Quick Question about death curses.

[Moriden]

that's only a 23 Complexity Death Curse.

If the pcs are wounded at this point [likely] it'll still put them down. again exempting were's and such. id recommend taking a look at the characters sheets and figuring out what numbers are likely to force them to take 2-3 of there available consequences not to die, and rig the numbers not to go over that.

[Deadmanwalking]

If the pcs are wounded at this point [likely] it'll still put them down. again exempting were's and such. id recommend taking a look at the characters sheets and figuring out what numbers are likely to force them to take 2-3 of there available consequences not to die, and rig the numbers not to go over that.

At this point he's not planning on direct damage anyway, so it matters little. It was a more general statement. Also, an excessive opponent. A more reasonable opponent will be more able to manage 'only' 18-20 by the time they're that hurt.

[Archmage_Cowl]

Ive thought on this and have decided to go with the secrety aspect(which i will stat up cause one of my players is a major rules junkie ) because we are just about to go into this battle and several of us already have severe consequences and everyone has at least a mild. So any major damaging mojo would likely be fatal, and i would rather not kill my players(even if they do deserve it lol) So i figured a spooky half understood curse that haunts them for at least the next several adventures, if not the whole campaign, will teach them a lesson.

[arentol]

This is still going to need to be a consequence based curse, so he will still need 24 shifts of power:

2 for zone
10 to ensure they don't resist (Superb+max roll+1=10)
4 for their stress track
8 for the extreme consequence

24 total

If he is limited to 23 like some have suggested he will either have to leave an option for someone to resist, do only a severe consequence, or hit only one person with the curse.

[Deadmanwalking]

If he is limited to 23 like some have suggested he will either have to leave an option for someone to resist, do only a severe consequence, or hit only one person with the curse.

The 23 was a specific example. Also, you don't need a Consequence based curse to do what's suggested. Look at it as a Maneuver with Duration more than an attack, and look at Entropy Curse on p. 296 for an example. Though that's actually more Shifts of power depending on duration. 26 for 'Several Mortal Lifetimes', 28 to do it to a group. 'A few years' would only be 22, 24 to do it to a group. A few months would be 18, 20 to a group.

I suspect the villain's going to need to burn his Severe and Extreme Consequences on this one to make it stick.

[arentol]

I was actually originally going to say that this would be a maneuver with lots of shifts to increase the time factor, but then I read pages 264 and 265 closely I changed my mind as it seemed that if you want to do a curse with a serious effect you probably need to use a consequence.

I guess though I was right the first time (in my mind), since he said he just wanted to apply a "secret aspect". However, it just seems to me that whatever that aspect is it shouldn't really be that bad since it is actually easier to cast than even a mild consequence.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, look at "Bad Luck" the example Aspect. This sure as hell isn't worse than that. And, because of the Duration Factor, making it last any reasonable length of time IS much harder than a Mild Consequence

[arentol]

Well, look at "Bad Luck" the example Aspect. This sure as hell isn't worse than that. And, because of the Duration Factor, making it last any reasonable length of time IS much harder than a Mild Consequence

I am pretty sure that whatever Archmage_Cowl is planning is worse than "Bad Luck". Really if something on the level of Bad Luck is the worst "death curse" that he can land on someone, well that is just sad, unless it lasts for a decade or something.

Really the key point then is that Archmage_Cowl needs to make sure whatever the result of the curse is that it is not worse than a maneuver would allow. If it is then a consequence should be used. This is entirely a GM and player call....

Pg. 265

A mild curse might place an aspect on a target, but once the magic runs its course, the victim is left largely as he was. In contrast, a spell that burns out a victim’s emotional capacity may also last for months, but not because there’s any magic left behind. Players and GMs should keep this dividing line in mind when deciding whether to express a spell’s effect as a temporary aspect (like a maneuver) versus a consequence or permanent change.

The real problem as I see it is that a mild consequence for one person might cost 10+4+2 = 16, and would last only once scene after recovery starts, which means it could easily be resolved in a day or less. Meanwhile "Bad Luck" with 16 shifts lasts "A few days". A moderate consequence (18) would likely last until the end of the next session, which is less than the "A few weeks" that Bad Luck would last for that cost. Same with Severe, it lasts until the end of the next scenario vs "A few months" for the same cost, but then you can keep going with Bad Luck right up to a decade or more.... And since you can do things like Blindness, Fear of clothing, Fear of people, endless laughter, Deaf, Dumb (devastating to a wizard), etc., and there is NO method for removing such a curse, maneuver curses are potentially just way over-powered.

[Deadmanwalking]

Um, clearly you haven't realized how bad an Aspect 'Bad Luck' is. This can almost literally be compelled to make anything bad that's remotely possible happen to you. That's awful.

As for the Maneuver vs. Consequence thing, remember that a Consequence fills up a Consequence slot and thus prevents it from being used to save your life. Aspects from a Maneuver curse do no such thing.

Also, you can actually do Thaumaturgy to remove a Maneuver curse, since it's an ongoing effect. Not so much with one that's dealt you a Consequence, since that's over and done with (mystically speaking).

[drnuncheon]

Remember that "taken out" doesn't necessarily mean "killed".  It means "removed from the conflict" - in a way determined by the person doing the taking out.  So don't worry too much about overpowering the death curse if it is not going to be simple and straightforward ("die!").  If the sorcerer is a petty and vindictive sort, he may want to curse them with suffering that lasts a lot longer.  Plus, it will be a wake-up call if the PCs realize that he could have killed them.  That should also make them worry about the curse...

Taking them out also means you are free to set the conditions for breaking the curse to whatever you want - it doesn't have to be tied to a thaumaturgical ritual or recovering a consequence.