Cure disease

The issue is should a simple heal disease be able to cure any and all diseases? Is this too powerfull, too hard on game balance.

Jonathan is of the opinion it IS to powerfull and should be scaled to level.

A chart from dungeon that looks at the issue



[[img][/img]

There is a point to this kind of chart but at 5th when you can only fix mucus membranes lung issues and stomach parasites, what are the definitions of the various levels of severity?

would not asbestosis not be a lung condition as would lung cancer, black lung, cystic fibrosis, where would all these conditions fall? would lung cancer be easy to cure with magic while cancer somewhere else would not be?

would a sinus infection be nose and throat and non curable or respiratory and curable. Is a sinus infection really harder to cure than pneumonia

I would be tend to think that to rank of ease cure it should start with severity ranked with based on their ease of cure today.

bacterial
viral
parasites= easiest

I would think bacterial/viral/parasites all easier with magic than science because magic is guided by devine power and the cure would only attack the foreign invader not the body. I thinkthat's the reason for a one off cure, once you can focus divine energy it does the rest

environmental diseases caused by (toxins, poisons, malnutrition) for a long term fix it would require neut poison or a turn to nutritional eating and then cure disease or it will re occur
genetic - obviously the hardest.
tumor benign
tumor malignant- also hard but some of those benign tumours like elephant man are harder to cure than cancer.

And like I said the other night perhaps it would take a course of cure diseases castings like a series of transfusions, chemo, or anti biotics as an alternative to a full one shot cure. Also lower level castins might cause short term remissions allowing extentions to life and functionality but no permanent cure. Making someone dependant on treatment and in turn obigated to keep funding the church. Can you see those greedy bastards not doing this if it was in their power.

Comments, suggestions for a more accurate system? Is it too powerfull now, is the chart too far in the other direciton or not enough?

Steve did you figure this out for you system?

Just thinking about cancer for the moment, I would say that it has been left off the list, or included as something else (what, I don't know). Seeing as lung cancer is a disease of the respiratory system and is fatal without treatment, the chart is lacking in a terminal strain for that "type" of disease. Obviously I will have to adjust the chart somewhat to take this in to account, as well as the other points you mention.

rather than bother with what kind of disease why not just make a table adjusts for level adding several results

d100 +10% per level of caster above minimun level required

1-30 No effect

31-50 short term improvement/remission 1-3 months, minimize pain and only regain some semblance of functionality

51-60 4-6 months remission regain weight, mobility, etc

71-120 full heal as spell improvement seen over the next week until mormal functionality achieved

121- instant heal, no delay in signs of health.

Ok, I've have been nudged in this direction to give me two cents...

As a DM, I have always felt that the cure desease was way too powerful. a PC has a terrifying desease on him! What does he do?!!! Well, we all know that in most campaigns, temples and clerics abound. Drop a few coin and you're instantly cured. NEvermind that fact that the party may have a cleric with them.

I have always (secretly) used a kinda 2nd Edition version of a 'resistance' check, similar to the Dispel Magic rule. I basically determine the strength of the desease (type) and who may have cast it and make a roll for the priest trying to remove it.
In some malicous cases I have even had a backlash effect occur, where the priest removing it had to make a save versus the desease or be infected himself (but this was in an extreme case where a really nasty lich placed a desease and I wanted to give the feel or horror)...

But, yah, my two cents is, "cure desease" should not be automatic. It should be scary...

Quote :

Well, we all know that in most campaigns, temples and clerics abound. Drop a few coin and you're instantly cured. NEvermind that fact that the party may have a cleric with them.

When in your world were we ever allowed to have a cleric? not since I've played with you
Oh yes I hired one once, the black chick who you released from service without even telling me!

But that aside.

1.
think part of the issue is the belief that all clerics reach this level of spell casting , sure in a major center at least the high priest would be above level 5 but in any small settlement or minor shrine in a out of juristiction temple they may not reach this skill.

2. Churches do gouge on healing/raising. All peasants, some merchant class, and even minor nobles would not have the cash we generally have, so diseases have not been banished by magic, In some campaigns like daves or even harrisons my characters would not have money for a cure disease let alone a raise.

3. Churches, money grubbing or not would not hand out major magic to non followers and without proof of devotion. You would have to be known as worthy and faithfull as well as shell out big, unless the king or other high noble comanded it.

My 2 cents...

"Naturally occurring/acquired diseases (cancer, ebola, the common cold, malaria) should be really difficult to cure (but possible and expensive) as you are a dealing with a natural micro organism/cell.

Diseases induced by magic (mummy, cause disease, etc...) should be readily wiped out by magic. Think of it in the terms of a "dispel" disease context. If it's natural, it can not be dispelled, if it's magic, it makes sense that it can be made to go away with magic.

Doug I don't think its a case of dispelling. Magic moves a real disease into your body, It's now your and as natural as the food created by create food or wall of stone, which while manufactured or created by magic do not radiate magic and cannot be dispelled.

Wall of force is a temporary magical barrier two different things.

A curse will detect as such, disease shows no magic trace.

Part of the problem is that we want to know all the mechanics of the game world. We want to be able to predict what will happen under any given circumstance, and we want to take advantage of our knowledge of how the game mechanics work to make our characters more powerful. What we forget is that the dm can change anything in the game for any arbitrary reason. If the dm wants to make a disease harder to cure, then he is free to impose any conditions on the cure that he wishes; indeed it may be the purpose of an entire adventure to figure out how to cure a particular disease.

We don't have to know the exact mechanics except for when we have to roll against them. However despite it being the right of the DM to change things we should at least have an idea of expectations when major shake ups happpen. I'm not bitching about change rather simply discussing possible alternatives that would make things work for game play

Quote :

Part of the problem is that we want to know all the mechanics of the game world. We want to be able to predict what will happen under any given circumstance, and we want to take advantage of our knowledge of how the game mechanics work to make our characters more powerful. What we forget is that the dm can change anything in the game for any arbitrary reason. If the dm wants to make a disease harder to cure, then he is free to impose any conditions on the cure that he wishes; indeed it may be the purpose of an entire adventure to figure out how to cure a particular disease.

I agree with this as long as it doesn't go against the internal logic of the game. If at one point a cure disease works on rot from a mummy and then the next time it doesn't, there is a problem.
But I do believe the DM is allowed to add things to enhance a moment, such as my example of a "cure-backlash" on that one particularily nasty lich.
Players don't NEED to know every rule or possibility simply because the character wouldn't.
However the DM still has to keep track and be aware of the internal logic and precidents he has already set up.

again its just about expectation, in the end I don't need to know exactly how it works but thousands of years of religious practice would give me an idea of what is likely to happen in relation to various levels of sickness. I would like any new methodology to transparent enough I still have an idea if my ability will work in any given sitiation.

I am not trying to game the system, Jonathan and I were simply looking at options to make it more realistic if that can be used in reference to magic in a fantasy game

he recomended the chart thing but that means you need to decide what the disease is each and every time which is extra work. My last alternative lets the dice decide if the sickness was severe or not but some might say divine power is not up to chance? WTF do I know!

certainly a debateable topic...

Quote :

It's now your and as natural as the food created by create food or wall of stone

Since it's "manufactured" magically I'd say it's more like a genetically modified organic and is not the real deal - it's elimination should come from the same school that created it (magic).

But then again, I'm bored and just looking for things to do...

perhaps its actually summoned from some poor saps larder,

"Damn you Ralph, you've eaten all the gruel again."

"Wasn't me mum!"

"likey storey you lazy bastard, why don't you go earn your food like those adventures do."

kubera wrote:

The issue is should a simple heal disease be able to cure any and all diseases? Is this too powerfull, too hard on game balance.

Jonathan is of the opinion it IS to powerfull and should be scaled to level.

Cure Disease: 3rd level priest spell (PH, 2nd ed., p. 209). "[C]ure[s] most diseases". It's "also effective against parasitic monsters such as green slime, rot grubs, and others". It can also cure lycanthropy. Paladins "can cure diseases of all sorts (though not cursed afflictions such as lycanthropy)" [ibid., p. 27].

Is Jonathan thinking of reducing the effectiveness of the spell, the paladin's special benefit, or both?

both

kubera wrote:

A chart from dungeon that looks at the issue [...]

Matt Thomas complains in "How to give disease a fighting chance"--cited by Kubera above--that diseases are too easily dealt with by PCs.

In response, I say, What's the use of spending all that time rolling to see whether someone takes damage, only to have the neighborhood cleric heal everything with a single, simple spell casting?

Even if a cleric able to cast Cure Disease is available, there are role-playing/game reality considerations that can complicate matters. For instance, would a cleric cast the spell on anybody and everybody? What about the faith of the afflicted? Would "strings" be attached? Who pays? Is the cleric trustworthy (i.e., is he really casting a "simple" Cure Disease?)? Does the cleric even want to intervene? (These issues are present whenever a spellcaster's assistance is sought--whether to cure a disease, heal, teleport, etc.)

Therefore, I don't see why the DM ought to be frustrated by the presence of disease-curing magic.

But what about the rules? In AD&D, physical damage is accounted for by a pool of fungible hit points; injuries to specific body parts aren't important in the rules, and thus, healing applies to all damage indiscriminately.

Similarly, disease-curing magic eradicates all diseases from the recipient. (Then again, how often does a character contract more than one disease?)

Yet disease and hit points are not quite the same thing in game terms. Physical damage is treated numerically, and healing is incremental. Because diseases aren't treated as points, the magical curing of diseases is an all-or-nothing proposition--which is where Mr. Thomas' table comes in (i.e., in its treatment of severity).

Personally, I don't think disease (or the specifics of injuries) is an interesting part of the game. Moreover, the rules to handle disease can easily become complicated. Nonetheless, as a GM I am open to a simple, really elegant mechanism.

it's kinda funny because it's really a spell we've rarely used. As far as unbalancing the world I don't think there are enough(generous) clerics of 5 lev and above to wipe out disease. Really would not most clerics wallow in mediocracy casting minor magics, chasing nuns and doing marriages. What would be the ratio of 1st to 2nd to third ,4th etc in any class. Most people are 0 in any class so I doubt there are enough power clerics to irradicate death, disease, blindness or any other malady. In fact the ratio of power clerics is probably less than the ratio of doctors in our society. Sure there are lots of small town padres but I suspect they are very low level on average.

I think its mostly because I brought forward the idea of actually using the spell to buy the loyalty of broken down soldiers and bringing them into my service. No good deed or idea goes unpunished

Jonathan wrote:

Just thinking about cancer for the moment, I would say that it has been left off the list, or included as something else (what, I don't know). Seeing as lung cancer is a disease of the respiratory system and is fatal without treatment, the chart is lacking in a terminal strain for that "type" of disease. Obviously I will have to adjust the chart somewhat to take this in to account, as well as the other points you mention.

In the chart wouldn't terminal lung cancer be T(A) or T(B)?

Soloman/Karl de Fallcrum wrote:

Ok, I've have been nudged in this direction to give me two cents...
;)
As a DM, I have always felt that the cure desease was way too powerful. a PC has a terrifying desease on him! What does he do?!!! Well, we all know that in most campaigns, temples and clerics abound. Drop a few coin and you're instantly cured. NEvermind that fact that the party may have a cleric with them.

I have always (secretly) used a kinda 2nd Edition version of a 'resistance' check, similar to the Dispel Magic rule. I basically determine the strength of the desease (type) and who may have cast it and make a roll for the priest trying to remove it.
In some malicous cases I have even had a backlash effect occur, where the priest removing it had to make a save versus the desease or be infected himself (but this was in an extreme case where a really nasty lich placed a desease and I wanted to give the feel or horror)...

But, yah, my two cents is, "cure desease" should not be automatic. It should be scary...

:)

If I understand you rightly, you don't want magical disease cures to be automatic--just as Dispel Magic isn't automatic.

I agree somewhat, but with reservations.

Whereas Dispel Magic is often used in combat, where failure has immediate consequences, the failure to cure a disease means little at that moment if the disease is slow-acting. If the cure roll fails and the disease persists, it is as though the cleric wasn't able to cast Cure Disease in the first place. Thus, it seems as though there isn't any substantial difference between the spell as automatic cure-all and the spell as a chance for a cure.

Still, rewriting the spell to give it a chance to succeed (rather than retain it as an automatic cure) will add drama because no one knows whether the local priest/healer will be able to cure afflicted character until the die is cast. But, other than this drama, I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Soloman/Karl de Fallcrum wrote:

[...] If at one point a cure disease works on rot from a mummy and then the next time it doesn't, there is a problem.

This assumes all mummies are the same.

Soloman/Karl de Fallcrum wrote:

But I do believe the DM is allowed to add things to enhance a moment, such as my example of a "cure-backlash" on that one particularily nasty lich.

Yes.

Soloman/Karl de Fallcrum wrote:

Players don't NEED to know every rule or possibility simply because the character wouldn't.
However the DM still has to keep track and be aware of the internal logic and precidents he has already set up.

Agreed.

kubera wrote:

again its just about expectation, in the end I don't need to know exactly how it works but thousands of years of religious practice would give me an idea of what is likely to happen in relation to various levels of sickness.

Does magic accelerate progressive knowledge? If so, the world could hardly be described as medieval, yet who would deny that the correlation and dissemination of the results of magical experiments would occur in a fantasy world? Spells are communicated via scrolls and books and there is a wizard mentor system of sorts, so why wouldn't knowledge accumulate accordingly?

If spells like cure disease seem too powerful, the ad hoc spellcasting system itself might be to blame.

When spells are memorized, as in the official TSR rules, the spell-using PC must choose spells according to challenges he anticipates. Thus, one probably wouldn't memorize cure disease without a specific reason--such as an expedition into an Egyptian-style crypt where mummies could be lurking. Hence, the power of cure disease is counterbalanced by the unlikelihood that it will be memorized or needed (i.e., except for the Egyptian-scenario mentioned above, which is rare, there is usually no reason to expect a disease threat in any given series of encounters). Such a spell's "extra" power makes it more attractive to memorize if its need is predicted. If cure disease is de-powered (e.g., by giving it a failure chance), there's less incentive to memorize it (or more reason to memorize it more than once!). That is, spells that are comparatively less useful or less powerful are correspondingly less likely to be selected for memorization. That's why, in an ad hoc spell system, cure disease can be regarded as too powerful.

Here's a reductio ad absurdum example to show what I mean when I say that within a spell memorization system, a spell that is powerful for its spell level can be balanced by the perceived rarity of its use. Imagine there's a spell called Disintegrate Orcus that bypasses Orcus' magic resistance and disallows him a saving throw; in short, it kills Orcus automatically. In the memorization system, one would have to memorize it explicitly, of course. But because of the extreme unlikelihood of meeting Orcus, the spell's power is significantly reduced in real-world terms. That is, one wouldn't memorize it unless there was an expectation of facing Orcus. If one encounters Orcus unexpectedly, the spell won't be memorized (the party could retreat and memorize it, but Orcus might be on the defensive at this point) and Orcus survives. But in an ad hoc spell system, one needn't have the spell memorized at all; one can simply cast it at any time and Orcus wouldn't stand much of a chance. Clearly, the spell is too powerful for the ad hoc spell system.

I would argue the statement that cure disease is too powerful, few diseases kill instantly , but poison does , therefore neut poison is one level higher, if all else fails raise dead is once again 1 level higher.

Unless you intend on eliminating magic or making it all harder to get all spells, cure disease fits correctly into the progression of spell ability.

I think peoples perception of the spell is wrong, you do not suddenly get up and start tap dancing after casting it takes 1-10 days for people to be fully recovered, so yes if mummy rot is caught the first round it's pretty might look pretty instant because there has not been a lot of long term damage but some decrepit old guy with lung disease is not instantly going to run a marrathon,

The disease and symptoms would abate upon casting but it takes 1-10 days for damage to be corrected and full function to return. There fore 95% of this spell's use is not during adventuring but part of the normal priestly duties. I think forget most people don't adventure and use spells as part of a daily routine where cure disease might actualy be a spell memorized each day with other cures, purify food and water, in the original spells system a high priest probably only has 1 or two combat spells memorized unless in a war zone. We not them are the exception.

P.s. The ad hoc argument does not work for my situation because it is a granted spell I don't have to PICK.. It's also only 1 a week, which makes it many times less available than it would be for a priest with access to it.

I don't think the complaint about the spell is based so much on it being too powerful but rather the way in which I proposed to use it as a means to grow notaritiety and gain the loyalty of people I might like to entice into employ or attact as henchmen or as church follower

Isnt this what faith healers have done for ages? I think its a normal and rational use of the power. That I'm the first and only Pc in any of our games who actually wants to build a flock and improve the faith, rather than my own pocket book, should not be held against me.