Let’s look at this from the other way around. The duration is 7 days, and the spell mentions that the spell effect can end early. But what is the effect? Well, the spell only mentions taking 11d8 damage and being poisoned (along with an additional effect tied to being poisoned). Is it the 11d8 damage that lasts for the duration? Of course not! Hit point damage lasts until hit points are regained. What else is there? It must be the poisoned bit, because that is ALL the spell describes doing: damage and poisoned condition (+ a rider on that condition). Well then, is that poisoned condition what the second paragraph is talking about? Seemingly so too! We’re getting somewhere. How about the third paragraph? It looks like it is also discussing how to get rid of the poisoned bit too.
Huh, gee, well then, are you poisoned if you succeed the first save? Surely if you fail you are. What happens if you succeed?
The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition.
The options sure look like succeed or be poisoned. So what comes along with succeeding? Nothing is written. Like, we don’t expect that the target is going to take damage if they succeed, right? So we should also expect that they’re not poisoned if they succeed too, huh?
Let’s look at this from the other way around. The duration is 7 days, and the spell mentions that the spell effect can end early. But what is the effect? Well, the spell only mentions taking 11d8 damage and being poisoned (along with an additional effect tied to being poisoned). Is it the 11d8 damage that lasts for the duration? Of course not! Hit point damage lasts until hit points are regained. What else is there? It must be the poisoned bit, because that is ALL the spell describes doing: damage and poisoned condition (+ a rider on that condition). Well then, is that poisoned condition what the second paragraph is talking about? Seemingly so too! We’re getting somewhere. How about the third paragraph? It looks like it is also discussing how to get rid of the poisoned bit too.
Huh, gee, well then, are you poisoned if you succeed the first save? Surely if you fail you are. What happens if you succeed?
The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition.
The options sure look like succeed or be poisoned. So what comes along with succeeding? Nothing is written. Like, we don’t expect that the target is going to take damage if they succeed, right? So we should also expect that they’re not poisoned if they succeed too, huh?
Great job completely ignoring all arguments contrary to your viewpoint! The "rider on that condition" is as you described - it's based on the condition in general. It doesn't matter what the source of the condition is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
I don’t think I’ve ignored them, I just think they’re wrong AF. Adding a rider to a condition is common and very obviously is tied to the same source. This is how the rest of the game works. We went through a bunch of illusion and enchantment spells. Maybe you couldn't bring yourself to agree, but there was one obvious conclusion.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends. Contagion has two additional effects:
"Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability."
"Whenever the Poisoned target receives an effect that would end the Poisoned condition, the target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw, or the Poisoned condition doesn’t end on it."
Even if you pass the initial save, that's what you're saving against for the rest. The first save only decides whether or not you take the damage and Contagion's instance of the poisoned condition. (It also counts as the first successful or failed save for the spell.)
If we compare to the original version of the spell, we can even see why they did the damage and condition on the initial save: It used to be an attack roll, and used to be more complex. They simplified it, but the intent of the spell is still clear: 3 successes or failures are needed no matter what.
We’ve been through this. Other spells work exactly the way I describe.
Certainly no other poisoned condition other than the one with this spell has that same rider attached. So why would any other poisoned condition cause the effect in the spell? You can’t add words to other spells either.
No matter what else is in the spell, it has exactly one spot where it defines where successes or failures end it, and that's paragraph two. That's all that's truly important here. It continues until 3 successes or failures are rolled on it.
The spell only does what it says it does. It says what happens on a failed save and never says anything happens on a successful save. The spell never starts if the first save is successful.
"If there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse." "I fear so -- I cannot compete with you physically, and you are no match for my brains."
You may not be aware of the parallels to your current stance, but just quoted someone who was, in the end, also confidently incorrect.
RAW states what happens if the first initial save fails. That is all there is to the entire spell. If the target succeeds on the save the spell is wasted. Just like in 2014. If you missed on the attack, the spell is wasted. In 2014, in order for it to land, you had to hit with a melee touch attack. In 2024, in order for it to land, the target has to fail a save. In both cases, to end it early if it lands, you need 3 successful saves. For it to last 7 days, in 2014, you needed to fail 3 saves. In 2024, you have to fail 2 more (Initial + 2 additional). The reduction on saves needed to get the 7 day version may be a factor of copying wording from the 2014 version where the spell was initiated with an attack roll and might not be intended.
It was already a good spell, it now gained damage dealt, a debuff to a saving throw, and resistance to curing it through other effects. It was nasty if it landed. The new one is even nastier. The spell is not a guaranteed debuff.
If we compare to the original version of the spell, we can even see why they did the damage and condition on the initial save: It used to be an attack roll, and used to be more complex. They simplified it, but the intent of the spell is still clear: 3 successes or failures are needed no matter what.
Comparing the new version to the previous version is apt. If the original attack misses, nothing happens in the old version, exactly like a success on the initial save on the current version.
What "other poisoned condition" is there? It's a condition.
Poisoned conditions gained from other sources. While conditions don't stack, they're each tracked separately. In fact there is a distinct reading of the conditions rules that says that they're not exhaustive, and a source of a condition is free to add whatever else it wants to its own instance of that condition.
Many effects impose a condition, a temporary state that alters the recipient’s capabilities. The following conditions are defined in the rules glossary:
This is written to clearly not be an exhaustive list, and the definition of a condition is a temporary state that alters the recipient's capabilities. So we have a list of conditions rigorously defined in the glossary.
Then the rules go on to say
The definition of a condition specifies what happens to its recipient while affected by it, and some conditions apply other conditions.
So, a condition is free to apply other conditions to it.
"While poisoned, ..." sounds like a condition that is applying another condition to it.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
And your point still only works if you don't look at the full text of the spell. The full text describes the effect and requirements, not just the first paragraph.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
And your point still only works if you don't look at the full text of the spell. The full text describes the effect and requirements, not just the first paragraph.
and the effect is damage and poisoned (with a rider) on a failed initial save. the rest is just how to get rid of it. None of the rest of it describes a different effect.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
Heat metal just works. It absolutely applies to the thing you cast it on -- a manufactured metal object within range. Whether it causes damage to a creature is frankly, a different question entirely.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
And your point still only works if you don't look at the full text of the spell. The full text describes the effect and requirements, not just the first paragraph.
and the effect is damage and poisoned (with a rider) on a failed initial save. the rest is just how to get rid of it. None of the rest of it describes a different effect.
There's more effects. You're just choosing to ignore them. That's what this comes down to.
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
And your point still only works if you don't look at the full text of the spell. The full text describes the effect and requirements, not just the first paragraph.
and the effect is damage and poisoned (with a rider) on a failed initial save. the rest is just how to get rid of it. None of the rest of it describes a different effect.
There's more effects. You're just choosing to ignore them. That's what this comes down to.
No, there isn't.
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.
Damage, Poisoned, and disadvantage tied to being poisoned by the spell.
The rest describes ending the effect. Both of the following paragraphs only contain information on that: Repeating saves in paragraph 2, and an additional save required if an effect would otherwise remove the effect.
and the effect is damage and poisoned (with a rider) on a failed initial save. the rest is just how to get rid of it. None of the rest of it describes a different effect.
There's more effects. You're just choosing to ignore them. That's what this comes down to.
No, there isn't.
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.
Damage, Poisoned, and disadvantage tied to being poisoned by the spell.
The rest describes ending the effect. Both of the following paragraphs only contain information on that: Repeating saves in paragraph 2, and an additional save required if an effect would otherwise remove the effect.
That's where I'm claiming you're adding words. It never mentions being poisoned by the spell, and your earlier claim of the effect somehow being a condition does nothing to solve this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
Heat metal just works. It absolutely applies to the thing you cast it on -- a manufactured metal object within range. Whether it causes damage to a creature is frankly, a different question entirely.
Allow me to specify. Heat metal says you must make a con. save or drop the object if possible. Then it says if you don't drop the object, you have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks. This is not contingent on failing the save and uses similar wording to contagion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
Let’s look at this from the other way around. The duration is 7 days, and the spell mentions that the spell effect can end early. But what is the effect? Well, the spell only mentions taking 11d8 damage and being poisoned (along with an additional effect tied to being poisoned). Is it the 11d8 damage that lasts for the duration? Of course not! Hit point damage lasts until hit points are regained. What else is there? It must be the poisoned bit, because that is ALL the spell describes doing: damage and poisoned condition (+ a rider on that condition). Well then, is that poisoned condition what the second paragraph is talking about? Seemingly so too! We’re getting somewhere. How about the third paragraph? It looks like it is also discussing how to get rid of the poisoned bit too.
Huh, gee, well then, are you poisoned if you succeed the first save? Surely if you fail you are. What happens if you succeed?
The options sure look like succeed or be poisoned. So what comes along with succeeding? Nothing is written. Like, we don’t expect that the target is going to take damage if they succeed, right? So we should also expect that they’re not poisoned if they succeed too, huh?
Does that really mean succeeding on the spell means nothing happens? It can’t possibly be the case that spells do nothing on a successful save. Or can it?
Great job completely ignoring all arguments contrary to your viewpoint! The "rider on that condition" is as you described - it's based on the condition in general. It doesn't matter what the source of the condition is.
Extended signature
I don’t think I’ve ignored them, I just think they’re wrong AF. Adding a rider to a condition is common and very obviously is tied to the same source. This is how the rest of the game works. We went through a bunch of illusion and enchantment spells. Maybe you couldn't bring yourself to agree, but there was one obvious conclusion.
Because "while poisoned" obviously means "while poisoned by this spell". No matter what you claim, you can't add words to a spell.
Extended signature
Toll the Dead is a terrible example because that's where the text ends. Contagion has two additional effects:
"Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability."
"Whenever the Poisoned target receives an effect that would end the Poisoned condition, the target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw, or the Poisoned condition doesn’t end on it."
Even if you pass the initial save, that's what you're saving against for the rest. The first save only decides whether or not you take the damage and Contagion's instance of the poisoned condition. (It also counts as the first successful or failed save for the spell.)
If we compare to the original version of the spell, we can even see why they did the damage and condition on the initial save: It used to be an attack roll, and used to be more complex. They simplified it, but the intent of the spell is still clear: 3 successes or failures are needed no matter what.
We’ve been through this. Other spells work exactly the way I describe.
Certainly no other poisoned condition other than the one with this spell has that same rider attached. So why would any other poisoned condition cause the effect in the spell? You can’t add words to other spells either.
What "other poisoned condition" is there? It's a condition.
Extended signature
The spell only does what it says it does. It says what happens on a failed save and never says anything happens on a successful save. The spell never starts if the first save is successful.
You may not be aware of the parallels to your current stance, but just quoted someone who was, in the end, also confidently incorrect.
RAW states what happens if the first initial save fails. That is all there is to the entire spell. If the target succeeds on the save the spell is wasted. Just like in 2014. If you missed on the attack, the spell is wasted. In 2014, in order for it to land, you had to hit with a melee touch attack. In 2024, in order for it to land, the target has to fail a save. In both cases, to end it early if it lands, you need 3 successful saves. For it to last 7 days, in 2014, you needed to fail 3 saves. In 2024, you have to fail 2 more (Initial + 2 additional). The reduction on saves needed to get the 7 day version may be a factor of copying wording from the 2014 version where the spell was initiated with an attack roll and might not be intended.
It was already a good spell, it now gained damage dealt, a debuff to a saving throw, and resistance to curing it through other effects. It was nasty if it landed. The new one is even nastier. The spell is not a guaranteed debuff.
How to add Tooltips.
Comparing the new version to the previous version is apt. If the original attack misses, nothing happens in the old version, exactly like a success on the initial save on the current version.
Poisoned conditions gained from other sources. While conditions don't stack, they're each tracked separately. In fact there is a distinct reading of the conditions rules that says that they're not exhaustive, and a source of a condition is free to add whatever else it wants to its own instance of that condition.
From the conditions section.
This is written to clearly not be an exhaustive list, and the definition of a condition is a temporary state that alters the recipient's capabilities. So we have a list of conditions rigorously defined in the glossary.
Then the rules go on to say
So, a condition is free to apply other conditions to it.
"While poisoned, ..." sounds like a condition that is applying another condition to it.
Toll the Dead tells you what happens on failed save. It doesn't mention what happens on a successful save so nothing happens.
Fireball tells you take damage on a failed save and half as much on successful one.
Outside of attack spells with saves for half damage, few spells affect the target on a successful save. If they do, all of them explicitly say so. None imply it the way you and Jurmondur claim.
How to add Tooltips.
And your point still only works if you don't look at the full text of the spell. The full text describes the effect and requirements, not just the first paragraph.
I think heat metal refutes your last claim.
Extended signature
and the effect is damage and poisoned (with a rider) on a failed initial save. the rest is just how to get rid of it. None of the rest of it describes a different effect.
Heat metal just works. It absolutely applies to the thing you cast it on -- a manufactured metal object within range. Whether it causes damage to a creature is frankly, a different question entirely.
There's more effects. You're just choosing to ignore them. That's what this comes down to.
No, there isn't.
Damage, Poisoned, and disadvantage tied to being poisoned by the spell.
The rest describes ending the effect. Both of the following paragraphs only contain information on that: Repeating saves in paragraph 2, and an additional save required if an effect would otherwise remove the effect.
That's where I'm claiming you're adding words. It never mentions being poisoned by the spell, and your earlier claim of the effect somehow being a condition does nothing to solve this.
Extended signature
Allow me to specify. Heat metal says you must make a con. save or drop the object if possible. Then it says if you don't drop the object, you have disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks. This is not contingent on failing the save and uses similar wording to contagion.
Extended signature
And I did add those words because that is how the effect works, just like other spells that use conditions and add to them.
Your interpretation doesn't make sense, and doesn't fit with other spells that apply conditions. It is wrong.