Topic: Ghoul rot and healing

[DangerMan]

In Channeling Companion one may read the following about ghouls and ghoul rot.

"Those infected with Ghoul Rot do not heal naturally (magical healing spells are equally ineffective), in fact they will lose 1-5 hits a day until death
claims them. Only a Cure Disease or a Remove Curse spell will remove the affects of this infection."

IYO, would the 13. lvl spell on arcane healing, Undisease, suffice to cure the ghoul rot? Or is it only the two spells mentioned in the text that will do. Do you need some sort of cure disease spell, or the Cure disease spell?

Our group just ran into a group of ghouls in a part of the world where there are no channeling users.. sigh..

[Arioch]

IMO any disease healing spell would be ok (and certainly Undisease would work).

[pastaav]

I agree with Arioch. I think the reason the Arcane Companion spell is not mentioned is since this product is considered optional. Nobody probably had the time to check that book when Channeling Companion was written.

Of course it is possible to imagine settings when Ghoul Rot is a special disease that can only be fixed with cleric spells, but I have difficulty to see the point game wise.

[DangerMan]

I agree with Arioch. I think the reason the Arcane Companion spell is not mentioned is since this product is considered optional. Nobody probably had the time to check that book when Channeling Companion was written.

Of course it is possible to imagine settings when Ghoul Rot is a special disease that can only be fixed with cleric spells, but I have difficulty to see the point game wise.

The undead are of course described in Creatures and Monsters, not Channeling companion. My bad.

[GoingNegative]

So the way you read it, the remark "magical healing spells are equally ineffective" refers to the hits taken, not the infection per se?

What puzzles me is the reference to the two spells, in italics and with capital letters. I can't help but feel that if any old healing spell would do (Disease Purification, say) , the wording would have different.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

[oRule=
Official Ruling - Ghoul Rot]
Any spell that specifically heals or negates or removes a disease will work to remove Ghoul Rot. The same applies to spells regarding curses. You are not limited to those two specific spells, but to those two types of spells.

The generic reference to healing spells is referring to spells that would normally heal hits or other non-specific healing.

[/oRule]

GoingNegative -- the thing to realize is that sometimes RM (any version) is a bit myoptic or obtuse in its phrasing due to what was available when the entry was first written, and that nobody every went back and caught every single reference when additional spells along the same lines were added to the mix.

You will likely find little oddities like this throughout the rules (we tried to fix them in RMC, but chances are we missed a few there as well).

[DangerMan]

Gotta' love that blue ink

[providence13]

GoingNegative -- the thing to realize is that sometimes RM (any version) is a bit myoptic or obtuse in its phrasing due to what was available when the entry was first written, and that nobody every went back and caught every single reference when additional spells along the same lines were added to the mix.

On this bit, it's almost to the degree you have to find the old 1980's stuff when a particular rule started, then get the book when a version of that rule became official (in a modified manner), then read the part that might have carried over to a new RM version.. and try to understand why the rule was changed and which version fits you style of campaign. I like to know the how's and wherefore's... as much as possible anyway.

With the Arcanist, I always thought that RM wanted that Profession to be completely self-reliant; "we don't need no stinkin' Clerics!"

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

With the Arcanist, I always thought that RM wanted that Profession to be completely self-reliant; "we don't need no stinkin' Clerics!"

Actually, by that point, IIRC, the staff at the old ICE no longer checked anything for playability or balance. They essentially edited for grammer, and let stuff loose with the attitude of "if it breaks their game, its their own fault". They pretty much published whatever folks submitted.

The old ICE (pre-bankruptcy) was a vastly different company than the current ICE.

[kevinmccollum]

Actually, by that point, IIRC, the staff at the old ICE no longer checked anything for playability or balance. They essentially edited for grammer, and let stuff loose with the attitude of "if it breaks their game, its their own fault". They pretty much published whatever folks submitted.

I'm not sure what happened or who left the company between the second edition rules and all the companions that came out but the original core rules WERE pretty balanced. they had restrictions that made sense. It started breaking down in a big way with the first companions.

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

It started breaking down in a big way with the first companions.

I think that it started breaking down after Pete Fenlon became less involved in products (i.e. he was involved in the core stuff, but not the companions, IIRC).

And each Companion exhibited little bit more power creep as things progressed (a bit understandable), but the editorial staff, who should have kept things in check, never did.

[providence13]

You see, Dangerman? a simple question on Leprosy/Ghoul Rot can elicit all this backstory and history to which we would normally not be privy.

[DangerMan]

Yup! Maybe, some day, we''ll have enough to compile it all into an "ICE-companion - How to maneuver the maze of the variuos books and companions".

117604 post, and we're still nowhere near figuring this game out. Not a session goes by without my friends and me having some discussions on weird rules and possible contradictions. We never seize to be amazed of what the esteemed authors of these books have wrapped their minds around

The level of detail is both daunting and impressive, and one of the reasons why I love this game.

[providence13]

And each Companion exhibited little bit more power creep as things progressed (a bit understandable), but the editorial staff, who should have kept things in check, never did.


I personally like the old RoCo's. There are some gems in there if you dig around for them. Also, I think they only had "optional" rules that were eventually made into RAW.
PP exhaustion, 2-weapon combat, Paladins, Paladins with spells, Exhaustion, Stunned Maneuvering, all the Adrenals... much of Arcane/Ment/Ess/Chan Companions... and don't forget, The Farmer Profession!

[providence13]

On a related note:
The group's thief was just bitten on the leg by a large frzzzm (giant fly demon); rot for 1-3 days and then fall off!
He just happened to have adrenal cleansing.. which he failed. They are in the middle of nowhere, but the Magician volunteered to teleport him "back to town" for healing.
It's kinda nice that nobody in the party can heal disease.

[markc]

 

MDC

[kevinmccollum]

I personally like the old RoCo's. There are some gems in there if you dig around for them. Also, I think they only had "optional" rules that were eventually made into RAW.
PP exhaustion, 2-weapon combat, Paladins, Paladins with spells, Exhaustion, Stunned Maneuvering, all the Adrenals... much of Arcane/Ment/Ess/Chan Companions... and don't forget, The Farmer Profession!

lol. 2 weapon combat was covered in optional rules in arms law AND in Character law section 13.14. the adrenals were core rules. The silly ones were brought in later (adrenal cleansing for one)