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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8378928" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Could be something worse... See, this makes me scratch my head, because a player pretty much always knows they have gotten a disease, unless the DM takes a lot of steps to avoid it. First of all, there has to be a vector, usually it is a monster attack. Then you roll for Con. Now, I suppose the DM could secretly roll for the player and not tell them the result, but that isn't how DnD 5e is generally supposed to be ran. Then you get the actual symptoms. "You have a fever" usually isn't a symptom. Things like the poison condition or being unable to regain hit points are symptoms... and they become very obvious very quickly. Now, if you have the attack, and you secretly roll and the player succeeds, and you describe the player as being feverish... then you are really just trying to gaslight the players into wasting a resource when they already succeeded. And if they have the disease... then again, it doesn't last more than a day or two. Sure, it might be dangerous but... only for combat. And sure, the cleric may really want to cast Lesser Restoration to cure a disease, but they also might not be that excited for that ability and don't really care. In which case, why am I doing it?Exactly. And the only two solutions people seem to want to throw at most problems is add more combat and make it a ticking clock. But that doesn't solve some of the more fundamental issues.This can work, but you have to ask, why isn't Leomund's Tiny Hut safe enough?</blockquote>

Verification