Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8953131" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I actually wouldnt be surprised if they got rid of diseases as a player facing concept. The issue with disease is that it just do not fit well with the way of playing that 5ed seem to be designed toward, with each day being a new episode with the characters refreshed to full capacity.For oneshots and adventures league style of play diseases are meaningless as the game is usually over before any effect come into play. For campaigns it is usually just an unwelcome speed bump and/or resource drain - not really contributing anything fun. Actually "forcing" adventuring with some of the party members diseased, just breaks with the idea that all players should have equal oportunities for that session.That leaves diseases as plot devices, and that is the kind of tooling that is best fully left to the DM(G)s discretion. That is an individual disease might specify that it do not affect paladins, and can be cured by lay on hands or lesser restoration. It is an effective way of still allowing the classic "find a cure for the kings illness", without having to be overly bothered by having to break player expectations by making it "exceptional" and hence resistant to lay on hands (an argument that falls very flat when the party never encounters any diseases that actually can be cured that way).Poisons just are usually much more fun tools to play with against player characters, as the main difference to diseases is that those take immediate effect and hence have to be handled in "adventuring time". I wouldnt be surprised if any monsters inflicting disease will be reworked to inflict a similar poison effect instead.</blockquote>

Verification