2
\$\begingroup\$

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?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ forgot to say it. it is D&D 5e edition \$\endgroup\$ – ellak Feb 24 '17 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\$ – KorvinStarmast Feb 24 '17 at 15:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ I wasn't there that session. the DM played my char for me \$\endgroup\$ – ellak Mar 5 '17 at 12:42
12
\$\begingroup\$

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.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\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 '17 at 15:50
  • \$\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 '17 at 23:17
  • 2
    \$\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\$ – Clearly Toughpick Feb 26 '17 at 12:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.