D&D 5E The Contagion Spell

[Harzel]

Range: Touch
Your touch inflicts disease. Undead and constructs are immune to this spell. The target gets a Constitution saving throw against your spell save DC. On a failure, you afflict the creature with a magical disease of your choosing from the list described below. The effect of the disease occurs immediately. The disease is magical and cannot be cured by mundane medicine. If magic is used to cure the disease, and a spell slot of lower level than you used to cast this spell was used, the healer needs to make a spellcasting check against your spell save DC. Failure means the magic was ineffective in curing the disease.

At the end of each of the victim's turns, the target makes a Constitution saving throw. Success means the disease is shaken off (cured). When and if the target fails three saves, no more saves are granted - the disease lasts for the full duration of the spell, and furthermore the target becomes contagious: each hour or part thereof spent in close proximity with the target means a creature is afflicted as if you cast this spell on it.​

Given your modification that a single successful end-of-turn save cures the disease, I think I would favor neither requiring an attack roll nor granting a save when the spell is cast. That ensures one round of effectiveness, which makes it a bit more in line (IMO) with the half-damage-on-failed-save that most other spells have.

 

[Vis]

First time I encountered this spell was when a player casted it. At first, I was like this does what again? Then really? Just rolled with it in lieu bogging the game down with pulling the PHB out. Several sessions later I was able to use the spell against the players. Thankfully my players are awesome at accepting spell effects. At the end of the session we talked about adjusting the spell but ultimately kept it as is in the PHB.

 

[CapnZapp]

First time I encountered this spell was when a player casted it. At first, I was like this does what again? Then really? Just rolled with it in lieu bogging the game down with pulling the PHB out. Several sessions later I was able to use the spell against the players. Thankfully my players are awesome at accepting spell effects. At the end of the session we talked about adjusting the spell but ultimately kept it as is in the PHB.

You really need to specify what you mean by "kept it as is in the PHB".

I'm assuming you mean "the spell takes effect right away, not after three rounds", but please be aware there are posters that argue "after three rounds" IS the way to read the PHB.

After all, if you couldn't read the PHB in this way, errata would have been needed, since "after three rounds" is what was meant as RAW (=RAI)

 

[CapnZapp]

Given your modification that a single successful end-of-turn save cures the disease, I think I would favor neither requiring an attack roll nor granting a save when the spell is cast. That ensures one round of effectiveness, which makes it a bit more in line (IMO) with the half-damage-on-failed-save that most other spells have.

I'm afraid you don't fix the brokenness then.

The true reason the spell is really broken is the way it is used as a win button against solo BBEGs.

They absolutely need legendary resistance to survive.

Player characters in games with options turned on only need a single round; that's all it takes.

For instance, my party is 9th level. Most of them are capable of dealing 60 damage on a good nova turn.

With vulnerability from Contagion this means 500+ damage. In a single round.

It kills Solo creatures of Challenge Ratings far above their own level; and completely ruins the game.

TLDR no spell can be allowed to bypass legendary resistance, that's just basic 5e game design

 

[Vis]

Upon melee spell attack, a disease of your choice afflicts the target. At the end of the Target's turn they make a saving throw. If they make the save the disease ends. If theey fail the save the disease continues to the next the turn. On the 2nd turn the target makes a saving throw. If the target makes their save the disease ends. If they fail the save the disease continues to the next turn. On the third turn the target makes another saving throw. If the target succeeds on the saving throw the disease and spell ends. If the target fails the save the disease afflicts the target for the duration of 7 days. The target can remove the disease with any effect that removes disease.

I feel the three savings throws are there to prevent the previous editions save or die mechanic. The three savings throws are allowing the player three chance to prevent the 7 day duration.

 

[Vis]

I'm afraid you don't fix the brokenness then.

The true reason the spell is really broken is the way it is used as a win button against solo BBEGs.

They absolutely need legendary resistance to survive.

Player characters in games with options turned on only need a single round; that's all it takes.

For instance, my party is 9th level. Most of them are capable of dealing 60 damage on a good nova turn.

With vulnerability from Contagion this means 500+ damage. In a single round.

It kills Solo creatures of Challenge Ratings far above their own level; and completely ruins the game.

TLDR no spell can be allowed to bypass legendary resistance, that's just basic 5e game design

The BBEG then has a legendary action at the end of one of the players turns to succeed on the saving, then does it on the next players turn, then suddenly a wave of minions pour over the party, and finally on the next players turn succeeds the saving throw ending the spell and disease.

Or roll with the characters defeating the BBEG giving them a heroic win.

I like to adjust BBEGs on the fly with the party whether it makes them easier or harder. Depends on the situation and the last time a player died .

I view the PHB and DMG as reference.

 

[CapnZapp]

"I ignore the rules whenever it pleases me" makes for a poor common ground to have Internet discussions.

A solo fight where "suddenly a wave of minions pour over the party" is not a solo fight.

 

[Vis]

"I ignore the rules whenever it pleases me" makes for a poor common ground to have Internet discussions.

A solo fight where "suddenly a wave of minions pour over the party" is not a solo fight.

You are correct.

I don't view the spell as broken.

 

[Gadget]

Neither are in the PHB glossary and are therefore guided by the context of the spell description itself.

Couldn't agree more.

I can be "afflicted" with having been "exposed" to a disease, while still not knowing if my immune system can recover from the disease so well that I don't ever notice the symptoms (effects). My immune system has been "troubled" by the disease (afflicted) but it may trouble the disease back (recover from it without me feeling the effects). I believe that is one fair interpretation of the word "afflicted" and "recover" and given the context of this spell description followed by the clarification words provided in Sage Advice, it's the right one for my table.

The word in this situation would be "infected" rather than "afflicted", as those are rather unconventional interpretations of "afflicted" and "recover" which require the reader to squint to force a certain interpretation, IMHO. Moreover, the clause stating that the effects last the duration is curious, as opposed to not lasting the duration? It would have been a simple matter to say: "After failing three of these saving throws, the disease takes effect and lasts the duration...", rather than "After failing three of these saving throws, the disease’s effects last for the duration...". The context suggests effects already in evidence. Granted, as I'm sure others will point out, one does not have to interpret the clause that way, but it is fairly awkward phrasing for the purported meaning.

I understand the "official" interpretation, I just feel it is not in accordance with the way they wrote the spell description and one has to twist it a fair bit to arrive there. While the English language is complex and many things can be open to interpretations, I don't feel this in this case that the interpretations are equally valid. You disagree. C'est la vie.

 

[Mistwell]

Couldn't agree more.



The word in this situation would be "infected" rather than "afflicted", as those are rather unconventional interpretations of "afflicted" and "recover" which require the reader to squint to force a certain interpretation,

I disagree about the adjectives you've added to describe my interpretation but I guess I should be happy we're both finally on the same page and agreeing it IS an interpretation of the spell. It's not one you agree with, but you seem to finally agree it's an interpretation.

IMHO. Moreover, the clause stating that the effects last the duration is curious, as opposed to not lasting the duration? It would have been a simple matter to say: "After failing three of these saving throws, the disease takes effect and lasts the duration...", rather than "After failing three of these saving throws, the disease’s effects last for the duration...".

I think we all agree it could have been said better. WOTC says nobody in the playtest interpreted it like you did, so they didn't get warning of the alternative interpretation you've embraced. I think it's obvious if they had been alerted to that other interpretation, they would have worded it to be clearer.