Three saving throws before there's any damage is a waste of a 5th level spell.
Not sure what's unclear about it either, all or nothing CON save at the outset, then best of 5 to see if the debuff sticks, with a rider to keep one Lesser Restoration from bypassing the process.
With an average of 48.5dmg per fail, and it becoming available at level 9, where relative HP avg is near say 70hp just on average characters overall, it should for a 5th level spell be just an all or nothing spell and the best of three taken out as it’s overkill if the first save fails and Constitution ability rolls are chosen for disadvantage.
If you fail then save, do you just lose the poison condition and the disadvantage, or does it linger till you save 3 times?
With 11d8 worth of average damage, and a best of three potential grinder mechanic, ether drop the best of three to keep it a level 5, or make it a level 6+ leved spell so enough rounds pass to determine if the spell actually holds.
As it is, at 5th level the damage has to come down to reasonable level or make it a save or stuck effect.
It is save or suck- the first save is all or nothing, so one LR kills it all.
As for when it ends, it either ends on 3 subsequent saves that end the spell, or when the poisoned condition is removed per the conditions outlined in the spell as those other effects are contingent on the poisoned effect being active.
Three saving throws before there's any damage is a waste of a 5th level spell.
Not sure what's unclear about it either, all or nothing CON save at the outset, then best of 5 to see if the debuff sticks, with a rider to keep one Lesser Restoration from bypassing the process.
Nothing about the text of the spell says that succeeding on the first save eliminates the requirement to make subsequent saves.
Three saving throws before there's any damage is a waste of a 5th level spell.
Not sure what's unclear about it either, all or nothing CON save at the outset, then best of 5 to see if the debuff sticks, with a rider to keep one Lesser Restoration from bypassing the process.
Nothing about the text of the spell says that succeeding on the first save eliminates the requirement to make subsequent saves.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
(italic emphasis mine)
Just to show the apposing view for the devs: Contagion says, "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability." I see no mention of the effect of disadvantage on saves with the ability being contingent of failing the saving throw, and I don't believe a conditional carrying over to another sentence (absent specifying language) is grammatical.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
(italic emphasis mine)
Just to show the apposing view for the devs: Contagion says, "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability." I see no mention of the effect of disadvantage on saves with the ability being contingent of failing the saving throw, and I don't believe a conditional carrying over to another sentence (absent specifying language) is grammatical.
It's contingent on having the Poisoned condition, which will only occur if the target fails the initial save. Ergo, if they do not gain the condition from the first save, nothing that follows can actually apply a modifying effect.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
(italic emphasis mine)
Just to show the apposing view for the devs: Contagion says, "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability." I see no mention of the effect of disadvantage on saves with the ability being contingent of failing the saving throw, and I don't believe a conditional carrying over to another sentence (absent specifying language) is grammatical.
It's contingent on having the Poisoned condition, which will only occur if the target fails the initial save. Ergo, if they do not gain the condition from the first save, nothing that follows can actually apply a modifying effect.
The poisoned condition is not exclusive to this spell, and the spell makes no mention of the source of the poisoned condition for this effect.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
(italic emphasis mine)
Just to show the apposing view for the devs: Contagion says, "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability." I see no mention of the effect of disadvantage on saves with the ability being contingent of failing the saving throw, and I don't believe a conditional carrying over to another sentence (absent specifying language) is grammatical.
It's contingent on having the Poisoned condition, which will only occur if the target fails the initial save. Ergo, if they do not gain the condition from the first save, nothing that follows can actually apply a modifying effect.
The poisoned condition is not exclusive to this spell, and the spell makes no mention of the source of the poisoned condition for this effect.
That's a different discussion. No one before now presented the question of how a pre-existing condition would interact with this- which would be an excellent Sage Advice topic- so I didn't address it.
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
As written, I'm not at all convinced that the target doesn't take 11d8 necrotic damage on every failed save, though I doubt that's the intended behavior.
Just to make sure I'm understanding you are saying they do not double but are added at the end so in the pugilist potion example if my monk die is 1d10 a crit damage would be [2d10 + dex.mod + 1d6 bonus] for the potion as opposed to [2d10 + dex.mod + 2d6 bonus].
Just making sure I understood the point you were trying to make which if I understand is all relevant modifiers are added at the end after the attack dice are doubled. Correct?
It should be [2d10 + dex.mod + 2d6 bonus]
Another example: a magic Dagger +2 using Dexterity modifier deals 1d4 + 2 + DEX damage.
If a level 1 Rogue using Sneak Attack lands a crit, they deal 2d4 + 2d6 + 2 + DEX damage. Without the crit: 1d4 + 1d6 + 2 + DEX
You can replace or add Sneak Attack with Hex, Smite spells, or Hunter's Mark, and the logic stays the same.
The exception is that sneak attack is a feature that targets the weapon attack and Hex / Hunter's Mark are non-attack spells which use the spell action and they are not classified as attacks. So why would a spell that is not a spell attack have their dice double when crit says to double the attack dies and then add any applicable relevant modifiers?
To put it bluntly why would hunter's mark and Hex be considered part of the weapon attack as opposed to as a relevant modifier when most things point to them being modifiers and not attacks?
Sneak attack of course is different as it is not an attack but also it's a feature that modifies an attack. In other words sneak attack does not have a normal casting time and targets the weapons attack whereas Hex and Hunter's mark do NOT target the weapon they target the creature.
I gave an example of a spell that WOULD crit and targets a weapon which was Shillelagh. It targets a weapon, has duration, but ALSO importantly is classified as a melee spell attack but they others are not.
It would in theory point to if they intended for them to count as spell attacks they would add melee/ranged attack tags onto them as they did with Shillelagh. I think this is an important distinction and as the change between Stun and Paralyzed was to differentiate them from each other.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
By the way, is it me or in the spell Contagion is what the DC for the Con save not mentioned anywhere?
As a new player, how would I have to Figure that out if no reference to the DC to save is addressed?
Clarification might prove useful.
The DC equals your spell save DC. That goes for every single spell with a saving throw. (I guess there might be an exception, but I don't know of one) (seriously, how do you not know this?)
The exception is that sneak attack is a feature that targets the weapon attack and Hex / Hunter's Mark are non-attack spells which use the spell action and they are not classified as attacks. So why would a spell that is not a spell attack have their dice double when crit says to double the attack dies and then add any applicable relevant modifiers?
To put it bluntly why would hunter's mark and Hex be considered part of the weapon attack as opposed to as a relevant modifier when most things point to them being modifiers and not attacks?
Sneak attack of course is different as it is not an attack but also it's a feature that modifies an attack. In other words sneak attack does not have a normal casting time and targets the weapons attack whereas Hex and Hunter's mark do NOT target the weapon they target the creature.
I gave an example of a spell that WOULD crit and targets a weapon which was Shillelagh. It targets a weapon, has duration, but ALSO importantly is classified as a melee spell attack but they others are not.
It would in theory point to if they intended for them to count as spell attacks they would add melee/ranged attack tags onto them as they did with Shillelagh. I think this is an important distinction and as the change between Stun and Paralyzed was to differentiate them from each other.
You are making distinctions that do not exist. Regardless, it is explicitly stated, "If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice."
I think we can see one difficulty of using a thread like this to collect SAC questions appearing, in that users are naturally trying to help answer each other's questions and it's turning into a rule discussion thread rather than a SAC focused thread.
Hmm, maybe it'd be helpful to instead of trying to answer in this thread itself, to link to another thread in Rules & Game Mechanics where it is being discussed in depth?
There's also the case that even if folk feel they have the RAW or RAI answer to a question, if it's uncertain enough to ask for clarification then SAC may be needed. However, it's certainly worth asking first in Rules & Game Mechanics and if a consensus doesn't seem to be reached, think about saving that question for future SAC- however those questions end up being collected.
I think we can see one difficulty of using a thread like this to collect SAC questions appearing, in that users are naturally trying to help answer each other's questions and it's turning into a rule discussion thread rather than a SAC focused thread.
Hmm, maybe it'd be helpful to instead of trying to answer in this thread itself, to link to another thread in Rules & Game Mechanics where it is being discussed in depth?
There's also the case that even if folk feel they have the RAW or RAI answer to a question, if it's uncertain enough to ask for clarification then SAC may be needed. However, it's certainly worth asking first in Rules & Game Mechanics and if a consensus doesn't seem to be reached, think about saving that question for future SAC- however those questions end up being collected.
Maybe every month (or 2 or whatever), y'all can just collect all the unique questions, post them in a non-repliable thread where people could vote up ones they care about most, and then pass that on to the sage(s). This way the questions most important to community have best chance of being answered, rather than whatever gets posted first or noticed or whatever.
I second that idea. Upvoting questions would be a pretty simple solution to the problem of people asking questions that don't really need a Sage Advice answer.
I think we can see one difficulty of using a thread like this to collect SAC questions appearing, in that users are naturally trying to help answer each other's questions and it's turning into a rule discussion thread rather than a SAC focused thread.
Hmm, maybe it'd be helpful to instead of trying to answer in this thread itself, to link to another thread in Rules & Game Mechanics where it is being discussed in depth?
There's also the case that even if folk feel they have the RAW or RAI answer to a question, if it's uncertain enough to ask for clarification then SAC may be needed. However, it's certainly worth asking first in Rules & Game Mechanics and if a consensus doesn't seem to be reached, think about saving that question for future SAC- however those questions end up being collected.
Maybe every month (or 2 or whatever), y'all can just collect all the unique questions, post them in a non-repliable thread where people could vote up ones they care about most, and then pass that on to the sage(s). This way the questions most important to community have best chance of being answered, rather than whatever gets posted first or noticed or whatever.
I don't think that's a good idea. I wouldn't want some non-employee deciding if my question is relevant enough to be brought to employees.
Hell, I've suggested similar systems for establishing community priorities with the backlog of bugs & unfulfilled promises before, & even a bounty system for discovering new bugs.
The problem that I think you're kinda right about is abuse of the system.
There are ABSOLUTELY people who would flood their priorities forward.
Hence why I have also proposed a forum sluice gate for low post count, single-issue posters from access to things like this, because they almost NEVER check to see if SpamAndTuna or another mod has acknowledged a problem and/or passed something on, or assume the site works like Archives of Nepthys because Other Stuff Exists. The sluice gate is also for the mental health of mods, since some of these low post count, single issue posters get rather angry at mods who can't snap their fingers & reprogram a site or issue errata & Sage Advice.
At this point, SOME way is better than NO way, getting our Sage Advice questions through-wise, but abuse of the system does need to be mitigated, if not prevented, if said hypothetical system(s) is introduced.
It is save or suck- the first save is all or nothing, so one LR kills it all.
As for when it ends, it either ends on 3 subsequent saves that end the spell, or when the poisoned condition is removed per the conditions outlined in the spell as those other effects are contingent on the poisoned effect being active.
Nothing about the text of the spell says that succeeding on the first save eliminates the requirement to make subsequent saves.
Technically no, but given that they don't gain the Poisoned condition in that circumstance, there's no point in rolling the remaining saves because there's no active spell effect to end.
Sure there is. If you succeed at the first save and fail at the second, you are now poisoned. The spell effect doesn't end until three successes (or three failures and a week).
No, you aren't. The first roll is for whether or not you're Poisoned. The other rolls are to end the spell, which cannot apply a condition after the first roll because the first roll literally says "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8![]()
Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition." We know this doesn't apply to the subsequent rolls since the effect is all one package, and I don't think anyone is arguing the target takes 11d8 damage on every subsequent failed save. Ergo, the first roll is save or suck for the entire effect.
(italic emphasis mine)
Just to show the apposing view for the devs: Contagion says, "The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability." I see no mention of the effect of disadvantage on saves with the ability being contingent of failing the saving throw, and I don't believe a conditional carrying over to another sentence (absent specifying language) is grammatical.
It's contingent on having the Poisoned condition, which will only occur if the target fails the initial save. Ergo, if they do not gain the condition from the first save, nothing that follows can actually apply a modifying effect.
The poisoned condition is not exclusive to this spell, and the spell makes no mention of the source of the poisoned condition for this effect.
That's a different discussion. No one before now presented the question of how a pre-existing condition would interact with this- which would be an excellent Sage Advice topic- so I didn't address it.
As written, I'm not at all convinced that the target doesn't take 11d8 necrotic damage on every failed save, though I doubt that's the intended behavior.
It should be [2d10 + dex.mod + 2d6 bonus]
Another example: a magic Dagger +2 using Dexterity modifier deals 1d4 + 2 + DEX damage.
If a level 1 Rogue using Sneak Attack lands a crit, they deal 2d4 + 2d6 + 2 + DEX damage. Without the crit: 1d4 + 1d6 + 2 + DEX
You can replace or add Sneak Attack with Hex, Smite spells, or Hunter's Mark, and the logic stays the same.
The exception is that sneak attack is a feature that targets the weapon attack and Hex / Hunter's Mark are non-attack spells which use the spell action and they are not classified as attacks. So why would a spell that is not a spell attack have their dice double when crit says to double the attack dies and then add any applicable relevant modifiers?
To put it bluntly why would hunter's mark and Hex be considered part of the weapon attack as opposed to as a relevant modifier when most things point to them being modifiers and not attacks?
Sneak attack of course is different as it is not an attack but also it's a feature that modifies an attack. In other words sneak attack does not have a normal casting time and targets the weapons attack whereas Hex and Hunter's mark do NOT target the weapon they target the creature.
I gave an example of a spell that WOULD crit and targets a weapon which was Shillelagh. It targets a weapon, has duration, but ALSO importantly is classified as a melee spell attack but they others are not.
It would in theory point to if they intended for them to count as spell attacks they would add melee/ranged attack tags onto them as they did with Shillelagh. I think this is an important distinction and as the change between Stun and Paralyzed was to differentiate them from each other.
By the way, is it me or in the spell Contagion is what the DC for the Con save not mentioned anywhere?
As a new player, how would I have to Figure that out if no reference to the DC to save is addressed?
Clarification might prove useful.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
The DC equals your spell save DC. That goes for every single spell with a saving throw. (I guess there might be an exception, but I don't know of one) (seriously, how do you not know this?)
You are making distinctions that do not exist. Regardless, it is explicitly stated, "If the attack involves other damage dice, such as from the Rogue’s Sneak Attack feature, you also roll those dice twice."
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI think we can see one difficulty of using a thread like this to collect SAC questions appearing, in that users are naturally trying to help answer each other's questions and it's turning into a rule discussion thread rather than a SAC focused thread.
Hmm, maybe it'd be helpful to instead of trying to answer in this thread itself, to link to another thread in Rules & Game Mechanics where it is being discussed in depth?
There's also the case that even if folk feel they have the RAW or RAI answer to a question, if it's uncertain enough to ask for clarification then SAC may be needed. However, it's certainly worth asking first in Rules & Game Mechanics and if a consensus doesn't seem to be reached, think about saving that question for future SAC- however those questions end up being collected.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
Maybe every month (or 2 or whatever), y'all can just collect all the unique questions, post them in a non-repliable thread where people could vote up ones they care about most, and then pass that on to the sage(s). This way the questions most important to community have best chance of being answered, rather than whatever gets posted first or noticed or whatever.
I second that idea. Upvoting questions would be a pretty simple solution to the problem of people asking questions that don't really need a Sage Advice answer.
I don't think that's a good idea. I wouldn't want some non-employee deciding if my question is relevant enough to be brought to employees.
It's better than the slow nothing we have now.
Hell, I've suggested similar systems for establishing community priorities with the backlog of bugs & unfulfilled promises before, & even a bounty system for discovering new bugs.
The problem that I think you're kinda right about is abuse of the system.
There are ABSOLUTELY people who would flood their priorities forward.
Hence why I have also proposed a forum sluice gate for low post count, single-issue posters from access to things like this, because they almost NEVER check to see if SpamAndTuna or another mod has acknowledged a problem and/or passed something on, or assume the site works like Archives of Nepthys because Other Stuff Exists. The sluice gate is also for the mental health of mods, since some of these low post count, single issue posters get rather angry at mods who can't snap their fingers & reprogram a site or issue errata & Sage Advice.
At this point, SOME way is better than NO way, getting our Sage Advice questions through-wise, but abuse of the system does need to be mitigated, if not prevented, if said hypothetical system(s) is introduced.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.