Mummy Rot, or Mummy Rot ?!


Rules Questions

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

OK, this came up in a game of mine tonight. the players were fighting a Mummy so we go over the rules for Mummy rot as listed under the Mummy entry.

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.

But then in the affliction section the entry for Mummy Rot is as follows Mummy Rot

Mummy Rot
Type curse, disease, injury; Save Fortitude DC 16

Onset 1 minute; Frequency 1/day

Effect 1d6 Con damage and 1d6 Cha damage; Cure mummy rot can only be cured by successfully casting both remove curse and remove disease within 1 minute of each other.

Different entries for both. Which is it, does the specific Mummy Rot listed under the Mummy listing take effect of is it the general listing listed under the affliction setting and why are there two different listings?

Grand Lodge

I find it rather confusing myself. Which rule would take priority the rule from Core curses or from the Beastiary?


Provos wrote:
I find it rather confusing myself. Which rule would take priority the rule from Core curses or from the Beastiary?

Beastiary came out second, so it, I believe, takes precedence.

That it also has the most flavor and detail means that it's the one I would go with in my games.


To cure it you have to cast remove curse and then within 1 minute of casting remove curse cast cure disease. If you wait longer than 1 minute the cure disease will have no effect and you have to do it again. The entry for the affliction just explains the limit of how soon it has to be but the monster entry is relativly the same since it explains remove curse HAS to be cast first. The only differnece is they do not mention the time limit, but who gets only remove curse remvoed when still taking damage?

Grand Lodge

If you are in the middle of nowhere and you only have a party member to heal you. With the caster level check of DC 20 it is very difficult to get both successful within 1 minute of each other.

Not all "towns" have high level healers. They would suffer the same difficulty in getting both successful within the time limit.

I understand it is a curse and should be difficult to remove but say you are lucky enough to have a level 7 the check requires you to roll at least a 13 or better twice in a row.

Legendary Games, Necromancer Games

Specific over the general. Take the entry from the actual monster, in this case the mummy.


Clark Peterson wrote:
Specific over the general. Take the entry from the actual monster, in this case the mummy.

The entries are quite similar leading me to think they should be combined, however, I wish things like this and Bleed would be standardized in the rule set.


Back in 3.5 I advocated use the Monster entry for the person initially infected with Mummy Rot, using the Disease entry for secondary infections caused by those contacting the cursed / diseased character..

But that was from when mummy rot was a contact rather than injury spread disease. Since it is just spread by injury now, secondary infections won't be common enough to justify using two strengths. Just go with the MM.

One caveat, definitely go with the disease entry though for anything not a mummy that deals out "mummy rot". Any spell or item that causes mummy rot was probably balanced using the disease entry as a measuring stick.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm not seeing where the two rule contradict each other. Here's another vote for "they should be combined."

Pathfinder has had a history of scattering their rules all over, this is just another instance of that.

Grand Lodge

The affliction from Core states "Cure mummy rot can only be cured by successfully casting both remove curse and remove disease within 1 minute of each other."

That is the difference in the rules.


I just realized something with that conjuration (healing) dc20 check ... Originally I thought it was just to keep people from healing or using restoration to bide time, but remove disease falls into that category.

Would that mean to cure it you would have to

1) cast remove curse (dc 16 as the curse/disease's save)

2) cast remove disease (a dc 20 to penetrate the conjuration (healing) barrier)

and then

3) make the actual dc 16 (disease's save) to actually have remove disease take effect?


Sekret_One wrote:

I just realized something with that conjuration (healing) dc20 check ... Originally I thought it was just to keep people from healing or using restoration to bide time, but remove disease falls into that category.

Would that mean to cure it you would have to

1) cast remove curse (dc 16 as the curse/disease's save)

2) cast remove disease (a dc 20 to penetrate the conjuration (healing) barrier)

and then

3) make the actual dc 16 (disease's save) to actually have remove disease take effect?

Yes. Plus it has to be done within one minute of a successful Remove Curse.


Jeff1964 wrote:
Yes. Plus it has to be done within one minute of a successful Remove Curse.

Presumably the curse is what causes the DC 20 and would be lifted for the one minute, which is incidentally the onset timer of the disease and it could be argued that the curse 'renews' itself at each onset unless removed.

What I'd like to know is where my GM got the impression that multiple applications of the desease increased the DC up until the onset triggered like multiple applications of poisons.

Grand Lodge

Are there any other listings of Supernatural diseases like Mummy Rot? Disease is such a moot thing in Pathfinder after a few levels.


Nkechi wrote:
Jeff1964 wrote:
Yes. Plus it has to be done within one minute of a successful Remove Curse.

Presumably the curse is what causes the DC 20 and would be lifted for the one minute, which is incidentally the onset timer of the disease and it could be argued that the curse 'renews' itself at each onset unless removed.

What I'd like to know is where my GM got the impression that multiple applications of the desease increased the DC up until the onset triggered like multiple applications of poisons.

Your GM is either making a rule up or misremembering. I would tell him to show you the rule if it is not a house rule.


I wrote a reply before I noticed that Nkechi's question was tacked onto 5-and-a-half year old thread. I think my example of Provos' fear is worth posting, regardless.

Provos wrote:

If you are in the middle of nowhere and you only have a party member to heal you. With the caster level check of DC 20 it is very difficult to get both successful within 1 minute of each other.

Not all "towns" have high level healers. They would suffer the same difficulty in getting both successful within the time limit.

I understand it is a curse and should be difficult to remove but say you are lucky enough to have a level 7 the check requires you to roll at least a 13 or better twice in a row.

One of the Paizo adventure paths sets the party against a pair of advanced mummy variants in the middle of nowhere. The nearest city was 9 days away.

Spoiler:
The module is The Hungry Storm in the Jade Regent adventure path. The Headless Wardens, an advanced mummy variant, CR 7 each and CR 9 together, are encountered near the end of the module, in a tunnel that passes underneath a mountain range. Reaching the end of the tunnel took another 2 days. The city of Ordu-Aganhei, the first setting for the next module, Forest of Spirits, was another week away.

The party was oversized, so was running a level behind at 8th level; ordinarily, the encounter with the advanced mummies would have been at 9th level. For future difficulty, the party healer was an escorted GMPC of royal heritage, fighter 1/oracle 7, and she did not know Remove Curse nor Remove Disease.

One party member contracted mummy rot in that encounter. That party member was the dedicated vassal and a good friend of the oracle. For the next two days, the oracle kept that party member alive by casting lesser restoration multiple times until all the ability damage was repaired. Then random encounters caused the party to level up. The oracle learned Remove Curse as her new 3rd-level spell and retrained Resist Energy Communal into Remove Disease (oracles can retrain one spell at even levels). Both spells are considered far from optimal for an oracle (unexpectedly, Remove Disease was useful in the next module, but Remove Curse never was); nevertheless, the character cared primarily about saving her friend. Ironically, an oracle is well suited to overcoming a failed caster level check, because she can recast the spell spontaneously. I forget whether that was necessary.

Ravingdork wrote:

I'm not seeing where the two rule contradict each other. Here's another vote for "they should be combined."

Pathfinder has had a history of scattering their rules all over, this is just another instance of that.

A problem with the split pair of descriptions is that I did not see both and had no clue to look for a second description in the Bestiary. The advanced mummy variant in the module said, "Special Attacks mummy rot (DC 17)," and did not describe mummy rot, so I looked it up under afflictions. Scattered rules are a bother, but stealth rules lead to inability to follow the rules as written.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Mummy Rot, or Mummy Rot ?! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.