makes commoners more powerful than spellcasters in the sense that they can do any level curse all day long. I really need a mechanism that dictates that non-magical types can do a curse, but that it's HARD, so that they are not used commonly & don't usurp spellcasting.

So anyway, I made a solution and posted it to the house rules forum. Essentially, I made level -5 curses free (curses can be lowered from their normal level by modifiers such as "you killed my children"), and buying up to curses more powerful than that eats your life force (levels). That makes it possible for someone to cast an extremely low-level curse for free in the right circumstances, but it's not common (which feels right in my campaign setting). I mean, neighbors won't be cursing each other over a harmless feud, which I wanted to avoid. However, a commoner could curse a PC in their death throes, which makes them at least a little dangerous.

Having written that house-ruled system, I also asked the author about it, and he posted that anything below a cantrip/orison was clearly a freebie. So his rule is actually almost exactly like mine, except that he made level -1 spells free.

My problem with that is that it means that any commoner could cast a confusion curse (level 0) for free just by making the curse "limited" to only last a month (which modifies the spell level to -1, free). Of course, at the end of the month, the commoner can just re-cast the curse for free again. In this way, commoners would be spamming curses all over the place for any perceived slight.

Still, I'm happy that I now have a few systems for doing curses, and there do seem to be real, practical ways to apply them that are not game-breaking. Yay.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I know that a fair few people are not fans of XP expenditure (for spells, items, etc.). . . but I am. Anyway, I personally have an immediate, strong negative reaction to the idea of that whole 'commoners spamming curses' thing. Yuk.

So anyway, I would personally suggest that an XP cost for *any* of these curses and the like should be required.* Sure, the amount could be reduced to a laughably minimal amount (like say, 5 or even fewer perhaps). . . but no-one would be able to do even that forever (well, not without gaining XP otherwise, and that's fine, I think).

But hey, I'm not here to try and persuade you. Honest! It's more just the way I would approach it.


edit --- * Yep, even 'level -5' curses (having just read through your solution). . . . I might also add, however, that I find paying for these by sacrificing entire levels (without the many 'partial level' options that XP expenditure brings with it) entirely too harsh.

 

[aboyd]

Yep, even 'level -5' curses (having just read through your solution).

Well, I would note that in order to get a curse down to level -5, a person typically is getting murdered or has seen his own children slaughtered by his wife/brother/cousin. So level -5 spells may be "free" but they are nearly impossible to spam.

I find paying for these by sacrificing entire levels (without the many 'partial level' options that XP expenditure brings with it) entirely too harsh.

Well, here is my thinking. First, a goal such as, "curses enable commoners to level the playing field" is in conflict with a flat XP cost because commoners may have no XP, whereas a level 15 wizard has XP galore. For that matter, so does a level 15 fighter. Giving a flat XP cost means someone at a high level can expend that XP cost a whole bunch while the "commoners" that curses are supposed to protect end up with diddly-squat.

Essentially, a curse system with a flat XP cost makes any high level non-caster into a caster, for a reasonable price. A level 18 barbarian could cast low-level curses (using the XP buy) maybe almost 20 times and still be a level 18 barbarian. Sure, they're low level. But they've still taken a class with absolutely no casting ability and given him a whole lotta casting. That same barbarian could opt to XP buy a few extremely powerful curses, and suddenly he's a wizard to contend with, and he still has an insane BAB. Of course, he's a "wizard" with limited supply of spells/curses, but he's a wizard nonetheless.

So this is why I like the level buy instead of the XP buy. Whether you're a level 2 commoner or a level 18 sorcerer, giving up a level is ouch. You'd only do it if you absolutely had to. Probably only if you were about to die anyway, or if your level of desperation was through the roof.

Having said that, there are ways to avoid XP cost & level cost entirely. A spellcaster can put a curse on his/her spell list as if it were a normal spell. Of course, curses are a bit weaker than spells so I don't know why someone would do that normally, but it is one way to cast a curse without any XP loss or level loss at all.

I'm not here to try and persuade you. Honest!

Are you kidding? I have no idea what I'm doing, so giving me feedback is awesome. I just needed a system, found one that made sense but was overpowered, and added some rules to reign it in. I may have reigned it in too far, I don't know. If players say, "That's lame, I don't want to use it," that's fine because it's not meant to be a power up for players. However, if the players say, "I wouldn't even consider cursing my own murderer, as the cost is way too high," then maybe that means I've over-restricted it.

Anyway, in the other thread they're talking about Ravenloft's curse system, and apparently the Ravenloft Player's Handbook is still available on RPGNow (because it wasn't actually a WotC property that they could remove). So maybe I'll have a look.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Well, I would note that in order to get a curse down to level -5, a person typically is getting murdered or has seen his own children slaughtered by his wife/brother/cousin. So level -5 spells may be "free" but they are nearly impossible to spam.

Confession: I've not (properly) read through The Practical Enchanter, just skimmed it. So, ah, I was being a little presumptuouis to begin with. Ah, well. Oh, and let's perhaps add 'inaccurate' or 'irrelevant' while I'm at it. In fact, I hadn't even read your solution, first of all, hence the hasty edit.

Hm, probably about time I gave that freebie - and its sibling, whatever that's called again - the read they deserve. . .

Well, here is my thinking. ---snip---

Yeah, that makes sense. I also forgot to mention (ahem) that my house rules are pretty darn different from 3e standard issue, in that (just for starters) magic of any kind requires a kind of 'gateway' feat*, characters (including NPCs and beings in general) get more feats - including more at 1st level - and, oh yeah, everything starts off with some XP (yep, even PCs). Hm, and the Sorcerer pays for expensive material costs with (less) XP instead. . . Ack, everything's different, come to think of it. Well, so many things, I just plain forget sometimes the 'little' changes like those, that might conflict in interesting ways, when discussing how I do things, how I might prefer to do things, and how most people might be doing things. Gah.

Anyway, in the other thread they're talking about Ravenloft's curse system, and apparently the Ravenloft Player's Handbook is still available on RPGNow (because it wasn't actually a WotC property that they could remove). So maybe I'll have a look.

Haven't read through that one very thoroughly either (and don't own it) so, no idea how it compares.

It's good to see someone thinking about worst case scenarios, whatever it is you end up using, btw. Because, sure as heck, that's what a PC, sooner or later, will do to your lovingly crafted house rules. But it seems you know this, so yeah, good.


* Which is exactly what I would also require for curse-type stuff, if that makes my rambling clearer.

 

[MichaelK]

I love high magic an awful lot, but I'm still iffy about commoners casting magic that way.

If you want a witchy vibe, why not have an ethereal devil telepathically communicating with the commoner offering to carry out their bidding? Every time the commoner asks the devil to commit an evil act for them their soul gets a bit more tainted. Since the evil was motivated by a devil, thanks to the pact, Asmodeus gets the soul in the nine hells and the devil is one step closer to a promotion. You can't get any witchier than that.

Plus the devil could travel far afield to inflict the results of the curses at a distance which would give you the kind of range you were after.

Hmmm, I think I might use this idea myself actually.