Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
Contagion feels pretty strong... But I'm having doubts on how to interpret this part:
Does the target repeat the saving throw even if they succeed the initial save?
Does it take the damage every time it fails the save?
Does it get the Poisoned condition after failing save #2 but succeeding save #1?
Does it lose the Poisoned condition after succeeding save #2 but failing save #1?
Does the spell automatically end if they are cured of the Poisoned condition by other means?
At first glance, this spell could definitely have used some better phrasing.
To me (and I'm open to being corrected or having my opinion changed), here is how I would answer your questions:
I think it would make the most sense if the target is simply not affected after succeeding on the initial saving throw, but that's not how it reads. Other spells like Stinking Cloud will say something like "While the target is poisoned in this way... however Contagion doesn't say that. So it would seem that even if it avoids being poisoned by succeeding on the initial saving throw, if it receives the Poisoned Condition from another source then the other effects (disadvantage on the chosen Saving Throw and the required additional Saving Throw to eliminate the poisoned condition) will activate, either until the target makes 3 successful saving throws or for 7 days following the third failed saving throw.
That seems to be the intent. The main issue is that the phrasing "It repeats the saving throw" makes it sound like it's the initial saving throw that is repeated (along with its consequences). The fact that nothing happens on a single of the subsequent saves (until 3 are accumulated) doesn't help, as you feel tempted to "fill the gap". But in terms of balance, for a 5th level spell, that's indeed probably what they were going for.
The initial save is save or suck.
If target fails they take damage and have poisoned condition.
If target succeeds initial save, no damage, no poisoned condition.
If they fail the initial save, the next saves determine if the poisoned condition lasts a few turns or a few days. Roll saves until you get 3 successes or 3 failures.
So at a minimun, if you fail the initial save, you have the poisoned condition for 3 turns to roll 3 successfull saves
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
That's also another thing that's confusing about this spell. It doesn't say you must repeat the save if you fail the first one. It says you repeat it, period. But if you saved initially, it doesn't make any sense because there's nothing left to save against. It's just poorly written, really.
The "repeat until you get 3 sucesses or 3 failures" portion is to determine how long the poisoned condition lasts. If you succeeded the first save, you dont get the poisoned condition, so the follow on saves have no effect.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
This is my interpretation of the language, but I agree up front that a potential 33d8 necrotic to a single creature for a level 5 spell is pretty crazy. Especially if you choose CON as the ability to give disadvantage to. However, it's important to note that it is a touch spell and potentially does nothing at all.
Does the target repeat the saving throw even if they succeed the initial save?
Yes. The spell says to repeat "the" saving throw—the only one it can be referencing is the one from the first paragraph—and the consequences of failing that saving throw are outlined in the first paragraph. The spell lasts 7 days by default and a single success, even on the first save, does not inherently end it. Only 3 successes does that.
Does it take the damage every time it fails the save?
Yes. The logic is described in the answer above.
Does it get the Poisoned condition after failing save #2 but succeeding save #1?
Yes. The consequences of failing "the" saving throw are right there. And that saving throw is the only one the second paragraph can be referencing.
Does it lose the Poisoned condition after succeeding save #2 but failing save #1?
No. The text says nothing about what a success on the saving throw does until you have 3 of them (the spell ends), just what happens on a failure.
Does the spell automatically end if they are cured of the Poisoned condition by other means?
No. However, if you are cured of the poisoned condition while the spell is active (having failed three times already), then the spell does nothing until you are poisoned again. If you are cured of the poisoned condition while still making saves, then you still make the saves until you have the three successes or failures.
For reference on the power, here are some other Level 5 spells that deal damage:
Bigby's Hand - Potential 5d8 per round (spell attack) for up to 10 rounds using a BA (except the round cast) at 120+ feet away.
Cloudkill - Potential 5d8 per turn (save; success = half) for up to 100 rounds in a 20ft radius AoE.
Cone of Cold - 8d8 (save; success = half) in a 60ft cone AoE.
Conjure Volley - 8d8 (save; success = half) in a 40ft radius cylinder AoE 150 feet away.
Destructive Wave - 10d6 (save; success = half) in a 30ft Emanation AoE.
Flame Strike - 10d6 (save; success = half) in a 10ft radius cylinder AoE 60 feet away.
Steel Wind Strike - 6d10 per target (up to 5 targets, spell attack) 30 ft away.
Synaptic Static - 8d6 (save; success = half) in 20ft radius sphere 120 feet away.
Last note is that Conjure Elemental has very similar language to Contagion ("the Restrained target repeats the save"). It then goes on to say what happens when the Restrained target fails the save and it is different from the initial save. This is decent evidence that the other interpretation here might be correct. That said, there is no language in Contagion as to what happens on a success or failure in the "repeat" paragraph to change the original, only what happens when you've done one or the other three times.
That's an interesting take. It doesn't feel wrong, but it doesn't feel right either. But the biggest potential here is depleting all of a creature's Legendary Resistances with 1 spell, which is pretty wild. Flesh to Stone, which is level 6 and has a similar mechanic of counting failed and successful saves, doesn't do anything if you succeed on the first one. The key difference is that Flesh to Stone only makes you save again if you're Restrained by failing the first save, while Contagion doesn't give any conditions...
Well, the thing is that the spell doesn't say that. It only says that the spell in its entirety ends after 3 successes without further details. That's not enough to infer that it's specifically for the Poisoned condition's duration.
"This is my interpretation of the language, but I agree up front that a potential 33d8 necrotic to a single creature for a level 5 spell is pretty crazy. Especially if you choose CON as the ability to give disadvantage to. However, it's important to note that it is a touch spell and potentially does nothing at all"
You think this spell does 11d8 damage every turn until the target makes 3 successful saves???
"The target must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns until it gets three successes or failures. If the target succeeds on three of these saves, the spell ends on the target. If the target fails three of the saves, the spell lasts for 7 days on it."
If the target gets 3 failures, its going to die because it takes 11d8 dmg per turn for 7 days.
Theres no way a level 5 spell does that.
Thats 45 dmg a turn. That will kill just about anything in a minute unless its immune to poison.
More likely interpretation: "Your touch inflicts a magical contagion. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or take 11d8 Necrotic damage and have the Poisoned condition. "
The only lingering effect is the Poisoned condition.
"While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability."
Its like the Hex spell screwing up somebodys ability checks for a duration, but this does saving throws at disadvantabe which is extremely powerful.
This is the point of the lingering effect.
Last para "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."
Again pointing to the poisoned condition and disadvantage one one type of saving throw being the lingering condition.
So the spell hits with a save or suck damage/condition combo. Save then nothing happens. Fail then take 11d8 and youre poisoned. Then make saves until you get either 3 successes or 3 failures. If get 3 successes first, the poisoned condition ends and the disadvantage on that saving throw goes away. If get 3 failures first then the poisoned condition could last 7 days along with disadvantage on that one saving throw type.
That alone is massively powerful. Hit someone with a bunch of damage, and they could end up being extremely vulnerable to a chain of saving throw spells after that if you pick the right one and have the right spells.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
It also means if the target fails the initial save, then that saving throw will be at disadvantage for at least three turns.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
That's not what he said, no.
He said you take the damage when you fail, not every turn. So at worst you take a total of 33d8 damage, for an average of 148.5 over 3 to 5 turns. Still big, though.
And the other saves are only at disadvantage if you pick CON (although that's probably the best choice here in most cases)
Not exactly. I think that's one way to read it. And without spells like Conjure Elemental to give a (not close enough to 100% sway me) counter-example, it would definitely be how I would run it without errata.
And Natrel is right. Once you have failed 3 times you are no longer making saves, which means that you can no longer taking 11d8 damage (Necrotic, not poison BTW), nor are you reapplying the Poisoned Condition if it dropped.
Here's a question about the spell I just had while reading it again:
Does the first save count towards the "3 successes or failures"?
Let's assume SunIsGettingRealLow96589's interpretation for a moment and say that if you succeed on the first saving throw that the spell simply fails.
So in this hypothetical the target fails on the initial saving throw, taking the necrotic damage, becoming poisoned, and having a specified saving throw at disadvantage.
The spell says "The target must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns until it gets three successes or failures." The repeat part might imply that these are an entirely new set of "succeed or fail" rolls, or it could be a continuation. If we assume that the spell is broken into two parts, with 1) necrotic damage, poison condition, and selection of saving throw for disadvantage, and 2) determination of length of spell (ends after 3 successes or 7 days after 3 failures), then it seems that a target might have to make a total of 4 failures (1 for the initial save, and 3 for the length of spell) for the spell to last 7 days.
To me it makes more sense that the "repeat the saving throw" means the first saving throw would count towards the successes or failures, but I could see it being viewed as a separate set of saves for a different aspect of the spell.
All in all, this spell could be worded a lot better.
Yeah, it's just badly written, but the more I look at the it, the more I realize there are signs that tend toward a specific interpretation.
If you read this spell at first glance, the repeated saves are a separate effect from the first one, and the target must make them whether it succeeded on the first save or not. The problem is: it makes no sense, because if you succeed on the first save, there's no effect left to save against.
One possibility is that you're not meant to keep saving if you succeed on the first save, and there's an oversight because they forgot to add "on a failed save" at the beginning of the second paragraph, which is understandable because the last sentence of the first paragraph already says "While Poisoned".
The other possibility is that you're supposed to assume that failing the repeated save has the same consequences as failing the first one, but that makes the spell completely OP, with 4 saves to make no matter what (bye bye Legendary Resistances), a disadvantage on saves, and potentially up to 44d8 points of Necrotic damage, with just 1 spell.
My opinion is that you're not supposed to keep saving after succeeding the first save, not just because the other possibility would make the spell absurdly strong, but also because spells that deal repeated damage like that normally require concentration. And yeah, I think the first failed save counts toward the total of 3.
I dunno. 45 dmg ans giving disadvantage on one type of saving throw for 7 days seems insanely powerfule by itself.
Witb your interpretation, i could choose concentration saves to roll at disadvantage. If someone can debuf the target for the first save, the next 2 or 3 are made at disadvantage, and that dogpiles the target with 135 dmg? Plus con saves at disadvantage for 7 days?
Looking at the 2014 version, the spell did no damage and only inflicted a disease condition. Three successes and the disease went away, 3 fails and the disease stuck for days.
2024 got rid of most diseases. I would imagine they replaced the disease effect with 11d8 dmg, and then the disadvantage on one type of save is the lingering effect.
The new version is badly written and i could see three applications of damage being a possible interpretatiion, but looking at 2014 and the removal of diseases being a thing in 2024, i would say a single damage was intended failing the first save, and after that its a question of whether the target gets disadvantage on a save type for 7 days.
“Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” — Voltaire
I don't mean to be overly pedantic, but the average of 11d8 is not 45. The formula is N*(D+1)/2, where N is the number of dice and D the die size. 11*(8+1)/2 = 49.5.
I want to be clear that I wasn't so much trying to make a judgement based on power (I gave comparison examples as much for myself as for others), but just the language of the spell as written. I agreed that it is incredibly powerful with the way I interpret it, and I'd probably run it differently in my games.
But the main reason for my interpretation is this:
"Many spells specify that a target makes a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects. The spell specifies the ability that the target uses for the save and what happens on a success or failure."
The spell cannot simply fail if the target succeeds on the first save, as there is absolutely no language as to what happens if they do until the second paragraph when it talks about 3 successes. The only thing it talks about is what happens on a failure. That leads me to the conclusion that you absolutely make 3 saves, minimum. And the reason this doesn't contradict other spells, where a success "cancels" the effects of the spell, is because their effects are usually instant. If the spell doesn't linger and a success does nothing (because it's not written anywhere), then that leads us to the shorthand that the spell was "canceled" since "nothing" is basically the same thing as "canceled". But many other spells do something on a success, as well (usually half damage).
So, the only part that is really up for interpretation is whether the future failures trigger the damage/Poisoned of the first paragraph, or if it simply deals with how long the spell lasts because the second paragraph is meant to be (mostly) self contained.
This is a harder question for me to answer...
"these saves" is not clear as to whether it is talking about the saves you make as part of the spell effects, or the repeated saves at the end of each of the affected creature's turns (contrasting the first save, which is done when the spell is first cast). Certainly, if it is meant to be separate (i.e. a potential 4 failures total), then my interpretation is incredibly OP. But that doesn't necessarily make it wrong; it makes the spell poorly written (as we all agree). If they really wanted for future failures to only affect the duration of the spell, then they should have written,
"The target must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns—where each individual success or failure has no affect—until it gets three successes or failures. If the target succeeds on three of these saves, the spell ends on the target. If the target fails three of the saves, the spell lasts for 7 days on it."
"Your touch inflicts a magical contagion. The target makes a Constitution saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends. On a failed save, the target takes 11d8 Necrotic damage and has the Poisoned condition for the duration. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned by this spell, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability.
The target repeats the saving throw at the end of each of its turns. If the target succeeds on three of the repeated saves, the spell ends on it. If the target fails a total of three saving throws against this spell, including the initial save, the spell lasts for 7 days on it, and the target no longer repeats the save.
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."
I noticed that too but drew a completely different conclusion.
First, not having a description of what happens on a success is pretty common when nothing's supposed to happen (e.g. Disintegrate).
The conclusion that I made from this is that the whole description is about what happens on a failure.
I really do think the intent was to have the target make a minimum of 3 (4?) saves before the spell ends. Having the spell simply end with the first save being a success doesn't seem like it would be all that great for a spell you have to get up close and personal with the target to cast. Especially if you also only take the damage on the first save failing. Compare to some of the spells in my first post. Just catching two targets in most of those AoEs would outdamage this (and at range!), so as a simple save or suck touch spell, it would be very much on the low end of the power curve.
If you are the caster, the worst-case scenario is that the spell does nothing at all (no matter the interpretation; it is possible to successfully save 4x in a row even using the "broken" reading). Now, best case depends entirely on the interpretation:
Common - 11d8 Necrotic Damage + 7 days of having Disadvantage on a specific type of saving throw while Poisoned. (damage potential on the low end for a 5th level spell, though all on a single creature does bump it up a bit. The rider is decent, but probably not very relevant to combat if a PC is casting this. You either choose CON to make it stick, or you choose a save that you or your party can take more advantage of.)
What I think the text actually says - 33d8 Necrotic Damage + 7 days of having Disadvantage on a specific type of saving throw while Poisoned. (Powerful. The AoEs above would need to catch 4 targets to match it, though again, those happen at range while this is touch.)
First save not included - 44d8 Necrotic Damage + 7 days of having Disadvantage on a specific type of saving throw while Poisoned. (Yeah, this is bonkers.)
Honestly, if I were to redesign the spell, I'd lean into the name a lot more. I'd use my interpretation, but lower the damage, and I'd also make it so that anyone touching the target (or maybe spending X minutes within 10 ft. of the target depending on how much lower the damage is) gets the effects of the spell as if it were just cast on them by the original caster (only after the original target failed 3 times). I'd probably also make it so that Greater Restoration ends the spell.