D&D 5E The Contagion Spell

[Celtavian]

This is the one spell I've found in the PHB that is truly over-powered as in it breaks the game. I read a Sage Advice recommendation from Mike Mearls to not have the spell take effect until the three saves are missed. Yet the spell is not in any way unclear and The Sage ruling is an attempted fix rather than a clarification. I believe Mearls fix weakens the spell to the point of near uselessness given spells that take three rounds to take effect are not attractive in fast and furious 5E combat.

What I've decided to do is the following:
1. Add the line "This spell has no effect on constructs or undead." I'll add at the end of the spell text.

2. Change "At the end of each of the target's turns..." to "At the start of each of the target's turns, it must make a Constitution saving throw.

3. Add the line after the first line of the second paragraph, "If the Constitution saving throw succeeds, the target resists the effects of the disease until start of their next turn.

I figure this gives contagion at least one round to work. It still works with the overall mechanics of the spell, so I don't have to rewrite the entire spell text. It make the spell powerful and attractive.

Has anyone else made similar changes to the contagion spell? Has it been causing trouble at your table?

 

[PnPgamer]

How it is overpowered? Single target attack +saves, range of touch to put yourself on risk and its a fifth level spell. Dnd has contained plenty of spells that instantly kill, and are available to both pcs and enemies. I concur on the fact that it might be quite anticlimactic.

 

[Raunalyn]

How it is overpowered? Single target attack +saves, range of touch to put yourself on risk and its a fifth level spell. Dnd has contained plenty of spells that instantly kill, and are available to both pcs and enemies. I concur on the fact that it might be quite anticlimactic.

Not only that, but its relatively easy to remove the spell effect. A paladin's lay on hands, lesser restoration. I don't think its too grossly overpowered, personally. Powerful? Yes.

 

[Celtavian]

Not only that, but its relatively easy to remove the spell effect. A paladin's lay on hands, lesser restoration. I don't think its too grossly overpowered, personally. Powerful? Yes.

I'm not concerned about the monsters using this against the PCs. The way it is written it is an auto-win against any enemy that lacks the ability to remove disease, which is about 90% or higher of encounters.

 

[Celtavian]

From what I've read in the Monster Manual, nothing is immune to disease, not even undead. Which I found very strange. It looks like an enormous oversight unless I'm missing some alternate rule that states constructs and undead are immune to disease.

Does no one use this spell? And no DM's have experience with it? What am I missing about this spell that doesn't make it a near auto-win once a target is hit?

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The issue is with the Slimy Doom option, right? Or whatever the one that stuns on taking damage. The others seemed mostly in line with a 4th level spell IIRC. Why not change that disease effect?

 

[bganon]

There is no "diseased" condition, and monster immunities only cover damage types or the specific conditions in Appendix A of the PHB. IMO magical diseases are meant to generally work against monsters unless the DM rules that they don't make sense.

That said, I really agree with other people that Slimy Doom is the major issue. It's a no-save disadvantage on Con checks (including the Con checks to end the condition!) and virtually guaranteed stun lock if the party focus fires. The stun absolutely needs to be eliminated - maybe the target just grants advantage to attackers instead?

 

[CM]

I might change the disadvantage for Slimy Doom from Con saves to Strength saves, so it's not doubly difficult to save out of; then it's not much different from Hold Monster. Having to get into melee with the target and then successfully hit it is a significant drawback, too.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Also agreed that undead/constructs should be immune to disease except in unusual circumstances (some kind of weird blood borne thing that impacts vampires for example). I'd actually just assumed they were immune, but it hasn't come up in my game.

 

[Celtavian]

The Charisma is pretty nasty as well. Double damage for at least two and a half turns is harsh. The blindness is pretty nasty as well. Basically, if you hit, the creature gets a powerful negative effect for two and a half or more rounds.

I definitely want to test this reduced version. If they errata this the way Mike Mearls recommends, it will go from over-powered to useless. It's a cool spell. I for one would like to see a fearsome disease spell in the game. Much cooler than a pure death spell.