D&D 5E Mummy Lord Question

[lobo316]

So the mummy lord (p.228/229, MM) cannot be "permanently destroyed" unless it heart is destroyed. Otherwise they raise up again in 24 hours at full strength.

Question...how would you DMs out there handle any mummy's curse on any treasure found in the mummies tomb if the mummy is "destroyed", but not the heart?

According to the MM, the regional effects (which include curses on treasure) end immediately if the mummy is destroyed.

How would you rule "destroyed" in these cases?

Does defeating the mummy lord, but not destroying the heart, work in regards to lifting the regional effects? I mean, can you use that time to grab any treasure and bug out, before the mummy lord rises 24 hours later and the regional effects kick back in? Does the curse kick back in at that point (or did any of the regional effects end...at all, since the heart wasn't destroyed)?

OR...do you have to find the mummies heart and destroy it, to lift the regional effects (including the curse).

I already have it in mind what I think I want to do, but just curious to see how other DMs would treat this.

Thanks!

 

[rlor]

Depends how I want the situation to work as either could be reasonable. In either case I'd let a sufficient knowledge check or some piece of information (if found) reveal to the players how it would work and I'd stay consistent to that for the rest of the campaign.

In general though I'd say that the heart should be destroyed first. The mummy's essence is still in the world until that time.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I would say the curse is still in effect. The mummy has not been destroyed, just temporarily forced to withdraw.

I think it would lead to an interesting story. The characters take the treasure to a sage. The sage says, "These items are cursed. You have to destroy the mummy to end the curse." The characters complain, "But we did destroy it!", to which the sage replies, "Nope, you didn't. Here's what you have to do."

 

[feartheminotaur]

I'd say until the mummy lord is fully destroyed, regional effects remain - like, if you kill a dragon, some of its regional effects persist for xdx number of days.

I would also offer a proactive way to solve it. The players know going in that 1) they have to destroy the heart to get that sweet, sweet mummy treasure, OR 2) if not possible to destroy it (or you don't want them to), they could research/quest a way to suppress the curse/essence long enough to spirit the treasure away sans curse.

I'd also, personally, use anything they keep as a beacon that draws the mummy lord or a mummy cult/followers to retrieve it - when it was most inconvenient for the PCs, of course.

 

[lobo316]

Thanks for the feedback thus far. It sounds like you all are as nasty minded as I am, hee, hee!!!

 

[pukunui]

OR...do you have to find the mummies heart and destroy it, to lift the regional effects (including the curse).

This is how I'd play it. The regional effects don't go away until the mummy lord is permanently destroyed.

Mummy lords are like vampires and liches. They've got built-in contingency plans and are thus hard to get rid of permanently.

 

[Imaculata]

I would foreshadow that the mummy will return in the future, by telling them that they still feel the lingering presence of evil.

One of the things that I did in my own campaign, was give a player who was tainted with a mummy's curse see visions of the mummy. Like, he would look at a glass table, and see the mummy standing behind him in the reflection, and reaching for the wound where he was struck with the curse. The victim would also feel the wound again, and it would become visible again temporarily, despite having been healed.

I don't want my campaign to require OC-knowledge of the mechanics of curses. If a character is tainted with something that could kill him unless cured, then it should be foreshadowed clearly.

 

[lobo316]

Here's a question...How does the Spell Remove Curse work on a person who is affected by a mummy lords cursed treasure?

I can see a few possibilities...

A. The spell acts as described. It allows the the player/victim to discard the treasure/item (and thus curse whomever picks it up next)?
B. It "Can" work as described, but you have to remove curse on every single piece of treasure.
C. It does not affect the mummy lords curse at all, the only way to remove the curse is to return the treasure, or destroy the canopic jar.

I'm leaning towards C myself (return the treasure or destroy the heart).

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

How about, the regional effects are lifted when destroyed (not heart destroyed).

Cue shots of joyous villagers carrying the PCs head high, draped in looted treasure.

But 24 hours later when Funkhidansstep arises again, the effects recur and all cursed items revert to cursed status.

Cue shots of adventurers racing away over the dunes only to find their magic amulet begins to choke them.

It's the old Columbo trick: they think they've got away with it, but "one more thing" just as they get to the door...

 

[Imaculata]

I think a remove curse always removes a curse, regardless of what kind of curse it is. Otherwise, what would be the point? But unless the curse is also lifted from the treasure itself, the moment you touch the treasure again, you are cursed again. So I would go with A.