Witches can't inflict diseases?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I was homebrewing a disease based casting class, specifically based around the spell Contagion, and realized that Witches, possibly the most flavorful disease-based casters, don't have Contagion on their spell list! I assumed that they had a disease hex, like how Druids don't get Beast Shape, so they don't need to use spells for disease, but no, they don't have that easier. To make matters weirder, they DO have Greater Contagion! So the end result here is that Witches, the grodiest, nastiest full caster base class, can't inflict diseases any better than a Commoner until level 9, while clerics and wizards are getting Contagion at level 7 and Druids at level 5.

So, does anyone know what's up with that? Was Contagion just too good with Evil Eye? Did witches have a disease hex at some point in design but it was removed and Contagion never put back on the spell list? Or did someone just decide not to give witches contagion just because?

(Either way, I'm probably going to houserule witches as getting Contagion as a level 3 spell- earlier than most other full casters, but at the same time as Druids.)

Edit: So they can get it from the Plague Patron (in retrospect I really should have checked that earlier), but I dont see why that should exclude it from the base list- there’s plenty of overlap between patron spells and the witch’s spell list.


Odd, evwry other disease related spell, but no contagion. The plague patron does grant it though.


That is odd. Seems like a mistake. Either they shouldn't have Greater Contagion or they should have Contagion. And I agree flavor wise it seems like a no brainer which of the above mistakes has occurred. But I am also in no way shape or form knowledgeable about the Witch class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was surprised at this as it does seem like a natural fit for the witch and remove disease is on the standard list. I think it's a case of "just because"; there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason as to which spells are standard witch spells and which spells are patron spells. In a similar vein I was disappointed to learn the witch cannot get the thematically appropriate Seeming spell (not even via a patron) but they can get Banish Seeming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the choices made in which spells get on the Witch's list or not seem arbitrary and nonsensical. And then there are the Patrons which really need something else to be interesting. As is, some Patrons do nothing at all, while a couple have all new spells.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It makes absolutely no sense at all for any witch to inflict diseases. The most famous witch of all time, the gingerbread witch, was so heavily against diseases, that children could eat the outside of her house in pre real medicine days, with not only not dying, but also not even getting sick. That means, with the irrefutable way diseases work, that her powers had to have eliminated the germs affecting the outside of her house. If you think witches should have disease based powers, that is your hangup, but the rest of the world knows that that doesn’t make any sense.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You make an excellent argument, sir or madam.


Witches are well renown for potions, curses and poisons. Diseases? Umm...honestly can't think of one. Curing diseases? yes. Witches are also well known for being healers.

Diseases really are more of a druid thing.


Who sez the Gingerbread witch from Hansel and Gretel is the most well known witch? depending on where you are (i.e. outside the US and Germany where the Grimm tales are best known), you might just get the Witch from Snow White, or the Slavic Baba Yaga...


Witches do have Hexes related to Disease - Cursed Wound (Su) does not inflict Disease but makes the Target more susceptible, whilst Infected Wounds (Su) inflicts Constitution Damage as a Disease Effect :

The witch can curse a living creature, preventing it from healing completely.

Effect: For a number of days equal to 3 + the witch’s Intelligence modifier (minimum 1), whenever the victim is the target of a conjuration (healing) spell or magical healing effect, the caster of the healing effect must succeed at a caster level check (DC = 11 + the witch’s level) to end the hex. If the check fails, the healing effect functions as normal, except it cannot remove the last 10 points of damage the victim suffered. Similarly, natural healing, fast healing, and regeneration fail to cure the victim’s last 10 points of damage. Thus, the victim’s effective maximum number of hit points is 10 fewer than normal. A successful Will save reduces the duration of this hex to 1 round. At 5th level, the victim of this hex also takes a –2 penalty on Fortitude saving throws to avoid contracting a disease or poison from an injury.

This is a curse effect and can be removed by remove curse.

Infected Wounds (Su), Ultimate Magic, p.82 wrote:
Effect: The target’s wounds become infected (Fortitude negates). The target takes 1 point of Constitution damage per day. After the first day, the target may save once per day to cure the infection. This is a disease effect.

Also note that [Common Hex] Gift of Consumption (Su) and [Common Hex] Greater Gift of Consumption (Su) can both (re)direct Diseases upon an Opponent. So options for reducing the ability to fight off Diseases and redirecting Diseases are available from Witch 1. Inflicting Disease admittedly takes until Witch 10 but they do receive a Disease Hex.

Getting fancy, at Witch 18 you can nab [Grand Hex] Summon Spirit(Sp) to call upon the services of an 18HD Humanoid, which could easily be a Disease Casting specialist. However, this is an indirect, late-game option that I acknowledge is not really what the O.P. is looking for. A neat choice though.

EDIT : As for low- to mid-level Spells :
* [5] Contagion [Evil] - O.P. already acknowledged as a Patron-accessible Spell.
* [3] Sabaceous Twin - worshippers of Cyth-V'sug can gain this Disease Effect Spell at Witch 5.
* [3] Aggravate Affliction - triggers the Effects of a Disease the Target already has; available at Witch 5.
* [4] Touch of Slime - this is a Disease Effect available from Witch 7.
* [4] Virulence [Evil] - this triggers the Effect of a contracted Disease; available form Witch 7.
* [5] Blightburn Weapon - afflicts Targets within 10ft. radius with the Blightburn Disease.
* [5] Slough [Evil] - eventually inflicts a -4 Penalty on Saving Throws for Disease.


Whoops, I missed off a couple of others :
* [2] Fungal Blisters [Evil] - worshippers of Cyth-V'sug can gain this Disease Effect Spell at Witch 3.
* [3] Eldritch Fever [Evil] - whilst not technically a Disease Effect, it does cause Eldritch Ague which is repeatedly noted as akin to a Disease, to the point of being cured by Remove Disease. Available at Witch 5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Meirril wrote:

Witches are well renown for potions, curses and poisons. Diseases? Umm...honestly can't think of one. Curing diseases? yes. Witches are also well known for being healers.

Diseases really are more of a druid thing.

Plagues, like pretty much everything else, have been blamed on witchcraft since . . . well, for a long time.


Not really, witches have been seriously hunted only since the 1500s, the Great Black Plague was in 1349...

And Joan of Arc was not burned as a witch but as a relapsed heretic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm using the term "plague" in the general sense (epidemic disease) rather than The Plague™, per the original goalposts--sorry for the ambiguity.

As for the rest: "Witches" were blamed for disease since looooooong before the 1500s, and "witches" are still blamed today for the same. I'm not sure how Joan of Arc relates to the discussion--she was erroneously called a witch, and apparently was later suspected of having a disease that caused her "visions", but that's a heck of a tangent.


Sorry, you're right of course, witched were blamed for a lot of stuff, when it was not blamed on the undead or other supernatural cause...

As for Joan, well, she's very famous where I live, and it's a common misconception that she was burned as a witch, a full century before witch burnings became common... so I preempted a possible disagreement with my statement. I'm not even sure witch burnings were ever common in France, the witch hunt seems to have been more of a German or British phenomenon, and we had the Religious Wars to take away our extra population...

but I digress, and witches who want to cause diseases have the plague patron and a number of other options delineated up there by better experts than me.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, I'd have thought that getting regular contagion but not the greater one was an oversight of some kind.

Even though the witches I've played as would either go for the Aura of Purity hex and call herself "the worst kind of witch - the kind who cleans", or would be against plague because she's going to be making zombies out of people anyway... yeah, I can see people wanting to play as witches who'd give you a rash if you dare to lay a finger on them.

There's always Pox Pustules or that hex that lets you store a curse as some kind of reactive wart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't realize it, but Contagion is from the CRB, while Greater Contagion is from Ultimate Magic. I assume someone in the UM team made the same mistake I did and assumed Witches got Contagion as a spell.

BENSLAYER's list is helpful, but it still seems wonky to me that Witches, when they were first printed, didn't get a spell or hex that cleanly inflected a mundane disease without a specific patron. I stand by my house rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think Witches necessarily have to cause disease but it should be an option in the same way a Wizard doesn't have to use Fireball but should have the option. Doubly so when they get Greater Contagion and not Contagion, an obvious disconnect if not just a simple mistake. Glenda or the Ginger Bread witch isn't what the archetype is solely based on even if they are options a player could create using the Witch class.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Witches can't inflict diseases? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.