D&D 5E Paladin and 'disease' - your ruling on this matter, please

[Dausuul]

Speaking as a health care professional and former biologist - this is completely wrong. Disease is by far the more broad and encompassing term. ALL infections that cause impairment of the host organism are "diseases" (or result in diseases; the technical labels of the two may differ). Not all diseases are caused by infection (e.g. heart disease).

The paladin should be immune.

I agree that the fact it's caused by a fungus does not disqualify it from being a disease. I would have no problem saying paladins are immune to thrush, ringworm, and athlete's foot, all of which are caused by fungi.

That said... given the mechanics, I think it's pretty clear the victim of the treant's attack is not the host for this fungus. If that were the case, the fungus would continue inflicting Dex loss over time. Instead it causes a bunch of Dex loss in 1 round and then stops. The fungus's host is the treant; an infusion of blood from a wound allows it to grow rapidly, but it can't keep growing away from the treant. This is really more of a physical attack than an infection.

 

[Umbran]

Speaking as a health care professional and former biologist - this is completely wrong. Disease is by far the more broad and encompassing term. ALL infections that cause impairment of the host organism are "diseases" (or result in diseases; the technical labels of the two may differ). Not all diseases are caused by infection (e.g. heart disease).

The paladin should be immune.

I agree with yoru definition of disease.

I disagree that the paladin should be immune. This isn't a disease. It is an *attack*.

I mean, getting hit by an axe isn't a disease, it is an injury. Having filaments rip through your body over the course of seconds is not a disease. It is physical trauma.

 

[Iosue]

Either way looks good for this, but personally, given that this is a "virulent fungus" that grows when in contact with blood, I'd say that the paladin would be immune to that effect. It seems to be similar to mummy's rot -- not done by will of the creature, but a side effect of its attack. Just as the paladin's divinely protected body chemistry protects them from mummy rot, it would likewise not provide the conditions necessary for the virulent fungus to grow.

 

[Paraxis]

Pathfinder stat blocks call out disease clearly because there are things immune to it like paladins in that game too, so I don't see why would a conversion of the monster that could normally effect paladins in that system not work against paladins in this system.

 

[Celtavian]

Sounds like a disease to me. Paladins in 3E were immune to infections like Green Slime or parasitic infection. I don't see why they wouldn't be in this edition. The idea behind the disease immunity is based on religious myth concerned with purity of the soul and a god's grace providing purity to the flesh disallowing disease of any kind from inhabiting the flesh.

 

[Herobizkit]

For clarification, I'm sending a "generic" CR9 treant and slapping on the undead template.

I'm sending a higher-than-her-level monster because I'm trying to get across to the player(s) that, in an "open-world" game such as Kingmaker (which I am running and adding other modules and homebrew stuff), there are some things that are just too strong to face alone, or at all - and I know the player's gut reaction will be to charge it, especially with that Paladin's smite evil ability.

On top of that, the Paladin IS a low Dex character (6).

The Paladin is going to receive a warning in the guise of a group of humanoids who abandon the Sunless Citadel. The "vampire tree" (which the heroes left behind in the care of an NPC Druid) uproots itself when its food supply no longer includes blood and starts seeking its own sustenance. Of course, the nearest source of sustenance will be the human village above.

The purpose of doing this is to "scorched earth" the village off the map so the players will focus on the area they're in... and if they decide to tackle the beast and fail, it will then become a wandering horror through the Kingmaker area.

The Paladin's player is a big fan of Dark Souls, so I know this is going to make him very happy. And paranoid. But overall happy.

 

[Paraxis]

I don't think any player has ever been happy when a DM places a monster in front of them that they are compelled to deal with and it can literately one shot them.

 

[Quartz]

I've just remembered that there's an old Dungeon adventure with an undead treant. There's also a 'Critical Threat' with a ghost treant.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Incidentally, the original Pathfinder tree is for me a (minor) example of game design failure. The flavor text states that it's a disease - because that's what fungal infections are, even in D&D. The mechanics say that it isn't. This is a situation that never should have happened in the first place.

As to the question itself, I would go with "yes, it is a disease and the Paladin is immune." There are two reasons for this.

First, unleashing a high level creature with 1d6 Dex damage and two attacks per round on a Dex 6 character is just ridiculous. Just kill the character right away and stop pretending like there's any gameplay still going on.

Second, 5e is not beholden to the (in this case incorrectly used) classifications that Pathfinder uses. This ability is a fungus. It's a disease. Whether it was or wasn't so in PF is completely meaningless, game conversions don't work if you just slavishly copy over words without regard for their context.

I'd also like to weigh in on the Dark Souls comparison. In those games, if you die you can relatively easily respawn at the last save point. Then you can try again and again, learning the correct tactics and skills to bypass the monster. But in D&D you typically have to reroll your entire character. You will not learn the correct tactic in dealing with the treant other than "be someone else with a higher Dex and hope the dice favor you". Or maybe they will just learn not to fight the thing entirely. That's also a valid lesson, but not really one shared with Dark Souls. The two approaches, and therefore experiences, are simply too different.

I would strongly advice reconsidering this idea.

 

[Uchawi]

I would treat the attack as parasitic and not a disease. Since the undead tree no longer uses photosynthesis, it must live off other creatures, which is very undead like. Consider it similar to a vampire draining blood.

So in that sense, a race like the warforged may be considered immune to the attack.