Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 1eejit Oct 08, 2014 3:47:58	I can't find anywhere that says this is so, but it may simply be in the as-yet unreleased DMG. Or I'm blind.   Personally I think it probably does/will.   If you look at it none of the monsters you'd expect have disease immunity specificially listed, only poison. That includes all Undead (corporeal and incorporeal), the Elementals ("pure" ones not the races like Salamander), the Solar, the Tarrasque, all Constructs, Unicorns.   All of those should be disease immune, but according to the RAW we have thus far, aren't. Yet Demons in at least some past editions have only had the poison immunity/resistance but not diease, IIRC? Do they now get both?   In fact RAW in the PHB would suggest they're treated seperately, at least for players (see: Purity of Body).     So, until we get the DMG are you guys assuming Poison Condition Immunity includes Disease Immunity, or not?
#2 AaronOfBarbaria Oct 08, 2014 4:41:52	I am assuming that the rules provide disease immunity only when they specifically say they do.
(Reply to #2) 1eejit	AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
#4 El_Condoro Oct 08, 2014 5:16:34	How would an undead get a disease in the game? I'm not sure about the common cold and other natural diseases but the main spell that causes disease is Contagion (5th level necromancy). In that spell's description it says 'any effect that removes a disease or otherwise ameliorates a disease's effects apply to it.' Surely being (un)dead would count.
(Reply to #4) 1eejit	El_Condoro wrote:
#6 Timborama Oct 08, 2014 6:31:13	Well, it's 1 of 2 things: Poison Immunity (the condition) grants Disease Immunity also No monsters are immune to disease.   A DM should always take things on a case-by-case basis, but personally I'll start at #1 as my guideline. Either way, it's very strange!
#7 Deadstop Oct 08, 2014 10:04:51	Nothing has a condition immunity against disease because there is no single "diseased" condition. Diseases do different things, and monsters might be immune to those things.   In the case of the otyugh disease that poisons, creatures immune to the poisoned condition don't suffer that effect.   A rotting disease would probably do necrotic damage over time (maybe reducing maximum hp by the same amount), so immunity to necrotic damage would protect against that.   A disease that just directly hands you disadvantage on certain rolls or suchlike, that would be harder to deal with. If undead and elementals are meant to be immune to diseases that affect living fleshy creatures (as seems logical) the individual spell or effect should probably state that it doesn't work on those creature types, the way cure wounds doesn't work on undead or constructs. Right now, there is no "standard" place in a creature statblock (except for a special trait) that would reflect blanket immunity to effects like that.   Deadstop
#8 Saelorn Oct 08, 2014 11:53:56	I think that's a good house rule, to cover an area where the existing rules are insufficiently developed.   It really seems like something that would need a case-by-case basis. Just like you can't disarm an enemy of a natural weapon, you can't affect the blood of a creature that doesn't have blood. That should just be common sense, right? And if you have a disease that affects bones rather than blood, then a skeleton would be affected by that one.
(Reply to #3) AaronOfBarbaria	1eejit wrote: