D&D 5E The Contagion Spell

Dausuul

Legend
The important combat-related change is that the attack roll is replaced with a saving throw. The range remains "touch".
That's... a really good solution. Simple. Clean. Focuses on the core problem (legendary monsters being unable to use LR) and solves it without nerfing the spell into oblivion.

While obviously I'm fond of my "plot spell" above, it's a total rewrite of the spell to serve a wholly different purpose. To preserve the intent and function of PHB contagion, this is the perfect fix. I'm gonna propose it to my group as a house rule for when we hit 9th level.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Motorskills

Explorer
Now what I would like is a proper contagion effect to be built into the spell, such that the disease has a chance to "attack" unfriendlies who are standing next to or near the initial victim, over a period of time.

Could be hella fun, though doubtless abusable in lots of annoying ways.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Two things about the version I posted above.

#1 the contagiousness probably needs to be under the Druid's control, or it's a serious problem - now you must kill the BBEG in three rounds(!)

Which do you prefer: dropping the contagion entirely, or adding text that either allows the druid to exclude certain creatures, or simply gets to veto each infection? (Or leave as is :heh:)

#2 I got the feedback there probably are no other "touch" spells that require a save instead of a melee attack roll. Is this a problem? Let me phrase it the other way round:

What can break by keeping the spell as "Range: Touch" while removing* the attack roll?
*) replacing it with a save

I don't see why this needs to be an issue, but perhaps I'm missing something blindingly obvious...?
 

Dausuul

Legend
Which do you prefer: dropping the contagion entirely, or adding text that either allows the druid to exclude certain creatures, or simply gets to veto each infection? (Or leave as is :heh:)

I'd drop the contagion effect entirely, just to keep the changes as limited as possible. My preference would be to replace the attack roll with a save and otherwise run it strictly by the book (the original book, not the Sage Advice version). Fewer changes to keep track of that way.

But if you decide to keep the contagion effect, my vote would be to leave it as-is. Contagion is a classic "dark magic" spell, and dark magic is notorious for its tendency to get out of hand. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

#2 I got the feedback there probably are no other "touch" spells that require a save instead of a melee attack roll.
Not quite true. Bestow curse is a touch-range spell which requires a save but not an attack roll.

What can break by keeping the spell as "Range: Touch" while removing* the attack roll?
*) replacing it with a save
The only possible issue I can see is that with the original spell, you have to overcome two different defenses: AC and Con save. A monster with a weak Con save but a sturdy AC still has a decent chance to escape the effect. Now, it's all-or-nothing. A target with a good Con save has little to fear (relatively), while a target with a weak Con save is pretty well screwed.

You could address this by making it a Dex save to avoid the initial effect (the creature is trying to dodge your pestilential touch), and then Con saves to recover as normal.

I don't think it's a huge deal either way, though. There are plenty of spells where everything rides on a single saving throw. Legendary Resistance was invented for monsters that really need an answer to such spells; everybody else just has to cope. Or not.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
Thank you - especially for the Bestow Curse pointer!

I've posted my final version in a new thread for visibility:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?627497-5e-Contagion-Redux

The key change is that there's a base part and an optional part. Much contention has been because people that play D&D as a combat game and people that play D&D to tell stories haven't understood each other's needs for a spell such as this. Hopefully making it clear what parts assist what style of play helps avoid this.

As you can see I've also addressed the lack of lethality in the original spell - the spell treats disease as simply something that makes the victim easier to kill, not something that kills in its own right.
 
Last edited:


Dausuul

Legend
Jeremy Crawford‏ @JeremyECrawford · 29 May 2015
The effects of the contagion spell's disease are meant to activate after three failed saving throws.

Link to the Tweet https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/604503254190297088?lang=en

Also in Sage Advise http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016

Then Sage Advise Compendium http://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SA-Compendium.pdf
Yes. We know. The original post at the very beginning of the thread was a response to this exact ruling.
 

TheSword

Legend
I too find the rules as intended unsatisfying. 3 saves is too limiting for any spell to take effect and I don’t think the sage advice is well considered.

Other things to consider house ruling would be.

- allow Legendary creatures to make a save on each of the legendary action turns to end the effect (the spell still effects them, but the contagion will burn through much faster)

- modify slimy doom to remove the stunning effect,(all the other contagion variants seem fine)

- require an initial saving through to take effect which then becomes longer term after 3 fails (as has been suggested earlier)

It’s a great spell that covers many tv and film tropes. It just needs a little tinker to make it work.
 

Unsu

First Post
I side with the English language speaking for itself and the affliction being instantaneous because there's no indication otherwise, the 'official' walk-back is just another example WotC changing clearly written works for the sake of balance without writing an errata, and the fact that the chatter about incubation times have no bearing on a fantastical world filled with magic - reality needn't apply as few 'reality' arguments makes sense in 5e with that context. (E.g., a restrained and prone target has the same difficulty shooting a bow at it's max range increment as a simply restrained or simply prone target within their inner range - theres no granularity = nonsense.)

Here's a fun thought. Since a lot of the interpretations within thise thread hinge on the English interpretation of clearly defined words whose context isn't really questionable as RAW (obviously the Sage has made their opposing RAI opinion known) let us look further into some English for the proposed solutions/modification of the spell debate. Start with the spell name and work up.

Contagion: From Middle English (late 14th century), from Old French, from Latin contagio (“a touching, contact, contagion”) related to contingo (“touch closely”)

This is in-line with the spells touch attack. However, further examination of the current English definition of the spell name (it's understood that the spell text is meant as the official D&D5e definition of the spell "Contagion" and that the English definition of the word isn't RAW relevant, but humour me a hot second).

First definitions of the word "Contagion" from multiple sources:
1. A disease spread by contact. (Wiktionary)
2. A disease spread by the close contact of one person to another. (Google)
3. The transmission of a disease by direct or indirect contact. (Merriam-Webster)
4. The situation in which a disease is spread by touching someone or something. (Cambridge English Dictionary)
5. The communication of disease from one person or organism to another by close contact. (Oxford English Dictionary)

The gist is the same: a malady, specifically a disease, that is spread by contact. Viola! That's precisely what Contagion the D&D spell does. The thing nothing mentions and it's implied in all definitions is that something contaminated with the disease agent passes said disease to an otherwise unafflicted individual through contact. As such, I say, keep the spell written as it is in the PHB (instantaneous onset with 3 fails to allow the disease to run full duration) with the following caveat: the caster is also afflicted (instantaneously) with the same disease. This seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the spell and its English gymnastics. Since the caster is directly touching the target they must be the conduit for the disease, therefore diseased, from whom passes it to the unafflicted target. Again, I'm aware no where within the spell text does the bolded text occur, I'm not saying this is an interpretation, but something to add to the modification of the spell debate.

In short, you want to disease a target instantly i.e. slimey doom? Great, no problem. You take on the contagion of slimey doom then touch the target; upon success, you infect and immediately afflict the target with slimey doom. On a failed touch, you're still afflicted. I'd even let the caster make multiple attempts to touch the (the same target upon failure) target so long as they remained afflicted themselves (without concentration, they've already paid a resource by taking on the disease no need to complicate things). After they've passed the contagion, should they wish to cleanse themselves before they succumb to it's later Con saves and/or potential for full duration... I'd say that's prudent and they should do so without consequence presupposing they have the means to cleanse themselves.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top