Purity of Body [Archive] - Wizards Community

Purity of Body [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sphere
04-06-07, 06:19 PM I have ran into an interesting problem regarding the level 5 monk ability purity of body.

The problem comes from the idea that a monk being immune to diseases, can still carry diseases and infect other people with them.

So I suppose I am asking, what exactly does immunity to diseases mean? Are diseases destroyed automatically when they enter the monk's body? Or does the monk have such a high level of control that they can harmlessly contain the disease until they can spread it? And furthermore can a monk willingly infect themselves with disease for a day or two in order to spread it by "turning off" their purity of body, then use purity of body to get rid of the disease from their system at a later time?
Perseus_Stoned
04-06-07, 06:30 PM The way diseases are handled in DnD is they are rolled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#disease) versus a fortitude save.

The monk's ability grants automatic success on these rolls, thus they are not affected by the diseases, thus they can not contract diseases. I would say a monk could not "deactivate" an extraordinary ability unless stated in the description, so no chemical weapon carriers either.
Amaya_Akira
04-06-07, 06:34 PM IMO this ability is sorta like having a cranked up immune system.
Since you can't really controll your white blood cells and what naught you can not turn it off, hence you can't harbor diseases to infected people because your cells keep the disease in check/ eliminate it. For that reason the character can not get sick and can not get others sick.
All in all, you, the Dm have the final say.
Sphere
04-06-07, 09:38 PM What led me to ask in the first place was one of my players adventuring in a sewer and fighting several disease ridden monsters. The player (a monk) brought up the fact that at level 5 he was immune to all diseases. The PHB description of the ability says level five monks have control over their immune systems and I was wondering if anyone knew exactly how much control they had.

I think it would make an interesting plot hook to have the PC become an unknowing carrier for the disease as he would have been infected several times over. But having an evil monk willingly spread disease this way due to having perfect control over their immune system would be quite interesting too.
Marcus Majarra
04-08-07, 04:18 AM Being immune to something generally means you cannot be affected at all by it. Would a golem radiate a magic effect targetted on it, despite not being affected by it? Certainly not. Same goes for a monk or paladin of sufficient level to gain disease immunity.
Sphere
04-09-07, 03:29 AM Being immune to something generally means you cannot be affected at all by it. Would a golem radiate a magic effect targetted on it, despite not being affected by it? Certainly not. Same goes for a monk or paladin of sufficient level to gain disease immunity.

OK but does that mean that the disease is in the body and can be extracted normally and the monk/paladin is simply unharmed by the disease, or that the disease is automatically destroyed upon entering the body?
Mysteria
04-09-07, 04:37 AM I'd say it is destroyed as soon as it enters the body. :)
In order to be spread around, the disease, that is the microbe responsible for it would have to multiply in the body of the monk (paladin ...). Or, in doing so, it would most probably harm the monk at least a bit. But the monk isn't affected at all by the disease, so I'd go with destroyed as soon as it enters.
tos_shai_hulud
04-09-07, 09:52 AM I'd say it is destroyed as soon as it enters the body. :)
In order to be spread around, the disease, that is the microbe responsible for it would have to multiply in the body of the monk (paladin ...). Or, in doing so, it would most probably harm the monk at least a bit. But the monk isn't affected at all by the disease, so I'd go with destroyed as soon as it enters.

I would have to agree. For information on plague spreaders, you should check out the Cancer Mage in the Book of Vile Darkness. That offers what it would look like for someone who is unaffected by the negative aspects of diseases to be able to carry them. It still has negative physical side effects, but no stat-affects. You can tell they are infected.
Kazgoth
04-09-07, 10:44 PM I would have to agree that the virus or bacteria that causes the disease would either be destroyed on entering the body or unable to enter the body. Either way, the disease immune character couldn't carry the disease inside his body. However, if you had an evil character looking to spread a plague, you could easily carry a piece of diseased meat/fang/claw/etc around a populated area or drop such a thing in a local water supply to spread the disease, and your disease immune character would still be unaffected ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sphere 04-06-07, 06:19 PM	I have ran into an interesting problem regarding the level 5 monk ability purity of body. The problem comes from the idea that a monk being immune to diseases, can still carry diseases and infect other people with them. So I suppose I am asking, what exactly does immunity to diseases mean? Are diseases destroyed automatically when they enter the monk's body? Or does the monk have such a high level of control that they can harmlessly contain the disease until they can spread it? And furthermore can a monk willingly infect themselves with disease for a day or two in order to spread it by "turning off" their purity of body, then use purity of body to get rid of the disease from their system at a later time?
Perseus_Stoned 04-06-07, 06:30 PM	The way diseases are handled in DnD is they are rolled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#disease) versus a fortitude save. The monk's ability grants automatic success on these rolls, thus they are not affected by the diseases, thus they can not contract diseases. I would say a monk could not "deactivate" an extraordinary ability unless stated in the description, so no chemical weapon carriers either.
Amaya_Akira 04-06-07, 06:34 PM	IMO this ability is sorta like having a cranked up immune system. Since you can't really controll your white blood cells and what naught you can not turn it off, hence you can't harbor diseases to infected people because your cells keep the disease in check/ eliminate it. For that reason the character can not get sick and can not get others sick. All in all, you, the Dm have the final say.
Sphere 04-06-07, 09:38 PM	What led me to ask in the first place was one of my players adventuring in a sewer and fighting several disease ridden monsters. The player (a monk) brought up the fact that at level 5 he was immune to all diseases. The PHB description of the ability says level five monks have control over their immune systems and I was wondering if anyone knew exactly how much control they had. I think it would make an interesting plot hook to have the PC become an unknowing carrier for the disease as he would have been infected several times over. But having an evil monk willingly spread disease this way due to having perfect control over their immune system would be quite interesting too.
Marcus Majarra 04-08-07, 04:18 AM	Being immune to something generally means you cannot be affected at all by it. Would a golem radiate a magic effect targetted on it, despite not being affected by it? Certainly not. Same goes for a monk or paladin of sufficient level to gain disease immunity.
Sphere 04-09-07, 03:29 AM	Being immune to something generally means you cannot be affected at all by it. Would a golem radiate a magic effect targetted on it, despite not being affected by it? Certainly not. Same goes for a monk or paladin of sufficient level to gain disease immunity. OK but does that mean that the disease is in the body and can be extracted normally and the monk/paladin is simply unharmed by the disease, or that the disease is automatically destroyed upon entering the body?
Mysteria 04-09-07, 04:37 AM	I'd say it is destroyed as soon as it enters the body. :) In order to be spread around, the disease, that is the microbe responsible for it would have to multiply in the body of the monk (paladin ...). Or, in doing so, it would most probably harm the monk at least a bit. But the monk isn't affected at all by the disease, so I'd go with destroyed as soon as it enters.
tos_shai_hulud 04-09-07, 09:52 AM	I'd say it is destroyed as soon as it enters the body. :) In order to be spread around, the disease, that is the microbe responsible for it would have to multiply in the body of the monk (paladin ...). Or, in doing so, it would most probably harm the monk at least a bit. But the monk isn't affected at all by the disease, so I'd go with destroyed as soon as it enters. I would have to agree. For information on plague spreaders, you should check out the Cancer Mage in the Book of Vile Darkness. That offers what it would look like for someone who is unaffected by the negative aspects of diseases to be able to carry them. It still has negative physical side effects, but no stat-affects. You can tell they are infected.
Kazgoth 04-09-07, 10:44 PM	I would have to agree that the virus or bacteria that causes the disease would either be destroyed on entering the body or unable to enter the body. Either way, the disease immune character couldn't carry the disease inside his body. However, if you had an evil character looking to spread a plague, you could easily carry a piece of diseased meat/fang/claw/etc around a populated area or drop such a thing in a local water supply to spread the disease, and your disease immune character would still be unaffected ;)