Diseases trivial?

[Saeviomagy]

One equal level monster is not a significant challenge to a party, so why should an equal level disease be?

 

[Ceraus]

One equal level monster is not a significant challenge to a party, so why should an equal level disease be?

How about five equal level diseases? And what if they focus-fire on a single party member?

 

[DracoSuave]

How about five equal level diseases? And what if they focus-fire on a single party member?

No what you need is three or so equal level diseases, plus a rough and tumble elite disease, and a handful of minor sniffles in order to make a fully fleshed challenge.

 

[Ryujin]

Two simple questions: How does the player know that his character has the disease, unless he has started to show obvious symptoms? How does the healer know to start treating him?

Diseases are less trivial, even with the current difficulties, if the infected party is unaware. Make your own Endurance rolls for the characters. There's no reason to tell them that they've been exposed.

 

[Nikosandros]

Two simple questions: How does the player know that his character has the disease, unless he has started to show obvious symptoms? How does the healer know to start treating him?

Diseases are less trivial, even with the current difficulties, if the infected party is unaware. Make your own Endurance rolls for the characters. There's no reason to tell them that they've been exposed.

The first stage of a disease always has some kind of effect, like lose a healing surge or something. The player will know that something is affecting the character.

 

[keterys]

Eh, the other problem is that as far as I know you can just take 10 on a Heal check to remove it from someone. This should almost always (with a couple exceptions, like that Huge mummy) remove it automatically.

Before the errata, it would just keep it from progressing automatically.

 

[Ryujin]

Given that there's an obvious consequence for failure, I wouldn't consider the task to be mundane. As a result, I wouldn't permit taking a 10.

As long as they connect the effect to a potential disease, they may well realize what's up. You don't necessarily have to apply the results after the encounter though. Does the player connect it to a disease, or to a poison on that Half Orc's sword? He got hit by a rat 3 rounds back. Does he connect it?

 

[keterys]

Taking 10 isn't stopped by an obvious consequence for failure. You may be thinking of the 3e rules for take 20, though.

You're not in an encounter, you're not being rushed (extended rest, remember), and it doesn't get much more mundane than extended health care.

Not that I don't think it works a lot better if you can't take 10, them's just the rules.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The PHB refers to taking 10 applying to mundane tasks only. You have to not be rushed, not be threatened and performing a mundane task in order to take 10. The question is if taking care of someone is a mundane task. What about taking care of multiple characters? What about taking care of other characters if you are infected too?

 

[keterys]

The question is if taking care of someone is a mundane task.

Yes. It is. You periodically check in on someone over the course of six hours without requirements for any extreme steps. You are not rushed. You are not doing anything exceptional. It is not an encounter, unless the disease calls for a skill challenge.

The rules are unclear as to whether you can use Heal to fight disease on multiple characters at once, or if there are any limits on your ability to do so.

If the DM decides that a character can, say, take care of 1 character normally, but up to 8 at a frantic and hectic pace, that's perfectly reasonable.

That doesn't change, of course, take 10 from still working perfectly fine on a single character and it'd be _extremely_ hard to justify that you can't take 10 on a Heal check for a single character with a disease.