11
\$\begingroup\$

The Curse of Turbulent Moments inflicts escalating enfeeblement and eventually even slowed 1. These are pretty severe disadvantages, but that's what oracles' curses are all about:

You can't mitigate, reduce, or remove the effects of your oracular curse by any means other than Refocusing and resting for 8 hours. For example, if your curse makes creatures concealed from you, you can't negate that concealed condition through a magic item or spell, such as true strike (though you would still benefit from the other effects of that item or spell). Likewise, remove curse and similar spells don't affect your curse at all.

I was therefore somewhat surprised to find advice to gain, for example, access to haste to help compensate for the curse. I should think that gaining the quickened condition would be considered "mitigating" the effect of slowed 1. Is this advice simply in error? If not, what is the reasoning that supports doing this? What about taking Assurance (Athletics) to not-really-apparently mitigate the effects of being enfeebled?

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Where did you find that advice? If it's not a reputable source, why should it really matter to us, or you? \$\endgroup\$
    – Mołot
    Commented Jan 17, 2023 at 23:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Reddit, and because it caused me to doubt my understanding of the rules text and look for clarity. \$\endgroup\$
    – darch
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 0:17

1 Answer 1

13
\$\begingroup\$

GM Discretion

Ultimately, it's going to be up to your GM. There is no further explanation in the rules as to what counts as mitigation beyond what you've quoted (at least, that I'm aware of). However...

Proposed Guidance: Direct, Explicit Interaction

"Ask your GM" is hardly helpful - especially if you are the GM! So what should a reasonable GM rule? Honestly, the specific question of Haste could go both ways (major curses are supposed to be really debilitating), but when it comes to making rule judgments, I've found this principles to be of great help as a GM:

  • The judgement should be fun for everyone
  • The judgement should be consistent
  • The judgement should be simple to understand - a player should be able to look at a new case and confidently come to a decision of what you would allow as a GM without having to ask you
  • The judgement should be easy to explain - generally, spending 30 minutes explaining the nuances of your Golem Antimagic ruling will equate to 29 minutes of boredom for your players (and probably even yourself)

Operating under this guidelines, I suggest that GM's limit the meaning of mitigation, reduction, and removal to abilities the explicitly interact with conditions provided by the curse. Thus, using Restoration to remove or reduce your Enfeebled condition is a no-go, but using Enlarge to boost your (now lacking) melee damage or Ant Haul to make up for lower encumbrance limit is fine!

Haste Under This Ruling

Under this ruling, Haste would be fine, even if you were Slowed 1. Neither Haste nor quickened directly call out Slowed (or even Stunned), and the text box that explains their interaction doesn't even mention that Quickened specially interacting with Slowed. Therefore, Haste would provide an additional action, which you could choose to lose with your Slowed 1. Even given the text of the rules there and here, it seems that you gain your extra Quickened action before you lose one for Slowed, which is support for Haste not directly interacting with Slowed.

Another Reasonable Ruling

A GM could split the difference and say that you can be Hasted while you're under the effects of your Major Curse (and thus Slowed 1), but the action you lose with Slowed can't be the Hasted action. I don't think this is RAW nor RAI, and it does not fit with the good house rule parameters above entirely (hard to apply this logic consistently to cases that aren't explicitly Slowed-Quickened conflicts). However, that might be a fun ruling that your Oracle player is on board with, or if you're a player who's GM wants to disallow Haste in this situation, it could be a fine middle ground.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This interpretation is compatible with the true strike rule, which is what I find really persuasive. I accept this as a very reasonable way to run it. \$\endgroup\$
    – darch
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 5:34
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Another consideration is that haste only lasts 1 minute, so it's a very temporary mitigation at best, which generally makes it more allowable to a DM. \$\endgroup\$
    – Mathaddict
    Commented Jan 18, 2023 at 20:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .