We're playing an Evil campaign, and one of the several problems that comes up is our bow ranger shooting our allies due to cover or rolling a 1 (because Reckless Shot and/or fumble cards).
At one point, our Witch picked up the Major Curse spell. Some of the effects in there are extremely debilitating; 50% chance to do nothing, -6 to an ability score, -4 to attack rolls/saves/skills, are all extremely powerful for the level. But we don't want to make our ranger a liability in combat.
So, one curse I came up with was that if he shoots any of us with a bow and arrow, whether it is intentional or accidental, the arrow instead veers its trajectory, comes back, and hits him instead (like in those Looney Tunes shows).
It falls within the desired effect we want (which is to reduce his friendly fire rate to affect only himself), but does it fall within the intention of it being a curse?
Choon, OP is talking about this feat:
Benefit: When you shoot or throw ranged weapons at an opponent engaged in melee, you can choose to take a –1 penalty to your AC and gain a +2 competence bonus on your attack roll. However, when you roll a natural 1 on a ranged attack roll made with this bonus, you automatically hit a random adjacent creature that threatens your intended target.
I don't know about the curse, though. Is "Every time you'd hit one of your allies, you instead hit yourself" really a curse along the lines of "You have 50% chance to do nothing"? I don't think it really is. It's still more beneficial to the group. If it were instead something like "Every time you target an opponent, 20% of the time you instead injure yourself", that'd make sense to me. There's not the same draw back with injuring yourself 5% of the time when instead you'd injure an ally 5% of the time that there is with taking a -4 to virtually all checks you'll ever make.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fumble cards hurt players more than helping them. Reckless Aim is a feat that should never be allowed in a co-operative game, even if you are a playing evil characters.
These are both bad GM choices and you are seeing the results. I'd ask to ditch the fumble and crit decks, and have the ranger retrain reckless aim to something more party friendly.
Otherwise, inform the player in character that the next time he carelessly shoots a party member, you will cast shatter on his bow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're going to have critical fumbles then you need to have your casters also roll for everything. Otherwise you're just penalizing your martial characters as they're the ones that roll all the dice.
edit: just so it's clear my stance is also that critical fumbles are bad.
I'm glad I make a thread about questioning whether my guidelines for a curse falls under the intention of the spell, but it ends up turning into "FUMBLE CARDS R BAD GAIS."
Don't get me wrong, you have your opinion on cards and it's fine to have them, but imposing it on to people because their way is badwrongfun is a lot less okay than using those rules in the first place; especially when this thread only mentioned fumble cards...
@fretgod99: I'd say to the PC, it certainly would be. As a whole perspective, it's better, and that's what I (and probably the rest of the group) want(s).
It's not a PVP thing, it's simply to help reduce casualties to those who are actually in the thick getting hit versus those who just sit back and cast spells or make attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point of the spell is not to make a benefit for the creature. Even if that benefit is round-about in the sense that he doesn't upset you all by accidentally hitting the party.
Play this out in character. You are evil. You will only stand getting hit by errant shots so many times. If you can't stand it any further kick the character out of the group or kill him. Or ask him not to use that feat and retrain it.
As a GM, I would most certainly not allow curse ot be used in the way you are suggesting when there are much more reasonable role play ways to handle this and ways to mechanically handle this without making up rules.
Your question isn't so much "is this fair to do with this spell", as much as it is "how can this character have his cake and eat it too". He shouldn't get to. If he is casuing a problem for the party in character because his choices result in harm for the party then resolve it in character. Tell him not to use the feat, kick him out, or kill him if necessary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@fretgod99: I'd say to the PC, it certainly would be. As a whole perspective, it's better, and that's what I (and probably the rest of the group) want(s).
It's not a PVP thing, it's simply to help reduce casualties to those who are actually in the thick getting hit versus those who just sit back and cast spells or make attacks.
But divorce it from this specific context. Would it really be a curse to a party member if, any time one of their attacks hit an ally, it hit them instead? How often is somebody going to be hitting an ally? Ordinarily, you never do, outside of AoE spells and the like. Fumble decks give a minute possibility and those trigger on the same contingency that Reckless Aim does, which is a 5% chance on a die roll.
It's really a noncurse. It only ever comes into play if you have a character with the Reckless Aim feat. And even then, it's only getting triggered 5% of the time. And, instead of injuring allies (bad) the character is injury him/herself (also bad, depending on perspective maybe worse, but on balance probably not). You're mitigating a bad result with, at worst, an equally bad result.
Bestow Curse is not just supposed to make things worse for the recipient, but significantly and obviously worse. Seriously, look at the built in suggestions: 50% chance to do nothing (a coin flip on whether you can even take an action); -6 to an ability score (for many classes, this might make many of your abilities unusable until the curse is removed); -4 penalty to all checks (you are 20% more likely to fail literally anything you try to do in the game). You're trying to replace that with: 5% of the time you make an attack roll, you'll hurt yourself rather than hurting an ally like you ordinarily would have (in other words, the 5% of the time you already weren't going to contribute positively to combat, you're still not contributing positively to combat). Those are not equivalent penalties.
That's a no-go in my book. Besides, remember the reason you're trying to do this: You're trying to avoid making your party member a liability in combat. Ultimately, what you're trying to do is curse the party member without really cursing him/her. Your goal is to replace the serious penalties associated with Bestow Curse with something which you know will not be nearly as bad. I see why you'd want to be able to do that, but you shouldn't be allowed to.
The point of the spell is not to make a benefit for the creature. Even if that benefit is round-about in the sense that he doesn't upset you all by accidentally hitting the party.
Play this out in character. You are evil. You will only stand getting hit by errant shots so many times. If you can't stand it any further kick the character out of the group or kill him. Or ask him not to use that feat and retrain it.
As a GM, I would most certainly not allow curse ot be used in the way you are suggesting when there are much more reasonable role play ways to handle this and ways to mechanically handle this without making up rules.
Your question isn't so much "is this fair to do with this spell", as much as it is "how can this character have his cake and eat it too". He shouldn't get to. If he is casuing a problem for the party in character because his choices result in harm for the party then resolve it in character. Tell him not to use the feat, kick him out, or kill him if necessary.
How is shooting yourself should you end up hitting allies instead a benefit to the recipient? He's the one taking the damage, not them, it certainly flies in the ways of both realistic physics and the purpose of self-preservation.
In the OOTS comic, Belkar having a curse where if he harms an innocent, he gets sick and stuff, is an obvious penalty that was bestowed to keep his Evil tendencies under control. Just because it's used for a good end (in this case, other party member fidelity) doesn't change the factor that a curse is a curse is a curse. If a Werewolf does good deeds and no longer eats the hearts of Humans, does that mean he's not really a Lycanthrope? With the logic you use, he wouldn't be a Lycanthrope, even if he has a hairy humanoid body with an ugly snarling drooling dog face with claws that can tear you in half when the moon is full.
If anything, the request I want doesn't correlate because if he is intentionally shooting at somebody who considers him an ally, but he considers an enemy, it doesn't even activate the way I intend for it to, since to him, he isn't shooting it at an ally, but an enemy, meaning we'd have to contingent it to be applicable only to the party members.
We've done that several times already. The Barbarian while raging has made attacks against the Ranger in the middle of combat (though this was early in the campaign, and one other time he was confused); the Witch has thrown Misfortune hexes and the like at him (because RP banality). I'm not personally worried because I have more AC than anything we ever fight anyway, so if he's hitting me, he's hitting them, and the Wizard is never in the line of fire (which is smart). This stuff also really only happens when combat is winding down and we're on the home stretch to victory. Quite frankly, in other more serious groups, your "kill their character" request just only encourages such behavior, and does nothing to solve the problem you claim is present.
@fretgod99
Reviewing the spell text:
You place a curse on the subject. Choose one of the following.
–6 decrease to an ability score (minimum 1).
–4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks.
Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above.
The curse bestowed by this spell cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed with a break enchantment, limited wish, miracle, remove curse, or wish spell.
Bestow curse counters remove curse.
It just says you place a curse on the subject. It doesn't have to be something that's significantly and obviously worse like you claim; can it? Certainly. But there are several examples in literature where a "curse" has turned into a Strength, and the Oracle class is a prime example of that concept.
The statement about it not being "as strong" as the other curses also doesn't seem to be reflected in the spell description; the only restriction is that it can't be more powerful than the examples given. It can certainly be weaker.
I'll also refer to he Retribution Hex given by Witches as a prime example of an effect similar to what I'm demonstrating:
A witch can place a retribution hex on a creature within 60 feet, causing terrible wounds to open across the target’s flesh whenever it deals damage to another creature in melee. Immediately after the hexed creature deals damage in melee, it takes half that damage (round down). This damage bypasses any resistances, immunities, or damage reduction the creature possesses. This effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to the witch’s Intelligence modifier. A Will save negates this effect.
That Major Hex, which requires 10th level at the earliest to obtain, doesn't subtract the damage the affected target deals, and adds only half of what the damage would normally do back to the affected target. Considering the effect I want Bestow Curse to duplicate, in essence, selectively affects creatures with an enhanced version of a Major Hex permanently, it's already pretty significant, almost too significant. It's much more significant than simply bestowing somebody with Lycanthropy, which occurs a lot less often than what a Retribution hex or example Bestow Curse hex does, but it's one that's certainly allowable with the spell.
Ask your GM.
|
|
Not directly but indirectly relevant thread with a developer comment
It was started by me, I'll say that up front. Basically, Bestow Curse should Never be used to bestow a benefit. Even indirectly.
1. The hex you quoted is drastically worse than the effect you want to bestow. Full damage to yourself 5% of the time vs. 50% damage every time.
2. You can justify all you want, what you're trying to do is create a curse that isn't really an actual curse. You even titled the thread signifying that.
I wouldn't allow it simply because the whole "allies" thing is too contrived.
The curses provided in the spell description are simple. The one you're proposing is complex in its biased function. That bias actually makes it an indirect non-curse.
I mean if the curse can be less, then by your reasoning the curse could give +12 to STR, DEX, CON, INT, WIS and CHA... that's certainly a weaker debilitation than the ones described, right?
Obviously, this is hyperbole, but it's here to illustrate that a curse is supposed to be a way to weaken your target in a direct manner. Using sophistry to try and (as has been said) "have your cake and eat it too", especially with only a 2nd level spell which isn't even meant for such a purpose, is a /facepalm inspiration.
|
|
From the viewpoint of the character, it can be a HUGE benefit to have your missed attack hit you, instead of your angry barbarian party member who will smash you into pieces if you shoot him again.
From the viewpoint of the party, dealing that botched damage to a character not in melee range of the enemy is much better than having it dealt to a pc who will be in range to take hits from the bad guys.
There's no way this would count as a curse.
I suggest you convince the ranger to stop using that feat, or start spreading protection from arrows around the party.
How is shooting yourself should you end up hitting allies instead a benefit to the recipient? He's the one taking the damage, not them, it certainly flies in the ways of both realistic physics and the purpose of self-preservation.
It is a benefit because instead of you allies attacking, misfortune hexing, etc you you only take a small amount of damage. You're not worried about the 5% of time when you will cause damage to yourself. As an archer you probably take damage so rarely it wouldn't bother you to cause a little to yourself. But clearly you are worried about your fellow party members killing you or else you wouldn't be asking about this. So...obvious benefit.
In the OOTS comic, Belkar having a curse where if he harms an innocent, he gets sick and stuff, is an obvious penalty that was bestowed to keep his Evil tendencies under control. Just because it's used for a good end (in this case, other party member fidelity) doesn't change the factor that a curse is a curse is a curse. If a Werewolf does good deeds and no longer eats the hearts of Humans, does that mean he's not really a Lycanthrope? With the logic you use, he wouldn't be a Lycanthrope, even if he has a hairy humanoid body with an ugly snarling drooling dog face with claws that can tear you in half when the moon is full.
That's great and all. I do really enjoy the Order of the Stick comics. But they are comics, not meant to follow the rules at all points or present a balanced idea of what is acceptable. It's a comic book. It's entertainment. It has no bearing on how this should work. And in any event it is a curse from Belkar's perspective because he does actually want to harm innocents and would left to his own devices because he is evil.
We've done that several times already. The Barbarian while raging has made attacks against the Ranger in the middle of combat (though this was early in the campaign, and one other time he was confused); the Witch has thrown Misfortune hexes and the like at him (because RP banality). I'm not personally worried because I have more AC than anything we ever fight anyway, so if he's hitting me, he's hitting them, and the Wizard is never in the line of fire (which is smart). This stuff also really only happens when combat is winding down and we're on the home stretch to victory. Quite frankly, in other more serious groups, your "kill their character" request just only encourages such behavior, and does nothing to solve the problem you claim is present.
My point proven. Your "allies" threaten you each time you "miss" and hit them. They probably do a lot worse to you when this happens than you would do to yourself with the occasional attack hitting yourself instead.
Also, it's not RP banality to attack the guy who's "Reckless Aim" just caused you to get hit. Haven't you heard, friendly fire isn't.