Conditions Don’t Stack If multiple effects impose the same condition on you, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition’s effects don’t get worse.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Conditions Don’t Stack If multiple effects impose the same condition on you, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition’s effects don’t get worse.
Sure you track the sources of the condition separately, but contagion makes no mention of the source of the condition.
Conditions Don’t Stack If multiple effects impose the same condition on you, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition’s effects don’t get worse.
Sure you track the sources of the condition separately, but contagion makes no mention of the source of the condition.
Do you have an example of a spell that does mention itself as a source of the condition it imposes?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Keep in mind that when a spell mentions that the target "repeats the save", the results of the 2nd attempt at that saving throw do not yield the same effects which were defined for the first attempt at making that saving throw. The effects for what happen when you succeed or fail on your second attempt are defined separately.
Two examples of this are the Sleep spell and the Otto's Irresistible Dance spell:
In the Sleep spell, the target's first attempt at a save will result in that target having the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn. At that point it must repeat the save. If the target fails on THAT attempt at making the save, the previous description of what happens on a failed save does not apply. Instead, on this second failed save, the target has the Unconscious condition for the duration.
In the Otto's Irresistible Dance spell, the target might succeed on his first save attempt. Despite this success, the result is that "the target dances comically until the end of its next turn, during which it must spend all its movement to dance in place." Later on in that spell's description, we have this: "On each of its turns, the target can take an action to collect itself and repeat the save, ending the spell on itself on a success." So, in this case, these subsequent saving throw attempts result in just ending the spell on itself when successful -- they do NOT result in the effects that are described for succeeding on the initial saving throw.
So, when it comes to the Contagion spell, failing on the initial saving throw results in three things happening to the target: it takes damage, it has the Poisoned condition (for the duration, presumably), and it is afflicted with the effect which causes the disadvantage on one type of saving throw while Poisoned.
However, on subsequent saving throw failures, the target does not experience any of those effects. The results of what happens when failing those subsequent saving throw attempts are described separately. Specifically, if the target fails multiple subsequent saving throws (two or three is open to debate), then "the spell lasts for 7 days on it."
Note that technically, as written, these subsequent saving throw attempts are required regardless of whether or not the target succeeded on the initial saving throw, even though that's a bit strange in some cases where nothing actually happens to the target one way or the other.
This is how the initial paragraph works, some of which is not immediately intuitive:
1. The target is always inflicted with a magical contagion. There is no save against this. It's an auto-success.
2. The magical contagion may or may not have an obvious and immediate mechanical consequence to the target: On a successful save, nothing obvious immediately happens to the target unless that target was already Poisoned previously.
2a. If the target was already Poisoned previously, then on a successful save, the target will still immediately be affected by an effect which causes disadvantage to one type of saving throw. In this situation, there is actually no save to prevent this from happening.
Next, regardless of what happened with the initial saving throw above, the target must make more saving throw attempts on future turns. So, this spell's duration always lasts for at least a few turns and sometimes will last for 7 days.
Sometimes the spell will last for a few turns or for 7 days and the only thing that happens during this duration is that the target is "inflicted with a magical contagion" with no other immediate or obvious mechanical consequences (*). Other times, the only thing that happens (even potentially beyond the duration of this spell) is that this target will continue to have disadvantage on one type of saving throw for as long as the target continues to have the Poisoned condition from another source. Another possibility is that the target failed the initial saving throw and so will have the Poisoned condition from this source, presumably for the duration of this spell (either for a few turns or for 7 days).
(*) The other effect that will always happen when this spell is cast, either for a few turns or for 7 days or potentially even beyond the duration of the spell depending on interpretation, is that "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." This effect will always affect the target if it is Poisoned by this spell or is Poisoned at the time that this spell targets this target. There is no save to prevent this effect.
Now, I'm aware that a lot of this is probably not the intent of the spell. The RAI is likely in line with the consensus of this thread. But in terms of the RAW, what I've described here is the most accurate interpretation.
Conditions Don’t Stack If multiple effects impose the same condition on you, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition’s effects don’t get worse.
Sure you track the sources of the condition separately, but contagion makes no mention of the source of the condition.
Do you have an example of a spell that does mention itself as a source of the condition it imposes?
Conditions Don’t Stack If multiple effects impose the same condition on you, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition’s effects don’t get worse.
Sure you track the sources of the condition separately, but contagion makes no mention of the source of the condition.
Do you have an example of a spell that does mention itself as a source of the condition it imposes?
You missed ones like sunburst that explicitly say "by this spell"
So your position is that any spell that doesn't have a phrase like "in this way" or "by this spell" impose a general effect that can be triggered by something other than the spell itself?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So your position is that any spell that doesn't have a phrase like "in this way" or "by this spell" impose a general effect that can be triggered by something other than the spell itself?
To me when a spell impose a condition, any reference to such condition thereafter is referring to the one inflicted by the spell. While few spells actually write in this way, i attribute such inconsistency more to a lack of consideration by self evidence than a proof that spells not specifying in this way means it include any source of said condition.
It doesn't make sense to me that while Restrained by something else a creature take damage from Ensnaring Strike or that while Charmed by other source a creature in Hypnotic Pattern has the Incapacitated condition and a Speed of 0.
It's sloppy RAW at best if not faulty and as DM i am final arbiter of the rules so i adjudicate them in that perspective.
Bear in mind that when you're applying these "it doesn't make sense to me" rules over RAW, you're creating arguments you probably don't need to create and sometimes significantly altering mechanics that players may depend on. If you're not going to play these spells RAW, it's probably just better to ban them from your campaign upfront.
Bear in mind that when you're applying these "it doesn't make sense to me" rules over RAW, you're creating arguments you probably don't need to create and sometimes significantly altering mechanics that players may depend on. If you're not going to play these spells RAW, it's probably just better to ban them from your campaign upfront.
Perhaps it's different reading of the same rules as written, more or less permissive interpretation.
Regardless, i don't buy into "Play RAW or ban it" DM can and should be encouraged to use anything for their campaign they see fit, or modify in any way, shape or form as needed.
Bear in mind that when you're applying these "it doesn't make sense to me" rules over RAW
Here's the thing -- your interpretation isn't RAW. The RAW is unclear. That's why there's a discussion about it
EDIT: That's not to say I think the position you, Jurmondur etc. are taking is unreasonable. Contagion in particular is a higher-level spell, which creates some allowances for more powerful/unusual effects, and the idea that a target can "relapse" (for lack of a better word) kind of fits the spell's flavor
But the other position -- that spell effects are triggered by the spell, not other random things, and that a lack of concrete language in a spell description doesn't change that seemingly obvious point -- is reasonable too
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Keep in mind that when a spell mentions that the target "repeats the save", the results of the 2nd attempt at that saving throw do not yield the same effects which were defined for the first attempt at making that saving throw.
Correction: the 2nd attempt does not necessarily yield the same effects -- most of the time it tells you what the subsequent save does (almost always 'ending the effect on success'), and that obviously overrides other text. Contagion is a uniquely phrased spell. I sort of doubt they intended a 5th level spell to do a total of 33d8 damage so it's probably intended that the additional saves are only to end the effect, but the phrasing of the spell is less than clear.
Keep in mind that when a spell mentions that the target "repeats the save", the results of the 2nd attempt at that saving throw do not yield the same effects which were defined for the first attempt at making that saving throw.
Correction: the 2nd attempt does not necessarily yield the same effects -- most of the time it tells you what the subsequent save does (almost always 'ending the effect on success'), and that obviously overrides other text. Contagion is a uniquely phrased spell. I sort of doubt they intended a 5th level spell to do a total of 33d8 damage so it's probably intended that the additional saves are only to end the effect, but the phrasing of the spell is less than clear.
To me it sounds as if the spell was specifically designed for just dealing with creatures that are resistant or immune to Poison and the high damage is to compensate for the fact that if the poison effect doesn’t stick, then the damage alone would kill the creature.
The fact that the second paragraph states three saves ends the spell or three failures further causes the 7 day extreme no cure if you continue to fail Con saves just shows how the first paragraph is not just an all or nothing type spell.
A 9th level caster has just the base save DC as 12+ casterspellcastingmod and with at least 2 Asi boosts that DC is roughly around ~17, and the 11d8 damage is applied each time the affected creature fails the save before the final best of three is determined. [ the spell never says you only take this damage once, and the way it’s written makes it seem like the poison rider is a bonus only IF you are capable of being poisoned. ]
If you fail at least twice, thats an average of ~99 points of damage( 11d8 on average is 99/2=49.5 and a best of three makes the third failure ether a total of ~148.5damage and a save to end or just the spell ending and saving no longer required.]
If the spell was intended to be a continual debuff, the damage is overkill for all but the most hardy of creatures and no thought was made in “what if I turn this on players?”
For 11d8 worth of damage, the spell should only be a save or stuck one shot debuff that sticks with just the save is made and half damage is applied or the save fails just does the high damage, applies poison condition IF possible and forces the seven day rider that does Xd(?) damage for each day you fail the Con save when attempting to remove the effect.
The way it reads, it’s not clear if the first failure is just the only time the creature is affected, and nothing says the damage is a one time occurrence, and if during the numerous attempts to the best of 3 the creature finds a way to heal and remove the condition then what happens if they fail again?
It needs a clarification and at best the removal of the best of three mechanical with a save taking half or a reduction of the damage that at 11d8 is far too high for most spells that average only around ~32(8d8) +\-damage normally for a 5th level spell.
As a DM this is a very possible PKS( Player Killing Spell), and reeks of a design that is based on monster damage to circumvent the fact that most creatures have some kind of resistance or immunity to poison and the poison condition.
RAW wise, the spell is all over the place, and I and others would like “Official Advice” on what exactly is the intent behind this spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" 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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It literally does exist within the rules. Tarod just quoted it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Sure you track the sources of the condition separately, but contagion makes no mention of the source of the condition.
Do you have an example of a spell that does mention itself as a source of the condition it imposes?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Keep in mind that when a spell mentions that the target "repeats the save", the results of the 2nd attempt at that saving throw do not yield the same effects which were defined for the first attempt at making that saving throw. The effects for what happen when you succeed or fail on your second attempt are defined separately.
Two examples of this are the Sleep spell and the Otto's Irresistible Dance spell:
In the Sleep spell, the target's first attempt at a save will result in that target having the Incapacitated condition until the end of its next turn. At that point it must repeat the save. If the target fails on THAT attempt at making the save, the previous description of what happens on a failed save does not apply. Instead, on this second failed save, the target has the Unconscious condition for the duration.
In the Otto's Irresistible Dance spell, the target might succeed on his first save attempt. Despite this success, the result is that "the target dances comically until the end of its next turn, during which it must spend all its movement to dance in place." Later on in that spell's description, we have this: "On each of its turns, the target can take an action to collect itself and repeat the save, ending the spell on itself on a success." So, in this case, these subsequent saving throw attempts result in just ending the spell on itself when successful -- they do NOT result in the effects that are described for succeeding on the initial saving throw.
So, when it comes to the Contagion spell, failing on the initial saving throw results in three things happening to the target: it takes damage, it has the Poisoned condition (for the duration, presumably), and it is afflicted with the effect which causes the disadvantage on one type of saving throw while Poisoned.
However, on subsequent saving throw failures, the target does not experience any of those effects. The results of what happens when failing those subsequent saving throw attempts are described separately. Specifically, if the target fails multiple subsequent saving throws (two or three is open to debate), then "the spell lasts for 7 days on it."
Note that technically, as written, these subsequent saving throw attempts are required regardless of whether or not the target succeeded on the initial saving throw, even though that's a bit strange in some cases where nothing actually happens to the target one way or the other.
This is how the initial paragraph works, some of which is not immediately intuitive:
1. The target is always inflicted with a magical contagion. There is no save against this. It's an auto-success.
2. The magical contagion may or may not have an obvious and immediate mechanical consequence to the target: On a successful save, nothing obvious immediately happens to the target unless that target was already Poisoned previously.
2a. If the target was already Poisoned previously, then on a successful save, the target will still immediately be affected by an effect which causes disadvantage to one type of saving throw. In this situation, there is actually no save to prevent this from happening.
Next, regardless of what happened with the initial saving throw above, the target must make more saving throw attempts on future turns. So, this spell's duration always lasts for at least a few turns and sometimes will last for 7 days.
Sometimes the spell will last for a few turns or for 7 days and the only thing that happens during this duration is that the target is "inflicted with a magical contagion" with no other immediate or obvious mechanical consequences (*). Other times, the only thing that happens (even potentially beyond the duration of this spell) is that this target will continue to have disadvantage on one type of saving throw for as long as the target continues to have the Poisoned condition from another source. Another possibility is that the target failed the initial saving throw and so will have the Poisoned condition from this source, presumably for the duration of this spell (either for a few turns or for 7 days).
(*) The other effect that will always happen when this spell is cast, either for a few turns or for 7 days or potentially even beyond the duration of the spell depending on interpretation, is that "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." This effect will always affect the target if it is Poisoned by this spell or is Poisoned at the time that this spell targets this target. There is no save to prevent this effect.
Now, I'm aware that a lot of this is probably not the intent of the spell. The RAI is likely in line with the consensus of this thread. But in terms of the RAW, what I've described here is the most accurate interpretation.
Modify memory, stinking cloud, incite greed, fast friends, stench.
You missed ones like sunburst that explicitly say "by this spell"
So your position is that any spell that doesn't have a phrase like "in this way" or "by this spell" impose a general effect that can be triggered by something other than the spell itself?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
RAW, yes.
To me when a spell impose a condition, any reference to such condition thereafter is referring to the one inflicted by the spell. While few spells actually write in this way, i attribute such inconsistency more to a lack of consideration by self evidence than a proof that spells not specifying in this way means it include any source of said condition.
It doesn't make sense to me that while Restrained by something else a creature take damage from Ensnaring Strike or that while Charmed by other source a creature in Hypnotic Pattern has the Incapacitated condition and a Speed of 0.
It's sloppy RAW at best if not faulty and as DM i am final arbiter of the rules so i adjudicate them in that perspective.
Bear in mind that when you're applying these "it doesn't make sense to me" rules over RAW, you're creating arguments you probably don't need to create and sometimes significantly altering mechanics that players may depend on. If you're not going to play these spells RAW, it's probably just better to ban them from your campaign upfront.
Perhaps it's different reading of the same rules as written, more or less permissive interpretation.
Regardless, i don't buy into "Play RAW or ban it" DM can and should be encouraged to use anything for their campaign they see fit, or modify in any way, shape or form as needed.
Here's the thing -- your interpretation isn't RAW. The RAW is unclear. That's why there's a discussion about it
EDIT: That's not to say I think the position you, Jurmondur etc. are taking is unreasonable. Contagion in particular is a higher-level spell, which creates some allowances for more powerful/unusual effects, and the idea that a target can "relapse" (for lack of a better word) kind of fits the spell's flavor
But the other position -- that spell effects are triggered by the spell, not other random things, and that a lack of concrete language in a spell description doesn't change that seemingly obvious point -- is reasonable too
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Correction: the 2nd attempt does not necessarily yield the same effects -- most of the time it tells you what the subsequent save does (almost always 'ending the effect on success'), and that obviously overrides other text. Contagion is a uniquely phrased spell. I sort of doubt they intended a 5th level spell to do a total of 33d8 damage so it's probably intended that the additional saves are only to end the effect, but the phrasing of the spell is less than clear.
To me it sounds as if the spell was specifically designed for just dealing with creatures that are resistant or immune to Poison and the high damage is to compensate for the fact that if the poison effect doesn’t stick, then the damage alone would kill the creature.
The fact that the second paragraph states three saves ends the spell or three failures further causes the 7 day extreme no cure if you continue to fail Con saves just shows how the first paragraph is not just an all or nothing type spell.
A 9th level caster has just the base save DC as 12+ casterspellcastingmod and with at least 2 Asi boosts that DC is roughly around ~17, and the 11d8 damage is applied each time the affected creature fails the save before the final best of three is determined.
[ the spell never says you only take this damage once, and the way it’s written makes it seem like the poison rider is a bonus only IF you are capable of being poisoned. ]
If you fail at least twice, thats an average of ~99 points of damage( 11d8 on average is 99/2=49.5 and a best of three makes the third failure ether a total of ~148.5damage and a save to end or just the spell ending and saving no longer required.]
If the spell was intended to be a continual debuff, the damage is overkill for all but the most hardy of creatures and no thought was made in “what if I turn this on players?”
For 11d8 worth of damage, the spell should only be a save or stuck one shot debuff that sticks with just the save is made and half damage is applied or the save fails just does the high damage, applies poison condition IF possible and forces the seven day rider that does Xd(?) damage for each day you fail the Con save when attempting to remove the effect.
The way it reads, it’s not clear if the first failure is just the only time the creature is affected, and nothing says the damage is a one time occurrence, and if during the numerous attempts to the best of 3 the creature finds a way to heal and remove the condition then what happens if they fail again?
It needs a clarification and at best the removal of the best of three mechanical with a save taking half or a reduction of the damage that at 11d8 is far too high for most spells that average only around ~32(8d8) +\-damage normally for a 5th level spell.
As a DM this is a very possible PKS( Player Killing Spell), and reeks of a design that is based on monster damage to circumvent the fact that most creatures have some kind of resistance or immunity to poison and the poison condition.
RAW wise, the spell is all over the place, and I and others would like “Official Advice” on what exactly is the intent behind this spell.
" 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.