|
Hi. I saw this question discussed elsewhere in this messageboards, but no official answer was given, so I hope I can get one of the designers to clarify.
In a gaming session yesterday, I had a Mummy hitting on a lvl 5 Monk. The way I'm reading the Mummy rot, I had him make a saving throw for it (which he passed, so there was no big deal in the end) because the rot says its "both a curse and a disease". Being immune to diseases, but not to Curses, I figured the Mummy rot should affect him. He made the argument (that I've also seen in that other thread) that the disease part is the one causing the ability damage, although that is no specifically pointed out. I believe that he says this because the Mummy Rot does read that to get rid of the disease, you need to get rid of the curse first, but that doesn't necessarily imply that the disease is the one causing the damage (maybe if a way was found of removing the disease but retaining the curse, the Mummy Rot would still remain).
If possible I'd like to get a designer to clarify this (pretty please, its almost Christmas !!)
|
Purity of Body (Ex): At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and 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.
So the curse is that a Cure Disease (or similar) cannot remove the disease. The disease is the portion causing the damage. The monk is immune to all diseases and so does not suffer the effects of the disease. That means the curse is still in effect but never causes any problem for the player as he is not affected.
An argument can be made that the supernatural immunity also affects the curse portion and I think in game terms that would be the correct result.
An argument can be made that the supernatural immunity also affects the curse portion and I think in game terms that would be the correct result.
Immunity to supernatural disease is not the same as immunity to curses.
If I were the GM and it was likely to be one of the only times in his PC's life that he'd ever actually be exposed to a disease, I'd let him be immune to it. Why not?
|
|
An argument can be made that the supernatural immunity also affects the curse portion and I think in game terms that would be the correct result.Immunity to supernatural disease is not the same as immunity to curses.
You are correct it is not the same. However, since the curse and disease are intertwined in this particular way and the curse will not interact with anything else then I think the right call is to say the curse has no effect also.
|
You are correct it is not the same. However, since the curse and disease are intertwined in this particular way and the curse will not interact with anything else then I think the right call is to say the curse has no effect also.
I would personally leave the curse remaining, just simply for some really neat RP opportunities.
Say on the next check-up at the local cleric he gets a full 360 exam and the cleric suddenly reels back from the table, stumbles over a tray of tools and runs sweating out of the room. Twenty minutes later a pair of nurses peek in and usher the head of the facility in, each of them wearing full surgical garb and facemasks. The nurses have a strap-kit ready to pin you to the table in the event you end up "acting funny."
A conversation, maybe a few diplomacies later everyone can enjoy a sigh of relief as they realize what an obscure corner-case it is, and the head of the hospital will make special note to write into the pathfinders medical research branch about such a rare case, it will be named after your character... it's the new Lou Gehrig's disease.
The way I read it, the Monk is immune to diseases. Mummy Rot is both a curse and a disease. So the game asks: Is this a disease? Mummy Rot says: I am a disease and a curse. Game: Then this is a disease. Mummy Rot: Yes...
Monk is immune to diseases. It doesn't say "The Monk is immune to diseases, except diseases that are also curses" or anything. The fact that it is also a curse shouldn't change the fact that the Monk is immune to it. IMO.
Another way of saying it: It is not a matter of 'which part is curse, which is disease?' The whole thing is a disease and the whole thing is a curse.
And while I can see how it might seem weird for him to not be affected by a curse when he is not immune to them, it is much weirder for him to be affected by a disease when he IS immune to THEM.
Purity of Body (Ex): At 5th level, a monk gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and 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.
So the curse is that a Cure Disease (or similar) cannot remove the disease. The disease is the portion causing the damage. The monk is immune to all diseases and so does not suffer the effects of the disease. That means the curse is still in effect but never causes any problem for the player as he is not affected.
An argument can be made that the supernatural immunity also affects the curse portion and I think in game terms that would be the correct result.
I agree, Monk are immune to all diseases. The mummy rot, is a disease, and the monk is immune. The curse part never has a chance to take effect, because he was never diseased in the first place.
+1 to Karkon
I would personally leave the curse remaining, just simply for some really neat RP opportunities.
Exactly what I was thinking. Just think what a DM could do with this idea as well.
I personally would have the curse remain, and do to this special circumstance of being immune to disease, but not the curse, the monk might, unintentionally, unleash a mummy rot plague on an unsuspecting village that the PC's now have to fix.
Sick and twisted concept? Maybe, but I would find it fun.
*thinking* Let the ripping begin.
The way I read it, the Monk is immune to diseases. Mummy Rot is both a curse and a disease. So the game asks: Is this a disease? Mummy Rot says: I am a disease and a curse. Game: Then this is a disease. Mummy Rot: Yes...
Monk is immune to diseases. It doesn't say "The Monk is immune to diseases, except diseases that are also curses" or anything. The fact that it is also a curse shouldn't change the fact that the Monk is immune to it. IMO.Another way of saying it: It is not a matter of 'which part is curse, which is disease?' The whole thing is a disease and the whole thing is a curse.
And while I can see how it might seem weird for him to not be affected by a curse when he is not immune to them, it is much weirder for him to be affected by a disease when he IS immune to THEM.
That's a pretty compelling point, actually. It'd be like if there was a spell that dealt fire and lightning damage. Not split like flame strike, just all of the damage was both types.