Many new monsters from the Bestiary II, such as the daemons, inflict various UNIQUE diseases through their attacks and other abilities.
For example, the Meladaemon inflicts the following disease whenever it hits with a bite attack and the victim fails its save:
Daemonic wasting: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 23; onset 1 day; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Con and 1d4 Cha damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
If a victim falls prey to daemonic wasting, can it then spread the disease to others via a bite?
It would make sense for this daemon to bite a dog or similar creature and setting it loose in a populated area, thereby giving it the disease and making it supernaturally hungry so it is forced to go out and bite others in search of food, the victims of of which then go on to repeat the pattern.
Zombie apocalypse anyone?
How contagious are monster-based diseases?
As a confirmed carrier of 134 diseases of non-human origin, twenty of which are only found in harpies, I have to answer "VERY".
Many new monsters from the Bestiary II, such as the daemons, inflict various UNIQUE diseases through their attacks and other abilities.
For example, the Meladaemon inflicts the following disease whenever it hits with a bite attack and the victim fails its save:
Daemonic wasting: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 23; onset 1 day; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Con and 1d4 Cha damage; cure 2 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.
If a victim falls prey to daemonic wasting, can it then spread the disease to others via a bite?
It would make sense for this daemon to bite a dog or similar creature and setting it loose in a populated area, thereby giving it the disease and making it supernaturally hungry so it is forced to go out and bite others in search of food, the victims of of which then go on to repeat the pattern.
Zombie apocalypse anyone?
They aren't by the rules, but I had a homebrew game beign made that had zombies that could create spawns. I think if monsters had contagious diseases many adventurers would have to spend a night outside the gates, or at least until the local cleric cleared them for entry. I never got to run that game, but one day.....
I don't think I'd want to keep track of it for every single thing that a "biter" bites, but honestly, its not a bad adventure hook. I seem to recall some older D&D sources mentioning common wolves that were carrying lycanthropy even though they were just normal wolves because they were bitten by werewolves.
Why are we derailing with a discussion about RD's posting habits?
I don't know. These are the Paizo boards and staying on topic is unthinkable.
I also like what Knight said about using spreadable diseases as a plot hook. It's a classic.
Why are we derailing with a discussion about RD's posting habits?
Mostly because I don't see it going well if I opened it as its own discussion.
I can't see anything wrong with what Ravingdork said..
On topic: as far as RAW there is nothing I have seen mentioned in the books about how the diseases get transferred other than catching them directly from certain sources, so I would say that as far as what is written it just doesn't happen any other way, anything else is house rules. Curse Of The Crimson Throne has some rules as far as a widespread plague goes... Obviously it is an area that could be expanded on greatly.
Although as someone mentioned it is an area to watch out for as people could intentionally infect themselves with some things to try to gain a combat advantage....
|
Why are we derailing with a discussion about RD's posting habits?Mostly because I don't see it going well if I opened it as its own discussion.
RD,
I thought that you asked a good question. I think the attitude you've been shown here tonight has been - well, disappointing, [somehow the word "a&+#+%@ry" (donkey-vortex-ery) comes to mind]
To your question specifically. Lycanthropy comes to mind. If monster based diseases cannot be spread, then lycanthropy should never be a problem. Only "patient zero" lycanthropes who are given the disease by, I dunno, a deity maybe, should be able to pass on the disease. And then it would stop. Which would make were-creatures of any kind exceedingly rare.
Or, monster based diseases can be spread, and lycanthropy would be a continuing problem in any world setting. Which it appears to be.
I'm trying to figure out the logic of monster-based diseases not spreading. Imagine you have a toothy half-orc who is bitten by a sewer rat that has filth fever. He fails his save, and contracts the disease. The next day, still infected with the disease, he is affected by a confusion spell, and ends up making and hitting with a bite attack against a party member. I would think it entirely reasonable to have that party member make a save against the disease, or then contract it himself.
As long as the disease vector is consistent, and onset has occurred, I can't see why it wouldn't pass from one victim to the next.
I agree that not having diseases spread is not logical, my point was there just isn't specific rules on how contagious they are... It is definitely something that could use some fleshing out, maybe specifying which methods of transmission for which diseases/chance of infection/etc
As far as Lycanthropy goes, I thought only "Natural Lycanthropes" (i.e. born a werewolf) could spread the curse. "Afflicted Lycanthropes" (i.e. someone bitten by a werewolf) could not spread the curse.
|
|
As far as Lycanthropy goes, I thought only "Natural Lycanthropes" (i.e. born a werewolf) could spread the curse. "Afflicted Lycanthropes" (i.e. someone bitten by a werewolf) could not spread the curse.
There is no distinction made in the rules. Which gets to what RD was asking about. It would be a nice thing if the mechanic was spelled out in game terms. Is there, or should there be a difference in transmission between a curse and a disease? If so, then how are the transmitting individuals different? (Different stats? Would a Knowledge check reveal whether one need worry about infection?)
I removed some posts and their descending replies. If you have a problem with a post, flag it and move on.
|
As far as Lycanthropy goes, I thought only "Natural Lycanthropes" (i.e. born a werewolf) could spread the curse. "Afflicted Lycanthropes" (i.e. someone bitten by a werewolf) could not spread the curse.There is no distinction made in the rules. Which gets to what RD was asking about. It would be a nice thing if the mechanic was spelled out in game terms. Is there, or should there be a difference in transmission between a curse and a disease? If so, then how are the transmitting individuals different? (Different stats? Would a Knowledge check reveal whether one need worry about infection?)
Afflictions are not contagious unless it's explicitly spelled out in the affliction and as far as I know none of them are. Diseases are a type of affliction and follow these rules.
The 'disease' of Lycanthropy is not contagious, a person is infected with lycanthropy cannot spread it. If a person eventually becomes a were-creature they gain the were-template and the special ability to infect other creatures with lycanthropy. It's not the disease but the were-template that makes them able to inflict lycanthropy.