Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#42 Stafir_Ortnev Aug 02, 2011 11:23:30	Here is some familiar advice to those that don't like it- Don't use it in your games. I'm pretty sure this is the very reason people have been saying "don't care, won't buy".  It's interesting though how one type of item out of many seem to turn people off of an entire book though.  I mean it's alomst like saying: "They have dryaid's in the MM3!  Im not buying the book!"  It's the current mentality, mostly of those who prefer not to roleplay and instead want to just do combat, combat, combat, and then some more combat. Basically anything they can recieve..that is bad for them.  In their mind, means that it will be used against them, that it must be the main focus of every DM who buys that book, even if the book in question had only one page out of 100 devoted to that. This is because they already have a PC's vs the DM type idea in their head, and fully believe that their DM is out to wreck their own fun and kill their PC's and nothing more.  So of course the one roleplay item that involves something negative happening to their PC is met with such hatred.  Because in their mind, all of their treasure will suddenly be cursed, in the worst way possible if their DM gets the book, because they believe their DM is just that cruel, and is just waiting for someone to tell him exactly how to kill their PC's perfectly. It happened quite a bit in previous editions as well, its nothing new.  And the only thing you can do to counteract them is to call them on it, tell them they are just being paranoid.  That if they don't trust their DM thats a problem in their game, not the items being given out.  And if the DM is truely a killer DM, he dosn't need a book to tell him how to torture and kill the party, its easy enough as he controls the world.  And yes feel free to point out that they just don't enjoy roleplaying and that is why such items make no sense to them.  It's not a slur when its true.
#43 Scottevil912 Aug 02, 2011 11:55:24	Since my first days of playing D&D, cursed items have been one of my most favorite aspects.  It made treasure finding exciting and dangerous.  Even on the rare occasion I found something that killed my character, I didn't hate it - it was my haste and/or my greed that killed me.
#44 Garthanos Aug 02, 2011 12:05:49	I never really used cursed items ... once I included an item that was like a mini artifact which posessed its bearer (even somebody normally incredibly hard to effect in just this way) for a short while when confronted by a certain type of adversary.... effectively the thing once in a while caused you to go in to a haze dispassionately and extremely efficiently destroying all its hated enemy X in view range afterwards the user barely remembered the occurance.  The effect was primarily useful assuming the enemy was also yours and you didnt pull it out or hold it while the enemy was present but my player didnt feel his character would ever be copacetic with being controlled like that. Dropped the thing like a hot potato.
#82 Draco_Whitewind Aug 04, 2011 15:45:24	I'm not against cursed items, I just think it's embarassing we really haven't had good cursed items in any D&D sourcebook ever, and from what it looks like, *still* don't have any cursed item designs that are good. Is this some trope that just is going to escape every "okay" D&D designer ever?
#83 pluisjen Aug 04, 2011 15:49:58	For one encounter, they go nuts.  But via decent placement, you should be able to use their +2 to hit well until they fall over.  You should still win the encounter, it just got a bit harder. I'm pretty sure that good placement doesn't help one bit when you're attacking "a random creature" every round. I'm also pretty sure that near the end of the battle the character has to be put down by their own allies because either there is 1 enemy for 4 allies, or the DM rules that the encounter doesn't end because the cursed guy is still swinging wildly at his allies (which seems like a totally reasonable call, actually) You'd also be rightfully screwed over when this curse triggers at the start of a Solo Battle, where you're pretty much down one character for the rest of the battle because the odds of swinging at the Solo are a lot smaller then the odds of biting on an OA and then bashing in the head of the leader or controller. And at the end of the entire thing, I can't really see the party having a lot of fun with "sorry about your character, Wizard". Even if they don't kill anybody, there's little interesting or funny stories coming from a weapon like that imho.
#84 Tony_Vargas Aug 04, 2011 16:02:17	Well, it's not as bad putting back in cursed berserking swords as scarabs of death or bags of devouring....  that is, if the MME doesn't have a scarab of death or bag of devouring....
#85 oxybe Aug 04, 2011 16:25:59	so in other words GMfPG, it's a waste of space? if it's something the GM puts in the game (IE: the barb's axe is cursed) and the players are technically interacting with it (IE: he's using the axe) but unless you've actually got a note reminding you to check for it due to supposedly very low frequency of it actually going off (to use your ), it's impact on the game is negligible (happens once > Arcana check spam > done and forgotten) to non-existant (never goes off)? the odds a PC holding an axe gets critted on any given attack? 1/20... 5%. the chance any one given monster randomly chooses the guy with the axe, if there are 5 PCs? 1/5... 20% the chance that if there is only a single monster it crits the correct PC? 1/5 x 1/20...  1%  except... the character holding this weapon is most likely a striker or defender and most likely melee. this means that these guys are the most likely targets for attacks, what with controllers and some leaders liking to hang back. defenders tend to draw the brunt of enemy fire what with their "i punish you for ignoring me" mechanics, and while strikers like melee rangers and rogues can go in/out of combat quite easily, the heavy-blade/axe wielding barbarians are generally far more proficient at getting into combat then getting out of it. i've played more then a few fighters and barbs who get hit 2-3 times per round so let's say you're a fighter who just got bloodied. you're being all sticky with the enemies and get hit three times in the round (the guy you're marking, his buddy and minion #f156ds3-98). each of these guys have a 5% chance of hitting you, meaning on that round you have a 15% of berserking.  so i would say for defenders and melee strikers who are making themselves an obvious target have got a 10-15% chance of flipping out when bloodied
#86 Duskweaver Aug 05, 2011 5:53:21	I'm pretty sure that good placement doesn't help one bit when you're attacking "a random creature" every round... You're completely misreading/misinterpreting that curse. Now, to be fair, I actually made the exact same mistake at first. But what the Berserker's Weapon actually does when triggered is restrict you to making MBAs or charges if you actually choose to attack with the cursed weapon, and randomise the target of those MBAs or charges among any targets in range/reach. It does not force you to attack allies unless you make an attack while an ally is within your reach. It does not force you to charge a random target, even if there are no enemies adjacent to you. As long as all the cursed character's allies make sure they're never adjacent to him on his turn, they're perfectly safe. If there is an enemy within his melee reach, he can attack that enemy (if there are multiple enemies in reach, he attacks a random one of them). If there's no enemy in reach, he can move (not charge, which would potentially target an ally) adjacent to an enemy and make a MBA against it. Or he can just take the psychic damage and suck it up. Now, the Berserker's Weapon curse is very badly written. It's completely unclear whether choosing not to attack (or choosing not to move to where you can attack) counts as being unable to attack and therefore triggers the psychic damage and extra defence penalties. It's also not entirely clear how the random targeting applies to attacks other than the MBAs and charges made with the Berserker's Weapon. For example, an eladrin wizard with a Berserker's Weapon longsword in one hand and a wand in the other casts Scorching Burst through the wand (which is perfectly legal by the RAW of that curse): do you randomise the placement of the spell's area burst 1, and how on earth would you go about doing that?
#87 pluisjen Aug 05, 2011 6:38:06	Yeah.... if it's supposed to go like that it's terribly written. I fear that more players are going to run it like I explained then like you did, even though you are technically correct it seems after rereading it (again). While at least they put some thought in it, the fact that it's written so badly doesn't actually help their case at all.
#88 DavidArgall Aug 05, 2011 14:54:33	I'm pretty sure that good placement doesn't help one bit when you're attacking "a random creature" every round... You're completely misreading/misinterpreting that curse. Now, to be fair, I actually made the exact same mistake at first. But what the Berserker's Weapon actually does when triggered is restrict you to making MBAs or charges if you actually choose to attack with the cursed weapon, and randomise the target of those MBAs or charges among any targets in range/reach. It does not force you to attack allies unless you make an attack while an ally is within your reach. It does not force you to charge a random target, even if there are no enemies adjacent to you. As long as all the cursed character's allies make sure they're never adjacent to him on his turn, they're perfectly safe. If there is an enemy within his melee reach, he can attack that enemy (if there are multiple enemies in reach, he attacks a random one of them). If there's no enemy in reach, he can move (not charge, which would potentially target an ally) adjacent to an enemy and make a MBA against it. Or he can just take the psychic damage and suck it up.      These lawyerly arguments should be rejected out of hand by any sensible DM.  Our PC is in effect dominated by the weapon, which orders him to attack, and so he attacks, and with the weapon, if it is possible.  He does not get to choose anything beyond what mba he uses, and sometimes not even that.  He may not refuse to attack any target, friendly or otherwise.  He may not use any weapon other than the cursed one.  [The DM may have some problems with unusual cases, but the player does not get any freedom in any case.]    One thing we should note is that a bloodied PC has less than two surges left, and a crit that does less than a surge in damage is going to be distinctly rare.  So our bezerker is going to be a minion in most cases.  In fact the party may never learn of the curse because he is knocked down by the crit or by another hit that happens before he can attack any friend.     Now we could use some more detail on what "random" means.  Does anybody in charge range count? [meaning he would provoke OPs] Or is he limited to those adjacent if there are any?  Are targets protected by hazards not part of random targets?  If he must suffer a hazard to reach a target this round, does he suffer the hazard?  Or move to where he can attack next round while taking the curse penalty?  But these seem the minor and rare decisions a DM is supposed to make.
#89 pogminky Aug 05, 2011 15:15:20	I want the book.  I want to mine it for any ideas, as I love spicing up items and gear.  I think cursed items handles well are fine, but I'll probably nick the good ideas and change the mechanics to suit. Is this the book that's gonna be only available in FLGS?
#90 Tony_Vargas Aug 05, 2011 15:25:11	I'm pretty sure that good placement doesn't help one bit when you're attacking "a random creature" every round... You're completely misreading/misinterpreting that curse. Now, to be fair, I actually made the exact same mistake at first. But what the Berserker's Weapon actually does when triggered is restrict you to making MBAs or charges if you actually choose to attack with the cursed weapon, and randomise the target of those MBAs or charges among any targets in range/reach. It does not force you to attack allies unless you make an attack while an ally is within your reach. It does not force you to charge a random target, even if there are no enemies adjacent to you. Another downside of 'cursed' items is that they do lead to rules-lawyering, yes.  ;) Effect: Until the end of the encounter, the wielder gains a +2 bonus to attack  rolls and takes a -4 penalty to all defenses. All the wielder's attacks  using this weapon must be melee basic attacks or charge attacks.  Additionally, the wielder chooses a random creature as the target of his  or her attack each round. If the wielder cannot attack, he or she takes  1d10 damage, and the penalty to all defenses worsens to –6 until the  start of his or her next turn. And, yeah, this baby isn't too well written.  Let's try to parse it: First sentence:  pretty obvious, you get a bonus to attack rolls and a penalty to defenses until the end of the encounter.  Of course, it says 'the weilder,' so what happens if you stop wielding? Second:  Your attacks "using this weapon" must be melee basic or charge.  Does it say anywhere you can't use a different weapons?  Or an implement? Third:  You choose a random target of your attack each round.   If you use an attack that targets 'enemies,' it's only random among enemies, right?  Again 'wielder.'  Fourth:  If you can't attack, more bad stuff.  What if you can but don't choose to?  And there's 'wielder' again.   Is there a general cursed item rule that keeps you from just dropping the thing, thus no longer 'wielding' it, and making it all go away?  Depending on how your DM interprets this item, it could range from a virtual death sentence (as you charge a different randomly determined creature each round, provoking OAs like crazy, and taking extra damage when you randomly attack someone out of you charge range), to a minor inconvenience - the effect goes off, you swap weapons, and all the 'the wielder' stuff (the entire Effect) goes away.
#91 Daedalusx51 Aug 05, 2011 15:42:04	And, yeah, this baby isn't too well written.  Let's try to parse it: First sentence:  pretty obvious, you get a bonus to attack rolls and a penalty to defenses until the end of the encounter.  Of course, it says 'the weilder,' so what happens if you stop wielding? Second:  Your attacks "using this weapon" must be melee basic or charge.  Does it say anywhere you can't use a different weapons?  Or an implement? Third:  You choose a random target of your attack each round.   If you use an attack that targets 'enemies,' it's only random among enemies, right?  Again 'wielder.'  Fourth:  If you can't attack, more bad stuff.  What if you can but don't choose to?  And there's 'wielder' again.   Is there a general cursed item rule that keeps you from just dropping the thing, thus no longer 'wielding' it, and making it all go away?  Depending on how your DM interprets this item, it could range from a virtual death sentence (as you charge a different randomly determined creature each round, provoking OAs like crazy, and taking extra damage when you randomly attack someone out of you charge range), to a minor inconvenience - the effect goes off, you swap weapons, and all the 'the wielder' stuff (the entire Effect) goes away. Most of your questions are answered in the explanation of cursed items on the first page. "Once an item's curse is triggered for the first time, the item's  owner cannot be rid of the item until the curse is broken. A cursed item  that is being worn cannot be physically removed. A cursed item that is  being wielded (including an implement, a shield, or a weapon) can be put  away on the owner's person, but it cannot be discarded. If a cursed item is removed by extraordinary means (such as by an  unusual ritual), the item magically reappears in its owner's possession  in 1d4 days. The owner of a cursed weapon or implement can choose not to wield  the item, but if the item's curse has been triggered, he or she must  succeed on a saving throw in order to attack with a different item. If  the saving throw fails, he or she must use the cursed item and must do so for the rest of the encounter."
#92 kletian999 Aug 05, 2011 15:46:41	It's quite clear that if you "choose" not to attack, you'd suffer the damage from not attacking like the weapon demanded.
#93 pluisjen Aug 05, 2011 16:05:37	I just realised the best part of this curse. If you go unconscious, you can't attack, and thus constantly take damage until you die. Awesome.
#94 Tony_Vargas Aug 05, 2011 16:16:58	Most of your questions are answered in the explanation of cursed items on the first page. "Once an item's curse is triggered for the first time, the item's  owner cannot be rid of the item until the curse is broken. ... The owner of a cursed weapon or implement can choose not to wield  the item, but if the item's curse has been triggered, he or she must  succeed on a saving throw in order to attack with a different item. If  the saving throw fails, he or she must use the cursed item and must do so for the rest of the encounter." That does answer two of the questions.  If you make that save and use a different weapon, I guess it bypasses most of it, for that encounter.   I still wonder about the random targetting, 'can't attack,' though - those could be interpreted in a variety of 'obvious' ways.
#95 thespaceinvader Aug 05, 2011 17:05:03	I just realised the best part of this curse. If you go unconscious, you can't attack, and thus constantly take damage until you die. Awesome. And, if it's triggered, you're already bloodied and have just been critted, so you're pretty likely to fall over without outside assistance.  And, presumably, you keep attacking anyone in range until the item is disenchanted, so you will be kicking the crap out of your allies as they try to break the curse. Lovely. The more I think about this, the more stupid it seems. I don't mind cursed items in principle.  A couple of the things described here (basically, working as normal except being a plot point, or working as normal, but having interesting consmetic and flavour effects when used that have been worked out with the plyer concerned) actually sound very fun. The DM essentially giving you an item that lets him kill your character at-will at some point in the future, that's just violating Wheaton.
#96 Duskweaver Aug 06, 2011 3:09:20	These lawyerly arguments should be rejected out of hand by any sensible DM.  Our PC is in effect dominated by the weapon, which orders him to attack, and so he attacks, and with the weapon, if it is possible.  He does not get to choose anything beyond what mba he uses, and sometimes not even that.  He may not refuse to attack any target, friendly or otherwise.  He may not use any weapon other than the cursed one.  [The DM may have some problems with unusual cases, but the player does not get any freedom in any case. Bullshit. Powers and other game elements in 4e do exactly what they say they do. Reading what the rules actually say and applying them as written is not rules lawyering. The item in question simply doesn't do what you're claiming it does. All this "the PC is effectively dominated" is entirely your invention.
#97 alitain Aug 06, 2011 17:50:43	Most of your questions are answered in the explanation of cursed items on the first page. "Once an item's curse is triggered for the first time, the item's  owner cannot be rid of the item until the curse is broken. ... The owner of a cursed weapon or implement can choose not to wield  the item, but if the item's curse has been triggered, he or she must  succeed on a saving throw in order to attack with a different item. If  the saving throw fails, he or she must use the cursed item and must do so for the rest of the encounter." That does answer two of the questions.  If you make that save and use a different weapon, I guess it bypasses most of it, for that encounter.   I still wonder about the random targetting, 'can't attack,' though - those could be interpreted in a variety of 'obvious' ways. The whole targeting thing isn't really an issue at all, it's pretty clear.  You can only make MBA & charges.  Yes there are some at wills that can be MBAs and charge usable, there're also other encounters, etc that can be used as charges and they target only enemies but at the same time, you are limited to using MBAs and charges which can target anyone, not counting powers of course. Meaning, if when you're going to attack you randomly choose an ally then you'll either choose to use a power that targets creatures, or just use a normal MBA/charge.  If it's an enemy, then choose a power that targets an enemy.  Pretty clear actually.  And "can't attack" is clear as well, not sure what you're talking about with interpretations.  "Can't attack" means you can't attack.  Though I guess it would suck if the wielder was knocked to 0 HP or less, though I was always under the impression that powers and such ceased when you dropped to 0, so with that logic it wouldn't affect you if you dropped to 0.  But then, could be wrong with that.
#98 alitain Aug 06, 2011 17:52:40	These lawyerly arguments should be rejected out of hand by any sensible DM.  Our PC is in effect dominated by the weapon, which orders him to attack, and so he attacks, and with the weapon, if it is possible.  He does not get to choose anything beyond what mba he uses, and sometimes not even that.  He may not refuse to attack any target, friendly or otherwise.  He may not use any weapon other than the cursed one.  [The DM may have some problems with unusual cases, but the player does not get any freedom in any case. Bullshit. Powers and other game elements in 4e do exactly what they say they do. Reading what the rules actually say and applying them as written is not rules lawyering. The item in question simply doesn't do what you're claiming it does. All this "the PC is effectively dominated" is entirely your invention. I think what he's getting at is that the PC is "effectively dominated" by the weapon.  Once the curse activates all the PC can do really is keep attacking everyone around them unless they can't attack, then they take damage and all.
#99 shard_of_suzail Aug 06, 2011 18:45:28	Cursed items should be stronger than normal magic items, but should have some sort of permanent flaw. Lose the flaw and lose the extra benefit. Warcraft players, for example, will know of Frostmourne, a cursed blade that was also exceptionally powerful. The idea that cursed items should provide a temporary flaw and then get fixed is not particularly valuable to the story. Sword that leeches my hitpoints but which hits harder....yup i could live with that.
#100 omegaphallic Aug 06, 2011 20:37:21	Not interested in cursed items, but the henchmen and hireling (curious as to what the diffence is), and new suppior weapons sounds interesting as does an Instant Fortess.
#101 Duskweaver Aug 07, 2011 9:12:56	I think what he's getting at is that the PC is "effectively dominated" by the weapon.  Once the curse activates all the PC can do really is keep attacking everyone around them unless they can't attack, then they take damage and all. I know that's what he's "getting at". But it has absolutely no basis in the rules. The Berserker's Weapon just plain does not do that.
#102 GMforPowergamers Aug 07, 2011 12:39:16	Not interested in cursed items, but the henchmen and hireling (curious as to what the diffence is), and new suppior weapons sounds interesting as does an Instant Fortess. where did you hear instant fortress?
#103 Tony_Vargas Aug 08, 2011 6:06:02	Cursed items should be stronger than normal magic items, but should have some sort of permanent flaw. Lose the flaw and lose the extra benefit. Warcraft players, for example, will know of Frostmourne, a cursed blade that was also exceptionally powerful. The idea that cursed items should provide a temporary flaw and then get fixed is not particularly valuable to the story. Sounds like an artifact. Sword that leeches my hitpoints but which hits harder....yup i could live with that. There's an weapon or two like that in AV, I think (Bloodclaw?).