Are diseases contagious?

[Stabbald]

I did a search on this but my google-fu must be failing me. Are for example contact diseases contagious? If a Cleric was to cast Lesser Restoration on a character that had a contact disease, like mummy rot, then have to make a fort save to avoid contracting it?

[Stabbald]

Additional question. If a mummy, for example, spreads a contact disease does that mean that a character would need to risk contracting it if they hit the creature with an unarmed or touch attack?

[DeltaEmil]

Yes to all.

[Ashtagon]

I would say no to the curing spell, yes to the unarmed/touch attacks.

[Stabbald]

Yes to all.

Is this RAW? If it is, do you know where to find the rule? I couldn't find it.


I would say no to the curing spell, yes to the unarmed/touch attacks.

Any particular reason that you would consider the curing spell to be exempt? What if the character was to use a Cure Light Wounds on said mummy?

[DeltaEmil]

Contact

Touching something containing this type of disease necessitates a saving throw. A weapon attack or a touch attack can also deliver it. (In this respect, a contact disease is the same as an injury disease.) Even if a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the disease can still affect it.You touch it, you suffer it. Mind you, by the time a mummy is considered to be a level-equivalent threat (CR 5), clerics have access to remove disease, a 3rd-level spell, which they gain access to at level 5, and the ones that would be punching mummies with their fists are monks, who at level 5 are immune to any disease by that level, supernatural or not.
Of course, I would consider wearing appropriate protective gear, like heavy leather gloves, and the fantasy equivalent of a hazmat suit to be sufficient enough to not risk contamination, as long as the protective gear is then sterilized or burned away.

[paddyfool]

Now I'm mulling over a magical plague designed to take out the clerics as soon as they move in and start casting Remove Disease... something that hits Wis, perhaps.

[Stabbald]

You touch it, you suffer it. Mind you, by the time a mummy is considered to be a level-equivalent threat (CR 5), clerics have access to remove disease, a 3rd-level spell, which they gain access to at level 5, and the ones that would be punching mummies with their fists are monks, who at level 5 are immune to any disease by that level, supernatural or not.
Of course, I would consider wearing appropriate protective gear, like heavy leather gloves, and the fantasy equivalent of a hazmat suit to be sufficient enough to not risk contamination, as long as the protective gear is then sterilized or burned away.

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you very much.

[Ashtagon]

Is this RAW? If it is, do you know where to find the rule? I couldn't find it.



Any particular reason that you would consider the curing spell to be exempt? What if the character was to use a Cure Light Wounds on said mummy?

I was referring specifically to the spell that cures the mummy rot disease. A curative spell that does not affect the disease in question should not offer any special protection to the caster.

[Geordnet]

Any particular reason that you would consider the curing spell to be exempt? What if the character was to use a Cure Light Wounds on said mummy?
Because:

The touch is what's destroying the disease, so it's questionable whether the disease is even present to infect the cleric at that point.
It seems kind of stupid and outside the spirit of the rules for the cleric to be risking his own life by casting Remove Disease.
It's more appropriate to the "Faith Healing" archetype for the faith involved to be "stronger" than the disease; it's in-keeping with certain religeous texts as well.


As for CLW, I would say no: there is a risk of contracting the disease involved.

[DeltaEmil]

On the other hand, the very dangerous diseases like devil chills and demon fever are magical, and should be able to counteract magical faith healing, forcing the faith healer to either have a more powerful faith than the vile magick that powers the horrid disease, or be more cautious around.

[Psyren]

Would a creature count as "something" though? A corpse, filth, or rotten food would, certainly, but I don't think it's actually possible for one creature to communicate a disease to another unless they (a) damage them or (b) their entry specifically states they transmit disease by touch.

[Eldonauran]

Because:

The touch is what's destroying the disease, so it's questionable whether the disease is even present to infect the cleric at that point.
It seems kind of stupid and outside the spirit of the rules for the cleric to be risking his own life by casting Remove Disease.
It's more appropriate to the "Faith Healing" archetype for the faith involved to be "stronger" than the disease; it's in-keeping with certain religeous texts as well.


As for CLW, I would say no: there is a risk of contracting the disease involved.

I'd add onto this with just a little bit more:

The cleric is touching someone with a hand that is 'super-charged' with healing magic. Any 'contact' at that point is met with the healing magic. I'd imagine it was like dipping your hand into rubbing alcohol and then touching a toilet seat, the 'disease' doesn't survive the experience long enough to infect you.