Do you want the effect to stay around independently of the creature? You could word it as a static ability: "If you cast another creature spell since the beginning of your most recent turn, noncreature spells your opponents cast cost more to cast."
Yeah, that's a less narrow effect than what I have now. If my wording made it seem like the cost went up by two every creature, that was an error on my part. The ability was intended to be that each creature spell only raised the cost of non-creature spells with the same converted mana cost.
Blue gets that a little still. Although letting it stack like this is pretty scary; do you really want the cost to go up by 2 for every creature cast? I'd suggest "whenever you cast your first creature spell each turn, until your next turn, non-creature spells your opponents cast cost 2 more to cast." Because you're right; if your opponent has an instant, they can just respond to the trigger.
Removed -1/-1 trigger for Lotus Cobra ability and deathtouch and made the card have a random ability that's supposed to be anti-control. This card probably does nothing now, but it's a unique ability that I think feels rare. That being said, I'm not sure if blue can make things cost more to cast or if that ability is strictly white.
I did a cycle of heavilyt-colored costed cards where the card does one something the one color can do, but with a drawback from the other color. In This card's case, the drawback is meant to be that it can only destroy an attacking or blocking creature, a drawback to the two black mana, where black can normally destroy creatures without restriction.
Weird to choose deathtouch over wither here - or in general put this card here. Is that ability really green-blue in this set? I would have guessed black-green or white-black since they get hex.
Whatever this was before, now it is an Aura hoser in a set that doesn't have a particular strong Aura theme, I feel. And Auras usually aren't the thing you need to hose in the first place.
And this isn't even the first anti-Aura card I see. Where does that come from?
I'm a big fan of Moas and flightless Birds are not a problem if they are recognizable as such - and ostriches and penguins are certainly well-known non-fliers.
What's up with the heavily colored cost at common though?
I'm not even sure what causes this artifact to have a fetish. Did exiling a card do that? Because the card doesn't say.
Assuming that's the case, I think Kauefr's observation could be allayed by removing the line of text that adds counters on the Skullstaff when it enters the battlefield. It may be less 'fun' this way, but I'm sure more people will end up using the card because they now understand it.
Also, you could remove some of the reminder text in fetish. It makes thematic sense that you would only exile one card to each fetish... but 'if this card has no fetish' is just making this card wordier for very little gain.
Eh, this seems to be a lot of words for something that's basically not going to matter. Three counters is probably enough that the game's over by the time you run out.
increased power from 2 to 3.
For a long time I mistakenly thought green was secondary in intimidate (replaced with menace). I swapped out intimidate for deathtouch.
Reduced CMC by 1. Also updated wording from being cursed to having a -1/-1 counter on it.
That main ability is nice. It kinda feels like also being a small deathtoucher is pulling away from that very flashy ability.
Do you want the effect to stay around independently of the creature? You could word it as a static ability: "If you cast another creature spell since the beginning of your most recent turn, noncreature spells your opponents cast cost
more to cast."
Changed to match Dude1818's suggestion and be more overall useful
Yeah, that's a less narrow effect than what I have now. If my wording made it seem like the cost went up by two every creature, that was an error on my part. The ability was intended to be that each creature spell only raised the cost of non-creature spells with the same converted mana cost.
Blue gets that a little still. Although letting it stack like this is pretty scary; do you really want the cost to go up by 2 for every creature cast? I'd suggest "whenever you cast your first creature spell each turn, until your next turn, non-creature spells your opponents cast cost 2 more to cast." Because you're right; if your opponent has an instant, they can just respond to the trigger.
Re-added deathtouch because it's still a cobra.
Removed -1/-1 trigger for Lotus Cobra ability and deathtouch and made the card have a random ability that's supposed to be anti-control. This card probably does nothing now, but it's a unique ability that I think feels rare. That being said, I'm not sure if blue can make things cost more to cast or if that ability is strictly white.
Both of those are green abilities. There's no good reason this is blue.
Deathtouch justZctually, yeah, I don't know why I put this in ug over gb. Deathtouch over wither was done because it's a cobra.
I did a cycle of heavilyt-colored costed cards where the card does one something the one color can do, but with a drawback from the other color. In This card's case, the drawback is meant to be that it can only destroy an attacking or blocking creature, a drawback to the two black mana, where black can normally destroy creatures without restriction.
Something went wrong with the words here.
Weird to choose deathtouch over wither here - or in general put this card here. Is that ability really green-blue in this set? I would have guessed black-green or white-black since they get hex.
Whatever this was before, now it is an Aura hoser in a set that doesn't have a particular strong Aura theme, I feel. And Auras usually aren't the thing you need to hose in the first place.
And this isn't even the first anti-Aura card I see. Where does that come from?
This seems like such a useful little effect in this set that I would want it more splashable.
I don't know whether I'm ever happy to play this. Did you add so many two-colored cards to the set just so you can have some really lackluster ones?
I'm a big fan of Moas and flightless Birds are not a problem if they are recognizable as such - and ostriches and penguins are certainly well-known non-fliers.
What's up with the heavily colored cost at common though?
changed name
Raised cost from
to 
and changed from "each upkeep" to "your upkeep"
Cursed now is on the top rather than bottom of card
gave rhino token trample
fixed type and added ability as well as spell.
I'm not even sure what causes this artifact to have a fetish. Did exiling a card do that? Because the card doesn't say.
Assuming that's the case, I think Kauefr's observation could be allayed by removing the line of text that adds counters on the Skullstaff when it enters the battlefield. It may be less 'fun' this way, but I'm sure more people will end up using the card because they now understand it.
Also, you could remove some of the reminder text in fetish. It makes thematic sense that you would only exile one card to each fetish... but 'if this card has no fetish' is just making this card wordier for very little gain.
Eh, this seems to be a lot of words for something that's basically not going to matter. Three counters is probably enough that the game's over by the time you run out.
Fetish (Whenever a nontoken creature dies, if this card has no fetish, you may exile that card.)
Chattering Skullstaff enters the battlefield with 3 charge counters on it.
: Put a 1/1 colorless artifact skull token onto the battlefield. Then, if Chattering Skullstaff has no fetish, remove a charge counter from it.
Edit: nvm, this let's you tap even if it has no fetish/counters.