Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Is this argument not just the contagion argument from a few weeks ago?

No. The contagion debate was regarding if the initial save avoided the entire spell on a success and, to a lesser degree, if the difficulty in removing the poisoned condition persists independently of the poisoned condition from the spell.

This is an effect applying two conditions, one with a set duration and the other with a conditional duration.

You can definitely make the argument that RAI is that they are dependent on each other, but RAW is that they are independent.

 I don’t follow the distinction. One question asks if the entire effect ends when the effect ends and the other asks if both conditions of the effect end when the effect ends.  

No. Contagion was a dispute as to whether anything happened if the first save was passed. This is not that.

Quote from nicclnucnaxi >>

So my question is: Does nothing happen at all if you succeed the initial saving throw, or is the second part still taking place? 

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Quote from Jurmondur >>

It appears that if you succeed on the first save, but then fail on three after, the spell lasts for 7 days doing literally nothing.

 A creature that fails the initial save is affected by poisoned and has disadvantage on saves of the caster's choice. This is the bit that lasts for the duration: either until 3 EoT saves are made or for 7 days after 3 EoT saves are failed. A creature that succeeds the first save is not affected in the first place -- the duration of the spell is until the condition ends either by saves (including the initial one) or for 7 days.

So, that's the Contagion discussion, at least the on-topic portions of it.

THIS is an effect that applies two different conditions that could have easily been worded as linked but are explicitly worded as separate.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Maybe the intention is that removing the Frightened condition removes the Paralyzed condition.

 It's definitly intended, as explained in this Dragon Talk: Sage Advice on Conditions (23:45) these so-called delivery device condition can then be shut off.

Staff commentary outside of SAC is not RAW, but that can definitely indicate RAI. (Link to same video with exact timestamp for anyone on mobile) However, while I don't feel that it reinforces that the Paralyzed condition is removed by removing that Frightened condition as opposed to all instances of the Frightened condition.

I do think that it's a better take.

I mean the conditions are linked. By the effect that causes them and tells you the duration. Or they are separate with separate timings and the game doesn’t make sense anymore. Forever into the future after being affected by terrifying glare, while frightened, that creature is paralyzed. That makes no sense. 

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

but are explicitly worded as separate.

That's... a very weird take. They are grouped under the same attack. The second effect is explicitly conditional on the first

Terrifying Glare. Wisdom Saving Throw: DC 11, one creature the scarecrow can see within 30 feet. Failure: The target has the Frightened condition until the end of the scarecrow’s next turn. While Frightened, the target has the Paralyzed condition.

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

Thanks for the link to the thread. I'm sure there is a textualist reading that just glosses over functional understanding that says "the frightened creature is paralyzed" because that's what the sentence says. But that isn't what the sentence is really telling you, now is it?

 Sorry, Wolf. I posted my reply and didn't see yours until now. But it seems we had the same idea.

BTW, when I mentioned the connection between this thread and the Contagion one, it was because we had some great explanations about how Conditions should be understood. Specifically, the following comments:

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >

[...] Enchantment spells use the same language. "While charmed, the target..."

If I cast Hypnotic Pattern and the target succeeds on the saving throw, does the spell last for a minute?

You create a twisting pattern of colors in a 30-foot Cube within range. The pattern appears for a moment and vanishes. Each creature in the area who can see the pattern must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or have the Charmed condition for the duration. While Charmed, the creature has the Incapacitated condition and a Speed of 0.

If someone else (both spells have concentration requirements) casts Friends on the same creature, does the target become incapacitated with a speed of 0 while charmed with from the Hypnotic Pattern? Can other casters spam the Friends Cantrip to make the Hypnotic Pattern save irrelevant? No, of course not. [...]

Quote from WolfOfTheBees >>

I think this whole line of thought in this thread, and especially playing devil's advocate, falls outside of "Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation." It is not because modify memory has the words "while charmed in this way" that its effect is limited to its own charm effect, and it is not the case that all the other spells that don't have this language work differently. Again, the effect of hypnotic pattern does not extend to creatures charmed by other means.

What we've determined with all of the examples is that Contagion does not use particularly novel or complicated language. Yes, you can find examples that use more precise language, but there are plenty that are written like contagion. That means that whatever you rule for it applies to all the other spells with similar language. Again, interpreting those in good faith means also interpreting contagion the same way: that spells that apply conditions and rely on those conditions rely on their own versions of them.

By the way it is true that if the spell ends (all creatures save), then it ends, so a hypnotic pattern that no creatures are affected by is over.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Let's take a look at a similar spell: the new version of weird, which has a duration of 1 minute

You try to create illusory terrors in others’ minds. Each creature of your choice in a 30-foot-radius Sphere centered on a point within range makes a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, a target takes 10d10 Psychic damage and has the Frightened condition for the duration. On a successful save, a target takes half as much damage only.

A Frightened target makes a Wisdom saving throw at the end of each of its turns. On a failed save, it takes 5d10 Psychic damage. On a successful save, the spell ends on that target.

Are you devil's advocates seriously suggesting that if you succeed on the initial save, but get Frightened by another source before the 1 minute duration is up, you have to start making Wisdom saves again?

hypnotic pattern is a great example, since it's phrased exactly the same way. "While Condition A, the target/creature has Condition B"

I may be a bit deep in the SAC weeds of late.

Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published.

RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but not with another.

When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule.

RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to their players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.” We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.

I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

So, yes, RAW, "the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent", it is debatable. However, I agree that the right ruling is that they are tied at the hip.

I am a bit rule-fatigued at the moment ... some discussions have worn me RAW. I am going to go lay down.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

[...] I am a bit rule-fatigued at the moment ... some discussions have worn me RAW. I am going to go lay down.

 I cast Heal on you.

Quote from Plaguescarred >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Maybe the intention is that removing the Frightened condition removes the Paralyzed condition.

 It's definitly intended, as explained in this Dragon Talk: Sage Advice on Conditions (23:45) these so-called delivery device condition can then be shut off.

It's like saying that when you're unconscious, you're also incapacitated. You're incapacitated because you're unconscious, just like you're paralyzed because you're frightened. End the unconsciousness, and you generally end the incapacitated condition that is tacked on.