Curses, Delusion, and Poison

[Finarvyn]

Most player characters don't have the skill to craft magical items and brew potions. In OD&D, the assumption appears to be that magic creation is tricky and special and finding magic in a treasure hoarde is a neat thing.

So how come there are so many cruddy magical items on the list?

If I read the tables in Monsters & Treasure correctly, it would appear that there is:
* a 17% chance to get a cursed sword.
* a 7% chance to get a delusion or poison potion.
* a 10% chance to get a cursed scroll.
* a 20% chance of getting a ring of weakness or delusion.
Who's making all of these items?

I know that the quick answer is "game balance", but don't those numbers seem a little bit extreme?

Just my two coppers...

[calithena]

To keep people on their toes?

I like cursed items as a thing characters have to deal with. What I don't like is that detecting them is usually either automatic (cast a spell: lo, it's cursed) or impossible (if the spells don't work).

What would be nice is if I had a way to play them like I play traps: with lots of description and opportunities to use player intelligence to deal with them.

[Finarvyn]

I guess that's the problem with "identify" style magic, although I would assume that a cursed or otherwise cruddy item would identify as something else.

I remember an old DOS computer game called "Rogue" where the dungeon was just filled with potions of different colors. You could quaff one and see what it did, then take notes that certain colors had certain effects. Of course, I'm pretty sure that each game of Rogue had a different color key, so you couldn't have an advantage with the next character.

[murquhart72]

Most cursed items (esp. those from Greyhawk) were a reaction to Monty Haul campaigns. After a while, jaded PCs would think twice before sticking their hand in a suspected bag of holding

[crimhthanthegreat]

You can divide all of those precentages by 5 or 10 IMC. I generally have somewhat less magic available and don't put in these bad items too often although the chance is always there.

[korgoth]

It's interesting insofar as it reinforces the idea that magic is dangerous and unpredictable. You're basically taking a chance when you mess with magical things. It's like drinking from the enchanted fountain: you're going to win big or lose big.

It looks like there's not much problem in OD&D with just ignoring magic items altogether. Once you make sure you've got a magical weapon (if you're a Fighting Man) so you can hit those nastier monsters (though you should probably run from them anyway, but that's not always an option) you're pretty well set. Staves and wands are also pretty safe.

Other than that, if you mess with magic it's at your own risk. Kind of like high tech items in Gamma World: you might get a potent weapon or device, or you might blow your own face off. Do you want to risk it?

[crimhthanthegreat]

Excellent point, and there is really not a need for players to each have a dozen or two magic items, although I know some people play that way.

[Finarvyn]

crimhthanthegreat said:

You can divide all of those precentages by 5 or 10 IMC. I generally have somewhat less magic available and don't put in these bad items too often although the chance is always there.

So you revised all of the treasure charts?

I mean, if you simply had less magic in the campaign that wouldn't change the percentage of bad magic on the charts because of the way a percentage is defined. You'd have to go back to edit the numbers if you wanted to change the actual percent of bad things out there.

[crimhthanthegreat]

admin said:

crimhthanthegreat said:

You can divide all of those precentages by 5 or 10 IMC. I generally have somewhat less magic available and don't put in these bad items too often although the chance is always there.

So you revised all of the treasure charts?

I mean, if you simply had less magic in the campaign that wouldn't change the percentage of bad magic on the charts because of the way a percentage is defined. You'd have to go back to edit the numbers if you wanted to change the actual percent of bad things out there.

No, ;D I didn't revise the charts, I just do it in my head, if I roll something bad, I just decide if I want to keep it or not, that is how I reduce the percentage. I reduce the amount of bad stuff more than I reduce the amount of good stuff, even though I do reduce both.

[foster1941]

korgoth said:

It's interesting insofar as it reinforces the idea that magic is dangerous and unpredictable. You're basically taking a chance when you mess with magical things. It's like drinking from the enchanted fountain: you're going to win big or lose big.

It looks like there's not much problem in OD&D with just ignoring magic items altogether. Once you make sure you've got a magical weapon (if you're a Fighting Man) so you can hit those nastier monsters (though you should probably run from them anyway, but that's not always an option) you're pretty well set. Staves and wands are also pretty safe.

Other than that, if you mess with magic it's at your own risk. Kind of like high tech items in Gamma World: you might get a potent weapon or device, or you might blow your own face off. Do you want to risk it?

That's a very interesting observation that I'd somehow never noticed before. In the original set (pre-Supp I) there are no cursed wands or staves, no cursed armor, no cursed miscellaneous weapons, and while there is a cursed sword (-2) that falls into the "inconvenience" rather than the "deadly" category. Therefore, the items that characters "need" to prosper into the high levels of the game can be obtained without any real danger (other than taking them from their former owners, of course). It's only the "extra" items -- potions, scrolls, rings, and miscellaneous magic items -- that necessitate a gamble by the player. You can play it safe and avoid such items, not getting the benefit but not risking the curses, or you can go out on a limb -- you might get a cool bonus from a bowl of commanding water elementals, but you also might get a bowl of watery death and wind up 1 inch tall and dead

[angantyr]

admin said:

Most player characters don't have the skill to craft magical items and brew potions. [glow=red,2,300]In OD&D, the assumption appears to be that magic creation is tricky [/glow]and special and finding magic in a treasure hoarde is a neat thing.

Actually, you rather hit the nail on the head. Making magic items is tricky. And, worse, some of those who attempt to do so are simply not up to the challenge! Hence, mistakes are made. Some are just total, burned out non magical failures, but a few of these failures still retain magic, just not in a good way...

Of course, a magic item may be deliberately cursed, as part of some sort of elaborate revenge plot, for example.

Potions might simply go bad over time, and turn into Delusion or Poison... (and they probably didn't think to put expiration dates on the things, more's the pity)

Another thing to keep in mind is that an item may intermittently function normally. This could be the result of a partial success in the creation of the item, or a clever strategem on the part of a deliberate cursed item (well, my slaves used it without ill effect, so it must be good...) Thus, your Bowl of Water Elemental Control might have a 1 in 20 chance of acting as a Bowl of Watery Death... but work perfectly normally the next time.

And some items might just be a mixed blessing. For example, a "cursed" weapon that is -2 to hit, but does DOUBLE damage when it does hit. If one further assumes that it allows you to smite creatures that ordinarily need a +2 or better weapon to hit, might you not keep and use it, even if it is a willful thing and thinks it knows how best to strike?

Finally, some curses might not be perceived as such at all - to a Viking warrior, a "cursed" +1 Berserkering sword might be prized as a gift from the Aesir, if not Odin himself! Other curses may simply be minor, a Ring of Fire Protection that gives you an itchy, unsightly rash (but no other problems, except perhaps a lower reaction score esp. in romantic situations) may be regarded as a nuisance compared to the benefits of the ring itself.

Any cursed item put into a campaign should be given some serious thought on the DM's part, with a sketch of its backstory and how it came into being as well as what ill (and perhaps occasionally beneficial) effects it has.

[serendipity]

What if wizards strong enough to make these great items wanted to ensure that others wouldn't steal their magical possessions? If it were me, I'd curse my best items so others couldn't use 'em. Does that automatically mean I couldn't use them as well? I'm not sure it does!

[coffee]

serendipity said:

What if wizards strong enough to make these great items wanted to ensure that others wouldn't steal their magical possessions? If it were me, I'd curse my best items so others couldn't use 'em. Does that automatically mean I couldn't use them as well? I'm not sure it does!

Or not only me, but my entire bloodline.

I could see a case where a player's parentage could determine whether he/she could use and item. (Dang, I know that I've seen rules for this somewhere, but can't remember where...)

There's also the possibility of conditional curses. Think about it: In a campaign dedicated to eradicating the menace of, say, demons, a sword could be cursed -1, but +3 vs. demons. And once you've used it on demons (it's special purpose, if you will), the curse would be lifted (or not; DM's option/whimsy).

That's not part of the RAW, I'm just saying. (I've had this idea of a campaign against demons for years now...)

[angantyr]

coffee said:

serendipity said:

What if wizards strong enough to make these great items wanted to ensure that others wouldn't steal their magical possessions? If it were me, I'd curse my best items so others couldn't use 'em. Does that automatically mean I couldn't use them as well? I'm not sure it does!

Or not only me, but my entire bloodline.

I could see a case where a player's parentage could determine whether he/she could use and item. (Dang, I know that I've seen rules for this somewhere, but can't remember where...)

There's also the possibility of conditional curses. Think about it: In a campaign dedicated to eradicating the menace of, say, demons, a sword could be cursed -1, but +3 vs. demons. And once you've used it on demons (it's special purpose, if you will), the curse would be lifted (or not; DM's option/whimsy).

Note that such conditional or limiting curses, if easy to put on, might make virtually all magic items unusable (you have to figure that the vast majority of magic item creators would regularly do this, if it were easy). This can be good or bad, depending on the DM's perspective. While I believe in keeping magic rare, making it unusable might make a campaign unenjoyable for the players.

I, personally, would probably make it hard to do a limiting curse of this nature - at least equal in difficulty to the original item enchantment. It should be similarly difficult to make an intentional "booby trapped" cursed item, as well. Statistically speaking, I would submit that most cursed items are the result of honest mistakes, rather than deliberate sabotage.