D&D 5E Is Contagion OP?
- Thread starter Werebat
- Start date
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.
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.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Exactly. Until three saves are failed there is no effect.
Henrix
Explorer
Indeed. Sadly poorly worded, though.
Possibly the word 'afflict' has a distinct meaning regarding diseases that will be in the DMG.
What part of the spell are you reading to lead you to believe this interpretation?
Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, you afflict the creature with a disease of your choice from any of the ones described below.
At the end of each of the target’s turns, it must make a Constitution saving throw. After failing three of these saving throws, the disease’s effects last for the duration, and the creature stops making these saves. After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends.
Since this spell induces a natural disease in its target, any effect that removes disease or otherwise
ameliorates a disease’s effects apply to it.
See I read "your touch inflicts disease." & "On a hit, you afflict the creature with a disease" As when you touch the target they are afflicted with disease, not later but when you touch them.
I read "After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease," as in the target has to be suffering some ill effect from the disease for it to recover from or this makes no sense.
I am open to the "this spell induces a natural disease" as to if the entry in the DMG for a natural disease has an onset time as the effects don't apply until that onset time has passed. But we don't have that information yet.
I just don't see how someone can read the spell and get it doesn't do anything until you fail 3 saves.
Henrix
Explorer
You can be sick without serious symptoms.
Happens to me all the time, and often I fight it off.
This is a poorly worded spell, so you'll have to decide how to read it.
You pick:
a) Does it work akin to Flesh to Stone (but without concentrating), or
b) is it weirdly overpowered?
You be the DM!
Happens to me all the time, and often I fight it off.
This is a poorly worded spell, so you'll have to decide how to read it.
You pick:
a) Does it work akin to Flesh to Stone (but without concentrating), or
b) is it weirdly overpowered?
You be the DM!
Giltonio_Santos
Hero
To me, it works much like death saves. Keep rolling your saving throws, if you fail three before succeeding at three, the disease affects you. Otherwise, your body is able to heal without any symptom. I see this interpretation as fair and balanced, and I don't think there's any reason to interpret it in any other way.
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?
