D&D 5E Curse effects and Remove Curse

[DEFCON 1]

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but all of this doesn't change that I want to know how this conundrum has been handled - officially - in the past.

Thx

Like I said above, as far as I'm aware, nothing have officially been said one way or the other. Thus, what appears to be the case at first blush is probably the way it was intended-- low-level spells that remove the conditions they specify are meant to be removed at the levels those spells are at.

 

[Rils]

I don't have a tweet or interview to cite, but as far as "WotC precedent" goes, there's an example from Perkins' DCA game where removing a curse required more than just "cast convenient spell". I'd say spoilers, but the episode is like a year old now, so whatever. One of the characters made a deal with a Dark Power - perk, they got a couple free uses of Raise Dead; con, they slowly turned into a ghoul. Per RAW, a Remove Curse should have fixed it. When the players tried it, he said "didn't work". However, on the fly, the players tried using a dead saint's ashes mixed in a healing potion to try and heal him. After a couple rounds of saving throws and taking several d10s of damage while he puked black ichor, the curse was removed. I believe this was a completely spontaneous ruling; Chris was clearly surprised by the character's plan and, because it was a cool plot idea, made it work.

I borrowed that idea for my own CoS campaign, where a couple of my players picked up "Dark Gifts" ala the AL death rules. One was turning into a Creature from the Black Lagoon fish-man - scales, fish funk (disadv on Cha checks) and all. The other was turning into a ghost. Again, RAW a "remove curse" should have fixed that. Inspired by Perkins, I instead created scenarios where the curse could be removed but at a cost. Step 1, only the hags have the magic required, so you have to make a deal with them (always a losing proposition). Step 2, the cures involved flavorfully taking a ton of damage, which if you survive, you're cured. (Side note, there are lots of other things I could have done besides damage, but next stop was Strahd's castle, and I wanted them to have to choose between burning healing resources or living with the downsides of the curses - offering both IC and OOC considerations because I know my players think that way).

So, all that to say - actual gameplay evidence shows WotC staff changing curse rules on the fly to make for a better story. Not to be trite, but if the Curse rules don't work for you, don't use them. As mentioned above, madness is an interesting system you could use for it. Or, just make it work the way you want it to - that's entirely your prerogative.

I'm with [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] in suggesting play the alignment change "under the table" with that player. Take LotR as inspiration, and use the cursed item as a character plot development arc, rather than just a mechanical thing. Maybe the character doesn't even know about the downside of the dagger at first. After a few uses, he gets hooked on it - and then you tell him in private that its weird, he's finding he enjoys killing things, and the rush of the power that comes with it. With that warning, a few more uses later, it's affecting his judgement, and he moves an alignment square. He tries to get rid of it, but it's not that easy. Some sort of cost (quest, atonement, bargain, whatever) needs to be paid to be rid of the item. But does the character (not the player) even want that? Etc.

If your players are the rules-legal types who won't just play along with your story, just tell them it's not a "cursed item", its a property of the item that it causes the alignment shift and therefor remove curse doesn't work on it. The joy of homebrewed magic items, can't argue with that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but all of this doesn't change that I want to know how this conundrum has been handled - officially - in the past.

How has an item you created been handled, officially, in the past?
It hasn't been, you created it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but all of this doesn't change that I want to know how this conundrum has been handled - officially - in the past.

Thx

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I cannot think of an instance of this coming up in the books so far....I'm not aware of any cursed items playing such a strong role in any published 5E module to need additional rules associated with it. I think in general, the Remove Curse spell would remove the compulsion to use a cursed item. The spell itself is comparable to Bestow Curse, both are 3rd level spells, so that seems to be deliberate by design. If you can Bestow Curse at 5th level, makes sense that you can Remove Curse at 5th level.

I think if you want a curse or a cursed item to play a larger role in the story to the point that the resolution would be beyond Remove Curse, then you should incorporate that into the item's design.

Having said that, I would ask if this item actually needs to be cursed? If you want to challenge the PC's morals and tempt him with power versus alignment shift, I think simply making the item clearly evil but not cursed may be the way to go. This puts the decision to use it or not directly in the PC's hands, and makes any use of it and subsequent alignment shift beyond the help of Remove Curse.

If he's compelled to use the item, is it really accomplishing what you want?

If you decide you do want to leave the item cursed, then I would say that whatever you decide removes the compulsion to use the item (Remove Curse or something more elaborate) would remove the compulsion, and any initial alignment change, perhaps, but then any further use of the cursed weapon would be a willful act of evil, and therefore any alignment shift for that would not be a part of the curse.

 

[CapnZapp]

I cannot think of an instance of this coming up in the books so far....

Thank you.

Perhaps someone else has...?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[hawkeyefan]

Thank you.

Perhaps someone else has...?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The closest thing I am aware of is the example [MENTION=78768]Rils[/MENTION] gave above from Dice, Camera, Action.....I had not even thought about that until I read his example. I don't know if DCA is acceptable to you, but it may be the best example you're likely to get.

Good luck!

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Am I missing something or are there several effects in the game that are trivial to remove once the party spellcaster is off the lowest levels? What is the designer's intentions in these cases?

Let's take a particular example:

I invented a cursed dagger that "collect souls" each time it's used to down a foe, and can then be used by its wielder to inflict "evil" damage on a foe spending that energy.

(Mechanically, the dagger can store up to four charges, that can be used for a an automatic Inflict Wounds when you hit, cast at the spell level of the number of charges currently held; so +3d10 necrotic bonus weapon damage if the dagger is used while holding a single charge up to 6d10 at spell level four)

This can be used once a day.

Now, the "hidden" curse part (that Identify et al won't detect): each time the dagger is used this way, roll d20. On a 1, wielder's alignment shifts one step towards chaotic evil.

My RAI is: if a character wants to benefit from this dagger, he needs to risk getting alignment changes. If an alignment shift is absolutely unacceptable, he should have to stop using the dagger to inflict wounds on his foes. Having the party cleric cast Remove Curse once every twenty days on average is not meant to be a solution.
​

To my question:

What stops the adventurers from simply casting Remove Curse (or a similar spell; Protection from Good and Evil, Dispel Magic, Greater Restoration perhaps) to reset the adventurer's alignment each time it shifts, essentially getting to use an evil cursed item for "free"?

I'm not asking for advice along the lines "you can always keep the alignment shifts secret from the players, and simply remove that PC once he or she turns evil". I want the player to know the tradeoff and I want to present the player with a choice: to make an informed decision whether to keep using the item or not, and that means that once he uses the dagger for the first time, he needs to learn the full mechanics.

I'm wondering about what the RAW and RAI is here.

Is the design intent of the rules really to make curses trivially lifted? (Apart from artifact-strength curses that require you to cast the item into the Volcano of Doom etc).

Is there any precedent for ruling something like "sure, you can temporarily lift the alignment change, but if you keep using the dagger, you aren't really fighting the change in personality".

Or something like "the spell saves you from the effects of your alignment shift, but to truly reverse the changed alignment you must atone, by willingly leave the dagger behind and/or leaving the dagger to a Cleric for ritual cleansing that destroys the dagger"

Or something else along similar lines...

Asking because regular cursed items have curiously little in the way of actual mechanics. They mostly just say "this sword makes you fight backwards until the curse is lifted" which is pretty much a trivial thing once you get the right spell for that, and then you toss the sword and move on.

Do you have any examples of curses that remain somewhat bothersome even after the party reaches a level where the "counter-curse spells" become available. Precedent of a more involved, a more story-based approach, where getting rid of curses (including alignment changes) become more of a thing than "I cast a spell, fixed, let's take a long rest and move on" where the total cost is close to zero.

I'm primarily looking for official first-party 5E examples created by the official WotC 5E design team (with direct oversight by MMearls, Crawford & Co).

Thanks for any insight

To me, once the alignment shift is done, there is no curse to be lifted. The damage is done. Remove curse would be needed to un-attune with the dagger.

Don't have any books handy to search for actual examples. But I would consider it along the lines of a backbiter sword. You can remove the curse to get rid of the weapon, but you still suffer the damage you caused when hitting yourself.

 

[Krachek]

Instead of alignment shifting you start to describe the world based on evil alignment for the player who use the item.

You are sure he lie to you...
The trader have not give you the right count of money,..
The innkeeper look at your purse with envy...
Your are sure that there is a lot of gold in that safe...

It is a kind of madness, and there is no cure other than stop using the item.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

To me, once the alignment shift is done, there is no curse to be lifted. The damage is done. Remove curse would be needed to un-attune with the dagger.

Don't have any books handy to search for actual examples. But I would consider it along the lines of a backbiter sword. You can remove the curse to get rid of the weapon, but you still suffer the damage you caused when hitting yourself.

OK, precedents:

Armor of Vulnerability: While wearing it you have vulnerability to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. You must cast remove curse to be able to un-attune to the armor. You don't heal the damage taken while you were cursed (including being killed), you just aren't vulnerable to it anymore.

A major detrimental property for artifacts includes: "when you become attuned to the artifact, you gain a form of long-term madness." It doesn't have anything to say about whether it goes away if you give up the artifact (I would rule that it doesn't, it's not worded "while you are attuned to the artifact"). No mention of ending it via remove curse either.

Madness in OotA. The madness doesn't go away, even after the source is gone. You can recover with the normal methods, or also remove curse or dispel evil.

So there you go - two different approaches. One in which the cursed effects don't go away, and one in which they can be removed by low level spells.

That being said, the default is that there is a way to end most detrimental effects, and more often than not it's relatively easy to do so. That seems to be a design approach for 5e. Having said that, I don't see any reason why some curses can't be more difficult to remove.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to rule that a given curse can't be lifted until certain circumstances are met, as that's a pretty standard trope.

I would also use the approach madness does for your alignment thing. Instead of marking them as closer to chaotic evil, given them a flaw that makes them act more that way.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I'm not sure about any cannon examples from WotC. However, when it comes to Remove Curse, I have considered a few ways to make it more interesting than "Hey man, that thing looks cursed. Let me touch you and take care of it. Ah, all better."

1) Make it similar to Dispel Magic or Counterspell. When you cast Remove Curse, it removes a curse up to the spell level equivalent you use to cast Remove Curse. Higher spell-equivalent curses require a successful caster check DC 10+ effective spell level of the curse.

2) More difficult curses may be temporarily nullified by a casting of Remove Curse, but require several successful castings in order to remove the cursed item or destroy the curses effects on the person.

3) Part of the curse may be an instantaneous effect that cannot be undone by removing the curse. An example might be an armor that grafts to your skin. Remove curse allows you to attempt to surgically remove the armor, but you still are left needing skill to remove the armor competently without killing the person, and being able to provide for their care while they heal. In fact, it might be that like above, the Remove Curse spell must be cast at regular intervals or the armor may begin to reattach itself to the wearer if the process of removal is not complete.

Another example is any physical transformation, harm, or change in mental capacity. If the curse transforms you into a werewolf, you can cast remove curse, but all that does is allow other transmutative or healing magic to take effect. If a curse removes your memories or causes madness, removing the curse wouldn't necessarily reverse the effects, but rather allows for something to intervene and allow healing to take place.

4) [MENTION=20323]Quickleaf[/MENTION] had a good idea that I will be stealing, which is the necessity of including components in the casting specific to the curse you need to remove. The more exotic/powerful the curse, the rarer/harder to find the components.