D&D 5E Is Contagion OP?

[ExploderWizard]

But there should be only one way to adjudicate this, because we have things like organized play.

If one DM rules that contagion just destroys legendary monsters, and a person builds his character to exploit this fact, that characters ace up his sleeve might be pointless at another DM's table.

Rules of the game are supposed to be clear, and consistent so we can have a shared language and experience. We also payed the designers to do this work not so us DM's have to make judgement calls on every little thing at some point, what purpose does the system matter?

The system doesn't matter. You have taken your first step into a larger world. Each DM needs to make the ruling he or she thinks best.

If a player creates a character just to exploit some rules loophole, I am SO happy to pull the rug out from that player's smug little posterior. If the players quits over the issue then I say the its a small victory for the hobby.

 

[Dausuul]

The rules look reasonably clear to me, and they support the "broken" interpretation. The target is afflicted with the disease when the spell is cast and the attack roll made. After three failed saves, the disease's effects last for the duration; the implication being that they are already in effect.

Furthermore, the "broken" interpretation isn't actually broken in most cases. You have to make an attack roll, which is akin to requiring a save. (You also have to get into melee range!) You then hit the target with a nasty debuff. For a 5th-level spell, that's about right. Compare dominate person, which gives you a much stronger effect, targets Wisdom instead of AC, and is usable at range; but has fewer targets available, is hard to use once combat begins, and is easier to disrupt.

The case where it is broken is legendary creatures, because of a double whammy. First, requiring an attack roll instead of a saving throw bypasses Legendary Resistance. And second, if the party can focus fire on a single monster, Slimy Doom becomes a near-guaranteed stunlock.

The simple fix right now is to allow the monster to use Legendary Resistance and negate contagion before it takes effect. There's no sense eviscerating the spell to fix this one case.

 

[keterys]

The rules look reasonably clear to me, and they support the "broken" interpretation.

We have literally no rules for handling diseases. Namely, we don't know whether the concept of affliction, incubation, and then true harmful effects exist. Given the week duration on the spell, there's no reason to think it has to take full effect immediately (diseases often incubate), until we have those rules.

That is to say, there's no reason at all not to wait for the DMG for WotC to clarify things, and cheerfully warn people off of using contagion until we have that information.

Unless the Monster Manual has a section on diseases and that's been cleared up already.

 

[the Jester]

The rules look reasonably clear to me, and they support the "broken" interpretation.

Interestingly, I agree that the rules look reasonably clear and reach the opposite conclusion- you have to fail three saves before the effects of the disease kick in.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The issue with this spell is mostly due to it's effectiveness against legendary monsters.

There are plenty of other save or die/suck spells around 5th level so against any other monster contagion is just as useful and in some cases less so. But the fact it takes 3 saves to remove the disease it is a legendary monster killer who can just shrug off all those other save or die spells.

Now this assumes you read "inflicts disease" as the effects starting right away as soon as you touch the target. I do, but once the DMG comes out and we see onset times for some of these diseases that might change.

So basicly if the disease starts the instance the spell is cast, this one spell shuts down most boss monsters with a single touch, if it inflicts the natural disease and there is some sort of onset time it becomes a very lame almost pointless spell to ever cast in combat.

I dont think the effect applies until you suffer 3 failed saves, at which point the disease takes hold. That is not inconsistent with the spell as described. If the disease takes effect immediately then it's probably broken bec even legendary creatures succumb to its stun lock fairly easily. So as a DM, I'd rule it's 3 failed saves then you start suffering the effects. And from memory the disease lasts ages, so its not totally useless

 

[Sacrosanct]

The rules look reasonably clear to me, and they support the "broken" interpretation. The target is afflicted with the disease when the spell is cast and the attack roll made. After three failed saves, the disease's effects last for the duration; the implication being that they are already in effect.

Furthermore, the "broken" interpretation isn't actually broken in most cases. You have to make an attack roll, which is akin to requiring a save. (You also have to get into melee range!) You then hit the target with a nasty debuff. For a 5th-level spell, that's about right. Compare dominate person, which gives you a much stronger effect, targets Wisdom instead of AC, and is usable at range; but has fewer targets available, is hard to use once combat begins, and is easier to disrupt.

The case where it is broken is legendary creatures, because of a double whammy. First, requiring an attack roll instead of a saving throw bypasses Legendary Resistance. And second, if the party can focus fire on a single monster, Slimy Doom becomes a near-guaranteed stunlock.

The simple fix right now is to allow the monster to use Legendary Resistance and negate contagion before it takes effect. There's no sense eviscerating the spell to fix this one case.

This is exactly how I interpret it as well. Just like death saves. Your "incapacitation" lasts until you make 3 saves, or fail three saves, at which point your incapacitation lasts the duration

I also agree with everything else you said. I'd allow the legendary resistance to impact the # of saves, so the creature could use all 3 to negate the contagion.

 

[Dausuul]

We have literally no rules for handling diseases. Namely, we don't know whether the concept of affliction, incubation, and then true harmful effects exist.

The word "afflict" does not mean the same thing as "infect." "Afflict" means:

(of a problem or illness) cause pain or suffering to; affect or trouble.

A disease that is incubating is not causing pain or suffering, nor affecting or troubling its victim. You may be infected, but you are not afflicted until the symptoms start.

 

[keterys]

The word "afflict" does not mean the same thing as "infect."

Correct indeed.

It's a shame that the spell makes no mention of infection or incubation, as previous edition's versions of contagion did. It's additionally a shame that the spell is some mix of badly designed and explained.

Thankfully, it's simplicity itself to ignore a spell or rule in the interpretation of the spell that is the most fun for the table, which is decidedly the one in which the disease only takes effect after 3 failures.

 

[Dausuul]

Correct indeed.

It's a shame that the spell makes no mention of infection or incubation, as previous edition's versions of contagion did. It's additionally a shame that the spell is some mix of badly designed and explained.

Thankfully, it's simplicity itself to ignore a spell or rule in the interpretation of the spell that is the most fun for the table, which is decidedly the one in which the disease only takes effect after 3 failures.

Is it, though? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would even consider preparing such a spell, and coming up blank. You're telling me I have to hit with a melee attack, and my target has to fail a Con save, and nothing happens for 3-5 rounds... and at the end of all that, the target gets a medium-nasty debuff that can be removed with a spell three levels lower. Oh, and there are whole classes of creatures (undead, constructs, et cetera) which are likely to be flat immune. Why on earth would I pick that over, say, hold monster (no attack roll, targets Wis over Con, instant paralysis)?

About the only reason I can see is if the DM rules the disease is contagious and you use the spell to start a plague. That's a reasonable interpretation, since it says the disease is "natural." But it's also going well beyond the spell as presented in the PHB. Even if the DMG contains rules for disease and infection, the spell should not require rules from the DMG to be worth using.

 

[keterys]

Is it, though?

Yes, the game is decidedly better off with the spell not being used.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where I would even consider preparing such a spell, and coming up blank.

Perfect, considering none of your examination included examining the fact that its effects last a full week, rather than just a few rounds. And, yeah, the fact that it doesn't let you know if the spell is contagious (but, well, it's a disease, and much like incubation and infection, that's pretty much the point, right?) speaks more on how badly written it is. But, hey, if it is contagious (no reason it's not), that backs up the week duration, doesn't it?

It's a plot spell, and people are requiring it to be a combat spell. It doesn't have to be. At all.