What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
A brief search on the Internet sees opinions on both sides. On the one
hand, from a gameplay perspective, it would seem silly for a cleric to
cast "cure disease" on player 1 only for him to immediately get
re-infected by player 2, also suffering from the same ailment. On the
other hand, 2nd edition rules do actually specify reoccurrence is
possible, and granting immunity would minimize the threat of things
like werewolves or gargoyles; get bit, get the cure and then never
worry about their infectious properties again!
Personally, I think I would play it with the immunity angle, albeit
only for that very specific strain, somewhat similar to how modern
vaccines work. You'll be safe from the flu this year, but watch out
next winter! Things like lycanthropy and vampirism wouldn't be
affected, since - despite spell description claims to the contrary -
I've always considered them more of a curse than a disease.
I've not used disease too much in my games. The setting for one of my
current campaigns suffered through a plague prior to the adventure
start, but I've used it mostly as backstory than anything that really
affects gameplay. I mostly avoid creatures that give disease from
attacks, and with the ever-useful "cure wounds" spells, the PCs rarely
have to worry about infection. I'm tempted to run a plague-campaign,
but it might be a bit too on-the-nose to be comfortable for my players
right now.
What are your thoughts on the matter? How effective is cure disease
RAW, and how would you interpret it for your own campaigns? Have you
used disease much in your own adventures?
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
A brief search on the Internet sees opinions on both sides. On the one
hand, from a gameplay perspective, it would seem silly for a cleric to
cast "cure disease" on player 1 only for him to immediately get
re-infected by player 2, also suffering from the same ailment. On the
other hand, 2nd edition rules do actually specify reoccurrence is
possible, and granting immunity would minimize the threat of things
like werewolves or gargoyles; get bit, get the cure and then never
worry about their infectious properties again!
Personally, I think I would play it with the immunity angle, albeit
only for that very specific strain, somewhat similar to how modern
vaccines work. You'll be safe from the flu this year, but watch out
next winter! Things like lycanthropy and vampirism wouldn't be
affected, since - despite spell description claims to the contrary -
I've always considered them more of a curse than a disease.
I've not used disease too much in my games. The setting for one of my
current campaigns suffered through a plague prior to the adventure
start, but I've used it mostly as backstory than anything that really
affects gameplay. I mostly avoid creatures that give disease from
attacks, and with the ever-useful "cure wounds" spells, the PCs rarely
have to worry about infection. I'm tempted to run a plague-campaign,
but it might be a bit too on-the-nose to be comfortable for my players
right now.
What are your thoughts on the matter? How effective is cure disease
RAW, and how would you interpret it for your own campaigns? Have you
used disease much in your own adventures?
Le lundi 2 mars 2020 17:52:31 UTC+1, Spalls Hurgenson a écrit :
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
A brief search on the Internet sees opinions on both sides. On the one hand, from a gameplay perspective, it would seem silly for a cleric to
cast "cure disease" on player 1 only for him to immediately get
re-infected by player 2, also suffering from the same ailment. On the
other hand, 2nd edition rules do actually specify reoccurrence is
possible, and granting immunity would minimize the threat of things
like werewolves or gargoyles; get bit, get the cure and then never
worry about their infectious properties again!
Personally, I think I would play it with the immunity angle, albeit
only for that very specific strain, somewhat similar to how modern
vaccines work. You'll be safe from the flu this year, but watch out
next winter! Things like lycanthropy and vampirism wouldn't be
affected, since - despite spell description claims to the contrary -
I've always considered them more of a curse than a disease.
I've not used disease too much in my games. The setting for one of my current campaigns suffered through a plague prior to the adventure
start, but I've used it mostly as backstory than anything that really affects gameplay. I mostly avoid creatures that give disease from
attacks, and with the ever-useful "cure wounds" spells, the PCs rarely
have to worry about infection. I'm tempted to run a plague-campaign,
but it might be a bit too on-the-nose to be comfortable for my players right now.
What are your thoughts on the matter? How effective is cure disease
RAW, and how would you interpret it for your own campaigns? Have you
used disease much in your own adventures?
a high CON stat provides a good Toxins resistance;
then some corroded weapons might spread diseases
:)
Le mardi 3 mars 2020 14:29:53 UTC+1, uglyvan a écrit :
Le lundi 2 mars 2020 17:52:31 UTC+1, Spalls Hurgenson a écrit :
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
A brief search on the Internet sees opinions on both sides. On the one hand, from a gameplay perspective, it would seem silly for a cleric to cast "cure disease" on player 1 only for him to immediately get re-infected by player 2, also suffering from the same ailment. On the other hand, 2nd edition rules do actually specify reoccurrence is possible, and granting immunity would minimize the threat of things
like werewolves or gargoyles; get bit, get the cure and then never
worry about their infectious properties again!
Personally, I think I would play it with the immunity angle, albeit
only for that very specific strain, somewhat similar to how modern vaccines work. You'll be safe from the flu this year, but watch out
next winter! Things like lycanthropy and vampirism wouldn't be
affected, since - despite spell description claims to the contrary -
I've always considered them more of a curse than a disease.
I've not used disease too much in my games. The setting for one of my current campaigns suffered through a plague prior to the adventure
start, but I've used it mostly as backstory than anything that really affects gameplay. I mostly avoid creatures that give disease from attacks, and with the ever-useful "cure wounds" spells, the PCs rarely have to worry about infection. I'm tempted to run a plague-campaign,
but it might be a bit too on-the-nose to be comfortable for my players right now.
What are your thoughts on the matter? How effective is cure disease
RAW, and how would you interpret it for your own campaigns? Have you
used disease much in your own adventures?
a high CON stat provides a good Toxins resistance;
then some corroded weapons might spread diseases
:)
( I thought that CON was about Bones and Nerves, that is , Physical or BODY; actually, these derivate from STR )
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
What are your thoughts on the matter? How effective is cure disease
RAW, and how would you interpret it for your own campaigns? Have you
used disease much in your own adventures?
It happens that Spalls Hurgenson formulated :
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
What is this "strain" or "immunity" you talk about? We all know that diseases are bad spirits, born on the winds. A cure disease will
banish the spirit back to where it came from - one spirit, one cast,
until such time as the spirit may return.
Now the results of what the spirit has done may linger, but the spirit
is gone from the material world. Unless you go on a spirit journey to
meet and destroy the spirit itself. Or summon it back and use it to infect/affect others. Note that these spirits can be drawn to the
material world through bad juju or to bad locations of their own free
will as well.
In other words, it is magic - don't mix the magic and the mundane.
On Tuesday, March 3, 2020 at 7:21:45 PM UTC-8, Michael Cole wrote:
It happens that Spalls Hurgenson formulated :
What with COVID-19 making such a splash in the news these days, I've
been thinking about plagues in D&D, which in turn led to me to wonder:
Does the spell "Cure Disease" just remove a disease from the target,
or does it also provide immunity to that particular strain?
What is this "strain" or "immunity" you talk about? We all know that diseases are bad spirits, born on the winds. A cure disease will
banish the spirit back to where it came from - one spirit, one cast,
until such time as the spirit may return.
Now the results of what the spirit has done may linger, but the spirit
is gone from the material world. Unless you go on a spirit journey to meet and destroy the spirit itself. Or summon it back and use it to infect/affect others. Note that these spirits can be drawn to the material world through bad juju or to bad locations of their own free
will as well.
In other words, it is magic - don't mix the magic and the mundane.
I've thought about doing that, but then you really need an exorcism spell instead, and it's pretty clear from whence they first appeared in 1e that diseases are closer to real world diseases than malevolent spirits.
- Justisaur
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 185 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 169:07:48 |
| Calls: | 3,766 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,191 |
| Messages: | 3,474,219 |