Is there a reason to use Remove Curse over Dispel Magic?

[something random]

It is likely there is something I am missing but is there a mechanical reason to use Remove Curse instead of Dispel Magic?

Unless there are ways of becoming cursed that are not spell effects or magic items. By my understanding of the rules Dispel Magic can remove any curse just as well as Remove Curse.

If the curse is a spell effect then Dispel Magic would seam to be just as good as Remove Curse you are adding the same modifer to the Counteract check the DC is the same if you Heighten Dispel Magic to the same level as Remove Curse you can counteract the same level of effects.

If the curse comes from a magic item then making the item mundane for 10 minutes should allow the item to be removed just like any other mundane item.

[Ediwir]

I had the same thought in playtest.
I was thinking post release we’d have more nonmagical curses, but I couldn’t find any.

[V767]

I think Mummy Rot cannot be cured by Dispel Magic, since it is caused by neither spell nor item.
But that is just one example.

Edit: Also Dispel Magic specifies "unattended" magic item (see Archive of Nethys). It probably should not be able to affect a cursed item that is currently worn.

[Luke Styer]

The Bestiary entry for Werecreatures talks about a curse and doesn’t seem to be spell-based by default. “An afflicted werecreature’s curse can be removed like any other.” That seems to point more toward Remove Curse than Dispel Magic.

A quick search of my Bestiary PDF for the word “curse” reveals a few monsters who have curse effects don’t come in the form of spells. The two Alghollthu types, the Caligni Dancer, the Clay Golem, Graveknight, and more beyond the letter G.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, the short version is that not all Curses are spells. And only spells or cursed items (and, as noted, only unattended cursed items) are susceptible to Dispel Magic.

The entire Curses section of Afflictions is composed of non-spell curses, just for example.

[something random]

Thank you. At the moment I only have the core rulebook. I had also managed to miss the word unattended in the discription of Dispel Magic.

[Ediwir]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah, the short version is that not all Curses are spells. And only spells or cursed items (and, as noted, only unattended cursed items) are susceptible to Dispel Magic.

The entire Curses section of Afflictions is composed of non-spell curses, just for example.

(this might be a first)

I agree with some of the things deadmanwalking said.

Dispel Magic doesn't restrict itself to spell, but to magical effects. Any magical curse is a magical effect... Mummy rot and lycanthropy might fit, but a lot of those are magical in nature.

[beowulf99]

CRB PG 688 "Curse Trait" wrote:

curse (trait) A curse is an effect that places some long-term affliction on a creature.

Curses are always magical and are typically the result of a spell or trap.

Curses are Magical by nature, always. This is not the reason that Dispel Magic can't effect them however.

The difference is that Dispel Magic has specific targets: Spell Effects or an Unattended Magic Item.

If you contracted a Curse from a Magic Item, that "effect" would not be a valid target for Dispel Magic, as it is not actually a "Spell Effect". It's a magical effect granted, just not directly caused by a Spell. If however a Spell inflicted a curse effect on you, that would be a valid target for Dispel Magic.

Remove Curse on the other hand just targets a Creature, so could effect a "curse" no matter how it was contracted, but couldn't dispel the curse from a cursed item.

To properly address a curse, and rid the world of it, you would need both spells for treating the different targets.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, it's the Target line that restricts Dispel Magic. It only hits spells and unattended magic objects, nothing else.

Which, really, seems fine to me. It's a great spell anyway, and most things you'd want to hit it with are indeed spells.

[HammerJack]

There is one sort-of exception to that target line. While the spell description does not list magical hazards, they do tend to specify Dispel Magic as a way of disabling them, with counteract DC listed next to the relevant skill DCs.

Unless, of course, you consider hazards to be unattended objects. Then it's business as usual.

[beowulf99]

HammerJack wrote:

There is one sort-of exception to that target line. While the spell description does not list magical hazards, they do tend to specify Dispel Magic as a way of disabling them, with counteract DC listed next to the relevant skill DCs.

Unless, of course, you consider hazards to be unattended objects. Then it's business as usual.

That is actually arguable. In the CRB I can only find 1 hazard that inflicts a Curse specifically, and it indicates that the, "curse remains until removed by remove curse or similar magic." The question becomes, is Dispel Magic similar to Remove curse for that purpose?

Adding to the vagueness is the wording of Counteracting Hazards. "Some magical hazards can be counteracted using dispel
magic and the counteracting rules found on page 458.
These hazards’ spell levels and counteract DCs are listed
in their stat block. Counteracting a hazard otherwise
works like using a skill check to disable the hazard."

Some magical hazards indicates that there are exceptions. Cursed hazards could be one of those exceptions depending on how you interpret that line.

I would say that since the Pharaoh's Ward doesn't state that it "casts" a spell on the players, instead it "subjects" them to it, that it would not be effected by Dispel Magic.

But your mileage may vary.

Edit: Other hazards specifically use Spells as their effect, like Polymorph Trap and Fireball Rune. Even Frozen Moment inflicts a spell and gives a Spell level with the second part of it's effect, then goes on to say simply that it can be "counteracted".

[HammerJack]

I am not claiming that curse effects inflicted by a hazard can be removed with dispel magic. Only pointing out hazards as something that might not be considered a spell effect or unattended object that can often be affected by dispel magic. That dispel magic works to disable hazards that say dispel magic can be used to disable them is not arguable.

[beowulf99]

HammerJack wrote:

I am not claiming that curse effects inflicted by a hazard can be removed with dispel magic. Only pointing out hazards as something that might not be considered a spell effect or unattended object that can often be affected by dispel magic. That dispel magic works to disable hazards that say dispel magic can be used to disable them is not arguable.

For sure, I wasn't arguing that either, nor accusing you of claiming such. Just examining the rules as they interact. I was busy editing the post to address Hazards that do use Spells as you were typing. :)

[Deadmanwalking]

Specific Hazards can indeed be targeted by Dispel Magic, because they say they can. It's one of those 'specific overrides general' things. Likewise, a Curse that was not a spell but specifically said Dispel Magic worked on it would be susceptible to Dispel Magic.

But most non-spell Curses lack that language.

[Ravingdork]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Specific Hazards can indeed be targeted by Dispel Magic, because they say they can. It's one of those 'specific overrides general' things.

Seems like an oversight to me. What player is going to think "I can dispel that hazard" when dispel magic only tells them it works on spells and unattended items?

[HammerJack]

The one that read the whole CRB, because you need to also read the Running the game sections, to understand the system? Or the one that gets information from their GM after they find the hazard, when they use their relevant skills to know what they're looking at?

[Ravingdork]

I don't think I've ever had a GM say anything akin to "you can cast dispel magic on this particular hazard." That would be like playing the game on easy mode with the bowling rails up.

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

I don't think I've ever had a GM say anything akin to "you can cast dispel magic on this particular hazard." That would be like playing the game on easy mode with the bowling rails up.

How many magical hazards have you gone up against? Because I don't expect many of them before level 5. Hazards usually have at least 2 ways to hack them using some combination of skills and dispel magic. Your character needs to be able to suss that out somehow for those rules to be worth printing. How you aquire that information may vary from GM to GM, potentially requiring some sort of check, but you should be able to discover you can use dispel magic on to hazard the same as you discover you can use thievery on a trap or religion for a haunt.

[Kennethray]

I would assume any recall know checks that succeed on figuring out how to disarm a thing would tell you dispel magic would work.

[Ubertron_X]

Captain Morgan wrote:

How you aquire that information may vary from GM to GM, potentially requiring some sort of check, but you should be able to discover you can use dispel magic on to hazard the same as you discover you can use thievery on a trap or religion for a haunt.

That strange idea that the GM provides actually useful unformation on a successful knowledge check... ;)

[Deadmanwalking]

Ravingdork wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Specific Hazards can indeed be targeted by Dispel Magic, because they say they can. It's one of those 'specific overrides general' things.

Seems like an oversight to me. What player is going to think "I can dispel that hazard" when dispel magic only tells them it works on spells and unattended items?

Most people don't memorize the spell text like that. IME, people will ask 'Can I dispel that?' on just about anything remotely magical they want to be rid of. A good GM will then give them Recall Knowledge checks to see if they know the answer.

A generous GM will generally even quote the rules (ie: "You can generally only dispel spells and items, but some Hazards can also specifically be dispelled. Now, without an Arcana check, you have no idea whether this particular Hazard is one of them, but if you want to try...")

That's certainly how I'd respond to a player taking a moment and trying to think through solutions. Players can and should be provided with relevant rules information whenever it comes up and doesn't disrupt the flow of play. Otherwise they're making decisions without understanding the framework their decisions occur in, and that results in unrealistic and damaging decisions which are seldom fun for anyone.

It's also strongly arguable that the Hazards dispel magic works on count as unattended objects, though that's a bit less relevant and more tenuous, IMO.

[Shisumo]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

It's also strongly arguable that the Hazards dispel magic works on count as unattended objects, though that's a bit less relevant and more tenuous, IMO.

I mean, to cite a recent example from Age of Ashes...

Spoiler:

The Dragon Pillars are all dispellable, but they also explicitly have "object immunities" listed in their statblock, which to me implies they are objects. As no one is holding them...