since normal curse can be "Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action." i like to mess up with casters by doing this instead :
"whenever the cursed target use an action that target some one other then himself he must roll randomly between all legal targets and he must use that action on the rolled target."
this mess around with anything beside self buff that they try to do as long as they are not alone, or using touch spells but these have their own problems.
I just thought of this so i'm not sure how balanced it is:
Whenever you cast a spell there is a 50% chance that you cast a different spell instead. The spell cast must have the same casting time (or less) as the spell you intended to cast, and must target the same creature(s)/object(s)/area as the original spell was intended to *If Possible*. If not possible (eg. you intended to scortching ray and instead cast shocking grasp) you may choose new targets to suit the new spell.
What do you think?
This topic pops up from time to time
Aaaaah, you beat me to it
It has, but I have to agree that some of those options on the other thread WERE more powerful than they should have been.
The argument was that confusion (50% chance to take no action) is really bad, but an illiterate wizard ends up with a 0% chance to take a meaningful action, soo ...
Honestly I'm a huge fan of the -4 to saves/attacks/skills.
I see you can create your own curses and I need some Ideaa
1 I plan on is making the target Blind/deaf
but i'd like a few more to choose from including one to mess with casters
Blindness/deafness can be done with a lower-level spell, and at range, and is just as permanent (though requiring different magic to remove).
The "50% chance to act normally" curse is more useful than some people seem to think. Barring weird dice luck, it should halve your target's available actions, which can be much more effective than a penalty against some targets (like grappling creatures). OTOH, it's arguably worse for PCs to endure than NPCs, because the latter aren't expected to be around for more than a scene or two.
My wife is convinced this is the worse possible curse to suffer, after her character in my last campaign got hit with it, lost almost every turn for the rest of the fight, then had to be frogmarched to the nearest temple of her god by her allies to make sure she didn't get hurt or mugged on her very slow way across the city.
It has, but I have to agree that some of those options on the other thread WERE more powerful than they should have been.
The argument was that confusion (50% chance to take no action) is really bad, but an illiterate wizard ends up with a 0% chance to take a meaningful action, soo ...
Honestly I'm a huge fan of the -4 to saves/attacks/skills.
Frankly, a comparison to "permanently lose all class abilities" makes most of the listed curses seem pretty tame.
I recently had a living PC suffer a curse to become immune to cure light wounds. Then a second curse to become immune to cure moderate wounds. Then a third curse to become immune to cure serious wounds.
Then became undead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A curse that forces enemy clerics to scream insults against their patron deity as a somatic component of every spell that said cleric casts might be fun.