The spell Accept Affliction lets you transfer a harmful effect to yourself.

If you are immune to the effect, what happens?

The specific example I see coming up soon in our campaign is if a cleric is wearing an item that makes him immune to Lycanthropy and casts Accept Affliction on a were-rat what happens?

I can think of three possible rulings (leaving aside for now questions as to whether the spell is powerful enough to transfer a magical disease like lycanthropy) but cannot see a clear statement from the spell or rules to say which of these is correct.

  1. The spell says "transfer" the effect, you cannot transfer it as you are immune so nothing happens.

  2. The effect is transfered even though you are immune as you are voluntarily giving up the immunity by casting the spell. You take the effect as though you were not immune.

  3. The spell transfers the effect, which you are immune to so it is immediately cured.

Does anyone know what the correct ruling is?

  • \$\begingroup\$ What's the name of the item? Or is it homebrew? \$\endgroup\$
    – Scott
    Aug 11, 2014 at 23:12
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That shouldn't matter. The effect it bestows is "immunity to lycanthropy". You can answer this question as if it were "immunity to blindness", the type of affliction doesn't matter. \$\endgroup\$
    – Axoren
    Aug 11, 2014 at 23:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Scott it's a homebrew item, they dived down into a sunken city to retrieve some gauntlets that the inhabitants there had made when fighting these were-rats hundreds of years ago :) They make any weapon wielded or fired count as silver for the purposes of overriding damage reduction and the wearer is immune to Lycanthropy. \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim B
    Aug 12, 2014 at 8:11

1 Answer 1


Immunity doesn't prevent you from gaining the affliction.

A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.

You gain the affliction, but do not suffer from any of the effects of it. Logically, this means that the cleric can pass Lycanthropy onto anyone who isn't immune if they want to, but they will not become a werewolf themselves until they remove the item.

  • \$\begingroup\$ This could create some interesting RP opportunities, you know. "I cured the entire tribe of were-rats but now if I ever take my necklace off I will have super-lycanthropy." I could see other items and methods of transferring various afflictions being even more powerful in the narrative... \$\endgroup\$ Aug 12, 2014 at 5:17
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, now that's really interesting. So if anyone gets Lycanthropy they would need to keep dosing themselves with Wolfsbane until it was cured before they could remove the gauntlets safely? \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim B
    Aug 12, 2014 at 8:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't suppose there is any other ruling saying that an effect that does nothing disappears? For example a blow that deals no damage does not apply any additional effects delivered by that blow... \$\endgroup\$
    – Tim B
    Aug 12, 2014 at 8:14
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ The rulings are rarely this granular, but that's how most people play it off. Immunity to anything is rarely temporary as it was originally intended as a creature special quality. It depends on how the DM wants to run it. Personally, I'd say that if it's a poison, your body neutralizes it. If it's a disease, you carry it for as long as its onset period and then it's gone. For special afflictions like vampirism and lycanthropy, I'd say you're a carrier until cured. \$\endgroup\$
    – Axoren
    Aug 12, 2014 at 8:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ I checked again, I don't see anything about immunity removing the sources of the effects. The ruling you're mentioning isn't as simple as you're saying either. There are cases in which a blow that deals no damage does not apply effects, like a creature's poison not piercing the skin. However, some effects simply need to make contact. Like a contact poison placed at the striking surface of a hammer. The creature may be immune to blunt damage, but it still had its face caked with Pathfinder's Herpes equivalent. Things tend to take a logical path when the rules are lacking. \$\endgroup\$
    – Axoren
    Aug 12, 2014 at 8:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .