D&D 5E The Contagion Spell

[Celtavian]

What do you mean? The DMG has a whole section on "nonmagical" diseases that incredible things. Sewer fever, and some kind of brain malady that gives you insanity and spreads when you sneeze, IIRC. Clearly "nonmagical" doesn't mean "realistic."

A simple fix for Contagion is to just say that you can spread any disease which actually exists in your campaign world, but that the diseases in the PHB are just examples and don't necessarily exist. Then make up four or five diseases that a PC can learn via Medicine check or actual exposure, and voila, Bob's your uncle!

I do, however, use the same rule you do w/rt "successful save = not affected for that round." Your Rotting Flesh symtoms can come and go while the spell is trying to forcibly impose the disease on your body--but at the end of five rounds, one side or the other has the upper hand and at that point, the disease is either gone or will run its course normally. The PHB is pretty unclear on whether that's how the spell is supposed to work but it seems reasonable to me.

I saw the small section in the DMG. It didn't say much more than "It's up to you."

I'll probably run contagion similar to how you're doing it with the addition that the spell has no effect on undead or constructs. A powerful divine disease that affects all types of living creatures fits well with what I want. If I want a disease that affects undead or constructs, I'll make something else up.

 

[keterys]

Google turns up one story of a game where it was banned after the first time it was used, and thread after thread about how awfully it is written.

Otherwise, looks like you're on your own.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It is broken. It needs a better fix than what Mearls suggested otherwise you make it useless.

Useless is an overstatement. It might not be brokenly good under Mearls' interpretation, but a three-round onset doesn't make a spell useless. (Delayed Blast Fireball has a ten-round onset for full power.) Slimy Doom IIRC is powerful enough that it would still be worth a three-round onset even in combat. Slimy Doom + Wall of Force/Maze + three failed saves = game over. You could even just spend three rounds retreating, if you wanted. I literally just finished running an engagement with two vampires that took the PCs over fifty rounds (five minutes) to conclude. Three-round onsets are not prohibitive in many situations.

No need to get excited just because one spell doesn't fit your playstyle. Change it if you want to.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'll probably run contagion similar to how you're doing it with the addition that the spell has no effect on undead or constructs. A powerful divine disease that affects all types of living creatures fits well with what I want. If I want a disease that affects undead or constructs, I'll make something else up.

Do note that some undead (vampires) aren't even immune to poison, and probably should be likewise vulnerable to disease--but perhaps not the SAME diseases as everyone else.

 

[the Jester]

This idea of a "plot" spell is not what you put in a PHB, maybe in the DMG.

That's quite an assertion, and I am curious as to what makes you think this. I don't think the DMG has ever had spells in it, in any edition (unless you count 1e's section on additional notes on spells from the PH).

 

[Celtavian]

That's quite an assertion, and I am curious as to what makes you think this. I don't think the DMG has ever had spells in it, in any edition (unless you count 1e's section on additional notes on spells from the PH).

A plot spell would be something a DM would use including devising the scenario that would require its use. If something is going to be a plot spell, it should be in a book for DMs with advice on how to use it. A player wants a spell that is useful when he chooses it in a variety of fairly common situations. If contagion were meant to be a plot spell as some seem to be asserting, then it should be put in the book that would deal with such a plot.

 

[the Jester]

A plot spell would be something a DM would use including devising the scenario that would require its use. If something is going to be a plot spell, it should be in a book for DMs with advice on how to use it. A player wants a spell that is useful when he chooses it in a variety of fairly common situations. If contagion were meant to be a plot spell as some seem to be asserting, then it should be put in the book that would deal with such a plot.

Plot spells are neither exclusive to the DMG nor to npcs. For instance, (what I consider to be) plot spells that have been in a PH before include guards and wards, liveoak, permanency, enchant an item, cacodemon, symbol, glyph of warding, sepia snake sigil, fire trap, sanctify/defile... the list goes on. Open it up to major secondary sources (the 2e Tome of Magic and 3e Spell Compendium, for instance), and you add things like mistaken missive, focus, and so forth.

 

[Celtavian]

Plot spells are neither exclusive to the DMG nor to npcs. For instance, (what I consider to be) plot spells that have been in a PH before include guards and wards, liveoak, permanency, enchant an item, cacodemon, symbol, glyph of warding, sepia snake sigil, fire trap, sanctify/defile... the list goes on. Open it up to major secondary sources (the 2e Tome of Magic and 3e Spell Compendium, for instance), and you add things like mistaken missive, focus, and so forth.

Quite a few of the spells use listed were used in base construction or the protection of items. Not sure why you consider those plot spells.

Permanency wasn't a plot spell. That was used quite often.

We seem to have a different idea of what a plot spell is and isn't. I don't consider spells used to protect personal residences plot spells. Back when those spells were created, it was expected that you would construct a personal residence. Those were the spells you used to protect it.

One of the spells I might consider a plot spell from the PHB would be atonement. Then again there were items and abilities in the game that could involuntarily shift the alignment of a character requiring an atonement spell to recover. Each new edition of D&D moved farther and farther away from such effects making their removal barely noticeable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's quite an assertion, and I am curious as to what makes you think this. I don't think the DMG has ever had spells in it, in any edition (unless you count 1e's section on additional notes on spells from the PH).

But everyone knows that PCs never create complicated plots/plans/schemes. ;-)

BTW, I have a PC who LOVES using Bestow Curse in non-combat settings. I can see him getting mileage out of "plot-Contagion" as well. Capture a goblin, infect it, mind-wipe it, Suggest that it go visit the illithid citadel and get captured...

 

[Celtavian]

But everyone knows that PCs never create complicated plots/plans/schemes. ;-)

BTW, I have a PC who LOVES using Bestow Curse in non-combat settings. I can see him getting mileage out of "plot-Contagion" as well. Capture a goblin, infect it, mind-wipe it, Suggest that it go visit the illithid citadel and get captured...

That's not a plot spell. That's no different than summoning a succubus, binding it with planar binding, and sending it to do spy work. A PC doing something is not a plot. If it is, then assassinating someone with a magic missile is a plot spell.

I'm under the impression that a plot spell is something solely used to advance a plot in a story having no other purpose. As is usual on a forum, definitions differ from person to person. So I'll exit this conversation as I'm sure a consensus is not going to happen.

If anyone has any further experience to add to the thread in regards to contagion, it will be much appreciated.