D&D (2024) So how do you remove disease in 5E 2024?

ad_hoc

(she/her)
Sounds like a problem of scenario design then. The DM is supposed to set a timer so people start to die if the disease goes untreated. It's up to the party to come up with a solution for the scenario.

The problem is that if there are paladins and/or clerics in the party then there isn't much of a challenge. And how does the paladin player feel about using their powers? It probably isn't very satisfying.

And if there isn't now we're into some grim territory.

It's great when a character's ability solves an obstacle but not when it solves an entire adventure.

There is also the question of where the NPC clerics and paladins are. Assuming there aren't any around to help out is a much different assumption of the world than the default game suggests.

So in order for this to be an adventure there needs to be no NPC clerics or paladins and no PC clerics or paladins. And if there is a PC cleric or paladin then that player needs to feel accomplished in saving the day by declaring they save the day.

I don't think we're missing out on much here and in this world I like if only magical diseases are virulent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Diseases were vestigial in 2014. They only existed because curing diseases has always been a thing paladins could do. But if there was a paladin in the party, diseases were trivial to cure. So, the entire exercise just felt like a weird pantomime where DMs were including diseases just to humor the Paladin player, and Paladin players were spending 5 points of Lay on Hands to cure diseases they knew only existed to humor them. By getting rid of diseases as a specific codified category of thing, we are free of that silly artifice. Now, diseases can still exist as bespoke game constructs that include their own rules for how they can be cured, and they can therefore always be as easy or as difficult to cure as the narrative demands.
I agree with this. In our home game, a diseased party member drove a significant portion of the plot for almost a year, and the first thing they discovered was that it was not curable by the “conventional” methods. At my current school campaign, one player has written a disease into their backstory, and it will soon become a focal point of the campaign.

So with the 2014 rules, whenever you wanted a disease to matter, you just designed it so that lay on hands and restoration didn’t work because reasons, making cure disease into a ribbon ability. I suspect the 2024 DMG will instead address disease solely as a plot point, much like traps, etc.
I do wonder if this is a step in the direction of disease being a much more serious long term issue that isn't easily magicked-away. If so I'd be in favor of that.
I suspect what it means is that each type of disease that does exist in the game will spell out how it is removed (varying from trivial- to quest-level). Which, given (as others have pointed out) the number of times cure disease/restoration spells/paladin abilities have been excluded throughout the editions, has been the de facto situation already.

And I agree -- disease was codified in 1e AD&D and treated as a significant part of the play experience (and like level-up training or weapon vs. armor charts, individual mileage may have varied). Since then, the game has been very waffley about how much of a thing it is supposed to be*. Usually as a plot device (the plague town), and usually either untreatable with the mid-level abilities specifically given to deal with diseases, or spreading too fast to cure with X/day abilities.
*outside of individual monsters inflicting it on hits, which as often as not required different treatment from the baseline anyways.

Diseases, like Curses or Geasa, are wonderful fantasy worldbuilding effects, but run into issues when gamified. If too easy to cure, they just become a resource cost. If too hard*, the eliminate** the 'cure the village just because you are good people' plot. It almost inevitably*** works best for the cure to be the source of following a plot hook (be that a supply of medicine, a secret rare herb, or rare components for a highly-specific cure disease spell/ritual).
*say costing xp or major gp investment, etc.
**or at least become a 'screw you, player, for making a character who cares about nameless townsfolk I just invented to give you this hard choice' moment.
*** unless your players would immediately shout 'RAILROAD!' and rebel.


D&D kinda hamstrung itself early on by making all spells easy to cast using daily slots; with the only way to make them more costly being staggering expenses like costly components, caster laid up for extended periods, (in AD&D) aging the caster, (in 3e) xp cost, or the like.
Fascinating. I have an entire PDF of normal and magical diseases I've been working on for sale.....I might have to rethink this.
Why? It's giving you free rein to do what you want, unburdened by what WotC is doing. None of the spells or class abilities you might have been thinking of using as cure options have been removed. The diseases you were going to create weren't present to begin with. You can do everything you intended to do, just without any 'instead of the existing disease list in the core rules, you might instead enjoy my...' verbiage necessary.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
It’s just the name of the condition. It doesn’t have to mean literal poisoning.

......m around.
Well we already know Wotc will remove stuff due to sensitivity issues. But changing disease to poison without it not literally poisoning is still moving the deck chairs on the sinking ship.
Not understanding some abilities are not blanket ability has always been a D&D problem.
Pally in Costello's voice, "But you said lay on hands cure disease."
DM in Abbot's voice, "True but this is curse disease."
Pally in Costello's voice, "Fine I will get the cleric to cast remove curse and then lay on hands."
Bard, "Please just do something. It hurts when I go to the bath room.
DM & Pally, "We didn't tell you to wine and dine the Mummy."
Instead of coming up with an unique word, the DM just need to say non-standard disease/poison.
 

the Jester

Legend
It’s just the name of the condition. It doesn’t have to mean literal poisoning.
It's the fact that it imposes a universal mechanic on all diseases with game impact that I don't like.

This is a slippery slope fallacy. Just because they take out mention of disease in the interest of sensitivity surrounding a recent global tragedy doesn’t mean they should be expected to take out any mention of anything connected to any tragic event anywhere.
Of course not. But what's the difference? We've seen the eliding of any mention of things like slavery in recent years, which may be because of sensitivity concerns; and while I appreciate the sentiment, slavery is a perfect example of a horrific evil that pcs can fight against.

There is a tendency in 5e to make evil... not very evil. I don't want to throw out any spoilers, but there's a particularly egregious example in one of the published adventures where the pcs are expected to persuade an npc fiend. The ways to do so don't seem to indicate evil values or sinister character traits on the evil npc's behalf. They can earn points by helping one of the fiend's servants remove an irritant. An irritant to the servant, not to the fiend. Being NICE to SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE FIEND can improve you in the fiend's regard.

I'm going off at a bit of an angle here, but my point is that evil that acts like it's maybe a selfish neutral just really isn't evil. Bad guys should be doing bad things. It's fine if some villains have a code or won't do certain things, but there should be room for an Against the Slave Lords adventure.

And we don’t know how much of a factor sensitivity around the pandemic played in this change, or even if it actually played a role at all. It may well have been that, as per my other post, they felt that diseases as a distinct subsystem, were vestigial and not worth maintaining when individual diseases were almost entirely handled by bespoke mechanics anyway.
I mean... disease has been a thing with at least as much detail as poison since at least 1e. Monsters have always inflicted diseases, from mummy rot to giant rat disease to filth fever and beyond. I would say that only 5e has pretty much stepped back from disease mechanics.

I'd also argue that disease can be a great tool in the campaign, both as a plot element and as a background feature of the world.

You're right that we don't actually know why they removed diseases, though.
 

FitzTheRuke

Legend
I’m Charlaquin, with an a (like someone pretending to be a clown). Apparently there is also someone with an account here using the name Charlequin, with an e (like a clown that has been badly burned).
I'm normally aware of that, but the thing must have auto-filled the other one when I typed "at char" and I didn't notice. My apologies!

Doesn't being drunk give you the poisoned condition, IIRC? Perhaps that condition is trying to do a bit much for simplicities sake. Doesn't really bother me one way or the other much.
Yes, that's true - and while that also could be better called "sickened", at least it technically really IS poisoned! (Unlike many of the other things that D&D calls poison or poisoned.)

It doesn't bother me much, either - I just tell players that it "means that they are sick" when they acquire the poisoned condition.
 

Clint_L

Legend
My broader question is whether removing disease from the PHB list of conditions actually makes much difference. Like, is this really a problem anyone was having? If you needed a disease to really matter, you just made it harder to cure than with a simple restoration/lay on hands, and WotC has long done exactly that in their own publications.

This kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's a bit odd.
 


dave2008

Legend
Good for you. Hopefully the rest of us can still discuss issues that are beneath your wunderkind's attention?
They thing is - it doesn't take a wonder kid to figure it out. It was answered within the first couple of posts IIRC. I just can't believe that this is really any issue for you or anyone else. It is trivial.
 

xoth.publishing

Swords against tentacles!
They thing is - it doesn't take a wonder kid to figure it out. It was answered within the first couple of posts IIRC. I just can't believe that this is really any issue for you or anyone else. It is trivial.
And yet, here we are, with 69 posts stretching over 7 pages of discussion. But hey, you've got it all figured out, so move along...
 


Remove ads

Top