Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 9481628" data-attributes="member: 1210">It's the fact that it imposes a universal mechanic on all diseases with game impact that I don't like.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification