Questions about Contagion

Quote from sabin76>>

Antipathy/Sympathy has saves where successes do not end the spell.

The target of the spell isn't the one making the saving throws. The target is one creature or object, that then has an AoE around it (weird that they didn't call it an Emanation in the 5.5 version) forcing other creatures to save against an effect. Heck, you could cast A/S, and no one ever makes a saving throw against it at all

Not at all comparable to contagion, where the target is making the save(s) immediately upon casting

Call Lightning has a duration and doesn't end on a success (it's half damage).

Cloudkill has a duration and doesn't end when a creature succeeds its save.

Same with these. Call Lightning creates a cloud in the sky that shoots lightning bolts. Cloudkill creates, well, a cloud that kills. Those are the ongoing effects of the spell -- and again, you could cast them and no one ever has to make a save against them at all, as Aabria Iyengar demonstrated in a recent episode of Critical Role where she basically just ended up using Call Lightning to boost the Intimidation checks for her very pissed-off druid. There are plenty of other examples too, like spirit guardians and such -- not at all the same

Quote from sabin76>>

Befuddlement has saves every 30 days and tells you it ends on a success.

Right, it's very explicit on what its effects are. It also has a duration of Instantaneous. So clearly something different is going on

Blindness/Deafness has a duration, multiple saves, and tells you that a success ends it.

Also save or suck, and also a spell that doesn't list any effects for an initial success -- because an initial success ends the spell. This is the only actual comparable to contagion among the five

Lastly, I'm not seeing anywhere in the rules that a spell ends when its effects do. It's certainly a logical conclusion, but without it being in the rules, we must assume that a spell lasts its duration until it is ended by one of the ways the rules outline ending a spell can occur.

They dropped the What is a Spell? section of the PHB when moving from 5 to 5.5, but the first sentence there was

A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse into a specific, limited expression.

If that discrete effect ends, the spell ends, because they're the same thing

However, the 5.5 PHB does say this about saving throws

Many spells specify that a target makes a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects.

If a spell's description doesn't say what effects there are on a successful initial save (such as half damage), there are none. Whether you want to split semantic hairs on whether that means the spell itself has ended or not really doesn't matter at the table -- the spell can't do anything to the target after that initial save has been passed

Quote from AntonSirius >>

However, the 5.5 PHB does say this about saving throws

Many spells specify that a target makes a saving throw to avoid some or all of a spell’s effects.

 

If a spell's description doesn't say what effects there are on a successful initial save (such as half damage), there are none. Whether you want to split semantic hairs on whether that means the spell itself has ended or not really doesn't matter at the table -- the spell can't do anything to the target after that initial save has been passed

This is where I disagree.  A spell will tell you what happens on a success or failure. If it doesn't say anything happens on a success, then nothing happens on a success, but that doesn't mean the spell has ended. That was my point in highlighting all of those spells above (I stopped after reaching the C's in the spell list, as I wasn't going to go through all of them). Sure, a spell that is doing nothing is "effectively" ended, but then there are cases where a success clearly doesn't end the spell and I was simply pointing out that Contagion could be one of those. 

Quote from sabin76 >>

 but then there are cases where a success clearly doesn't end the spell and I was simply pointing out that Contagion could be one of those. 

You didn't find one, though. None of the spells you listed keep going after the target of the spell makes its initial save. Three of them don't have a target that requires an initial save, one of them only tells you what happens on a fail -- which means nothing happens on a success, including the spell continuing -- and the fifth does half damage only on a save, because that's all it says it does

As gets said so many times, spells only do what they say they do. None of the spells you listed say they linger on after the target makes its initial save

Except that nowhere in the general rules does it say that a successful save ends a spell. Spell descriptions do, but if the effects of a successful save are not listed, the a success does nothing. In most cases, that's the point, but you are then extrapolating from many spells where the initial save is the only save (and the spell is instantaneous) that a successful save ends the spell. It doesn't unless it says it does. We have evidence of this in spell descriptions and the general rules saying that a spell will outline what a success or failure of a save does for a spell.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Except that nowhere in the general rules does it say that a successful save ends a spell. 

Again, if you want to run it at your table that avoiding all the effects of a spell doesn't mean the spell is over and done with, you're free to do so as a house rule. It's a ruling that will cause a lot of problems, though

For example: a warlock casts fear, but all the creatures in the AoE make their save. One of them is then frightened by the warlock on a subsequent turn by other means. According to your ruling, it now has to run away from the warlock

Each creature in a 30-foot Cone must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or drop whatever it is holding and have the Frightened condition for the duration.

A Frightened creature takes the Dash action and moves away from you by the safest route on each of its turns unless there is nowhere to move. If the creature ends its turn in a space where it doesn’t have line of sight to you, the creature makes a Wisdom saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends on that creature.

I mean, it does literally say that on a successful save the spell ends on that creature, this implies that the spell ending is specific over it being general. There’s spells which don’t say it which usually continue even when they succeed on the save.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Except that nowhere in the general rules does it say that a successful save ends a spell. 

 

Again, if you want to run it at your table that avoiding all the effects of a spell doesn't mean the spell is over and done with, you're free to do so as a house rule. It's a ruling that will cause a lot of problems, though

For example: a warlock casts fear, but all the creatures in the AoE make their save. One of them is then frightened by the warlock on a subsequent turn by other means. According to your ruling, it now has to run away from the warlock

Each creature in a 30-foot Cone must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or drop whatever it is holding and have the Frightened condition for the duration.

A Frightened creature takes the Dash action and moves away from you by the safest route on each of its turns unless there is nowhere to move. If the creature ends its turn in a space where it doesn’t have line of sight to you, the creature makes a Wisdom saving throw. On a successful save, the spell ends on that creature.

 I would argue that it is you who would be making the houserule that a successful save ends a spell that has a duration as a general rule (since it doesn't exist), but I don't think this conversation is productive anymore.

Classic is correct. If they've saved, then the last sentence is triggered and the spell ends "on that creature". I do, indeed, think that RAW, this is another poorly written spell, though. The cone appears intended to be instantaneous while the effects of being frightened by the spell are intended to be what lasts 1 minute. However, the cone's "impersistence" is only implied by the part about the Frightened Condition being for the duration. If they really wanted it to be clear, they should have called out that the cone is instant, and the forced actions of the frightened creature should have been written "...Frightened in this way..." to prevent other creatures with the frightened condition (from another source) being frightened of the spellcaster.

I would obviously run this as it was intended in my games, but that should not prevent us from pointing out that a RAW reading of the spell, in fact, does exactly as you say... Previously frightened creatures WILL run away from the warlock. Just as I think that RAW there is a case (not bulletproof, by any means) that a creature must take the damage and Poisoned Condition any time it fails with Contagion.

PS, interestingly, in the case of the previously frightened creature running away from the warlock (again, RAW; not how I'd run it), it seems that it can meet the conditions to make the save (be out of LoS of the warlock), but that won't end the Frightened Condition on it... it would simply not have to run away from the warlock anymore.

Quote from ClassicCharismaCaster >>

I mean, it does literally say that on a successful save the spell ends on that creature, this implies that the spell ending is specific over it being general. There’s spells which don’t say it which usually continue even when they succeed on the save.

It's the same scenario as contagion. The argument here is that the spell has not ended for the caster, even if no creatures are affected by it. So it's just lying "dormant" if concentration is maintained, waiting to spring to life again on a differently Frightened creature. Which is, on its face, a ridiculous interpretation

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from ClassicCharismaCaster >>

I mean, it does literally say that on a successful save the spell ends on that creature, this implies that the spell ending is specific over it being general. There’s spells which don’t say it which usually continue even when they succeed on the save.

 

It's the same scenario as contagion. The argument here is that the spell has not ended for the caster, even if no creatures are affected by it. So it's just lying "dormant" if concentration is maintained, waiting to spring to life again on a differently Frightened creature. Which is, on its face, a ridiculous interpretation

Ridiculous by what standard? Are you implying that a rule cannot be written in such a way that it actually doesn't behave as intended by the author? If you want to talk about how rules should be implemented in a game, then by all means (though I think a different subforum is better for that), but I've certainly maintained this entire time that I'm just telling you what the rules literally say.

Quote from sabin76 >>

Ridiculous by what standard? Are you implying that a rule cannot be written in such a way that it actually doesn't behave as intended by the author?

Ridiculous by the standards of logic, mainly

You cast a spell. The target saves against it. The spell has no effect, per the written rules of the game. And yet, the argument is being made that it's still just sitting there like a computer virus in the background, waiting to be reactivated

As I have said repeatedly in this thread, and which you seem to keep ignoring, for a spell to do that, it would need to explicitly say so

Instead, we're getting an "it doesn't say it doesn't do that" sort of argument, which is a non-starter

This argument/discussion seems to come up every year or so, it would be nice if they would answer it on an official level. I think the spell ends on a save is far more persuasive, but I have seen this argument so many times now I wish they would just put it in sage advice.  

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Instead, we're getting an "it doesn't say it doesn't do that" sort of argument, which is a non-starter

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, in fact, that a spell does what it says it does; or, more precisely, that a spell will end when it says it ends. The general rules say that a spell will outline what happens on a success or failure of a save. In the absence of language as to what happens during a success, the answer is "nothing". Doing nothing is usually synonymous with ending a spell because the spell is instantaneous. Or the caster is assumed to drop it because "what's the point?" (which has rules language to support the ability to do so, as long as the caster is not incapacitated).

My point is that a caster can choose NOT to drop it (or be incapacitated, so can't drop it). And if a spell doesn't say that a success ends the spell, then a success doesn't automatically end the spell. It's now up to the caster. That's literally what's written in the rules.

As far as double negatives are concerned, I am not saying "it doesn't say it doesn't do that", I'm saying "It doesn't say that, so it doesn't do that". VERY different. It's the contrapositive of "It says it does that, so it does that" and is logically equivalent. If you accept the latter, then you must accept the former.

Quote from sabin76>>

My point is that a caster can choose NOT to drop it (or be incapacitated, so can't drop it). And if a spell doesn't say that a success ends the spell, then a success doesn't automatically end the spell. It's now up to the caster. That's literally what's written in the rules.

If it were literally written in the rules, you would have quoted it by now.

Quote from sabin76>>

No, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is, in fact, that a spell does what it says it does; or, more precisely, that a spell will end when it says it ends. The general rules say that a spell will outline what happens on a success or failure of a save. In the absence of language as to what happens during a success, the answer is "nothing".

That's simply not correct. It's not that "nothing" happens on a success. Something very much happens -- the target avoids the effects. The rules state that on a success, that target avoids all effects of the spell, unless the spell specifies effects that still occur. The absence of an "on a successful save" section means the spell has no effect at all, not that "nothing happens". I've literally linked to that section of the rules multiple times in this thread, including in the post you just quoted, but here it is again

Saving Throws

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.

You may think that's splitting semantic hairs, but it's exactly that confusion that's making you think the spell can have some effect even after a successful save. If the spell does anything at all after the initial save is passed -- including sitting dormant in the background, waiting for some condition or other effect to re-awaken it -- it needs to say so specifically. Otherwise, the general rules default to the spell having no effect whatsoever on the target. It's one of the most clear examples of "specific beats general" in the rulebook

One thing the rules don't define is what it means for a spell to "end". Your position is that a spell only ends when it explicitly says it does, otherwise it just lingers on, despite there being reams of spells in the game that don't bother to tell you a successful save ends the spell, because the spell can do nothing after that save anyway. Mine is that a spell ends when its effects do, because a spell and its effects are one and the same, a position backed by language in 5.0. The big difference between those positions is that mine is actually workable at the table in all cases, and yours creates problems in edge cases

You can fall back on "my position is RAW, it's just badly written RAW" if you want, but... why would you? Why insist on a less logical, less workable interpretation?

The effect of the contagion spell is damage and applying the poisoned condition, and thus it ends when the subject is no longer poisoned. Since a success on the initial save means the character is never poisoned, it ends immediately in that case (it also ends immediately if anyone casts lesser restoration on the victim).

Time Span. A duration that provides a time span specifies how long the spell lasts in rounds, minutes, hours, or the like. For example, a Duration entry might say “1 minute,” meaning the spell ends after 1 minute has passed. While a time-span spell that you cast is ongoing, you can dismiss it (no action required) if you don’t have the Incapacitated condition.

This tells us that, as a general rule, spells last for their duration, unless something ends it. In fact, this is the only general rule I can find that even mentions "ending" (dismissing) a spell. You keep quoting the saving throw rule thinking I'm not seeing it, or that it says what you are saying, but I also quoted that rule and placed different emphasis:

Many spells [i.e. not all] 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.

Again, this spell does not specify what happens on a success. And, try as I might, I cannot find a general rule for successful saving throws ending spell effects (or spells themselves). If there were one and it had been quoted, I'd have dropped this line long ago.

The problem is that Contagion has a paragraph outlining what happens on a failure of the initial saving throw. But then it goes on to outline—in a separate paragraph—more effects of the spell. No "in addition" or "furthermore" or "moreover" or anything to tie the new paragraph to the previous one linking that to an extension of the failure. Is it plausible that all of that only happens on an initial failure? Sure, but I've been arguing that it isn't very "cut and dry", and the intention could have very well been that the spell was meant to have lingering effects until the target saved 3 (4) times. Damage every time? Probably not intended, but that doesn't dismiss the way it was written.

I'm not talking about interpretations of a rule here. I'm talking about what the dang thing actually says.

The effect of the contagion spell is damage and applying the poisoned condition, and thus it ends when the subject is no longer poisoned. Since a success on the initial save means the character is never poisoned, it ends immediately in that case (it also ends immediately if anyone casts lesser restoration on the victim).

Those are not the only effects. There's the whole multiple saves thing... and you also seem to be invoking this rule about successes automatically ending spells. Can you point to it, because I've looked at least once a day in having this discussion and can't find it. And where does it say that the spell ends if the target loses the Poisoned condition? I am fairly sure one of the points of the spell is to make the poisoned condition harder to remove, even if it has to be reapplied later (assuming the requisite failures).

Quote from sabin76 >>

Again, this spell does not specify what happens on a success. 

The general rule is that succeeding on a saving throw means you avoid some or all of a spell's effects

If the spell doesn't list some effects that still happen on a successful save, there's only one other option left

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from sabin76 >>

Again, this spell does not specify what happens on a success. 

 

The general rule is that succeeding on a saving throw means you avoid some or all of a spell's effects

If the spell doesn't list some effects that still happen on a successful save, there's only one other option left

The "general rule" you are invoking here is too vague to use like that. Here, let me show you:

If the spell doesn't list that a successful save ends all of its effects, there's only one other option left (it only saves against those listed in what happens on a failure, and is therefore unnecessary to write).

Indeed, because I believe the intent of the spell is to perform the multiple saves regardless of the initial save, they had to write it that way: outline what happens on a failure of the initial save, then list the rest of the spells effects disassociated from the initial save.

As I highlighted before, that rule doesn't say "Spells that use saving throws do this thing...", it says "Many spells...". That leaves the door open for "some spells" to use saving throws in other ways. I am 90% certain that the intent of the spell was to only end its effects (all of them, though the initial failure state may never happen) on 3 successes, not 1. The second paragraph is the first time in the spell effects it mentions ending the spell. In fact, that's probably why the way they wrote it can be interpreted in the "probably too powerful" way I mentioned before. Because it doesn't follow their normal save or suck template and they messed up. It's a spell that has a default duration of 7 days. If they wanted it to explicitly be a save (once) or suck spell, they definitely should have written that into the first paragraph.

Quote from sabin76 >>

 The second paragraph is the first time in the spell effects it mentions ending the spell. 

Again, the same could be said for fear, but you rejected interpreting that spell the exact same way you're trying to interpret contagion

There's no point continuing this, as we're both now just repeating ourselves. Nothing you've offered here seems remotely compelling to me to support your interpretation. It seems very clear to me that Contagion has no effect on a target if it makes its initial save, just like every other spell in the book that doesn't specifically list effects that happen on a successful save

Feel free to get in the final word if you want though

Not quoting or replying since there doesn't seem to be a point in pinging, but I did no such thing with Fear. I said that the intent was fairly obvious and so I'd be ruling it in a way that is not actually RAW.

By RAW, that spell causes the Frightened Condition on a failing of the initial save. It then, regardless of the initial save state, will affect any and all frightened creatures that can see the caster until they get out of LoS and succeed on a WIS save, after which "the spell ends" on them (though not the Frightened Condition unless they got it from the spell). Potentially, by RAW, a creature can make its initial save against the spell, get frightened by some other means, and then have to flee the caster until they are out of LoS to make another save unless the last sentence is also meant to be attributed to the initial save. If so, that's even more evidence that Contagion needs 3 successes to end, regardless of the initial save state, because that's where the spell outlines how to end it.

By RAW, Contagion works like Fear. However, I'm not convinced that it wasn't intended in the case of Contagion. That is all I have been saying this whole time. 

The spell is so poorly written I don't think there is not only a divide in what happens if you make the save but also in what happens when you fail it. Mainly I'd never read the spell to cause 11d8 damage each time you fail the save. I think it is only one hit of 11d8 damage and the rest of the saves are purely to determine if it lasts 7 days or ends. And if you are reading it as 11d8 per failed save why does the damage stop after you fail 3, is it now 11d8 a round for 7 days. Even for 3 rounds it so far outpaces any other single target damage spell that does not require concentration that  i can not think that is the intent. 

What irritates me is the 2014 version was a lot cooler. And we knew how it worked, a model they could have kept. Like just make it a touch attack that does 11d8 and poisons them. Then you get the whole 3 saves to see if the poison lasts for 7 days mechanic. so basically.

Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, the target takes 11d8 necrotic damage and is poisoned. Also, choose one ability when you cast the spell. While Poisoned, the target has Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability.

At the end of each of the poisoned target’s turns, the target must make a Constitution saving throw. If the target succeeds on three of these saves, it is no longer poisoned, and the spell ends. If the target fails three of these saves, they remain poisoned for 7 days and 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.

Oh and as a total aside this should be a warlock spell, curse of sickness screams warlock louder than a Metallica concert blares music.