Diseases trivial?

[Final Attack]

With the reduced DC on diseases they look pretty trivial now. In my group there is always at least one 'healer' trained in healing. So with +5 train +3-4 wis and +1/2 level, at level 3 encountering filth fever (lvl 3 disease) you'll have a +9-10 to your nightly saving throw. Since you need to roll an 11 or higher not to get worse its almost a given.

Moon frenzy lvl 8 disease, encountered at level 8, you'll have a +12-13. It requires a DC16 to remain stable and 19 to get better.

Please am I missing something here?

 

[Nikosandros]

I haven't done an in-depth analysis, but I have the same feeling. One of the PC recently contracted a disease and the heal checks were so trivial for the party cleric that the group discarded immediately the idea of shelling money for a ritual.

 

[fissionessence]

Use higher level diseases.

A couple of my [level 3] players recently contracted filth fever, but they haven't taken an extended rest yet, so we'll see how that plays out. One idea is just to milk it for what it's worth role-playing-wise while they have the disease. Have them go to bed sickly and weak, so that even if they wake up all better, it was still somewhat interesting.

~

 

[Jack99]

You are entirely correct. They aren't as long as you have someone trained in heal. I do not think that the intend is that equal level diseases are supposed to be more than a minor inconvenience. If you want your players to suffer, simply do as FE suggests above. Use a higher level disease.

Cheers

 

[malraux]

I've mostly ignored the errated DCs, especially for my own created diseases. The other thing I've done is to play around with when you roll; one disease forces a re-roll every time the contracted drops below 0.

But yeah, the standard diseases kinda suck.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

i had the feeling old DC´s were too hard, now i think the new DCs are too soft... it should be 15+1/2 level to not worsen and 20+1/2 level to improve, now it is 11+1/2 level to not worsen, 16+1/2 level to improve.
Actually i would also be fine with 11+1/2 level to not worsen and 20+1/2 level to improve.
Maybe this would work best, because an average character without training and heal should not be able to cure you, but you are not dead in 2 days if you lack a healer and/or the endurance skill. But without proper medicine (i.e. a ritual) healing is not so easy.

edit: you could even go down to 1-9 worsen, 10-19 remain, 20 improve. this would be in line with the saving throw system...

edit2: maybe following: if you didn´t have complete bedrest, you get a penalty of -5 -armor check penalty to your endurance/heal check

 

[DracoSuave]

Equal level diseases aren't supposed to be major obstacles, but inconveniences. A single equal level -anything- isn't supposed to be 'OMG YOU SIR OR GOING TO DIE' in 4E, but rather a bit of a challenge.

But, it seems that you need the equivalent of rolling a 5, more or less, to make your check, and that's right about in line with difficulties for simple actions in 4E.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

sry draco, but i don´t think its ok...

while not worsen on less than a 2 for a very high constitution guy with endurance trained or a 5 for either trained in endurance or having 18 constituton is reasonable, or never worsen when you are treated by a wise healer, improving on your own is too easy.

see my above post for what seems to be correct ---> basic model for success/fail/critical failure is the death saving throw:

20/19-10/9-1 -> 3 failures result in death when not treated by a healer or luck!

This model would make a diseases not too deadly, also not trivial and make cure disease ritual worthwile and not more deadly than just using a heal check...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think what you have to figure is that the basic disease rules are just the simple generic case. They work fine for some story purposes. For example they are perfectly good for explaining the logic and consequences of diseases suffered by NPCs. The townspeople have filth fever. It is a problem for them. It will be fairly trivial for a PC to get over it, but as a plot hook it works. It also works OK as a sort of minor annoyance factor, or a complicating factor "do we press on or stop and rest and let the orcs escape with the gold?"

However if you have a desire to make the disease itself a significant element then the basic disease rules can profitably use some elaboration. Maybe only certain herbs cure certain diseases. Maybe some diseases have several forms of progression so that the common progression is not too serious a problem, but there is a small chance that the disease could turn out MUCH worse.

I think diseases can be interesting, but like most secondary elements of the game the core rules don't flesh them out in enough detail for that. Go crazy if you want to. Make something really interesting. The framework is there, just flesh it out more.

 

[WalterKovacs]

sry draco, but i don´t think its ok...

while not worsen on less than a 2 for a very high constitution guy with endurance trained or a 5 for either trained in endurance or having 18 constituton is reasonable, or never worsen when you are treated by a wise healer, improving on your own is too easy.

see my above post for what seems to be correct ---> basic model for success/fail/critical failure is the death saving throw:

20/19-10/9-1 -> 3 failures result in death when not treated by a healer or luck!

This model would make a diseases not too deadly, also not trivial and make cure disease ritual worthwile and not more deadly than just using a heal check...

The difference is that, unlike with death saves, you start with a bad effect from the disease, so maintaining it isn't really 'good' in the first place, and the first failed "save" makes it worse. With death saves, you can have 2 failed saves without it being a big deal ... it's only the 3rd fail that kills you, similar all the damage in the world doesn't really hurt you except for the one that knocks you below 0HP.

The initial disease condition isn't too nasty, but is still something you'd rather get rid of than just maintain. If it gets worse though, it can be really bad.

Some examples out of the DMG: at level 12 there is cackle fever which causes you to start the day without an action point and you are dazed (save ends) whenever you become bloodied. Maintaining that effect isn't a good outcome. If it gets worse you can't gain or use action points.

With diseases it's go back to normal (or closer to normal, some diseases have steps between cured and their initial effect), stay with a bad effect, or get a worse once. It's good, bad and ugly. Maintaining is still a failure, just not as spectacular a failure as worsening is. It might make removing disease a less commonly used ritual, but with some of the effects the diseases have, the option of eliminating a disease in 1 hour is a bit better than having to continue with the penalty for the rest of the day.

Also, consider that, it's quite possible for most of the party to end up with the disease because of the source being a monster they were fighting.

(a) to use a heal check in place of an endurance check you have to be attending to the infected. So, that means the person with the great heal check won't be able to help himself against the disease. He'll be relying on his own endurance and/or someone elses heal check.

(b) If you are making rolls for 5 characters, there is a chance that once of them may still end up being low enough to worsen, and at the very least, it will be unlikely that everyone will succeed on being cured/improving.