I am unaware of a game definition of disease in 5e. There are various stat blocks that use the term disease (Otyugh, death dog). One of the few stat blocks that actually describes being infected by a tad pole is the Elder Brain Dragon. It does not use the term disease.
Personally being infected by a parasite is very much a disease. Without a strong definition to go from it makes sense to include it. It narratively makes sense that a paladin's immunity to disease (and a monk's as well) would make it immune to parasites like flayer tadpoles. As always consult your local DM because while it is reasonable to make this conclusion it may not make narrative sense for your campaign.
I agree that a parasitic infection is a disease irl. My ruling is more based on, in game it is not called a disease, so it isn’t. But I do 100% agree to ask your DM.
Since the Dawn of days the Paladin has been immune to disease. Now these morons at wizard of the Coast decided to take it away . I will no longer play a paladin now thanks wizards for destroying a great class
Since the Dawn of days the Paladin has been immune to disease. Now these morons at wizard of the Coast decided to take it away . I will no longer play a paladin now thanks wizards for destroying a great class
Why is that so important to you? It doesn't really have much gameplay impact.
The topic came up in a game recently: does a paladins divine health make it immune to ceramorphosis to turn them into a mind flayer.
No.
Ceremorphosis is not a disease, at least not in game terms.
Honestly, divine health protecting you from disease does next to nothing in this edition.
I am unaware of a game definition of disease in 5e. There are various stat blocks that use the term disease (Otyugh, death dog). One of the few stat blocks that actually describes being infected by a tad pole is the Elder Brain Dragon. It does not use the term disease.
Personally being infected by a parasite is very much a disease. Without a strong definition to go from it makes sense to include it. It narratively makes sense that a paladin's immunity to disease (and a monk's as well) would make it immune to parasites like flayer tadpoles. As always consult your local DM because while it is reasonable to make this conclusion it may not make narrative sense for your campaign.
I agree that a parasitic infection is a disease irl. My ruling is more based on, in game it is not called a disease, so it isn’t. But I do 100% agree to ask your DM.
Since the Dawn of days the Paladin has been immune to disease. Now these morons at wizard of the Coast decided to take it away . I will no longer play a paladin now thanks wizards for destroying a great class
Why is that so important to you? It doesn't really have much gameplay impact.
Homebrew: dominance, The Necrotic
Extended signature