Questions about Contagion

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. 

Quote from MyDudeicus >>

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. 

See, I agree that the intent was probably to only apply the damage once (on the failed initial save). I don't agree that that's obviously how it's written, however. I'd put that around 50/50. Additionally, it would not apply damage every turn once 3 failures happen, even with that interpretation, because it is applied on a failed save. The spell very clearly tells you to make saving throws "until you have 3 successes or failures". In other words, you don't continue to force the condition that triggers the damage once the 3 (of either type) have been met.

As a note, the way you wrote the spell means a Lesser Restoration renders it ineffective if done while the target is still making saves. I'm not sure if that was intended or not. I'm still quite partial to my rendition of it back on page... 1, I think?