Mummy Rot vs. Paladin


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

Looking for a semi-official ruling from the Paizo staff on some rules ambiguity resulting from a mummy's mummy rot vs. a paldin's divine health as it has come up in our campaign.

As the Core Rulebook states, at 3rd lvl a paladin becomes immune to all diseases, including magical and supernatural diseases. As the Bestiary states, mummy rot is both a curse and a disease. The 3.5 paladin entry explicitly included mummy rot amongst the magical diseases that paladins were immune to, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook does not make this distinction and the addition of the curse aspect to mummy rot is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for the monster's entry. Discussion in another thread suggests breaking the ability into its two component parts - having a paladin affected by the curse aspect (taking 1d6 Con and Cha on a failed save - save frequency 1/day) while immune to the disease aspect (no natural healing and a caster level check required for magical healing). That seems like a good compromise and is what I'm leaning towards, but want to make the correct ruling according to the intentions of the RAW (rules as written). Any help/guidance here is greatly appreciated.

The Exchange

I'm pretty sure Mummy Rot always took a Remove Curse in addition to Remove Disease to get rid of, so the Curse aspect isn't new, but I think the division of which effect comes from which part is new. Your interpretation seems logical at first glance.


Michael Cummings wrote:

Looking for a semi-official ruling from the Paizo staff on some rules ambiguity resulting from a mummy's mummy rot vs. a paldin's divine health as it has come up in our campaign.

As the Core Rulebook states, at 3rd lvl a paladin becomes immune to all diseases, including magical and supernatural diseases. As the Bestiary states, mummy rot is both a curse and a disease. The 3.5 paladin entry explicitly included mummy rot amongst the magical diseases that paladins were immune to, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook does not make this distinction and the addition of the curse aspect to mummy rot is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for the monster's entry. Discussion in another thread suggests breaking the ability into its two component parts - having a paladin affected by the curse aspect (taking 1d6 Con and Cha on a failed save - save frequency 1/day) while immune to the disease aspect (no natural healing and a caster level check required for magical healing). That seems like a good compromise and is what I'm leaning towards, but want to make the correct ruling according to the intentions of the RAW (rules as written). Any help/guidance here is greatly appreciated.

This came up for me a while back, but I never figured an answer out. I think I just ended up changing monsters to avoid making a ruling.


Michael Cummings wrote:

Looking for a semi-official ruling from the Paizo staff on some rules ambiguity resulting from a mummy's mummy rot vs. a paldin's divine health as it has come up in our campaign.

As the Core Rulebook states, at 3rd lvl a paladin becomes immune to all diseases, including magical and supernatural diseases. As the Bestiary states, mummy rot is both a curse and a disease. The 3.5 paladin entry explicitly included mummy rot amongst the magical diseases that paladins were immune to, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook does not make this distinction and the addition of the curse aspect to mummy rot is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for the monster's entry. Discussion in another thread suggests breaking the ability into its two component parts - having a paladin affected by the curse aspect (taking 1d6 Con and Cha on a failed save - save frequency 1/day) while immune to the disease aspect (no natural healing and a caster level check required for magical healing). That seems like a good compromise and is what I'm leaning towards, but want to make the correct ruling according to the intentions of the RAW (rules as written). Any help/guidance here is greatly appreciated.

FWIW i believe they are immune.


In 1E and 2E, they were not immune to Lycanthropy an Mummy Rot as they were considered curses, not diseases. In 3E Paladins were immune to both afflictions (both were changed to diseases). I didn't know Paladins kept that immunity in 3.5E. I don't see any mention of it in my PHB or the SRD.

In 3.5E Mummy Rot was both a curse and a disease. The curse had to be lifted before the disease could be cured. Also, in 3.5E, Lycantropy was changed to a curse, it could no longer be cured by Remove Disease like in 3E.


Michael Cummings wrote:

Looking for a semi-official ruling from the Paizo staff on some rules ambiguity resulting from a mummy's mummy rot vs. a paldin's divine health as it has come up in our campaign.

As the Core Rulebook states, at 3rd lvl a paladin becomes immune to all diseases, including magical and supernatural diseases. As the Bestiary states, mummy rot is both a curse and a disease. The 3.5 paladin entry explicitly included mummy rot amongst the magical diseases that paladins were immune to, but the Pathfinder Core Rulebook does not make this distinction and the addition of the curse aspect to mummy rot is a change from 3.5 to Pathfinder for the monster's entry. Discussion in another thread suggests breaking the ability into its two component parts - having a paladin affected by the curse aspect (taking 1d6 Con and Cha on a failed save - save frequency 1/day) while immune to the disease aspect (no natural healing and a caster level check required for magical healing). That seems like a good compromise and is what I'm leaning towards, but want to make the correct ruling according to the intentions of the RAW (rules as written). Any help/guidance here is greatly appreciated.

I think the curse aspect is the inability to heal, actually. Most diseases work through ability damage.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I would do is say the paladin still needs to have Remove Curse cast upon him, at which point his own innate resistance to disease immediately takes care of the second half of the affliction.

Sovereign Court

I agree. Its a curse not a disease so thus can still affect him while under its duration.

To support that argument, we've already seen in 3.5 Mummy Rot got past the paladin's immunity.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The way we tackled it is...it's a disease with a curse aspect = magical disease. Paladins are immune to magical diseases.


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.

(i dunno how to do the fancy quote stuff, or I would have.. sorry ;p )

The "Curse" effect is strictly the ability to remove the disease.
The paladin I think should be completely immune to MR, because the curse part is Just the inability to easily remove it. The disease itself is both the inability to heal the damage And the damage from the disease itself. Limiting it to "just the curse" basically means.. he is cursed to not be able to heal himself of the disease rot that .. doesn't effect him at all.

Just my .02

-S

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Selgard wrote:

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.

(i dunno how to do the fancy quote stuff, or I would have.. sorry ;p )

The "Curse" effect is strictly the ability to remove the disease.
The paladin I think should be completely immune to MR, because the curse part is Just the inability to easily remove it. The disease itself is both the inability to heal the damage And the damage from the disease itself. Limiting it to "just the curse" basically means.. he is cursed to not be able to heal himself of the disease rot that .. doesn't effect him at all.

Just my .02

-S

When you hit reply to a specific post, the post will automatically be quoted.

You can also type <quote="NAMEOFPOSTERHERE"> and then what you're quoting, and then </quote> -- just replace the <> with [] .

So for example, I type (but with brackets)

<quote="PRD">
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.</quote>

And I get

PRD wrote:


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.

Regarding the text at hand, for paladins, I would still say the paladin would not take the disease damage but also be unable to be healed magically or be raised from the dead with raise dead until remove curse was cast---again, at which point his immunity to disease kicks back in and the ability to be healed is reinstated.


That isn't what the description of MR says though.

It specifically says that even after remove curse is cast, he can't heal himself.

The only thing the curse does is keep him from removing the affliction- which he is already immune to.

It seems odd to me to say he's immune to the disease damage but not the other effects of the disease.. specifically- the inability to heal.

Quote:
Even after the curse element of mummy rot is lifted, a creature suffering from it cannot recover naturally over time

The curse is simply the inability to remove the disease, and nothing more.

(and thanks for the info )


Selgard wrote:

That isn't what the description of MR says though.

It specifically says that even after remove curse is cast, he can't heal himself.

The only thing the curse does is keep him from removing the affliction- which he is already immune to.

It seems odd to me to say he's immune to the disease damage but not the other effects of the disease.. specifically- the inability to heal.

Quote:
Even after the curse element of mummy rot is lifted, a creature suffering from it cannot recover naturally over time

The curse is simply the inability to remove the disease, and nothing more.

(and thanks for the info )

prd wrote:


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.

The disease part is what takes away con and charisma, and makes you turn to dust. I think the curse aspect is just there to make it harder to get rid of. Paladins are not really immune to it. In other words they can contract it. It just does nothing to them. It is kind of like someone who is the carrier of a disease in real life, but they don't have the actual symptions associated with it. In this case it is a good thing this curse can not be transferred.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Selgard wrote:

That isn't what the description of MR says though.

It specifically says that even after remove curse is cast, he can't heal himself.

My INTERPRETATION (and that's all it is) is that since the Paladin is immune to disease, the "Remove Disease" necessary to get rid of the affliction is effectively cast.

Quote:


The curse is simply the inability to remove the disease, and nothing more.

I'm reading it differently: I'm seeing it that the curse is what keeps ALL healing at bay (including the ability to remove disease), and the disease is only the damage you take from the disease (the constitution and charisma damage).

It's unclear. I think your interpretation is fine; I'm going with mine because since it does not specifically say paladins are immune to mummy rot, my compromise is to make it easier for them to recover from it.


DeathQuaker wrote:
Selgard wrote:

That isn't what the description of MR says though.

It specifically says that even after remove curse is cast, he can't heal himself.

My INTERPRETATION (and that's all it is) is that since the Paladin is immune to disease, the "Remove Disease" necessary to get rid of the affliction is effectively cast.

Quote:


The curse is simply the inability to remove the disease, and nothing more.

I'm reading it differently: I'm seeing it that the curse is what keeps ALL healing at bay (including the ability to remove disease), and the disease is only the damage you take from the disease (the constitution and charisma damage).

It's unclear. I think your interpretation is fine; I'm going with mine because since it does not specifically say paladins are immune to mummy rot, my compromise is to make it easier for them to recover from it.

...Anyone casting a conjuration (healing) spell....

I think that is the key. It does not specify mummy rot. Anytime those spells are cast on someone afflicted with mummy rot the caster level check has to be made.

PS: I think we have the same view on this on. I just wanted to point that out again.

Dark Archive

Seems there are many different interpretations here. Here is what I see from the ability's description - before remove curse is cast, the afflicted takes 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha on a failed save so I attribute that to the "curse" aspect. Once remove curse has been cast, the afflicted still does not benefit from natural healing and magical healing must succeed on a caster level check, so I attribute that to the "disease" aspect. It does seem to make more sense to have it the other way around - the "curse" prevents healing while the "disease" causes ability damage. FWIW - mummy rot appears under the Curse section of the Core Rulebook on p. 557 though even there it shows as both a curse and disease. It is clear there is no consensus on the issue, so at the end of the day it will be a DM judgment call. Thanks again everyone for your input.

Contributor

FAQ!


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
FAQ!

Just wanted to say how happy it makes me to see that blue potion bottle of yours appear at the bottom of a thread.


This has just come up in campaign I'm playing and I had my GM check Core Rulebook and I checked PRD and both state that paladins divine health gives immunity to all diseases including magical then in brackets Mummy rot, therefore I as the paladin wasn't affected

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mummy Rot vs. Paladin All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.