Ring of Clumsiness Question

[Korwynne]

I'm new to GM'ing and I tossed a cursed ring into the adventure. Now I'm trying to identify the best way to play it out. A party member was rewarded with a ring of clumsiness after a large battle in which he was poisoned and took massive damage (including Str damage as well).

The ring was identified by a party member as a ring of feather fall (passed the DC, but not by more than 10).

The player put the ring on. Assuming they catch no notion of trickery around how they acquired the ring in the first place...

1) Regarding the ring description, there's no mention of how to take the ring off. Once they figure out the damage is related to the ring, can they simply discard it? It seems like a lot of other cursed items specifically say "cannot be removed until..." or "need to cast remove curse to remove the item..." This item just states the affect and leaves it at that. On the flip side, there is a passage under cursed items that states: "While some cursed items can be simply be discarded, others force a compulsion on the user to keep them. Others reappear even if discarded or are impossible to throw away. A remove curse spell can allow the item to be discarded, but the curse reasserts itself if the item is used again."

If the item can simply be discarded, once identified...
2) The cursed item is the difference between two-weapon fighting and really clumsy non-two weapon proficient fighting for this character. Is it an easy lift to at least notice something is off the next fight they get into? Or the next Dex-based skill check? Would I just give an odds?

If the item cannot be discarded and a remove curse is used...
3) This is a specific cursed item, that does both feather fall, and -4 to dex and 20% arcane spell failure. Some items, when remove curse is cast, will revert to the intended original magical item from which the item was crafted. In the text for the remove curse spell, it states if the DC is met, the curse is removed (except for cursed shields, weapons, and suits of armor). By "curse is removed", does that
a) mean the wearer can remove the cursed item this round, or
b) mean the cursed item is no longer cursed, and now is a ring of feather fall, or
c) mean that the cursed item is no longer cursed and is now a ring with no magical properties at all?

I think the way I want to play it is:
1) The PC knows the ring is cursed. I can't imagine what losing 4 points to an ability score would actually feel like, but I can't imagine not feeling *something*. Also, the NPCs that provided the ring are still around and have never been allies of the group. If not immediate, a series of sense motive checks should identify the curse in relatively short time... right?

2) The ring cannot be removed. If I'm going to let the dex damage be noticed (immediately), it doesn't make sense that the ring can simply be discarded. Per the rules of removing cursed items, it can either force a compulsion, or the ring keeps coming back, or it's impossible to throw away, or it's easy to throw away... It seems like this leaves a little discretion in crafting cursed items for a gaming situation. When I initially rolled for the ring in setting up the game and read the description, I assumed specified cursed items were of a more devious nature than common cursed items.

3) When remove curse is cast successfully, I'll allow the curse to be removed, transforming the ring into a ring of feather fall.

That isn't quite RAW, but I feel like I'm not a good enough GM to play out "figuring out the ring is cursed" without a lot of meta-gaming taking place. I'd love to hear other takes or feedback around this item. It seems like the description of either "specified cursed items", this specific ring's description, or the "remove curse" spell, could've used a little more explanation.

The way I read the rules as written:
1) The ring is not initially identifiable.

2) Once identified as causing the effect, it can be removed and discarded at the will of the player.

3) Remove curse = the curse is completely removed, transforming the ring into simply a ring of feather fall...

... although I couldn't really tell if the ring could also just be a cursed item, in which case remove curse would allow it to be removed, but it'd pass on the same curse if it's ever worn again. Getting back to the remove curse spell, it seems fairly limiting that ALL items EXCEPT armor, shields, and weapons would be de-cursed with 1 successful remove spell.

Thanks in advance - I look forward to any feedback or similar experiences with cursed loot as GMs or as PCs.

[Lincoln Hills]

The usual concept behind using remove curse is that it temporarily removes the "stickiness" that makes it difficult/impossible to remove the item, but the item itself is not 'cured' - the same wearer putting it on again later suffers the penalties, as does any new person who dons the ring.

(That said, if you're falling from a tremendous height and have time to go through your belt pouch, putting on the ring of clumsiness a second time is still preferable to 20d6 falling damage.)

[Korwynne]

That's the issue though - there's no 'stickiness' implied in the item description. A lot of the other items in the cursed items section explains the stickiness and what happens when remove curse is cast. This item doesn't spell it out.

And further, I had the description of Remove Curse sent to me:
"Success means the curse is removed. Remove curse does not remove the curse from a cursed shield, weapon, or suit of armor." If I made the call that it was sticky, I could get player push-back.

[Lincoln Hills]

Then I wouldn't implement it - unless you're comfortable house-ruling that it does. The ring's curse becomes a one-time "ignorance penalty" and the character now has a ring of feather falling with the rather vital restriction, "Not to be worn when a fight is imminent!" Kinda like that one hobbit who had a handy ring of invisibility with the drawback, "Worse than useless against the villain or his nastiest henchmen."

[Korwynne]

So, I guess I have two questions...
1) for specified cursed items outside of the cursed item creation tables, can I assume stickiness, if not elsewhere specified?, and
2) for the remove curse spell, is the wording a little too specific? It identifies only cursed armor, shields, and weapons as being sticky if you read it exactly.

[Tarantula]

1) I don't think items are sticky unless they specifically state as such.
"Removing Cursed Items: While some cursed items can be simply discarded, others force a compulsion upon the user to keep the item, no matter the costs. Others reappear even if discarded or are impossible to throw away. These items can only be discarded after the character or item is targeted by a remove curse or similar magic. The DC of the caster level check to undo the curse is equal to 10 + the item's caster level. If the spell is successful, the item can be discarded on the following round, but the curse reasserts itself if the item is used again."
2) If the item is sticky, you can remove/discard it after having passed the caster level check. It still is a cursed item. This is evident by the fact that if the spell was successful, the curse reasserts itself if you use the item again.

[Korwynne]

Thanks, that clears it up for me.

And since this item is not sticky, then removing the curse would make it a standard ring of feather fall.

So for role-play's sake:
If the item is not sticky, but when you put it on you apply a -4 DEX ability modifier, how noticeable would that be? What would be reasonable methods for the character to figure that out? Would the GM track the dex modifiers separately, or do you clue the player in above the table?

[Tarantula]

From looking at the other items, many of them state that the effect is not noticeable. I would say the next time they make a d20 roll that utilizes the dex modifier(ranged attack,acrobatics,whatever), tell them they have a -4 dex modifier now (net -2 on the roll) and that something feels off about how they were able to execute whatever it was. They can reason out what they did recently that may have caused it. (Or might waste time checking for poisons, diseases, etc.)

[DM_Blake]

Tarantula wrote:

1) I don't think items are sticky unless they specifically state as such.

"Removing Cursed Items: While some cursed items can be simply discarded, others force a compulsion upon the user to keep the item, no matter the costs. Others reappear even if discarded or are impossible to throw away. These items can only be discarded after the character or item is targeted by a remove curse or similar magic. The DC of the caster level check to undo the curse is equal to 10 + the item's caster level. If the spell is successful, the item can be discarded on the following round, but the curse reasserts itself if the item is used again."
2) If the item is sticky, you can remove/discard it after having passed the caster level check. It still is a cursed item. This is evident by the fact that if the spell was successful, the curse reasserts itself if you use the item again.

This.

The Cursed Items section says this:

"Occasionally they [cursed items] mix bad with good, forcing characters to make difficult choices."

In other words, some cursed items are both useful and cursed. Those tend not to be sticky. Other items are simply cursed with no use. The difference is that if the item is only a curse, everyone would immediately throw it away and/or destroy it. But if the item is useful and cursed, some people might carry it around and use it when they can, dealing with the curse if they have to.

So, items that say you can't get rid of them say this for a reason. Other items that don't say it, especially when there is a clear and obvious benefit like the Ring of Clumsiness (the benefit is Feather Fall), these are the kinds of items that supposedly force "characters to make difficult choices" about whether to get rid of it or use it despite the drawbacks.

In the case of this ring, the curse seems far more disadvantageous than the benefit, unless the owner has a habit of climbing tall cliffs or riding dragons without seat belts or some such, so the choice seems an easy one.

[Lincoln Hills]

Interesting: the PRD shows that your reading is correct, although I'm almost certain that the Rules-as-Intended meant for any and all cursed items to remain items-that-convey-curses. (Otherwise it'd be odd that only armor, weapons and shields are so utterly cursed when every other item can be "fixed" with the wave of a wand.)

[Korwynne]

Cool - well, I spilled the beans on this one too early. I made the player aware right away, when they put it on. Going forward, I'll play my cards a little closer to my chest. Thanks for the advice! Great stuff!

[zylphryx]

It all depends on the group you play with.

The first time they make a DEX check or DEX based attack, you could either tell them, "be sure to include XYZ penalty to your DEX based rolls" ... if they ask why, you can tell them their PC is not sure, but the PC does "feel a bit off".

Or you could just tell them they are wearing a cursed ring and to apply penalty XYZ.

Bottom line is that the item itself is an encounter of sorts. Either you play through it or you handwave it, just as any other encounter. Whichever one your PCs would enjoy playing through more is the way to go.