D&D 5E Clay Golem HP Drain

[I'm A Banana]

Three editions ago, you HAD to have someone be a Cleric* and a Thief because no other class could disarm traps or heal. Two editions ago, you could branch beyond those two classes for those roles using supplemental material (favored soul, scout, etc). One edition ago, you had a dozen leader classes (two in the PHB) and anyone with Thievery as a class skill could disarm traps. The current edition allows for five healers in the PHB and anyone with the proper background or 250 days of training can disarm traps. I consider that a giant win.

Not enough. If part of the game assumes Particular Spell X, and not every class has access to that particular spell, then I am looking at a scenario where not everyone at my table can freely play whatever kind of fantasy hero they want to pretend to be, someone needs to play something that has Particular Spell X, or else I can't use that part of the game.

If that is the case, that is remarkably disappointing to me, given the promises of 5e not requiring any particular "role" to be met in a party.

And the healer roll is a universal element of modern computer/video games. Nearly every party-based RPG allows for it, every MMO has it, and its even found in non-genre like Medics in First-Person shooters. I'll wager most new players know they need someone who can heal (or will learn quickly).

That's some pretty poor apologetics. D&D is a game about pretending to be a fantasy hero, and sometimes you get a table where no one's particularly interested in a fantasy hero whose job it is to support the other fantasy heroes. If 5e's reaction to that is, "Sorry, some things in the game won't work as intended if you do that, someone should play a healer if you want the full experience" (and worse, it never actually comes out and says that), that's a problem.

So yes, I like roles because of niche protection. If any class can heal, pick a lock, swing a sword or cast a spell, why have classes anymore?

Because the job of classes isn't niche protection, it's archetype emulation. A table full of people who all want to be thieves isn't thinking about not being able to scry, heal, or wield heavy weapons, they're thinking about how cool it is to all be from the same thieves' guild. A class is a story, not a mechanic.

Agreed. The medicine skill in 5e is a real shame. I'd like to see it beefed up more. Still, the healer feat and proficiency in herbalist kit does grant some access to non-magical healing. I'd love to see some of the restoration spells become rituals so that ritual caster is an option too.

So you agree that removing things like the golem's max HP reduction should be found in broader abilities than in one particular specific spell? I'm not sure where your point of contention lies, then.

The DMs job to facilitate fair challenge. If your team lacks a healer, the DM needs to step in and "deux-es-machina" a wand, scroll, or potion if he intends to use status-afflicting monsters. Or don't, but then don't whine when your PCs die.

"You can either make the game do what you want it to, or you can have an experience you might not want to have" is not a choice I'm interested in making. I'll just go play a game (or do something else) that already gives me an experience I want to have without me having to force it, thanks. This thing is supposed to be fun, and naked manipulation is always not fun and massive unexpected PC casualties are also not fun.

THIS is the fundamental difference: I don't. I don't give a flying fig if my fire-mage player whines because I threw a fire-elemental at him. Anyone stupid enough to charge a clay golem without a healer deserves a permanent HP reduction. I'm not even a RBDM; but I DO think that not every encounter needs to be winnable based on your HP alone. A PC lacking a specific resource (a healer, a magic sword, a lock-picker, etc) then that group needs to find some way to compensate for it.

Smart play for me is a critical element: If I can win every fight by charging into melee and having more HP than the opponent, the game is going to go to boring mode ASAP.

Why would a game that is supposed to help you pretend to be the fantasy hero in your imagination then turn around and slap you down for having the temerity to imagine "wrong" (by some arbitrary and unstated standard of wrong)? In what way is that kind of naked, aggressive rejection of the kind of character I imagine playing helping me to have fun playing a fantasy hero?

There is a tremendous space between a fire mage who can fireball fire elementals and a fire mage who is still a viable character in a fire-themed adventure because he has something else to contribute, like the ability to talk to, interact with, even command or rebuke the fire elementals instead of fireballing them.

Clay Golems are CR 9. That means, the earliest a group should encounter them is 9th level. Its not like they are goblin-level common nor are they meant for low-level parties. A clay golem might not be guarding a house in Sharn, but I could certainly see one in a forgotten Xen-drik tomb; the inability to heal its damage is probably the REASON it's been able to safely guard that treasure for thousand's of years.

And if you game lacks mid-level clerics, it probably lacks clay golems too (in 3e, you needed to be an 11th level priest to even make one. It was higher in AD&D) so its a self-solving problem!

You just pointed out a context in which you could encounter a clay golem in a world that generally lacks mid-level clerics. So you know this is a thing that could happen. And your solution for such an encounter, by a party who lacks a cleric/druid/healybard is, "point and laugh at the idiots who don't have a dedicated healer!" And you don't see how this isn't satisfying to me?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say (barring optional rules) that What You See is What You Get. We know what spells each class gets. We know what skills and mundane items do. We know what the monster's write-up says. (And its the only Life-drain creature that doesn't restore permanent Hp loss on a long rest that I've seen, meaning I think its intentional). All we haven't seen is magic item use/creation. Make of that what you will.

I'm hypothesizing that consumable magic items are going to be character-creatable, so a party without a dedicated healer class might make up the difference in potions.

Meanwhile, I like this guy. I can't wait to use him now.

My problems aren't with the monster, they're with the apparent niche protection that's going on there. That's ugly, if that's the case.

If your campaign doesn't have magic items, don't use monsters that can only be hurt by magic items. If your campaign doesn't have Clerics, don't hit them with attacks that can only be healed by Clerics. (Or do. That'll teach them to mess with golems.)

As I said upthread: asking GMs to have intensively studied every random monster they stick in the MM for potential areas where their party is uniquely crippled is asking a hell of a lot.

Lots of reasons. The most relevant ones are: because this is a game where there are different classes, and the assumption is that you have a variety of classes, and each class is good at different things, and not every problem is a nail. That's the baseline assumption. The RAW only needs to support the baseline assumption.

Then it's not a game about being a fantasy hero from my imagination, it's about specifically playing some sort of un-stated but assumed group of specific archetypes and SCREW YOU if you can't figure that out for yourself or if no one wants to play one of those archetypes. Guess you can't D&D.

It actually does state this up front. PHB p. 8 (Player Basic p. 5).

That page doesn't imply anything about needing one party member at 9th level to have access to this one specific spell. So I don't think you understood what I was saying there.

 

[Mouseferatu]

As I said upthread: asking GMs to have intensively studied every random monster they stick in the MM for potential areas where their party is uniquely crippled is asking a hell of a lot.

No, it's not.

I'm sorry, KM, but you're asking the impossible here. The game is a toolkit. It is not only not possible, but not desirable, to have every single tool usable in every single game. Different games and different campaigns have different styles. If all your players want to portray hammers, then by all means use monsters that are all nails, but don't expect every monster to be a nail.

It's the DM's job to know what s/he's putting in the adventure. Reading the monsters you decide to use is a bare minimum of what can be expected of a DM. Or, at the very least, a willingness to adjust the monster in play, on the fly, if you realize it's a problem.

The game allows you to play however you want. The fact that not every single option works for every single style of party is not a flaw. It's the nature of a toolbox.

 

[I'm A Banana]

No, it's not.

I'm sorry, KM, but you're asking the impossible here. The game is a toolkit. It is not only not possible, but not desirable, to have every single tool usable in every single game.

That's a broad statement that is kind of empty on its face. Speaking more concretely, then: why would it not be desirable to have a clay golem usable in a game without a dedicated healer (I'm making the assumption here that it is possible, because, well, it certainly is)? What is the relationship between those two tools? Why does one necessarily need the other? What is undesirable about a game without that specific combination?

And why is that undesirability not patently obvious to the people playing the game?

Different games and different campaigns have different styles. If all your players want to portray hammers, then by all means use monsters that are all nails, but don't expect every monster to be a nail.

So where is the part of the PHB that talks about party composition and why I can't play a party consisting of two barbarians and a fighter who likes to charge? If that is true about 5e, why would that not be mentioned? The design team is aware of the idea of "necessary" roles (as is clear in 4e), if 5e has those as an assumption, why would the game be silent on it?

It's the DM's job to know what s/he's putting in the adventure. Reading the monsters you decide to use is a bare minimum of what can be expected of a DM. Or, at the very least, a willingness to adjust the monster in play, on the fly, if you realize it's a problem.

There's nothing in the books that gives me any indication that the clay golem is not a good fit for a party without a dedicated healer except for few words in one of its attacks and comparing that with a look at class spell lists.

I now have to do that for every monster in every module I run and every encounter table I roll on to make sure it's "appropriate"? The rules just don't work the way they are written?

The game allows you to play however you want. The fact that not every single option works for every single style of party is not a flaw. It's the nature of a toolbox.

The game has an assumed default. Why don't all the default options work together? Why do I need to come into D&D with the prerequisite knowledge of things like the role of a party healer and the possible necessity of certain specific spells?

Put more generally, if these two options are intended to be mutually exclusive, why doesn't the game TELL me that without more dedicated research?

And specifically, why would 5e be designed without that in mind when 4e explicitly included that in its design? It's not like 5e didn't have a solid base to work from in telegraphing the importance of certain character abilities to its assumed design.

And ultimately practically: if 5e's assumtions include player-craftable consumable magic items like potions in the DMG that would pretty much actually meet the requirement to have any party be able to face a clay golem and heal up afterwords, so why does that seem impossible and undesirable to you?

 

[Mouseferatu]

Because they expect the DM to read the rules. It is absolutely not possible to imagine every single possible party composition and then, in each monster that has a weir power, say "This won't work as well without an X in the party."

Besides, party composition is only one way to deal with this. You can use NPCs. You can use magic items. You can change the way the power works, as DMs are not only permitted but encouraged to do.

You ask why you shouldn't be able to use clay golem against a party of all fighters. I ask why you should. There are over 300 pages of monsters. The idea that not one of them should have an ability that some character classes can't recover from without assistance is simply not reasonable. That doesn't mean people who play in a narrow party are doing it "wrong." It means they're doing it in a way that makes it inappropriate for the DM to include certain creatures. I, for one, do not want a game where the appropriate challenges for a party of all fighters are the same as the appropriate challenges for a party of all wizards. (Just for example.)

As to why the game doesn't call out specific roles? I'd say it's because 4e did that, and more people disliked it than not. It's okay for a beginning DM to learn this sort of thing through trial and error. It's okay for it to take a few attempts before an entire party of newbies manages to keep characters beyond the first few levels.

And let's also remember that this entire discussion is premature, until we know what sort of guidelines are in the DMG.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Wrote the above before you added your edit.

Player-crafted magic items don't fit every campaign style, either, but I never said they weren't desirable. But I'm assuming that creating a magic item that does X requires the participation of a character who can do X, so it would still require a cleric or druid or bard to have a greater restoration item. So I'm not sure how it's a solution to what you're talking about.

 

[The Hitcher]

Because they expect the DM to read the rules. It is absolutely not possible to imagine every single possible party composition and then, in each monster that has a weir power, say "This won't work as well without an X in the party."

Besides, party composition is only one way to deal with this. You can use NPCs. You can use magic items. You can change the way the power works, as DMs are not only permitted but encouraged to do.

You ask why you shouldn't be able to use clay golem against a party of all fighters. I ask why you should. There are over 300 pages of monsters. The idea that not one of them should have an ability that some character classes can't recover from without assistance is simply not reasonable. That doesn't mean people who play in a narrow party are doing it "wrong." It means they're doing it in a way that makes it inappropriate for the DM to include certain creatures. I, for one, do not want a game where the appropriate challenges for a party of all fighters are the same as the appropriate challenges for a party of all wizards. (Just for example.)

As to why the game doesn't call out specific roles? I'd say it's because 4e did that, and more people disliked it than not. It's okay for a beginning DM to learn this sort of thing through trial and error. It's okay for it to take a few attempts before an entire party of newbies manages to keep characters beyond the first few levels.

And let's also remember that this entire discussion is premature, until we know what sort of guidelines are in the DMG.

Basically what the Mouse said. One of the reasons so many people disliked 4E was that it seemed like a lot of things (classes, powers, monsters) were pretty much interchangeable, and that's not as interesting (to people like us). If you like the way 4E did it, by all means keep playing 4E. I'd rather have a game full of quirky exceptions that challenge the players to deal with them in unusual ways. Having every key fit every lock is bland.

And as has been said by several people - there are lots of solutions to the problem: NPCs, magic items, changing the rules. Why does it matter what the game's "default assumptions" about the situation are? Your game will have a specific context, so adjust it to make it work in that context. You're already improvising in a monster on the fly, why not just improvise a solution to the HP reduction? Not every instance of a specific monster needs to work exactly the same as every other, across all campaigns.

I believe the DMG will have optional rules for magic item creation. It will also have optional treasure tables that may or may not include Potions of Restoration. The treasure tables don't know what your party composition is, nor do they know what enemies you'll be fighting at a given level, so there's a good chance you'll - again - have to adjust them to fit your game's situation. As the DM, that's your job (IMHO).

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not enough. If part of the game assumes Particular Spell X, and not every class has access to that particular spell, then I am looking at a scenario where not everyone at my table can freely play whatever kind of fantasy hero they want to pretend to be, someone needs to play something that has Particular Spell X, or else I can't use that part of the game.

If that is the case, that is remarkably disappointing to me, given the promises of 5e not requiring any particular "role" to be met in a party.

No edition has EVER done what you are talking about. It would essentially mean the homogenization of ALL character classes into a single class: Adventurer. There are no choices to be made, no classes to choose from and no PC abilities that every PC doesn't get.

Sounds like it would have all the flavor of chewing gum left on the bedpost for a month.

That's some pretty poor apologetics. D&D is a game about pretending to be a fantasy hero, and sometimes you get a table where no one's particularly interested in a fantasy hero whose job it is to support the other fantasy heroes. If 5e's reaction to that is, "Sorry, some things in the game won't work as intended if you do that, someone should play a healer if you want the full experience" (and worse, it never actually comes out and says that), that's a problem.

The default healing rules mean that you don't really need a cleric. If you tweak them to slow down healing then you get closer to that need.

Because the job of classes isn't niche protection, it's archetype emulation. A table full of people who all want to be thieves isn't thinking about not being able to scry, heal, or wield heavy weapons, they're thinking about how cool it is to all be from the same thieves' guild. A class is a story, not a mechanic.

Nothing wrong with that. I enjoyed playing an all fighter/thief Lankhmar game. The lack of magic at our disposal meant something because we couldn't just substitute ability X instead.

"You can either make the game do what you want it to, or you can have an experience you might not want to have" is not a choice I'm interested in making. I'll just go play a game (or do something else) that already gives me an experience I want to have without me having to force it, thanks. This thing is supposed to be fun, and naked manipulation is always not fun and massive unexpected PC casualties are also not fun.

For you perhaps. This is just a game after all, and unexpected occurrences are sometimes part of play. If one cannot laugh at a TPK once in awhile there becomes a danger of D&D becoming serious business.

You just pointed out a context in which you could encounter a clay golem in a world that generally lacks mid-level clerics. So you know this is a thing that could happen. And your solution for such an encounter, by a party who lacks a cleric/druid/healybard is, "point and laugh at the idiots who don't have a dedicated healer!" And you don't see how this isn't satisfying to me?

How about realizing that certain encounters are unwise and not engaging in them just because they are there. " There is a clay golem down that way." " OK screw that we are going the other way."
I don't have to be as careful with monster selection because I don't present my players with THOU SHALT HAVE THIS ENCOUNTER hoops that I make them jump through. Players can and do bite off more than they can chew sometimes. Its not my job to ensure their survival through all bad choices.

If the DM decides that his/her players WILL fight a clay golem and there are no clerics available to heal the party that is the DM's problem not the game's.

As I said upthread: asking GMs to have intensively studied every random monster they stick in the MM for potential areas where their party is uniquely crippled is asking a hell of a lot.

You would be the only one asking yourself to do that. I choose monsters that belong where it would make the most sense for them to belong. The world is a living place and it really doesn't care about the class mix of those who decide to adventure in it. Every party composition will have strengths & weaknesses. It is the players responsibility to learn their boundaries and what to avoid if they are weak in a particular area. No cleric or paladin? Undead are going to be a tougher challenge so avoid them where you can and be careful when you can't.

It would NEVER occur to me as a DM in that situation to think "Darn nobody chose a cleric or pally. Now I don't get to use undead in my game".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm going to try and simplify the replies into categories. I'll call what I'm advocating for (and what I think 5e may have done here) as "Role-less play," that is, play where you don't "need" to fill a particular party role in order to access some exclusive ability that no other group gets access to and that the game assumes you have if you want to access all of it's default content.

They can't just TELL you about their assumptions!
[sblock]

It is absolutely not possible to imagine every single possible party composition and then, in each monster that has a weir power, say "This won't work as well without an X in the party."

They know the game they're designing better than anyone else. If a clay golem can't be fought without a dedicated healer, they know that -- it was presumably a conscious choice on their part for some reason. Why not be explicit? Why leave it for System Mastery to discover?

As to why the game doesn't call out specific roles? I'd say it's because 4e did that, and more people disliked it than not. It's okay for a beginning DM to learn this sort of thing through trial and error. It's okay for it to take a few attempts before an entire party of newbies manages to keep characters beyond the first few levels.

"It's OK to have a bad time playing D&D because that's learning how to have a good time!" is not a strategy I'm really interested in entertaining. Why would I play a game that doesn't make it easy for me to have a good time without having to jump through invisible and arbitrary hoops?
[/sblock]

Role-less Play Sucks!
[sblock]

You ask why you shouldn't be able to use clay golem against a party of all fighters. I ask why you should.

I should be able to because "A team of trained soldiers is asked to explore a forgotten ruin where ancient constructs of clay guard lost treasure" is not an adventure idea that should be off the table or require intensive DM effort to pull off in D&D. There's no good reason to arbitrarily exclude it or set the barrier for this particular story any higher than "a team of church functionaries is asked to explore a forgotten ruin where ancient constructs of clay guard lost treasure."

In 5e currently, there's nothing in the rules about making characters that tells me that I shouldn't just make whatever I want to make. If they didn't want a party full of fighters, why not design for that intent? If they wanted to have certain roles met, they could make it explicit as they did in 4e. It's not like no one has ever done this before, we've had a game since 2008 that tells you why you shouldn't have a party made entirely of fighters in pretty explicit terms.

Basically what the Mouse said. One of the reasons so many people disliked 4E was that it seemed like a lot of things (classes, powers, monsters) were pretty much interchangeable, and that's not as interesting (to people like us). If you like the way 4E did it, by all means keep playing 4E. I'd rather have a game full of quirky exceptions that challenge the players to deal with them in unusual ways. Having every key fit every lock is bland.

I don't want to play 4e, I just want my party of fighters in 5e to be able to face a clay golem without me having to frickin' hold their hands.

No edition has EVER done what you are talking about. It would essentially mean the homogenization of ALL character classes into a single class: Adventurer. There are no choices to be made, no classes to choose from and no PC abilities that every PC doesn't get.

Sounds like it would have all the flavor of chewing gum left on the bedpost for a month.

Class is not about niche protection, it is about archetypes, and archetypes are different with or without niche protection. You don't need homogenization, you just need a common baseline.

I mean, just because every character class can take the Attack action doesn't mean that all attack actions are completely homogenous and identical, right? If every class could take the Heal Maximum HP Loss action at level 9, why would that necessarily produce any more homogenization and blandness? That action can have AT LEAST as many interesting variations as "roll to hit and for damage."

I enjoyed playing an all fighter/thief Lankhmar game. The lack of magic at our disposal meant something because we couldn't just substitute ability X instead.

Everyone being capable isn't the same as everyone being equal. This isn't a binary yes/no switch, it's a continuum. Even if your fighter could heal the clay golem's injury with the Medicine skill, it doesn't need to be the equivalent to or as effective as casting a spell.

This is just a game after all, and unexpected occurrences are sometimes part of play. If one cannot laugh at a TPK once in awhile there becomes a danger of D&D becoming serious business.

Yeah, but I should know when I'm getting into a TPK situation, not have one unexpectedly dropped on my head because I failed to read the minds of the designers correctly.

You would be the only one asking yourself to do that. I choose monsters that belong where it would make the most sense for them to belong. The world is a living place and it really doesn't care about the class mix of those who decide to adventure in it. Every party composition will have strengths & weaknesses. It is the players responsibility to learn their boundaries and what to avoid if they are weak in a particular area. No cleric or paladin? Undead are going to be a tougher challenge so avoid them where you can and be careful when you can't.

It would NEVER occur to me as a DM in that situation to think "Darn nobody chose a cleric or pally. Now I don't get to use undead in my game".

There's a lot of room between "strengths and weaknesses" and "you must be X to participate."

Strengths and weaknesses are awesome and add variety. I prefer the extreme ends of the bell curve.

But those are still two points on the curve. I might SUCK at making melee attack rolls as a wizard, but I can do it. If I hit a magic-immune critter, I will not be at my best, but I will be doing SOMETHING.

Versus, if I am a fighter in a party without a healer, I just cannot fight a clay golem unless I want to be permanently crippled. That is not a weakness. It is a prohibition. An unstated, secret, presumed prohibition that I'm just supposed to figure out by, apparently, having bad experiences until I learn.
[/sblock]

A DM Can Fix Everything!
[sblock]

Besides, party composition is only one way to deal with this. You can use NPCs. You can use magic items. You can change the way the power works, as DMs are not only permitted but encouraged to do.

There's lots of ways to deal with everything, but there is a default assumption here. If that default assumption is "your party needs a dedicated healer," why leave that assumption un-stated? And why then advertise your game as being about creating your imaginary fantasy hero when that is not what the game really expects you to do (because it will punish you if you don't wind up choosing a specific kind of hero)?

And as has been said by several people - there are lots of solutions to the problem: NPCs, magic items, changing the rules. Why does it matter what the game's "default assumptions" about the situation are? Your game will have a specific context, so adjust it to make it work in that context. You're already improvising in a monster on the fly, why not just improvise a solution to the HP reduction? Not every instance of a specific monster needs to work exactly the same as every other, across all campaigns.

I believe the DMG will have optional rules for magic item creation. It will also have optional treasure tables that may or may not include Potions of Restoration. The treasure tables don't know what your party composition is, nor do they know what enemies you'll be fighting at a given level, so there's a good chance you'll - again - have to adjust them to fit your game's situation. As the DM, that's your job (IMHO).

The issue then is that it doesn't state those assumptions. It just assumes them. It doesn't say "hey everyone, you need a healer!", it just assumes that you'll have a healer and SCREW YOU if you decided to let your imagination run wild and be whatever you wanted instead of thinking about party composition!

And part of what I like about improvisational DMing is that I don't have to hold the game's hands and treat it like a precious little princess who feels this little pea behind her 20 mattresses, and pulling some contrivance out of my behindus as to why this damage doesn't stick falls into the category of being asked to remove that pea. I'd rather ask for the game not to be such a frickin' drama queen about the pea.
[/sblock]

This Whole Thing Might Be Moot
[sblock]

And let's also remember that this entire discussion is premature, until we know what sort of guidelines are in the DMG.

Player-crafted magic items don't fit every campaign style, either, but I never said they weren't desirable. But I'm assuming that creating a magic item that does X requires the participation of a character who can do X, so it would still require a cleric or druid or bard to have a greater restoration item. So I'm not sure how it's a solution to what you're talking about.

So it's not undesirable to have clay golem's attacks be healed by anyone. And it's certainly possible to have the clay golem's attacks healed by anyone. So why wouldn't that be what the game does?

As far as rampant speculation goes, I do think it's possible that they require the ability to cast a spell to make an item containing that spell, but we already have the example of an herbalism kit making antitoxins and potions of healing (which, apparently, anyone can do with some crafting down-time, and not to mention feats like Healer), so there's precedence for mundane resources being able to create magical recovery. The DMG might have more robust crafting rules that require magic, but I could envision a world in which it doesn't necessarily require magic.
[/sblock]

 

[Boarstorm]

I'm sorry, KM, but I feel like you're being intentionally argumentative here.

The bottom line is that if it doesn't work for the party in question, you can ignore those few words and your players likely won't even know the difference. Instead of just shrugging and embracing that power, though, you've derailed this thread into a rant with moving goal posts. We went from ease-of-prep (not having to memorize every creature in the MM) to archetype emulation to whether the PHB ought to outright delineate the consequences of certain party compositions.

I guess I just don't see why the book needs to explicitly tell you that "If situation X", then "In order for a better play experience for those particular PCs, your clay golems can be different."

 

[Remathilis]

Here KM, I'll save you a bit of trouble.

I just went through the Basic DM doc and the Hoard of the Dragon Queen Document searching for "Greater Restoration" to find all the monsters you can't use.

Basilisk
Medusa
Ghost
Clay Golem* (not in the PDFs).

All have attacks that require a GR to repeal.

Additionally, The spells Modify Memory and Feeblemind use it (though the former can also be cured by Remove Curse, the latter by Heal or Wish). Oh, Wishes can act as a Greater Restoration as well.