In 3.5 Divine Health specifically states that it works on mummy rot, however there's no such statement in Pathfinder (at least, not that I've noticed). Since mummmy rot is a curse as well as a disease does Divine Health still work against it in Pathfinder? Personally, it would be nice to have some really powerful curse-diseases still work on paladins. Becoming totally immune to both fear effects and diseases so early on (3rd level) makes it really difficult to do nasty things to paladins. Giving them big bonuses to saves vs fear and disease would have been better than giving them complete immunities.
Lemme take a stab at this (and this is a total guess)- A Paladin of 3rd + level won't take Cha or Con damage from Mummy Rot, but is still cursed and any Healing spells cast on him require the DC 20 check, until the curse is removed.
Mummy Rot (Su) Curse and disease—slam; save Fort DC 16; onset 1 minute; frequency 1 day; effect 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha; cure —. Mummy rot is both a curse and disease and can only be cured if the curse is first removed, at which point the disease can be magically removed. Even after the curse element of mummy rot is lifted, a creature suffering from it cannot recover naturally over time. Anyone casting a conjuration (healing) spell on the afflicted creature must succeed on a DC 20 caster level check, or the spell is wasted and the healing has no effect. Anyone who dies from mummy rot turns to dust and cannot be raised without a resurrection or greater magic. The save DC is Charisma-based.
Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.
The curse part is what makes you lose Cha and Con.
It seems the disease part is what stops conjuratoin(healing) from helping affecting you.
I would rule they can lose con and cha due to not bring immune to curses, but they can still be healed.
Due to the strangeness of mummy rot that is just my interpretation. If you want something official the guys at Paizo should be back to a normal working schedule after the new years and I would bump this post.
The curse part is what makes you lose Cha and Con.
It seems the disease part is what stops conjuratoin(healing) from helping affecting you.
I think you have it backwards. Curses don't have frequency descriptions, diseases do.
|
I think you have it backwards. Curses don't have frequency descriptions, diseases do.The curse part is what makes you lose Cha and Con.
It seems the disease part is what stops conjuratoin(healing) from helping affecting you.
They can have frequencies, actually. Look at curse of the ages. 1/day make a save or age a year.
Lemme take a stab at this (and this is a total guess)- A Paladin of 3rd + level won't take Cha or Con damage from Mummy Rot, but is still cursed and any Healing spells cast on him require the DC 20 check, until the curse is removed.
I guess since diseases normally make you lose ability points that might be the disease, but at least we agree the pally is only immune to one half.
PS: You are correct the disease drops the ability scores. I just checked.
Look at curse of the ages. 1/day make a save or age a year.
Where is this from?
All right. I was wrong about curses not having frequently, several of the curses in the pfsrd (lycanthropy, mummy rot and curse of the ages) have frequencies.
So, I guess DM fiat reigns in rule ambiguity. Whatever effects you think the Paladin in question ought to suffer, should be applied. As long as it is a consistent ruling (i.e., any Paladin slammed by a mummy would face the same effects).
All right. I was wrong about curses not having frequently, several of the curses in the pfsrd (lycanthropy, mummy rot and curse of the ages) have frequencies.
So, I guess DM fiat reigns in rule ambiguity. Whatever effects you think the Paladin in question ought to suffer, should be applied. As long as it is a consistent ruling (i.e., any Paladin slammed by a mummy would face the same effects).
You were right about mummy rot. I had to go to the 3.5 version to get the answer though.
I really like the idea of having the "roll to heal" part as the curse and the ability damage as the disease. That should be a nasty little surprise for the paladin, hehehe. He may not take any ability damage, but he'll become much harder to heal.
@ Wraithstrike-
Actually, the OP posted because the wording has been changed since 3.5.
Without further clarification, from a PF- specific source, I think this is a grey area.
@ Wraithstrike-
Actually, the OP posted because the wording has been changed since 3.5.
Without further clarification, from a PF- specific source, I think this is a grey area.
I know, but I would suggest using the 3.5 version of mummy rot which specifically defined which part was the curse and which part was the disease, assuming being immune to half of an affect is something he would not mind. The PF version does not say which part is what. I am waiting for the 3rd printing to come out before I buy a core book, in the hope that most of the grey areas will be cleared up. There is no date on that by the way, in case you guys were wondering.