D&D 5E A subtle curse: the attunement slot?

[Quartz]

What would you say to an item that permanently - until destruction - consumes an attunement slot?

Plot bunny: a previous owner of the item is a minion of the BBEG and she approaches the PCs about destroying the item. She knows how; she just can't do it without their help.

 

[jmartkdr2]

In effect, many cursed items do this by making it impossible to un-attune the item until the curse is broken. The twist here is that breaking the curse is going to need a lot more than a 3rd-level spell slot.

Which is fair, although some players might feel like you're highjacking their pc by forcing them on a quest, rather than simply offering it and letting them choose to accept it. Depends on the player and how it's presented.

 

[Charlaquin]

Most cursed items do take up an attunement slot until the curse is removed. A cursed item that only did that would indeed be subtle, but could be pretty neat.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

What I think would be a good play, if I were doing this, is make the trade-off of losing the slot equal to another equippable item and then give them some bonus at the end - say, once it's destroyed, they get such a good reputation with whoever (whichever faction) they get advantage on social checks with them.

Also depends on how long they're expected to go without filling that slot. Are a lot of other characters maxed out on attuned items? Then giving up that slot is pretty costly - maybe give them something like the old Vow of Poverty people who got bonuses in 3e for not using magic, I think it was

 

[Benjamin Olson]

It depends. It is certainly a burden for a player who gets attuned to it. But does it really satisfy you from a lore perspective? First off the scenario requires a world so full of magic items that even an enemy minion has three other magic items they would like to have attuned. Secondly I usually treat attunement slots as a metagame concept that characters aren't really aware of per se.

So in a very magic item heavy campaign setting where attunement slots are an in-world concept I think it makes sense, and is kind of an interesting idea. For most campaigns I wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends. It is certainly a burden for a player who gets attuned to it. But does it really satisfy you from a lore perspective? First off the scenario requires a world so full of magic items that even an enemy minion has three other magic items they would like to have attuned. Secondly I usually treat attunement slots as a metagame concept that characters aren't really aware of per se.

So in a very magic item heavy campaign setting where attunement slots are an in-world concept I think it makes sense, and is kind of an interesting idea. For most campaigns I wouldn't recommend it.

Even if attunement slots aren’t an in-universe thing, the in-universe curse could just be that you can’t get rid of the item. No matter what you do to it, you end up finding it in your possession again shortly thereafter. Doesn’t do anything else but take up space, but that can be bothersome enough on its own.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm a big fan of "but also" when it comes to making cursed items.

For example, a cursed wand of fireballs. It works as described "but also" causes you to lose all of your third-level spell slots while you're attuned. A 5th or 6th level spellcaster might not mind being cursed, depending on circumstance...but around 8th or 9th level, they are going to start looking for a way to get that curse removed.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm a big fan of "but also" when it comes to making cursed items.

For example, a cursed wand of fireballs. It works as described "but also" causes you to lose all of your third-level spell slots while you're attuned. A 5th or 6th level spellcaster might not mind being cursed, depending on circumstance...but around 8th or 9th level, they are going to start looking for a way to get that curse removed.

Cursed magic items are a pain to actually use, since Remove Curse is a rather simple spell to use. I generally try to give cursed items a benefit as well as the curse, forcing players to decide if it's worth using once revealed. Even better if destroyed once uncursed, preventing them from giving it to another player or NPC.

The other option I've used the reverse-item, where the benefit is actually the opposite of what it's supposed to be. For example, a cursed Cloak of Protection would give -1AC and Saving Throws. The downside to this is that the DM needs to remember the change, and it only works when dice are rolled behind a screen.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Here I thought the thread would be about how attunement slots are a subtle curse... hmm... guess I was wrong.

 

[jayoungr]

Even if attunement slots aren’t an in-universe thing, the in-universe curse could just be that you can’t get rid of the item. No matter what you do to it, you end up finding it in your possession again shortly thereafter. Doesn’t do anything else but take up space, but that can be bothersome enough on its own.

And if the item in question has some properties that you no longer find desirable--like, say, it gives you a two-way telepathic link to the BBEG, so he always knows where you are--that's additional motivation to get rid of it.