Pathfinder 1E 'Curing' a cursed item?

[Matthias]

The spell Remove Curse breaks the hold on a creature that a cursed item has, but does nothing to fix the magic item itself.

But is there some spell, short of a miracle or wish, that could remove the curse from a magic item so that it functions as a normal item of its kind?

 

[paradox42]

No spell I'm aware of, but that's not really a surprise when you consider that cursed items don't show up in official random treasure tables. They're supposed to be placed by the GM specifically for story purposes.

That being said, I wouldn't allow a single spell to undo an item's curse anyway; one doesn't create a magic item with a single spell (short of Miracle or Wish, as you noted, that is), so a cursed item shouldn't be so easy to turn. I would, however, allow a cursed item to be "repaired" using the appropriate Item Creation feat(s) and Spellcraft checks; if regular Craft can repair mundane items, why then shouldn't Spellcraft be able to re-purpose items?

 

[Jester David]

"Curing" a cursed item really feels like a quest/story based thing, and less a single spell.
Remove curse removed the effects from a person, but does not remove the full curse from the item (although you could argue it is suppressed). Removing a magical curse seems akin to removing the magic from a magic item: something not easily and permanently accomplished.

 

[ComradeGnull]

"Curing" a cursed item really feels like a quest/story based thing, and less a single spell.
Remove curse removed the effects from a person, but does not remove the full curse from the item (although you could argue it is suppressed). Removing a magical curse seems akin to removing the magic from a magic item: something not easily and permanently accomplished.

I agree- curses should be created by the ill-intent of powerful casters (the One Ring), or by significant game world events (a sword wielded by a Paladin who betrayed his god, a talisman that belonged to a genocidal lich) and should require comparable effort to remove.

For me, a cursed item that is just a 'defective' magic item can be made into a non-magical item by removing its enchantment's entirely (as a result of using Spellcraft, spells, and Craft Item feats and spending some gold, maybe), but an item that was intentionally cursed or cursed because of the actions of its wielder should be unfixible without a quest or diving intervention.

 

[N'raac]

I agree- curses should be created by the ill-intent of powerful casters (the One Ring), or by significant game world events (a sword wielded by a Paladin who betrayed his god, a talisman that belonged to a genocidal lich) and should require comparable effort to remove.

That sounds like a subset of cursed items, to me. More an artifact than a simple item. Those should be difficult to destroy, turn or even neutralize for a time.

For me, a cursed item that is just a 'defective' magic item can be made into a non-magical item by removing its enchantment's entirely (as a result of using Spellcraft, spells, and Craft Item feats and spending some gold, maybe), but an item that was intentionally cursed or cursed because of the actions of its wielder should be unfixible without a quest or diving intervention.

To me, the ease of creation should link back to the ease of uncreation or modification. You can make a +1 sword, and later enhance it to a higher bonus and/or to add other effects. Removal of a detrimental effect doesn't strike me as significantly different. If the weapon has the equivalent of "+3" in negative effects, then disenchanting it could reasonably be as difficult as enchanting a +3 weapon.

This also adds the potential for adding a cursed effect to positive item and reducing the net value. Can't afford a +4 weapon? Maybe you could tack on a -1 detrimental effect to balance it out.

 

[gamerprinter]

That sounds like a subset of cursed items, to me. More an artifact than a simple item. Those should be difficult to destroy, turn or even neutralize for a time.

I don't know, I've never heard of a wizard casting 'curse' as a spell to enchant an item. Most cursed items in my experience become cursed, as in the paladin description in the previous post. Some dark and tragic event by the wielder of the item causes the item to become tainted, thus cursed.

Many of the cursed items in Kaidan, for example, have the souls of it's original wielder bound into an item giving it both enhancement qualities and a curse. A soul powered item, shouldn't be negated with a simple skill check.

 

[ComradeGnull]

That sounds like a subset of cursed items, to me. More an artifact than a simple item. Those should be difficult to destroy, turn or even neutralize for a time.

Fair point. I tend to think of cursed items that way and not really be interested in bothering with the less story-connected ones- seems like a hassle for the players without adding anything to the game. If you're picking up random cursed items that can be converted to decent items through minor activities like making a roll or two or spending some cash, it seems like you're just adding a 'treasure tax' on the reward. In general if I'm going that way, I'd rather have it add some more exciting gameplay possibilities, like having to travel somewhere or collect some plot coupons to un-curse the item, or having to research how to uncurse it.

To me, the ease of creation should link back to the ease of uncreation or modification. You can make a +1 sword, and later enhance it to a higher bonus and/or to add other effects. Removal of a detrimental effect doesn't strike me as significantly different. If the weapon has the equivalent of "+3" in negative effects, then disenchanting it could reasonably be as difficult as enchanting a +3 weapon.

This also adds the potential for adding a cursed effect to positive item and reducing the net value. Can't afford a +4 weapon? Maybe you could tack on a -1 detrimental effect to balance it out.

I would shy away from this personally because it seems like it could become ripe for abuse without careful management. You would need to ensure that players can't min/max their way to items that bump their competence at their primary competencies while nerfing things that they don't care about. But if you do that, then there is really no incentive to make a +4 sword with some -1 "equivalent" of penalties rather than just making a +3 sword.

 

[Mad Hamish]

This also adds the potential for adding a cursed effect to positive item and reducing the net value. Can't afford a +4 weapon? Maybe you could tack on a -1 detrimental effect to balance it out.

The problem with flaws is that it's commonly quite easy to find flaws that don't really affect the character.

e.g. A barbarian with the frenzied berserker and a cursed berzerking sword.

So it's really tough to do well and very easy to do badly.

Of course some cursed items have some pretty effective uses anyway...

 

[N'raac]

I'd have the same concern - any negatives would have to be policed to ensure they are detrimental. It could be an approach to a failed Spellcraft check - you get what you wanted, but there's a catch.

 

[cattoy]

PF features a list of artifacts and how they could be destroyed. I'm sure you can extrapolate a list of ways to destroy or cure cursed magic items, appropriately scaled to the power of the cursed item.