D&D 5E Contagion and Boss Fights

[MightyZehir]

WotC has indicated they plan to be pretty sparing with functional errata in 5E. Mearls has been quite forthcoming when the issue is a rule that needs clarification, but this isn't such a case; it's clear what the spell does. It's just that what it does is wreck legendary creatures. Even if WotC does ultimately decide this spell has enough issues to require an official patch, the patch is unlikely to come via Mearls's Twitter feed.

Yeah, the spell would be fine if it doesn't include slimy doom. The stunned condition is what destroys an encounter and it gets far worse when it requires 3 saves to end it and legendary resistance doesn't even help much.

 

[Warbringer]

Yeah, the spell would be fine if it doesn't include slimy doom. The stunned condition is what destroys an encounter and it gets far worse when it requires 3 saves to end it and legendary resistance doesn't even help much.

Legendary resistance is explicitly not an action; it comes before the action section.

This is simply a choice to make after a save (which is not an action), not that it helps that much.

 

[Cybit]

It feels like to me that it should be one of those spells that requires a successful attack and a failed save in order to hit; I think I will go with that for the time being.

 

[CapnZapp]

So yeah, particularly with regards to how it interacts with legendary creatures, I would have to say that Contagion is broken as written.

Absolutely.

All that the Sage suggestion does is turn it into a plot/story spell no player will ever use for combat.

(Or possibly worse, suggesting the spell should be snuck upon the BBEG fifteen seconds in advance of the actual fight, only encouraging sneaking and hiding that makes gameplay drag and take forever - and turning combat from something everybody gets to be part of into something the Druid fixes on his lonesome, which is boring for everybody else)

 

[CapnZapp]

Normally, it would solve the problem. However, the way Contagion is written the effect automatically applies, and the creature can't get out of it until it takes three turns making saves. Sure, the legendary creature can take auto-succeed on all three of those saves, but it still locks them down for three turns - probably enough for the whole party to whale on it and take it out.

Of course.

 

[CapnZapp]

Anyway, my houserule is to have the disease have no effect until the third failed save. This makes the spell more sensible in terms of power level, and it has the bonus effect of modeling a creature attempting to "fight off" an infection before succumbing to it.

That's a sensible rule that Sage Advice has adopted.

On the other hand, it completely invalidates the spell as a viable combat option.

 

[Imaculata]

The problem I have with diseases is that we don't have rules on them. Even monsters like undeads don't have immunity , which seems odd.

Wait, what?

Undead aren't immune to disease in 5th edition? What the hell?!
Is this correct?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

It sounds like a touch 'inflicts' the disease (infects), while the three saves cause/prevent the effects from occurring.

"After failing three of these saving throws, the disease's effects last for the duration..."

So after failing the saves the effects take effect for the duration. Or at least there's a strong case for interpreting the spell that way. This means the spell has at least a three turn 'wind up' before setting in. Seems fair for a 5th level spell.

 

[CapnZapp]

It sounds like a touch 'inflicts' the disease (infects), while the three saves cause/prevent the effects from occurring.

"After failing three of these saving throws, the disease's effects last for the duration..."

So after failing the saves the effects take effect for the duration. Or at least there's a strong case for interpreting the spell that way. This means the spell has at least a three turn 'wind up' before setting in. Seems fair for a 5th level spell.

That's a sensible rule that Sage Advice has adopted.

On the other hand, it completely invalidates the spell as a viable combat option.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

That's a sensible rule that Sage Advice has adopted.

On the other hand, it completely invalidates the spell as a viable combat option.

And I am fine with that. It's still good for enemy wizards to use on players as well.