D&D 5E The Contagion Spell

[keterys]

Contagion is basically a plot spell as written, used by NPCs to create disease outbreaks. Or for PCs, if your game has that level of war.

It is perfectly valid to read it as either overpowered or useless to most PCs, because it does not talk about incubation times, spreading, or any of the actual disease mechanics. Having a disease doesn't mean "immediately suffer all the penalties", and the spell's ignorance of every mechanic of interest to disease, including who it should work on (hi, undead, constructs, elementals, everyone immune to poison, etc), it's just a bad spell to be in the PHB at all.

Because it has a massive plot potential, is a spell typically not used by PCs, and only one reading of it is good for the game, every DM should rule that its effects don't happen immediately. Given that, no PC should use it, except when they _actually_ want to spread disease, and not when they want to immediately kill someone. Poof, now it's no longer an I-win button against dragons and the like, but simply a spell that's good at its stated purpose and nothing more.

 

[Celtavian]

Contagion is basically a plot spell as written, used by NPCs to create disease outbreaks. Or for PCs, if your game has that level of war.

It is perfectly valid to read it as either overpowered or useless to most PCs, because it does not talk about incubation times, spreading, or any of the actual disease mechanics. Having a disease doesn't mean "immediately suffer all the penalties", and the spell's ignorance of every mechanic of interest to disease, including who it should work on (hi, undead, constructs, elementals, everyone immune to poison, etc), it's just a bad spell to be in the PHB at all.

Because it has a massive plot potential, is a spell typically not used by PCs, and only one reading of it is good for the game, every DM should rule that its effects don't happen immediately. Given that, no PC should use it, except when they _actually_ want to spread disease, and not when they want to immediately kill someone. Poof, now it's no longer an I-win button against dragons and the like, but simply a spell that's good at its stated purpose and nothing more.

It isn't a plot spell as written. There is no ambiguity in what it does or says. The onset is immediate. The diseases do what they say they do. Not once a day or once a turn, but all the time.

What you're describing is a spell purely for role-play purposes. I'm not looking for that as it is will never be used by the PCs. I would like a disease attack spell that is usable.

I would have to write up a bunch of rules for incubation period and how it spreads. That is also not part of the spell.

I really would like some information from people that have used this spell.

 

[keterys]

There is no ambiguity in what it does or says.

A whole lot of threads on the internet would disagree, alas.

Really, what I wanted to do was just read the rules for disease in the game. And here's the trick: there aren't any. The reason undead aren't immune to disease is because they wanted to allow you to have plot diseases that affected undead and constructs (see the DMG).

Whoever wrote this spell might have had some rules for disease to go on, but honestly I doubt it. It wasn't in the public playtest. It doesn't describe how it works very well, so DMs pretty much have to making a Ruling here. So, obviously, you should do what you want to do, but the most sensible route is to _ignore the spell_. It should never have been in the PHB and should not exist as it's currently written. Poof, the game is better already.

The onset is immediate.

P.S. It _really_ doesn't say this. I wish it did. It would have at least shown that the concept was considered when the spell was written.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.

Blindness seems appropriate at least, given that Cause Blindness is a save ends 2nd level spell. Double damage is iffy - you'd have to compare the extra damage dealt to just straight up hitting them with a damaging spell. Its also not front loaded. So it's really party dependent.

IMO, the stunlock one is the real problem child.

 

[Celtavian]

A whole lot of threads on the internet would disagree, alas.

I don't use thread count to determine whether something is unclear or not. I read the text of the spell. The text is very clear.

Really, what I wanted to do was just read the rules for disease in the game. And here's the trick: there aren't any. The reason undead aren't immune to disease is because they wanted to allow you to have plot diseases that affected undead and constructs (see the DMG).

Whoever wrote this spell might have had some rules for disease to go on, but honestly I doubt it. It wasn't in the public playtest. It doesn't describe how it works very well, so DMs pretty much have to making a Ruling here. So, obviously, you should do what you want to do, but the most sensible route is to _ignore the spell_. It should never have been in the PHB and should not exist as it's currently written. Poof, the game is better already.

One of the few completely dropped balls I've seen. I looked in the DMG for some possible clarification as well. Nothing. They did poison, but not disease. Makes no sense.

P.S. It _really_ doesn't say this. I wish it did. It would have at least shown that the concept was considered when the spell was written.

It really does. It says "afflicted with a disease." That means the onset is immediate. It doesn't say afflicted with a disease after failing three saves. It does not say afflicted with a disease after a day. It says "afflicted with a disease." Make a save at the end of each turn. Three saves ends the spell ending the disease. Any ability that ameliorates (lessens in effect) or gives immunity prevents the spell from working.

Contagion is an extremely clear spell. Over-powered, but clear. You could follow it as it is written and it will work exactly how it works including how to end it.

What exactly do you think the word "afflict" means? I wonder because the meaning of the word in the context of the spell is clear.

The only reason there are threads on the spell are the same reasons I posted one: the spell is a game breaker if you run it as it is written.

Suffice it so say, I will end the discussion with you there. You are not providing any helpful information other than your view on the spell. Not how it works in the game. Not any experience with it. That is not helpful at all.

 

[Celtavian]

Blindness seems appropriate at least, given that Cause Blindness is a save ends 2nd level spell. Double damage is iffy - you'd have to compare the extra damage dealt to just straight up hitting them with a damaging spell. Its also not front loaded. So it's really party dependent.

IMO, the stunlock one is the real problem child.

It's double all damage. The party will have a field day with Flesh Rot. Filth Fever isn't bad. Seizure or Mindfire are situational.

Everything else is a lock in battle with the possible exception of Blinding Sickness against a creature that doesn't use sight or has such a high to hit roll it doesn't matter.

Have you used the spell in game? I can't believe there aren't many people with experience using this spell. Then again clerics may be rarely played class as they are kind of boring.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It really does. It says "afflicted with a disease." That means the onset is immediate. .

Regardless of everything else going on here, this isn't really true. Just because you're afflicted with a disease does not mean you suddenly and immediately show all symptoms. In fact, I can't think of a single disease that works that way. Every one I can think of takes at least some time and a progression of worsening symptoms.

Then again clerics may be rarely played class as they are kind of boring.

There are no boring classes. Only boring players. "Boring" =/= 'unappealing to me", which is what I think you mean.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

One of the few completely dropped balls I've seen. I looked in the DMG for some possible clarification as well. Nothing. They did poison, but not disease. Makes no sense.

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.

 

[keterys]

It really does. It says "afflicted with a disease." That means the onset is immediate.

This is incorrect. It may be that all of the diseases listed have no onset (I did a cursory search for their analogs in the monster manual and dmg, but did not find them repeated which is _maddening_) but it most definitely does not mean you bypass the onset. It means you are afflicted by the disease.

What afflicted by the disease means _is not spelled out by the rules_. But someone who is afflicted by a disease certainly has the disease, but what stage of the disease, whether its contagious, dunno. Sure would be nice if the rules told us.

But in the meantime, any DM that rules that you have the disease mentioned, which has an onset of any time he feels like, is perfectly within his rights. As is a DM that says it happens immediately.

It's not even a bad spell if the effects don't trigger until 3 failed saves. It's just not a killer combat spells designed for PCs.

 

[the Jester]

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.

My reading of the spell from the start was just what Mearls suggested, possibly because it seems broken otherwise.

I think part of the issue is thinking of this as a combat spell. I think it's more of a plot spell with limited combat application, personally.