Can bestow curse remove parts of spells?

[Anar]

can bestow curse remove parts of spells?

In a game I recently had my bard cast bestow curse on a target under the effect of Protection from good. The curse i wanted to place was to render the target vulnerable to mind-effecting/impulse spells or abilities..

My DM nay-sayed this because he is under the impression that selecting specific parts of a spell to negate or affect would make bestow curse a more powerful version than the examples given in the spell description.

Now i've seen some very powerful and creative uses for bestow curse and I assumed that causing the target to only have a small portion of a spell removed as opposed to the whole spell wouldn't have made it more powerful, but in fact weaker than... let's say Dispel Magic another 3rd lvl spell which would have removed the entirety of the protection spell.

Ultimately, after a heated discussion, it was decided between the DM and I that my bestow curse would work as dispel magic and let it go at the table, but i'm here now because I'd like to know if what i had tried to do was a gross misinterpretation of the rules, or if it should have been allowed.

Any thoughts comments, critiques, or questions would be appreciated.

[Extra Anchovies]

Here's what Bestow Curse can do:

-6 decrease to an ability score (minimum 1).
-4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks.
Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.
You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above.

The ability to invent your own curse (or at least the ability to determine whether it is more powerful than the above-described effects) implicitly falls to your DM, because if it were up to the player, Bestow Curse would be an absolute blank-check debuff, which isn't something that should really be allowed. So if your DM doesn't okay it, you can't apply whatever custom curse you had in mind.

[sleepyphoenixx]

There's nothing wrong with inventing your own curses. It's even encouraged. But the DM has the last word on what's possible and what is not.

That said, Bestow Curse is not Dispel Magic, and dispelling spells doesn't really sound like a curse to me.
I'd not have allowed it to work that way because i don't think it's thematically appropiate, and Bestow Curse is not Limited Wish with the ability to duplicate other spells effects.
If you want to dispel magic, cast Dispel Magic.

[Anar]

In a game I recently had my bard cast bestow curse on a target under the effect of Protection from good. The curse i wanted to place was to render the target vulnerable to mind-effecting/impulse spells or abilities.

My DM nay-sayed this because he is under the impression that selecting specific parts of a spell to negate or affect would make bestow curse a more powerful version than the examples given in the spell description.

This right here is my question. Yes I am aware that the DM has the full right and power to determine if something fails or succeeds. Yes I know the bestow curse IS NOT dispel magic.

My question is Could I have used Bestow Curse to render a target vulnerable to mind affecting and impulse enchantment spells while the target is under the affect of Protection from Evil/Good/Law/etc...

[Crake]

This right here is my question. Yes I am aware that the DM has the full right and power to determine if something fails or succeeds. Yes I know the bestow curse IS NOT dispel magic.

My question is Could I have used Bestow Curse to render a target vulnerable to mind affecting and impulse enchantment spells while the target is under the affect of Protection from Evil/Good/Law/etc...

Perhaps a better way to word it would be to say "The victim gains no benefit from 1st level abjuration spells" perhaps?

That said Protection from Evil/etc doesn't give you immunity to mind-affecting, in fact, it's list of immunities are very small, pretty much only covering dominate person, and the opposed charisma check in charm person that lets you force the target to do something they normally wouldn't do. Remember, it lists it as "ongoing mental control". Depending on what spell you want to cast, that may not fall into that category.

But if what you want to cast is Dominate Person, then well, just cast it anyway, and wait until the protection spell expires, and you have your minion

[Extra Anchovies]

This right here is my question. Yes I am aware that the DM has the full right and power to determine if something fails or succeeds. Yes I know the bestow curse IS NOT dispel magic.

My question is Could I have used Bestow Curse to render a target vulnerable to mind affecting and impulse enchantment spells while the target is under the affect of Protection from Evil/Good/Law/etc...

My answer is no, no you could not, unless your DM said you could. Which he didn't. So you can't. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough initially.

[Anar]

My answer is no, no you could not, unless your DM said you could. Which he didn't. So you can't. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough initially.

Well let's say the DM was open to suggestion, would there have been a way to achieve the end goal of using Bestow Curse to affect a person under protection from X to make them susceptible to mind affecting / compulsion enchantments.

Let's use the rules and what the books say and how the community interprets said rules to come up with a possible solution if one is to be found, as opposed to flat out saying no and embracing the idea that creativity in our fantasy games is limited to the imaginings of a singular individual.

My DM did not say that it couldn't be done, we just spent too much time debating on the "how and or if" it could be done. Which is why I bring this question to the community. To present a possibly new situation that many or no one has struggled to overcome before.

Let's help each other broaden our horizons, yeah?

[NichG]

With open-ended spells like Bestow Curse (or Polymorph Any Object, or off-the-list stuff in Wish/Limited-Wish) I feel that once you've pitched your idea and the DM says 'no', anything you do beyond there to try to have that happen anyhow is somewhat bad form. The reason is basically that, taken to extremes, it can make the game about 'who can badger, pressure, or emotionally blackmail the DM more?'. And that can become a very hostile situation for the DM.

[Extra Anchovies]

Well let's say the DM was open to suggestion, would there have been a way to achieve the end goal of using Bestow Curse to affect a person under protection from X to make them susceptible to mind affecting / compulsion enchantments.

Well, yeah, if the DM was open to the suggestion then it would have been possible. If your DM will let you do it, you can do it. If they won't, you can't.

Let's use the rules and what the books say and how the community interprets said rules to come up with a possible solution if one is to be found, as opposed to flat out saying no and embracing the idea that creativity in our fantasy games is limited to the imaginings of a singular individual.

There aren't actually any rules precedents for alternative curses, at least not outside of DragMag. Heroes of Horror has a section on curses, but they're all pretty explicitly applied by means other than bestow curse. And it's worth noting that although the creativity in D&D isn't limited to the imaginings of one person, whether those imaginings (should they be rules interpretations, such as in this context) can be implemented in-game actually are:

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do out-side the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game.

This isn't to say that a player can't think about what they want to achieve in-game, but whether it is actually possible to do it in-game is always up to the DM.

My DM did not say that it couldn't be done, we just spent too much time debating on the "how and or if" it could be done. Which is why I bring this question to the community. To present a possibly new situation that many or no one has struggled to overcome before.

Personally, I don't agree with either you or the DM here. I don't see it as within the limits of Bestow Curse to remove the defenses provided by Magic Circle Against/Protection From X, nor do I see it as within the limits of that spell to directly replicate the effects of another (i.e. dispel magic). Broadened enough for you?

Also, Crake raised a very good point in his post; Magic Circle Against/Protection from X actually doesn't grant immunity to mind-affecting effects or compulsions. It only suppresses those effects for the duration of the Magic Circle/Protection spell.

[Anar]

Perhaps a better way to word it would be to say "The victim gains no benefit from 1st level abjuration spells" perhaps?

That said Protection from Evil/etc doesn't give you immunity to mind-affecting, in fact, it's list of immunities are very small, pretty much only covering dominate person, and the opposed charisma check in charm person that lets you force the target to do something they normally wouldn't do. Remember, it lists it as "ongoing mental control". Depending on what spell you want to cast, that may not fall into that category.

But if what you want to cast is Dominate Person, then well, just cast it anyway, and wait until the protection spell expires, and you have your minion

This guy got it, this guy got the point of the thread. Thank you for both contributing and explaining.

This thread was not about etiquette on how to deal with your DM, it was to theory craft the effectiveness of an open ended spell.

[Spore]

This thread was not about etiquette on how to deal with your DM, it was to theory craft the effectiveness of an open ended spell.

You should never try to rules-lawyer around a decision of your DM. I would however want an explanation why this particular curse does not work.