Say a second level paladin gets a disease, then at the end of the session levels up and gets Divine Health, which makes them immune to disease. Do they still carry that disease and are its markings visible?

  • \$\begingroup\$ forgot to say it. it is D&D 5e edition \$\endgroup\$
    – ellak
    Feb 24, 2017 at 12:21
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is there a reason that the paladin did not use "lay on hands" on self to cure the disease? It recharges on a long rest to 10 points at second level. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 24, 2017 at 15:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ I wasn't there that session. the DM played my char for me \$\endgroup\$
    – ellak
    Mar 5, 2017 at 12:42

1 Answer 1


The rules as written don't say specifically.

"Immune" doesn't carry any special meaning in 5e. An ordinary language interpretation of "immune" would be that a character immune to disease can't contract any diseases, and that any diseases they have are immediately cured.

The DM may rule otherwise, although at the very least it would seem reasonable that such a character would not suffer any further negative effects from the disease, and that they would automatically succeed at any future saving throws the disease calls for.

It is also up to the DM to rule if immunity to diseases removes any scars or blemishes that previous diseases may have inflicted, or if more serious permanent effects of diseases (for example, blindness from sight rot) are healed.

My reading of the rules as intended is that 3rd level paladins gain an advantage in the 'exploration' pillar of the game by ignoring a specific class (diseases) of environmental hazards. As such, I would expect that once they gain 3rd level, any negative effects of diseases are completely removed.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ dictionary.com says that immune only means "protected from disease". Wouldn't that imply that that you would only be free of the non-permanent affects of disease? So the effects of Cackle Fever would end, but you would still need magic to heal blindness that has already set in due to Sight Rot? \$\endgroup\$
    – Shem
    Feb 24, 2017 at 15:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Shem i think I must be missing some subtle point of your meaning; Doesn't this answer already say that permanent consequences of having been diseased may remain, but that there's no specific rules stating which consequences of a disease are permanent? \$\endgroup\$
    – GMJoe
    Feb 24, 2017 at 23:17
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ I think @Shem is right. The answer's last paragraph sets an expectation that 'any negative effects of diseases are completely removed'. To me that emphatically does include the blindness caused by sight rot. \$\endgroup\$ Feb 26, 2017 at 12:31

You must log in to answer this question.

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