|
| 8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... mummy rot.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
If my third-level antipaladin comes into contact with mummy rot, (which is a disease, depsite also being a curse) he is not only immune to it's effects, but gains the ability to inflict the disease with his own natural attacks?
If so, that's quite a good deal! An attack that deals 1d6 Con and 1d6 Cha damage per day, has no cure (and must have an associated curse magically removed before magical curing can even be attempted), halts fast healing and all forms of natural healing, makes magical healing (including remove disease!) difficult, and can potentially prevent raise dead.
Also, would the antipaladin spread the DC 16 version he contracted, or would he use his own Charisma modifier, since the DC for this disease is based on the carrier's Charisma modifier?
Follow-up Question: I assume that Ability Focus (Plague Bearer) would have no impact on my disease DCs since the Plague Bearer ability itself has no DCs associated with it. However, when I contract a disease, is it added to my special attacks or special qualities (as it seems to be for the dire rat, for example, who is a carrier for filth fever). If so, I could take Ability Focus (mummy rot), which would up the DC for the disease AND the caster level check for conjuration (healing) spells - correct?
Thanks in advance!
It's poorly worded. He doesn't get any special abilities for being infected, it just means that if the disease lets itself be spread, he can spread it even though he suffers no effects on his own. For instance, if he's bitten by a werewolf, he contracts lycanthropy. He does not change into a werewolf himself, but his bite attacks can still infect others. Since the only way to spread mummy rot is to be a mummy, he can't do that.
|
|
Since the only way to spread mummy rot is to be a mummy, he can't do that.
Why would that be? The dire rat has an ability called "Disease," which allows it to spread filth fever with a bite. Are you saying the antipaladin could not spread filth fever because he isn't a dire rat (or doesn't have a bite, or the "Disease" ability)? Mummy rot appears to be inflicted on a successful natural attack (a slam, the mummy's case).
So why would an antipaladin be able to spread filth fever, but not mummmy rot? I'm not following you. : /
Also (just for the record), lycanthropy appears to be a curse - not a disease. Remove disease can, under the right circumstances, play a part in removing it, but it's called "the curse of lycanthropy," and it's labelled as a curse in the "Afflictions" section of the Core Rulebook (as opposed to mummy rot, which is labelled as both a curse and a disease).
Assuming this does, in fact, work - what is the consensus on the DC? Looking for a RAW interpretation, of course.
Since the only way to spread mummy rot is to be a mummy, he can't do that.Why would that be? The dire rat has an ability called "Disease," which allows it to spread filth fever with a bite. Are you saying the antipaladin could not spread filth fever because he isn't a dire rat (or doesn't have a bite, or the "Disease" ability)? Mummy rot appears to be inflicted on a successful natural attack (a slam, the mummy's case).
So why would an antipaladin be able to spread filth fever, but not mummmy rot? I'm not following you. : /
The question you need to ask is - can anyone who has that disease spread it in some way? If they can, the antipaladin can. If they can't, the antipaladin can't. The phrasing of "He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects" implies that his ability to contract and spread disease isn't affected, but it doesn't grant him any ability to do so that he didn't already have.
Also (just for the record), lycanthropy appears to be a curse - not a disease. Remove disease can, under the right circumstances, play a part in removing it, but it's called "the curse of lycanthropy," and it's labelled as a curse in the "Afflictions" section of the Core Rulebook (as opposed to mummy rot, which is labelled as both a curse and a disease).
Assuming this does, in fact, work - what is the consensus on the DC? Looking for a RAW interpretation, of course.
Good point. I think there aren't any official diseases that this ability would work with, then. More mundane things like leprosy, or the flu would thematically work, but they don't have stat blocks.
|
|
So you're saying this ability is strictly an immunity to disease? I'm not buying it. Immunity is immunity. This ability specifies that the disease is still contracted, and can still be spread.
The problem here is that the Core Rulebook doesn't give any details as to what the various types of disease (contact, ingested, etc.) really mean. For the most part it seems to be a matter of common sense.
Example: if a character ingests a piece of fruit that carries an ingested disease, he or she suffers from that disease. Why should it be any different, then, for an antipaladin (or any other character) afflicted by an ingested disease? One assumes that if ingesting the fruit inflicts the disease, that ingesting the antipaladin does as well.
Being ingested is not a terribly useful application of this ability, but I see no reason why contact- or injury-type diseases would not be spreadable in exactly the same way.
A dire rat carries filth fever. If he injures you with a natural attack, he can spread it to you.
An antipaladin carries filth fever. If he injures you with a natural attack, he can spread it to you.
What is the difference between these two circumstances?
Game rules don't always follow real life logic. The ability to make a reflex save while paralyzed is an example of that.
At 3rd level, the powers of darkness make an antipaladin a beacon of corruption and disease. An antipaladin does not take any damage or take any penalty from diseases. He can still contract diseases and spread them to others, but he is otherwise immune to their effects.
Even if you have a disease you still need a means to spread it. The paladin does not have a mummy slam attack.
The dire rat does not give you filth fever with "a natural attack". It is with a bite which is a specific natural attack.
PS:I do think this one needs more detail and hitting the FAQ button may help with that.
edit:The disease Dc should be determined by the originator. I would also add that mummy rot does not apply by raw anyway since a regular disease and other diseases are not categorized the same way. Evidence is below.
There would be not need to list them seperately if immunity to one type covered all.
PRD:Divine Health (Ex): At 3rd level, a paladin is immune to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.
The dire rat might spread filth fever via a bite, but the disease itself is an "injury" type.
Are you really saying that a creature that eats a piece of meat that carries an ingested disease would be subject to it, but a creature that eats a PERSON that carries an ingested disease would not?
Rats only carry the disease in game because the game says so. Diseases don't transfer like that in the game.
By the game mechanics there are limited ways to transfer a disease.
I did check the rules and filth fever is transferred by injury, but even diseases that are transferred by injury are normally only limited to certain types of attack. The anti-paladin would not be transfer the disease by headbutting someone, as an example. I think a bite would be allowed, even though humanoids don't have bites by RAW, but it should provoke an AoO. The reason I say the bite should be allowed is because if there is no way to transfer the disease then the ability is no good.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but:
If my third-level antipaladin comes into contact with mummy rot, (which is a disease, depsite also being a curse) he is not only immune to it's effects, but gains the ability to inflict the disease with his own natural attacks?
"Mummy rot is both a curse and a disease". The text later refers to the curse portion as the "core element". If he doesn't have the ability to transmit curses, he can't transmit mummy rot.
Supposing this worked, he could transmit it by a natural attack that's comparable to a slam (a claw or tail slap, for example) or possibly by an unarmed strike. It doesn't say anywhere that it's an injury affliction, so not just any natural attack will work, nor can he put it on a weapon.
Since normally someone who contracts mummy rot doesn't spread it, there's no defined DC for mummy rot passed on in such a way. If, again, this works, it should follow the normal procedure for a disease that a character contracts and passes to others, which makes the DC the same as for the original infection. I think you're right that if a creature can afflict others with mummy rot, it has a special attack "mummy rot" and qualifies for Ability Focus (mummy rot).
|
|
"Mummy rot is both a curse and a disease". If he doesn't have the ability to transmit curses, he can't transmit mummy rot.
I think you're incorrect. By that logic, if I gain immunity to [fear] effects, I'm not immune to cause fear because that spell is also [mind-affecting], and I'm not immune to that.
Mummy rot is a curse AND a disease... and I can spread disease... which mummy rot is.
"Mummy rot is both a curse and a disease". If he doesn't have the ability to transmit curses, he can't transmit mummy rot.I think you're incorrect. By that logic, if I gain immunity to [fear] effects, I'm not immune to cause fear because that spell is also [mind-affecting], and I'm not immune to that.
Mummy rot is a curse AND a disease... and I can spread disease... which mummy rot is.
Actually you would be immune to cause fear, just not directly. By RAW you would have to make the will save against cause fear since you are not immune to mind affects, but you are immune to affect of the spell so even if you fail you won't suffer the fear affect so there is really no point in making you roll the dice.
You don't get access to mummy rot if you have access to part of it because mummy rot is a package deal.
The mummy is transmitting a curse and disease at the same time.
I can see the merit in either argument for whether or not you'd be immune to the disease, but I wouldn't let you spread it, because as has been mentioned, the antipaladin does not acquire any additional means of transmitting a disease. I've never seen Mummy Rot portrayed as being communicable once contracted - if a wizard contracts Mummy Rot, he begins rotting away rather horribly and other's will likely avoid him, but he can't actually spread it to others. Same deal for the antipaladin then, minus the horrible rotting.
However, this could be a rather interesting device in other respects. I could imagine a number of unsavory rituals one might design that would draw powers from the supernatural disease they harbor.
Once had an antipaladin BBEG. Party used limited wish to remove his disease immunity. It made for a most gruesome death scene as all the diseases that had been postponed from ravaging his body and mind caught up to him in only a few horrifying seconds.
It's a shame, since the way the Antipaladin's ability is written makes it seem like it's supposed to have offensive potential. It may be GM fiat, but perhaps he could douse his weapons in his own blood so they disease his opponents, though by RAW, there really isn't any way to make it communicable in a useful way.
Once had an antipaladin BBEG. Party used limited wish to remove his disease immunity. It made for a most gruesome death scene as all the diseases that had been postponed from ravaging his body and mind caught up to him in only a few horrifying seconds.
This sounds absolutely epic, by the way.
There are several ways that a half-orc can gain a bite attack (toothy racial ability, razortusk feat, etc.)
If you had an antipaladin with a bite attack, getting bitten by a dire rat would allow you to carry a disease and give you a method of transmitting it.
I would have to agree with the folks who believe this ability grants the antipaladin some ability to act as a "Typhoid Mary". If it were simply an immunity, then it would say that.
The problem is that disease in general is not a well-detailed mechanic; it does not explain the common transmission vectors, for example. Filth fever might transmit via a bite attack, but it's not realistically the bite that does it; it's transmitted by the germ-filled saliva that comes with the bite.
RAW, the antipaladin can contract, and spread, disease; I'm not sure that can be disputed without straying far into RAI. the exact method, however, would be left up to the GM (until such a time as they might FAQ this - and I am clicking it; I would support a general FAQ\errata on disease in general, in fact).