I am in a debate with someone. they are insisting that if a character is born with a genetic disorder, that it is natural to the person and can not be fixed by anything short of a Wish.
I, personally, and wondering if something more like Lesser or Greater Restoration or Remove Curse would work.
Actual WotC employees don't frequent these forums, it's mostly fans like you and I providing our interpretations. Fundamentally, I agree with pocketmouse that RAW can't really provide a firm answer to your question. However, that said I also think this is a fun thought experiment.
Regenerate only mentions severed body members (though interestingly, with no time limit for when a severed limb can be reattached), so it wouldn't work. True Resurrection is a bit more interesting, as it replaces missing or damaged organs or limbs, and also negates diseases and curses. If my dwarf drank so much he had cirrhosis of the liver, but then died and had True Resurrection cast, would the spell heal his damaged liver? That seemed a bit out of the scope of the spell, at least I until I realized that True Resurrection can create a completely new body anyway, so maybe it could heal long-term damage. Lesser Restoration feels a bit too low level to erase genetic disorders completely. But I do get where you're coming from with this, and if a player actually made use of it in a heartening or creative way I might let it slide once.
Ultimately, like pocketmouse said, it's mostly up to the interpretation of the players and DM what 'disease' means. Disease in D&D is about as well-defined as disease in the Middle Ages, which is to say, not so much. If a player wanted to cure a genetic disease with a creative use of the spell, I might let it happen, but if that player tried to apply modern medical understanding of diseases and disorders to a vague keyword, they'd get nowhere fast.
By RAW, effects of things like the restoration spells are very clearly defined. And if they don’t say you can do a thing, then you can’t. And they don’t say anything about curing any kind of disease, or anything like the OP is describing, so they don’t. And being born genetically different from what is considered “normal” is not a curse in game terms (unless it is, certainly that’s a viable backstory) so remove curse won’t work. One of the more interesting options, to me is a paladin’s remove disease, but that would come down to the specific genetic issue, and the term disease is not defined in game terms, so that really complicates things.
Which brings us back to the standard advice of ask your DM, as pocket mouse said.
In terms of game mechanics, there is no such thing as "genetic disease".
That is, such things do not exist in the game as a function of the system or rules. They may exist in the world, the setting where the game takes place, but the entire concept of the game fundamentally not only does not acknowledge them, it outright denies their existence because they aren't necessary.
Disease, in D&D game mechanics, is a plot agent, a tool fo rthe use of the DM to give the PCs something to deal with. THere is no virus or bacteria -- it is an impact of something from outside the body, a dangerous something that can cause horrible things to happen (and they give three examples in the DMG we can draw from for examples of how the game mechanics work.
Now, I will point out that I'm not going to say anything about the rules, per se -- strictly that from a mechanics standpoint, the game doesn't have the concepts of modern disease beyond some faint concept of value in terms of a monster's attack or some kind of plot device, and all of those out there can be cured by lesser restoration.
Mechnically, if you were to introduce influenza into the game, it would be curable via a lesser restoration to the same degree that cure wounds can mend a broken leg -- something else the rules don't generally address, because the game system isn't really structured for such a thing. Something like Cancer or a genetic disease is subsumed entirely into the concept of hit points, along with the ability to resist it, to overcome it, to move beyond it, to succumb to it, and the rest. Hit points -- not constitution or other ability scores -- is what would be the affected thing, so you could, for example, have some disease that wastes away the person -- and that would happen by reducing their hit points. That's it. Sure you could also snag points of ability scores, but the purpose there would be to show a weakening of the PC, not harm or increase of harm in combat situations.
IN short, the game treats disease as a monster, one without hit points or AC, that cannot be directly attacked, and as something that is infectious in some way -- but doesn't go into great detail because it is a plot concept, structurally, not something that the game's systems are designed to handle or deal with.
So, in this case, the answer to your underlying question really iis whatever your DM says it is, because they are dealing in something that is in addition to the game, not a part of the game as a whole, on a structural level.
You could use the argument that "people didn't believe in bacteria or viruses back then", but that's a hollow argument unless you are playing on Earth, specifically, with magic, Anywhere else, and the whole thing falls apart because if you are going to let Earthly concepts be a basis then you aren't arguing about the other world, which will have its own biomass of diseases and such and may not even have cancers or other cellular mutations.
So while there may be rules for something like it somewhere, they won't be well developed enough for that use because it isn't a key part of the game in terms of something one should make a bet on ;)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The existence of the spell reincarnate suggests yes. That and wish are the only spells I know of that would actually do it, but the existence of the disorder is homebrewed on its own, so I could easily see a lower level spell that could correct such an issue without the target needing to be dead.
As mentioned before, RAW doesn't answer this, nor does it define diseases.
Does Lesser Restoration cure cancer or arthritis? Perhaps. Or just contagious diseases?
For a level 2 spell, curing All Ills is highly powerful, but that depends on the setting. If every town has a priest who is capable and willing to use Lesser Restoration as rest mechanics allow, then nobody in the village will die of any natural causes except eventually of old age and withering away until their organs just give up.
Even in a lower magic setting, all rich people could probably buy such a magical service whenever needed.
I don't think this is in any way a rules question. Such a situation only arises from the narrative, either from PC or NPC background or as a plot device.
And as such the RAW doesn't matter. There are no age or disability handicaps in the system, so the genetic effects are a narrative decision.
Level 7 spells are nothing short of miraculous. Healing the crippled with Regeneration is a really biblical thing to do and rarely serves a mechanical purpose, since very few mechanical effects in the game can cause a character to lose a limb. So it's usually for player agency and epic moments.
So I would definitely allow Regenerate to heal genetic conditions as well. It well on-par with regaining lost limbs.
Greater Restoration? Maybe, if it would make a great story in a low level campaign where level 7 spells are not likely reached. I'd allow GR to cure cancer and such, though.
Lesser Restoration? Definitely not. It's too low for such a miraculous thing to do. Healing actual diseases and poison is good enough. If it didn't serve a necessary mechanical/balance purpose, I'd make Lesser Resto level 3.
I am in a debate with someone. they are insisting that if a character is born with a genetic disorder, that it is natural to the person and can not be fixed by anything short of a Wish.
I, personally, and wondering if something more like Lesser or Greater Restoration or Remove Curse would work.
Does anyone know the actual answer?
I would highly recommend that you read the accessibility toolkit published for the FATE game system. While it is written with FATE in mind, it is important accessibility stuff that should be read as it discusses stuff like representation of disabilities.
Why do I take this to a place of accessibility?
Simple, I've been fortunate enough to know and be friends with a few people in the Deaf community. Among that community I'm aware that there are some who consider that their deafness isn't something to be 'fixed', and that such beliefs are a very ablist mindset. One could make the same argument here about Autism or ADHD which from what I am aware are neurological differences.
In short, if you're going to bring 'disorders' into your games, you may want to consider how disability is represented within your games. I would highly suggest that even if the table agree to allow magic to affect genetic conditions, it probably ought to be case by case and with the explicit permission of the player whose character will be affected.
I have actually run a game where a naive player attempted to 'cure' someone born with what others might have considered a disorder, but was in fact an analogy for the player at our table and their wheelchair usage. It caused a lot of problems and is why I realised that I needed to add in a section on accessibility to my session zeros.
TL;DR - It's going to be up to your table and/or DM, but be aware that there may be issues of representation and accessibility at play.
Regarding Greater Restoration, keep in mind it consumes 100 gp worth of diamond dust per casting, so in worldbuilding terms there would be some very hard limits on how readily any given caster would be able to utilize it. Assuming, of course, that if you're going in-depth enough into world-building to consider how magic can apply to congenital conditions, you're also actually treating consumed components like commodities rather than just apply the "convert gold to component on the spot" handwave.
Regarding Greater Restoration, keep in mind it consumes 100 gp worth of diamond dust per casting, so in worldbuilding terms there would be some very hard limits on how readily any given caster would be able to utilize it. Assuming, of course, that if you're going in-depth enough into world-building to consider how magic can apply to congenital conditions, you're also actually treating consumed components like commodities rather than just apply the "convert gold to component on the spot" handwave.
That does presume that the material component rules are followed, and that the spell casting focus isn't used.
Shockingly few folks do that. But then, most folks also have a single shop where people can buy magic items and other goods. Hell, they can even buy spell components, instead of having to go out and hunt them down.
harrumph! Kids these days! Why, in my day, if I wanted to cast a spell, not only did I have to go out and find the spell in a dungeon somewhere (usually with a motley assortment of unsavory types), I had to find my diamonds and grind them myself. And have you any idea how horrible bat guano smells? I cannot describe just how badly they all are with their "wizard cast a fireball!" whining.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Regarding Greater Restoration, keep in mind it consumes 100 gp worth of diamond dust per casting, so in worldbuilding terms there would be some very hard limits on how readily any given caster would be able to utilize it. Assuming, of course, that if you're going in-depth enough into world-building to consider how magic can apply to congenital conditions, you're also actually treating consumed components like commodities rather than just apply the "convert gold to component on the spot" handwave.
That does presume that the material component rules are followed, and that the spell casting focus isn't used.
Shockingly few folks do that. But then, most folks also have a single shop where people can buy magic items and other goods. Hell, they can even buy spell components, instead of having to go out and hunt them down.
harrumph! Kids these days! Why, in my day, if I wanted to cast a spell, not only did I have to go out and find the spell in a dungeon somewhere (usually with a motley assortment of unsavory types), I had to find my diamonds and grind them myself. And have you any idea how horrible bat guano smells? I cannot describe just how badly they all are with their "wizard cast a fireball!" whining.
Spell foci can't replace components that have a specified cost.
But yes, people do often streamline material components. If it's not a super high level spell component, then I don't really see much point for spending a lot of campaign time for finding specific ingredients, unless the campaign is specifically themed for such details.
To me, the specific components only serve to prevent spamming certain spells. So you go into town, you decide to prepare for 3x Greater Resto. Then you get into a long and taxing dungeon and you need to prioritize when to use it. That IMO serves a nice purpose.
This is entirely up to the DM since it is in homebrew territory because elements like "disease" aren't defined.
Scientific concepts like genetics may or may not apply in the game world at the DMs discretion. There is no need in a fantasy world to explain reproduction in terms of chromosomes and DNA. All reproduction could involve some form of magic for example which could explain the various half-species that are possible as well as any others that the DM wants to include.
As such, differences in individual genetics become a DM decision and if any of those difference could be considered a disease in game terms is also a DM decision.
Text from spells below. Lesser Restoration cures diseases so if the DM decides that the "genetic" condition is a "disease" then it should be able to cure it (RAW). If the genetic effect causes the creature to reduce it's hit point maximum or stats to be reduced then Greater Restoration will either temporarily or permanently correct the issue. It is the DMs decision as to whether Greater Restoration would remove the cause of the debilitating effect or whether it would just remove the symptoms effectively resetting the "clock".
Looking at the Resurrection spells, Resurrection cures normal diseases but not magical ones. Is a genetic condition considered a "magical" disease? (That is another DM decision). True Resurrection cures all diseases. In both these cases, these restore the creature to life as long as it died for any reason except old age. A disease of any kind, genetic or not, is unlikely to be considered "old age" but it is again a DM decision.
In a game I was running, I'd likely rule that a genetic condition could be considered a "magical" disease that would not be fixable using Lesser Restoration but might be fixed with other effects. However, personally, I'd also likely steer entirely clear of the entire idea of genetic diseases since I don't think it would add anything useful to the game.
The bottom line in this case is that how it would work in their game world is a DM decision based on deciding what is a disease and what is not and what spells would work on any particular ailment and what would not.
---------------------
Lesser Restoration: "You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it. The condition can be blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned."
Greater Restoration: "You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating effect. You can reduce the target's exhaustion level by one, or end one of the following effects on the target:
One curse, including the target's attunement to a cursed magic item
Any reduction to one of the target's ability scores
One effect reducing the target's hit point maximum"
Resurrection: "This spell neutralizes any poisons and cures normal diseases afflicting the creature when it died. It doesn't, however, remove magical diseases, curses, and the like; if such effects aren't removed prior to casting the spell, they afflict the target on its return to life."
True Resurrection: " You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age. If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points. This spell closes all wounds, neutralizes any poison, cures all diseases, and lifts any curses affecting the creature when it died."
Regarding Greater Restoration, keep in mind it consumes 100 gp worth of diamond dust per casting, so in worldbuilding terms there would be some very hard limits on how readily any given caster would be able to utilize it. Assuming, of course, that if you're going in-depth enough into world-building to consider how magic can apply to congenital conditions, you're also actually treating consumed components like commodities rather than just apply the "convert gold to component on the spot" handwave.
That does presume that the material component rules are followed, and that the spell casting focus isn't used.
Shockingly few folks do that. But then, most folks also have a single shop where people can buy magic items and other goods. Hell, they can even buy spell components, instead of having to go out and hunt them down.
harrumph! Kids these days! Why, in my day, if I wanted to cast a spell, not only did I have to go out and find the spell in a dungeon somewhere (usually with a motley assortment of unsavory types), I had to find my diamonds and grind them myself. And have you any idea how horrible bat guano smells? I cannot describe just how badly they all are with their "wizard cast a fireball!" whining.
Spell foci can't replace components that have a specified cost.
But yes, people do often streamline material components. If it's not a super high level spell component, then I don't really see much point for spending a lot of campaign time for finding specific ingredients, unless the campaign is specifically themed for such details.
To me, the specific components only serve to prevent spamming certain spells. So you go into town, you decide to prepare for 3x Greater Resto. Then you get into a long and taxing dungeon and you need to prioritize when to use it. That IMO serves a nice purpose.
I'm not saying anything about spending a lot of time on the components, just pointing out that realistically most people in a setting who are able to cast GR aren't going to have much access to the components. Which arguably validates taking a broader interpretation to what can be done with the spell. And it doesn't take that much time or effort to have players purchase consumed components the same way they might other consumables.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am in a debate with someone. they are insisting that if a character is born with a genetic disorder, that it is natural to the person and can not be fixed by anything short of a Wish.
I, personally, and wondering if something more like Lesser or Greater Restoration or Remove Curse would work.
Does anyone know the actual answer?
RAW doesn't cover genetics, and doesn't really define 'disease,' so it's entirely up to the players and the DM.
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
Perhaps one of the authors will weigh in.
Actual WotC employees don't frequent these forums, it's mostly fans like you and I providing our interpretations. Fundamentally, I agree with pocketmouse that RAW can't really provide a firm answer to your question. However, that said I also think this is a fun thought experiment.
There's only 3 spells (aside from Wish) that could even have to potential to pull this off: Lesser Restoration, Regenerate, or True Resurrection.
Regenerate only mentions severed body members (though interestingly, with no time limit for when a severed limb can be reattached), so it wouldn't work.
True Resurrection is a bit more interesting, as it replaces missing or damaged organs or limbs, and also negates diseases and curses. If my dwarf drank so much he had cirrhosis of the liver, but then died and had True Resurrection cast, would the spell heal his damaged liver? That seemed a bit out of the scope of the spell, at least I until I realized that True Resurrection can create a completely new body anyway, so maybe it could heal long-term damage.
Lesser Restoration feels a bit too low level to erase genetic disorders completely. But I do get where you're coming from with this, and if a player actually made use of it in a heartening or creative way I might let it slide once.
Ultimately, like pocketmouse said, it's mostly up to the interpretation of the players and DM what 'disease' means. Disease in D&D is about as well-defined as disease in the Middle Ages, which is to say, not so much. If a player wanted to cure a genetic disease with a creative use of the spell, I might let it happen, but if that player tried to apply modern medical understanding of diseases and disorders to a vague keyword, they'd get nowhere fast.
By RAW, effects of things like the restoration spells are very clearly defined. And if they don’t say you can do a thing, then you can’t. And they don’t say anything about curing any kind of disease, or anything like the OP is describing, so they don’t. And being born genetically different from what is considered “normal” is not a curse in game terms (unless it is, certainly that’s a viable backstory) so remove curse won’t work.
One of the more interesting options, to me is a paladin’s remove disease, but that would come down to the specific genetic issue, and the term disease is not defined in game terms, so that really complicates things.
Which brings us back to the standard advice of ask your DM, as pocket mouse said.
In terms of game mechanics, there is no such thing as "genetic disease".
That is, such things do not exist in the game as a function of the system or rules. They may exist in the world, the setting where the game takes place, but the entire concept of the game fundamentally not only does not acknowledge them, it outright denies their existence because they aren't necessary.
Disease, in D&D game mechanics, is a plot agent, a tool fo rthe use of the DM to give the PCs something to deal with. THere is no virus or bacteria -- it is an impact of something from outside the body, a dangerous something that can cause horrible things to happen (and they give three examples in the DMG we can draw from for examples of how the game mechanics work.
Now, I will point out that I'm not going to say anything about the rules, per se -- strictly that from a mechanics standpoint, the game doesn't have the concepts of modern disease beyond some faint concept of value in terms of a monster's attack or some kind of plot device, and all of those out there can be cured by lesser restoration.
Mechnically, if you were to introduce influenza into the game, it would be curable via a lesser restoration to the same degree that cure wounds can mend a broken leg -- something else the rules don't generally address, because the game system isn't really structured for such a thing. Something like Cancer or a genetic disease is subsumed entirely into the concept of hit points, along with the ability to resist it, to overcome it, to move beyond it, to succumb to it, and the rest. Hit points -- not constitution or other ability scores -- is what would be the affected thing, so you could, for example, have some disease that wastes away the person -- and that would happen by reducing their hit points. That's it. Sure you could also snag points of ability scores, but the purpose there would be to show a weakening of the PC, not harm or increase of harm in combat situations.
IN short, the game treats disease as a monster, one without hit points or AC, that cannot be directly attacked, and as something that is infectious in some way -- but doesn't go into great detail because it is a plot concept, structurally, not something that the game's systems are designed to handle or deal with.
So, in this case, the answer to your underlying question really iis whatever your DM says it is, because they are dealing in something that is in addition to the game, not a part of the game as a whole, on a structural level.
You could use the argument that "people didn't believe in bacteria or viruses back then", but that's a hollow argument unless you are playing on Earth, specifically, with magic, Anywhere else, and the whole thing falls apart because if you are going to let Earthly concepts be a basis then you aren't arguing about the other world, which will have its own biomass of diseases and such and may not even have cancers or other cellular mutations.
So while there may be rules for something like it somewhere, they won't be well developed enough for that use because it isn't a key part of the game in terms of something one should make a bet on ;)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
The existence of the spell reincarnate suggests yes. That and wish are the only spells I know of that would actually do it, but the existence of the disorder is homebrewed on its own, so I could easily see a lower level spell that could correct such an issue without the target needing to be dead.
As mentioned before, RAW doesn't answer this, nor does it define diseases.
Does Lesser Restoration cure cancer or arthritis? Perhaps. Or just contagious diseases?
For a level 2 spell, curing All Ills is highly powerful, but that depends on the setting. If every town has a priest who is capable and willing to use Lesser Restoration as rest mechanics allow, then nobody in the village will die of any natural causes except eventually of old age and withering away until their organs just give up.
Even in a lower magic setting, all rich people could probably buy such a magical service whenever needed.
I don't think this is in any way a rules question. Such a situation only arises from the narrative, either from PC or NPC background or as a plot device.
And as such the RAW doesn't matter. There are no age or disability handicaps in the system, so the genetic effects are a narrative decision.
Level 7 spells are nothing short of miraculous. Healing the crippled with Regeneration is a really biblical thing to do and rarely serves a mechanical purpose, since very few mechanical effects in the game can cause a character to lose a limb. So it's usually for player agency and epic moments.
So I would definitely allow Regenerate to heal genetic conditions as well. It well on-par with regaining lost limbs.
Greater Restoration? Maybe, if it would make a great story in a low level campaign where level 7 spells are not likely reached. I'd allow GR to cure cancer and such, though.
Lesser Restoration? Definitely not. It's too low for such a miraculous thing to do. Healing actual diseases and poison is good enough. If it didn't serve a necessary mechanical/balance purpose, I'd make Lesser Resto level 3.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
I would highly recommend that you read the accessibility toolkit published for the FATE game system. While it is written with FATE in mind, it is important accessibility stuff that should be read as it discusses stuff like representation of disabilities.
Why do I take this to a place of accessibility?
Simple, I've been fortunate enough to know and be friends with a few people in the Deaf community. Among that community I'm aware that there are some who consider that their deafness isn't something to be 'fixed', and that such beliefs are a very ablist mindset. One could make the same argument here about Autism or ADHD which from what I am aware are neurological differences.
In short, if you're going to bring 'disorders' into your games, you may want to consider how disability is represented within your games. I would highly suggest that even if the table agree to allow magic to affect genetic conditions, it probably ought to be case by case and with the explicit permission of the player whose character will be affected.
I have actually run a game where a naive player attempted to 'cure' someone born with what others might have considered a disorder, but was in fact an analogy for the player at our table and their wheelchair usage. It caused a lot of problems and is why I realised that I needed to add in a section on accessibility to my session zeros.
TL;DR - It's going to be up to your table and/or DM, but be aware that there may be issues of representation and accessibility at play.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Regarding Greater Restoration, keep in mind it consumes 100 gp worth of diamond dust per casting, so in worldbuilding terms there would be some very hard limits on how readily any given caster would be able to utilize it. Assuming, of course, that if you're going in-depth enough into world-building to consider how magic can apply to congenital conditions, you're also actually treating consumed components like commodities rather than just apply the "convert gold to component on the spot" handwave.
That does presume that the material component rules are followed, and that the spell casting focus isn't used.
Shockingly few folks do that. But then, most folks also have a single shop where people can buy magic items and other goods. Hell, they can even buy spell components, instead of having to go out and hunt them down.
harrumph! Kids these days! Why, in my day, if I wanted to cast a spell, not only did I have to go out and find the spell in a dungeon somewhere (usually with a motley assortment of unsavory types), I had to find my diamonds and grind them myself. And have you any idea how horrible bat guano smells? I cannot describe just how badly they all are with their "wizard cast a fireball!" whining.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Spell foci can't replace components that have a specified cost.
But yes, people do often streamline material components. If it's not a super high level spell component, then I don't really see much point for spending a lot of campaign time for finding specific ingredients, unless the campaign is specifically themed for such details.
To me, the specific components only serve to prevent spamming certain spells. So you go into town, you decide to prepare for 3x Greater Resto. Then you get into a long and taxing dungeon and you need to prioritize when to use it. That IMO serves a nice purpose.
Finland GMT/UTC +2
This is entirely up to the DM since it is in homebrew territory because elements like "disease" aren't defined.
Scientific concepts like genetics may or may not apply in the game world at the DMs discretion. There is no need in a fantasy world to explain reproduction in terms of chromosomes and DNA. All reproduction could involve some form of magic for example which could explain the various half-species that are possible as well as any others that the DM wants to include.
As such, differences in individual genetics become a DM decision and if any of those difference could be considered a disease in game terms is also a DM decision.
Text from spells below. Lesser Restoration cures diseases so if the DM decides that the "genetic" condition is a "disease" then it should be able to cure it (RAW). If the genetic effect causes the creature to reduce it's hit point maximum or stats to be reduced then Greater Restoration will either temporarily or permanently correct the issue. It is the DMs decision as to whether Greater Restoration would remove the cause of the debilitating effect or whether it would just remove the symptoms effectively resetting the "clock".
Looking at the Resurrection spells, Resurrection cures normal diseases but not magical ones. Is a genetic condition considered a "magical" disease? (That is another DM decision). True Resurrection cures all diseases. In both these cases, these restore the creature to life as long as it died for any reason except old age. A disease of any kind, genetic or not, is unlikely to be considered "old age" but it is again a DM decision.
In a game I was running, I'd likely rule that a genetic condition could be considered a "magical" disease that would not be fixable using Lesser Restoration but might be fixed with other effects. However, personally, I'd also likely steer entirely clear of the entire idea of genetic diseases since I don't think it would add anything useful to the game.
The bottom line in this case is that how it would work in their game world is a DM decision based on deciding what is a disease and what is not and what spells would work on any particular ailment and what would not.
---------------------
Lesser Restoration: "You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it. The condition can be blinded, deafened, paralyzed, or poisoned."
Greater Restoration: "You imbue a creature you touch with positive energy to undo a debilitating effect. You can reduce the target's exhaustion level by one, or end one of the following effects on the target:
Resurrection: "This spell neutralizes any poisons and cures normal diseases afflicting the creature when it died. It doesn't, however, remove magical diseases, curses, and the like; if such effects aren't removed prior to casting the spell, they afflict the target on its return to life."
True Resurrection: " You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age. If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points. This spell closes all wounds, neutralizes any poison, cures all diseases, and lifts any curses affecting the creature when it died."
I'm not saying anything about spending a lot of time on the components, just pointing out that realistically most people in a setting who are able to cast GR aren't going to have much access to the components. Which arguably validates taking a broader interpretation to what can be done with the spell. And it doesn't take that much time or effort to have players purchase consumed components the same way they might other consumables.