D&D 5E Harm vs Disease Immunity

[Stalker0]

The Harm spells says.... "You unleash a virulent disease...."

Further, it mentions that any effect that removes a disease allows the loss of max hitpoints to recover.

So how to interpret this spell.

1) Disease Immunity = Immunity from this spell. Its a disease...your immune, period.
2) Disease Immunity = Immune from max hp loss. You still take the pain...just not the permanent pain.
3) Disease Immunity = Doesn't do jack. The spell works regardless of this immunity.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I would rule it that the creature (probably a paladin I'm assuming) is immune to all facets of the spell.

They added the fluff text of "You unleash a virulent disease..." to the spell description for a reason. If they didn't want the spell to be considered a disease, they would have just made it a flat HP loss and said "You do 14d6 necrotic damage on a failed save" and be done with it. But they didn't do that... they added the fluff so as to make the spell more special and different. So to ignore the fluff just because the spell doesn't affect one class out of 12 seems a bit short-sighted to me. This is what makes the Paladin a paladin and not just a fighter/cleric, they get to be immune to diseases. So as far as I'm concerned... I'll let them be, even if that disease comes from a high-powered 6th level spell.

 

[jaelis]

I'd agree, the description of the spell says it is a disease. Of course it is a magical disease, I think there are some cases granting immunity only to non-magical diseases. (For instance, the raise dead spell cures only non-magical disease.)