Is Mummy Rot a disease? Cursed with Mummy Rot?

[Paladinatheart]

So I have played DnD 3.5 for years and Mummy Rot was a disease that Paladins were immune to. But when I look into the monster manual for 5e, Mummy rot it says that the players are cursed with it and that it can only be removed by "remove curse" or other magical means.

Are paladins immune to mummy rot like in 3.5 e? Or has that changed?

Can I cure a player from mummy rot in 5e with Lay On Hands (if it counts as a disease)?

Well let me know please.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I'd certainly rule it as a curse in 5e, based on the RAW. I can see why it would make sense as a disease, but mummies are definitely associated more with curses in real life lore, so curse seems fine. Also makes it harder to cure. :smallamused:

[Gryndle]

I'm AFB from the moment so cant double check, but I think it is a curse. It def was a curse in 1st/2nd AD&D, and 4th, and paladins were NOT immune to it (in 2nd Ed PHB it even called out Mummy Rot and Lycanthropy as being cursed diseases that the Paladin wasn't immune to).Not sure about 3.x.

[Unoriginal]

Are paladins immune to mummy rot like in 3.5 e? Or has that changed?

Since you've seen yourself that the book was calling it a curse, and that it could only be removed by Remove Curse or similar magic, I don't really see how the conclusion could be "it's actually a disease that can be cured via disease-curing means and that people who are immune to diseases are unaffected by".

If it was a disease, it'd be called a disease.

[MrStabby]

If it is any consolation I think it still works against spells like Harm.

[Draken]

5th edition Monster Manual is pretty clear with the following lines:


the target is a creature, it must succeed on a DC 12 Constitution saving throw or be cursed with mummy rot.

And more importantly:


The curse lasts until removed by the remove curse spell or other magic.