DchanSerenity |
Okay so someone in my party contracted Ghoul Fever on one of our last quests, after a few critically failed saving throws(on the diseased players part) our party's witch discovered it and we began to work to try and counter/cure it.
This started a few hour long go around with our GM about how to remove it and how the rules worked both magically and non magically for removing a disease. I'm a cleric who's(by the next day) will have two Remove disease spells ready to hopefully help strip him of it before it kills him.(as one failed save at this point and he'll be dead which he'll have to make before I get to cast my spell((Yay xD))
The question is(sorry for the tangent XD)
Dose the remove disease spell remove the entire disease or strip it of some of it's stages, and if it strips it of some of it's stages how many stages are stripped pre spell/critital hitting of said spell?
It's a level 0 disease with a DC 15 save that much I know, I know when the Remove disease spell is cast I make a counteract check against the disease if I make it I remove one disease up to my spell level (3) unless I critically cast (6).
So would it remove the disease along with all stages, would it just strip a few stages off?(sorry again for asking in the middle of my tangent XD)
AlastarOG |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Entirely removes the disease, ghoul fever is a level 1 disease (assuming ghoul was level 1) , you remove a disease of up to level 6 on a Crit success, 4 on a success, 2 on a failure and 0 on a Crit failure.
I would use the treat disease activity with a medicine check to give bonuses to the player while you learn the spell.
DchanSerenity |
Thank you everyone xD that's exactly how me and the other players thought it should work. I already know the spell it's just a matter of him lasting tell the next day which he should be able to do.
I know the GM isn't actively trying to kill off characters but we all felt he was making it a bit harder then it should of been or bending rules to make something that would of been easy to handle hard if that made sense?
Errenor |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Blake's Tiger wrote:Yeah, it's not intuitive that something would work on a failure.In some ways it make sense- even on a failure, you can still counteract something of a lower counteract level than yours. I think that’s a good thing.
Yes, it's actually wonderful, it makes counteract work.