HYPERBOREA / Cause Lycanthropy and Purloiners

**Posted by gizmomathboy** 5/17/2023 12:20 pm

From a player

I was looking up Cure Disease and found this under Cause Lycanthropy:

A cure disease spell cast by a 9th-level or greater cleric, priest, shaman, or witch can end this affliction.

Is it also thus true that a 9th-level or greater Purloiner (who is like a cleric, plus thievery) can cure a werewolf? Or are they specifically forbidden?

My reply

That's an interesting question.

The classes involved are all cleric subclasses.

Purloiners are thief subclasses.

So, I would be inclined to say that purloiners can't do this.

Also, I think I might further restrict the reversal to lycanthropy caused by a witch.

Something to ask the hyperborea forums for sure.

Any thoughts from the collective?

**Posted by Blackadder23** 5/17/2023 6:00 pm

I would take the limitation literally and not allow a purloiner to cure lycanthropy.

**Posted by rhialto** 5/17/2023 7:29 pm

Hmmm, I'm inclined to permit it: a 9th level Purloiner has CA 9, like all the others, and access to the same spell. So the difference would be explained how? Because the rules don't specify "purloiner"? I don't know, seems too mechanistic, with a murky reasoning for the exclusion.

**Posted by Caveman** 5/18/2023 5:40 am

I must agree with BA.

This is the Contagion spell and it would allow Purloiners to cast a cure:

The condition persists unless cure disease is administered,
or until natural healing overcomes the affliction.

The above spell has no restrictions, but Cause Lycanthropy does mention restriction:

A cure disease spell cast by a 9th-level or greater
cleric, priest, shaman, or witch can end this affliction.

So, no the Purloiner cannot cast the spell...

**Posted by Blackadder23** 5/18/2023 4:25 pm

rhialto wrote:
Hmmm, I'm inclined to permit it: a 9th level Purloiner has CA 9, like all the others, and access to the same spell. So the difference would be explained how? Because the rules don't specify "purloiner"? I don't know, seems too mechanistic, with a murky reasoning for the exclusion.

My reasoning is as follows: if it just said "cleric", I would probably assume any PC who can cast clerical spells can cure lycanthropy. But it specifically lists some classes and subclasses that can cast clerical spells, so my inclination would be to limit it to just those classes and subclasses. After all, if anyone casting cure disease can cure lycanthropy, why not just say "Cure disease can end this affliction"?

**Posted by rhialto** 5/19/2023 4:25 am

Blackadder23 wrote:
rhialto wrote:
Hmmm, I'm inclined to permit it: a 9th level Purloiner has CA 9, like all the others, and access to the same spell. So the difference would be explained how? Because the rules don't specify "purloiner"? I don't know, seems too mechanistic, with a murky reasoning for the exclusion.
My reasoning is as follows: if it just said "cleric", I would probably assume any PC who can cast clerical spells can cure lycanthropy. But it specifically lists some classes and subclasses that can cast clerical spells, so my inclination would be to limit it to just those classes and subclasses. After all, if anyone casting cure disease can cure lycanthropy, why not just say "Cure disease can end this affliction"?

That's a reasonable explanation, and one I would accept to keep the game moving, and also accords with Gizmo's reasoning that all the classes cited in the spell description are in the Cleric class, and purloiner is a subclass of Thief. However, just to demonstrate that I think the truth value of this explanation is <1: are there other spells with such constraints? Asking out of curiosity, and still falling on the side of "it's the same spell, cast by a sorcerer of the same CA, why would it *not* also cure lycanthropy?" If the reasoning is that non-clerics don't learn the exact same version of the spell, then that begs the question for every spell. As always I think this is a gap Refs are free to fill with their own judicious ruling.

**Posted by gizmomathboy** 5/19/2023 7:18 am

Oh, this definitely falls well into "GM interpretation/house rules" zone.

One could reason that purloiners aren't endowed with the same fullness of connection with their diety as clerics and their subclasses.

But, I wouldn't look askance at someone that rules that purloiners are clerics and even though the spell as written doesn't include them you could just say that it was an oversight on Ghul's and DMPrata's part.

It feels a little like the discussion in 2e about which classes could share spells and such as well as prayer books between dieties. Nevermind the scrawlings of shamans and witches.

Although that is mostly set aside now. If the spell is in your spell list you can grab it from another spellbook. With exceptions for clerics and priests devoted to a singular diety. Then there is some penalties for that.

**Posted by rhialto** 5/19/2023 5:11 pm

In the end I think I'd accept a Refs ruling either way, and would rule as I've stated (especially if the purloiner were devoted to a deity such as Apollo, for example).

**Posted by Caveman** 5/20/2023 4:44 am

rhialto wrote:
In the end I think I'd accept a Refs ruling either way, and would rule as I've stated (especially if the purloiner were devoted to a deity such as Apollo, for example).

That make sense, he still a conduit of a god's divine power. It not actually the Purloiner that is generates the magic?

**Posted by rhialto** 5/20/2023 5:31 am

Caveman wrote:
rhialto wrote:
In the end I think I'd accept a Refs ruling either way, and would rule as I've stated (especially if the purloiner were devoted to a deity such as Apollo, for example).
That make sense, he still a conduit of a god's divine power. It not actually the Purloiner that is generates the magic?

Well, I think that is a setting-specific question. Sorcery should be mysterious, especially in a sword & sorcery inspired setting like Hyperborea. In my campaign I haven't bothered to detail this. And I wouldn't be surprized if I missed such a detail in the rules...

**Posted by Ghul** 6/06/2023 9:14 am

gizmomathboy wrote:
Oh, this definitely falls well into "GM interpretation/house rules" zone.

One could reason that purloiners aren't endowed with the same fullness of connection with their diety as clerics and their subclasses.

Bingo. That was the reasoning behind it. And my apologies for not noticing this thread earlier.

**Posted by Ghul** 6/06/2023 9:22 am

rhialto wrote:
Caveman wrote:
rhialto wrote:
In the end I think I'd accept a Refs ruling either way, and would rule as I've stated (especially if the purloiner were devoted to a deity such as Apollo, for example).
That make sense, he still a conduit of a god's divine power. It not actually the Purloiner that is generates the magic?
Well, I think that is a setting-specific question. Sorcery should be mysterious, especially in a sword & sorcery inspired setting like Hyperborea. In my campaign I haven't bothered to detail this. And I wouldn't be surprized if I missed such a detail in the rules...

This is something that really seemed to take root in AD&D 2E: that the sorcery of a cleric (or cleric subclass) was handed down directly from the deity; hence the cleric being a conduit to the deity's power. But in AS&SH, I took a more abstract approach:

From cleric description:

"Typically, the cleric learns the mystical power of sorcery through rites of service, spiritual endowment, and sacred mysteries unearthed. This reverent, martial sorcerer becomes an oath-bound supplicant to eldritch forces, otherworldly beings, and deific powers. Patrons may include ancestral or animistic spirits, dæmons, or alien entities scarcely understood by even the wisest of sages."

From the cleric's sorcery section:

"Clerics begin their careers with knowledge of three level 1 spells, sacred mysteries revealed through initiation into a sect or cult devoted to an otherworldly power, deific being, or ethos .... Clerics develop three new spells at each
level gain, but they must be of castable levels. Typically, they are acquired via spiritual revelation, otherworldly favour, or the piecing together of together of abstract theologies."