Be careful what you polymorph into…

[RSP]

But polymorph shunts it (the item and pretty much the person) into a magical "globe" if you will as they become the thing they've been polymorphed into.

Otherwise, it'd be easy to shut down big bosses with a polymorph, or even end a curse if there's a curse item attuned to a person.

If polymorph broke attunement, I'd assume it'd be in the spell description and say something along the lines "... and this would also remove cursed attunements" if it messed with attunement at all.

I don’t agree with your “shunting away” view of Polymorph. The creature very much is still there: Polymorph tells us that.

You also seem to be arguing both ways.

If the Attunement is still present, a Cursed item would persist regardless of Polymorphed form.

If Attunement goes away with changing form, then the Curse would go away as well.

The Polymorph spell doesn’t say a whole lot either way, other than what’s already been presented, so I don’t see a way to extract whether or not Attunement is maintained strictly from whether or not it’s mentioned in the rules: you could argue it’s maintained because it doesn’t say it’s broken, and argue it’s broken because it doesn’t say it’s maintained.

If a creature is targeted with Haste, then Polymorphed, is their new form still Hasted? The spell description doesn’t explicitly say either way. But it does say it’s still the same creature: which is what Polymorph targets and effects. So, since the creature didn’t change into a different creature (just a different form), it’s still the same creature under the effect of Haste.

Also, for the Reincarnation example: attunement ends when a creature dies, so it’s moot at that point.

[Chronos]

Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

[RSP]

Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

I don’t think that’s relevant as Curses are being used here.

The idea is “if a creature is Cursed by a magic item they are carrying, and that creature is Polymorphed with the cursed item melding into the new form, does the Polymorphed creature still suffer the effects of the curse?”

Basically, Polymorph states you can’t benefit from any fear, but a Curse, in theory, isn’t a benefit, so it would therefore, still be active, even when melded: “The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”

If Polymorph meant the gear no longer existed while melded, they would have said that.

To expound on this, look at Armor of Vulnerability:

“While wearing this armor, you have Resistance to one of the following damage types: bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing. The GM chooses the type or determines it randomly.
Curse. This armor is Cursed, a fact that is revealed only when an identify spell is cast on the armor or you attune to it. Attuning to the armor Curses you until you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic; removing the armor fails to end the curse. While Cursed, you have vulnerability to two of the three Damage Types associated with the armor (not the one to which it grants resistance).”

So if the Cursed wearer of the armor is Resistant to Slashing damage, while cursed with Vulnerability to Bludgeoning and Piercing, and is then Polymorphed, with the armor melding into the new form, the cursed creature is now Vulnerable to Bludgeoning and Piercing, but loses the Resistance to Slashing (because they cannot benefit from equipment that’s melded).

The benefits are lost, but not any detrimental effects.

[Tawmis]

I don’t agree with your “shunting away” view of Polymorph. The creature very much is still there: Polymorph tells us that.
You also seem to be arguing both ways.
Also, for the Reincarnation example: attunement ends when a creature dies, so it’s moot at that point.

True about death and attunement.
However, wasn't arguing both ways - was saying that attunement wouldn't break for polymorph. Because I believe the spell would say something if it did.
"A polymorphed creature will lose any attunement to items" or something to that degree.
Because that would be a big thing to note in a spell if it did that.

Are there even any cursed items that have prerequisites for their attunement?

Yes. Things like Armor of Vulnerability.

[greenstone]

To me, Polymorph would not break attunement - because the item shifts.

What if it doesn't?

Consider an elf attuned to an item that requires attunement by an elf. The elf is polymorphed into a bear while not holding the item. What happens now?

[Thunderous Mojo]

Consider an elf attuned to an item that requires attunement by an elf. The elf is polymorphed into a bear while not holding the item. What happens now?

If the Elf was 100’ away from the item for 24 Hours, the Elf already lost Attunement.

Cause and Effect, are important concepts.

The Polymorph spell details that a creature and their items transform into the new form. The item is suppressed. Applying Causality to only the creature, and not to it’s items is an error in reasoning.

If the following clause is interpreted, literally:
“ The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”
…….then cursed items, might still have their curse in effect.
It depends upon how one interprets the word ‘Benefit’ given the context.

Armor of Vulnerability requires one to be wearing the armor, which as we can see from the Polymorph spell is prohibited. One isn’t using melded armor.

[Chronos]

Quoth Thunderous Mojo:

If the Elf was 100’ away from the item for 24 Hours, the Elf already lost Attunement.

Sure, but what if they weren't?

Quoth Tamis:

Yes. Things like Armor of Vulnerability.

What prerequisite does that have?

[RSP]

s.
The Polymorph spell details that a creature and their items transform into the new form. The item is suppressed. Applying Causality to only the creature, and not to its items is an error in reasoning.

If the item is suppressed, why then state the creature cannot benefit from the items? (Also, where does it say the item is suppressed?)

If the following clause is interpreted, literally:
“ The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.”
…….then cursed items, might still have their curse in effect.
It depends upon how one interprets the word ‘Benefit’ given the context.

Armor of Vulnerability requires one to be wearing the armor, which as we can see from the Polymorph spell is prohibited. One isn’t using melded armor.

there’s no legitimate way to interpret Vulnerability to two of Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning as benefits.

And no, you do not need to be wearing the armor to suffer the curse:

“Attuning to the armor Curses you until you are targeted by the remove curse spell or similar magic; removing the armor fails to end the curse. While Cursed, you have vulnerability to two of the three Damage Types associated with the armor (not the one to which it grants resistance).”

The Curse maintains.

True about death and attunement.
However, wasn't arguing both ways - was saying that attunement wouldn't break for polymorph. Because I believe the spell would say something if it did.
"A polymorphed creature will lose any attunement to items" or something to that degree.
Because that would be a big thing to note in a spell if it did that.

For the record, I don’t think anyone is suggesting merely polymorphing ends all attunement.

The rules state the attunement ends if a prerequisite for attunement is no longer met, so the idea is if Polymorph takes away a prerequisite (either class based, like Spellcasting; or racial based), then that attunement would end.

[Thunderous Mojo]

If the item is suppressed, why then state the creature cannot benefit from the items? (Also, where does it say the item is suppressed?)

Here: The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

Logically, melded equipment can’t be used by anyone. I would find it nonsensical to rule that a PC turned into a newt couldn’t use their transformed Torches and Oil, but someone else could.

How exactly would this third party grab the Torch and Oil from the Newt?
Would they become King of Britain if they draw the Torch from the Polymorphed Newt, like King Arthur Drawing Excalibur from a stone?🃏

The logical conclusion of melded equipment, is it is unusable by anyone, would you not agree?

there’s no legitimate way to interpret Vulnerability to two of Slashing/Piercing/Bludgeoning as benefits.

There are plenty of “legitimate” ways to read the word “benefit” in the above sentence as meaning ‘interact’ with the melded equipment.

It just require a less than literal, word by word, reading.

[Spider_Jerusalem]

I don't know if this has been said here before, but the truly scary part of this thought is applying Polymorph to an enemy BBEG with the specific intention of breaking attunement, or said BBEG doing that to a PC, and it working just like that.

"You break the evil wizard's concentration, now your Paladin friend is not a rat anymore. Also, he can't use his Holy Avenger during the fight, because the attunement was lost" is a big turn from an epic comeback to frustration. I see the point of the post, but it really doesn't seem to be the intention of the spell, and I wouldn't ever run it like that.

[RSP]

Here: The target's gear melds into the new form. The creature can't activate, use, wield, or otherwise benefit from any of its equipment.

Logically, melded equipment can’t be used by anyone. I would find it nonsensical to rule that a PC turned into a newt couldn’t use their transformed Torches and Oil, but someone else could.

How exactly would this third party grab the Torch and Oil from the Newt?
Would they become King of Britain if they draw the Torch from the Polymorphed Newt, like King Arthur Drawing Excalibur from a stone?🃏

The logical conclusion of melded equipment, is it is unusable by anyone, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn’t. If the rule was meant to be the items stop existing, or were completely without effect, the rule would have stated that.

As discussed, I think it’s 100% logical that cursed and negative effects persist, assuming they’re connected to the creature (and not the form).

If a creature takes a magic weapon that has been ritually bound to a Warlock as a Pact Weapon, and that creature is then Polymorphed, is their Pact Weapon now non-existent?

I’d say it still exists. Ruling wise, I’d allow the Warlock to summon the weapon (though this is DM ruling territory as there is no RAW about this). If I’m the player of the Warlock, I’d not want my class power to be so easily negated.

There are plenty of “legitimate” ways to read the word “benefit” in the above sentence as meaning ‘interact’ with the melded equipment.

It just require a less than literal, word by word, reading.

If you wish to argue that being vulnerable to two of S/P/B is a “benefit” in 5e, knock yourself out: but I’ll disagree.

I don't know if this has been said here before, but the truly scary part of this thought is applying Polymorph to an enemy BBEG with the specific intention of breaking attunement, or said BBEG doing that to a PC, and it working just like that.

"You break the evil wizard's concentration, now your Paladin friend is not a rat anymore. Also, he can't use his Holy Avenger during the fight, because the attunement was lost" is a big turn from an epic comeback to frustration. I see the point of the post, but it really doesn't seem to be the intention of the spell, and I wouldn't ever run it like that.

The conversation has touched on it being a valid way to play: it’s probably just not the most fun way, given what player expectations are.