D&D 5E Disease immunity etcetera vs. non-communicable disease

[Nevvur]

I would argue that no, Cure Disease is not intended to cure genetic disorders. I would however argue that magic should be able to cure genetic diseases. Perhaps a "Greater Cure Disease" is needed or "Cure Disability" (Restoration maybe?). Though I wouldn't place it higher than Reincarnate. Now, there's nothing saying that Reincarnate creates a healthy body, but neither does it say that it does not, that's some fluff room left up to the style of DMing and the theme of the campaign IMO, IE: In Ravenloft, Reincarnate and other forms of resurrection may not create healthy bodies.

Indeed, and your example of Reincarnation is kind of the crux of the question. Immunity to disease or effects that cure disease doesn't say it doesn't cure genetic disease, so should it?

It's DM fiat, I understand that. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right or wrong answer to my original questions. Just curious to see how others approach the problem. How would you (generic) rule if the PCs ran across a kid with a cleft palate? Can the paladin cure it with Lay on Hands? Does Lesser Restoration's ability to remove the blinded condition remove cataracts acquired in old age, or congenital blindness?

 

[Nevvur]

I don't see any point in trying to come up with a standard set of mechanics or rules for NPC diseases. Because the only time a NPC will have such a disease is when the DM has given that disease as part of a plot. So what's that plot? Make that disease whatever it needs to be for that plot. Don't worry about justifying it with a set of rules.

I agree, for the most part. I can't recall ever seeing non-communicable disease feature prominently in official modules, nor have they been an important plot point in any of my homebrew content. As rarely as it comes up, I think you're right that effective treatments should consist of whatever's best for the plot.

However, I don't think predetermining how one would generally rule on the matter is a pointless exercise. Players and DMs alike seem to prefer consistency, and I approach my own answers to the original questions roughly the same way I do with any ruling where RAW is ambiguous or open to interpretation: a strong guideline for creating an internally consistent setting and narrative. As a DM, of course it's within my purview to treat each disease differently (hey, verisimilitude with reality), but in the interest of fairness to my players, I like to be able to tell them, "This is is how I normally rule on this situation."

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

That might be a use for some of the higher-end polymorph effects as well. Polymorph into a member of your race and make it permanent: new, healthy body.

 

[Nevvur]

[MENTION=6802951]Cap'n Kobold[/MENTION]

Great suggestion, hadn't even thought of it.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Great suggestion, hadn't even thought of it.

In the legal code for the game I run, heirs inherit position and assets on the death of the owner, even if they are later resurrected. So the reincarnation solution would be frowned on by the few able to take advantage of that.

It also brings in potential plot hooks: a person in an influential position is accidently hit with a dispel and suddenly changes appearance. Is it an imposter? Can the party track down the person who cast the original polymorph to vouch for them? Will the noble's condition advance suddenly now that they are in their own body?

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think it's easier, outside of something like Wish, to rule that genetic diseases are beyond the scope of curative magic. After all, if Restoration can cure sickle cell anemia, then why can't it cause someone who's unusually short to grow a few inches taller? Admittedly, we classify the former as a disease and not the latter, but that's just a classification we use. One could imagine a (probably not so nice) society where shortness is considered a genetic defect.

At that point, there's not a lot that Restoration can't do. IMO the best way to handle it, outside of Wish, miracles and hag favors, is that traits you are born with cannot be "cured" by magic.

 

[jasper]

science and magic in d&d don't mix well. But if you want to go this way you have three options. One. Lesser/Greater restore. Two Wish. Three. home brew ritual (aka quest for various stuff).

 

[schnee]

Most fantasy settings ... genetic diseases ... (Down's Syndrome)?

You're kinda mixing metaphors here, 'genetic' is scientific.

But, things like 'hunchbacks' have existed in fantasy forever. It's generally considered being cursed from birth, by the gods, so I'd say it's only a 9th level spell or divine intervention that would work.

 

[Nevvur]

You're kinda mixing metaphors here, 'genetic' is scientific.

But, things like 'hunchbacks' have existed in fantasy forever. It's generally considered being cursed from birth, by the gods, so I'd say it's only a 9th level spell or divine intervention that would work.

Genes existed before science. I'm not sure why acknowledging they exist in a fantasy world is problematic, even if the inhabitants don't understand exactly what's happening with 'gene therapy magic.' We generally assume they don't know virii and bacteria exist either, but magicians don't have trouble dealing with that. For those who insist the topic introduces too much science into their games, that's fine, it's your game. I just don't buy it.

 

[Stalker0]

I think its an area I wouldn't go for unless its a specific in character thing.

For example, the idea of a person who became a paladin and was cured of a genetic disease could be a cool idea.