4e Cure Disease badly worded/overpowered

[maximara]

I was looking through 4e Cure Disease and realized just how badly worded/overpowered it is.

"Eliminates one type of disease ''or'' infection from the body of the subject."

The classic version was saner: "Eliminates all disease, plague, or infection microorganisms of one chosen type from the body of the subject. (...) If no organism is responsible, the spell has no effect!"

The way Cure Disease is set up in 4e as written it would seem to be a great way to cure scurvy or beriberi neither of which is the result of a vitamin deficiency.

[maximara]

Made a blunder and can only correct it in post:

Originally Posted by maximara

The way Cure Disease is set up in 4e as written it would seem to be a great way to cure scurvy or beriberi neither of which is the result of a vitamin deficiency.

Should read:

The way Cure Disease is set up in 4e as written it would seem to be a great way to cure scurvy or beriberi neither of which is the result of a microbe or virus.

[mlangsdorf]

I'm perfectly okay with magical healing curing vitamin deficiencies. It's magic, not science.

Casting Cure Disease to cure cancer is conceptually a little weird, but it also means magic doesn't need a specialized spell for that.

Using Cure Disease to relieve hypothyroidism or hypoparathyroidism is a lot weirder, but I think it's still acceptable.

But if it really bothers you, just reword it as "Eliminates one type of infectious disease" and I think that catches most of the corner cases.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by maximara

The way Cure Disease is set up in 4e as written it would seem to be a great way to cure scurvy or beriberi neither of which is the result of a microbe or virus.

While true, I'm not sure that it matters or makes it particularly more potent than it already was.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Anthony

While true, I'm not sure that it matters or makes it particularly more potent than it already was.

Not so much as long as the GM gets to decide what counts as "disease". "He's sick with excessive hit points and high combat ability! I cure him." needs to be avoided, but otherwise I think it's fine. It's not like there aren't saints whose reputation is built on miraculous cures for cancer or epilepsy or impotence or some other organic malfunction.

And too in a lot of settings, diseases are *never* caused by micro-organisms. They're the result of unbalanced humors, witches curses, the weight of past sin, failure to observe taboo, bad air, or accumulated microtoxins. Whatever writeup you use, you need to be careful it doesn't specify the mechanism of disease too closely.

I'd note too that more than a few diseases have changed "cause" to something infectious in my lifetime - ranging from ulcers to cervical cancer - so there's always a risk if you say no that next year....

[maximara]

Originally Posted by mlangsdorf

I'm perfectly okay with magical healing curing vitamin deficiencies. It's magic, not science.

Even magic has is rules. Heck, Thaumaturgy is defined as the "science" or "physics" of magic by Isaac Bonewits in his 1971 Real Magic that he turned into a RPG reference called Authentic Thaumaturgy (1978, 1998, 2005). This definition has been used in Role Playing Games (RPGs) such as GURPS (Generic Universal RolePlaying System), novels such as China Miéville's Perdido Street Station, and real world works such as Marcus Cordey's Magical Theory and Tradition.

Originally Posted by Anthony

While true, I'm not sure that it matters or makes it particularly more potent than it already was.

It is definitely more potent — you can cure arthritis, gallstones, cancer, IBS, GERD, and a host of other diseases. That is insane for a spell with a Prerequisite Count of 5 . If you are in for a SCP crossover it would make a great Christmas present for SCP-049. ;-)

[edk926]

It should take penalties for difficulty of infection to cure. It could cure cancer, but it should probably be around -10 to the roll. A standard IQ 14 and Magery 3 mage with a skill 15 *might* be able to succeed if they are lucky with the roll, but it wouldn't be something to count on, especially if you put a limit to the times they can attempt to cure it. Plus if it's something that wouldn't even be known to the World, you can disallow accurate diagnosis and attach another -5 to the roll.

[Refplace]

At typical fantasy TL's the germ theory is not even an option.
Deafferenting between scientific causes that are not known in the campaign setting does not make a lot of science. I am ok with it as is and some illness just isn't covered in a specific setting.

[mr beer]

There are many causes of disease and I don't see the benefit of seperating the generic Cure Disease spell into Cure Disease (Vitamin Deficiency), Cure Disease (Parasitic Infestation), Cure Disease (Genetic Abnormality), Cure Disease (Senescence), Cure Disease (Radiation), Cure Disease (Prions) and so on in most campaigns. But if the setting would benefit from this level of detail, sure go ahead.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by mr beer

There are many causes of disease and I don't see the benefit of seperating the generic Cure Disease spell into Cure Disease (Vitamin Deficiency), Cure Disease (Parasitic Infestation), Cure Disease (Genetic Abnormality), Cure Disease (Senescence), Cure Disease (Radiation), Cure Disease (Prions) and so on in most campaigns. But if the setting would benefit from this level of detail, sure go ahead.

I would tend to divide them between transient, chronic and terminal.