Under 2024 rules, how does the spell contagion operate if a target is immune to the poisoned condition?
The first paragraph suggests that a failed save results in 11d8 necrotic damage plus the poisoned condition. The condition would not affect a target immune to being poisoned.
However, the second paragraph refers to repeating saves to *end the spell* with three total failures (before three successes) resulting in the spell lasting 7 days. There is no reference to these saves being contingent on being poisoned.
The wording of the 2014 version indicates that a successful melee spell attack poisons the target, and the subsequent series of saves is to remove the poisoned condition and determine whether or not the target is afflicted with a disease.
One interpretation that addresses the concern is that each save is to avoid 11d8 necrotic damage and the poisoned condition. The initial save in the first paragraph is not independent of the saves discussed in the second paragraph. A target continues making saves until there are three successes (spell ends) or failures (spell lasts 7 days). A problem is what happens after three failures for those immune to the poisoned condition. Basically nothing I presume. Additionally, requiring a persistent save vs. 11d8 necrotic damage for a spell that does not require concentration feels overpowered.
A more reasonable interpretation, though perhaps RAI and not RAW, would be to interpret "the spell ends" in the second paragraph as "the poisoned condition ends". The initial save would be independent of the subsequent series of saves, and the damage would not be repeated. This would still not directly address what happens when a target is immune to the poisoned condition, though it would be reasonable to say that the subsequent series of saves is not implemented since the target is not poisoned after failing the gateway save.
A third interpretation would be that creatures immune to the poisoned condition are wholly unaffected by the spell. I believe there is a post from Jeremy Crawford somewhere where he states that was the intent for the 2014 version of contagion.
The Necrotic damage is upfront damage. Regardless of immunities or saves, you take it once and never again. The only ongoing elements of the spell are the Disadvantage on checks and the Poisoned condition that they rely on it. If you're Immune to Poisoned, then you're immune to both of those elements.
Agree with everything you write. My concern is how to interpreted the necessity of the series of saves after the first if a target is immune to being poisoned. Basically, the spell lingers, potentially for 7 days, with absolutely no effect.
Agree with everything you write. My concern is how to interpreted the necessity of the series of saves after the first if a target is immune to being poisoned. Basically, the spell lingers, potentially for 7 days, with absolutely no effect.
There's been some discussion about this spell (*). From one of the threads, I think it works this way:
The target succeeds on a first Constitution saving throw: end of story.
The target fails that first Constitution saving throw: Necrotic damage, Poisoned condition, Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability, and the target must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns until it gets three successes or failures.
So if the creature has Immunity to Poisoned condition, I'd rule it this way:
The target succeeds on a first Constitution saving throw: end of story.
The target fails that first Constitution saving throw: Necrotic damage, but no Poisoned condition nor Disadvantage on saving throws made with the chosen ability. The target must repeat the saving throw at the end of each of its turns, since it's still affected by the spell (infected, but vaccinated :D)
As you're immune, mechanically it's not worth asking the player to make the saving throws. So regarding this, I agree with Plaguescarred's suggestion. (#4)
This is interesting because it differs from the question about the successful save. I would generally agree with Plaguescarred's stance, but consider that, if the spell is in effect, the Detect Magic can show Necromancy magic affecting the target for up to 7 days. There won't be any other mechanical effect. If it suits the story, you may want to roll the saves in order to determine if the aura is present, potentially influencing reactions to the target. Second, rolling unnecessary saves can create tension.
This is interesting because it differs from the question about the successful save. I would generally agree with Plaguescarred's stance, but consider that, if the spell is in effect, the Detect Magic can show Necromancy magic affecting the target for up to 7 days. There won't be any other mechanical effect. If it suits the story, you may want to roll the saves in order to determine if the aura is present, potentially influencing reactions to the target. Second, rolling unnecessary saves can create tension.
That example using Detect Magic is a good point in favor of keeping the Saving Throws.
Another reason to follow through with the procedure might be if there is any possibility of becoming poisoned later. For example, maybe your Immunity is temporary due to drinking some sort of potion or whatever.
TarodNet, thanks for your response. You highlight the issue I'm getting at.
The reason I am interested in this question--aside from deriving a consensus interpretation--relates to the Drakkenheim apothecary pathogenist subclass. This subclass has the ability to add a debilitating condition when it casts a very small number of spells that includes contagion. A significant percentage of monsters in Drakkenheim are immune to poison. Most of these, in fact, are not undead. If contagion ends after the initial save vs. damage on targets that are immune to poison, then this has important implications for the functioning of the pathogenist. That is, the spell would no longer be a vehicle for use of the pathogenist's subclass abilities against poisoned-immune targets since any debilitating condition would fall off when the spell ends, which is immediately. However, for the target to continue to make saving throws while the spell is having no effect, and for there to be no consequences for making or failing those saving throws, makes no sense. If the wording in the second paragraph had been like that in the 2014 spell description (i.e., "A poisoned target must repeat the saving throw..."), then things at least would be clearer.
I am aware the pathogenist was written for 2014 rules. Using 2014 rules, contagion effectively did nothing if a target was immune to the poisoned condition since the series of saves would only take place on a poisoned target. The Drakkenheim developers (Dungeon Dudes) may have balanced the pathogenist assuming its subclass abilities cannot be used with contagion against poisoned-immune creatures.
I am aware the pathogenist was written for 2014 rules. Using 2014 rules, contagion effectively did nothing if a target was immune to the poisoned condition since the series of saves would only take place on a poisoned target. The Drakkenheim developers (Dungeon Dudes) may have balanced the pathogenist assuming its subclass abilities cannot be used with contagion against poisoned-immune creatures.
From what I've read about it online, "balanced" seems like a strong word. I don't have a copy to determine my own opinion. I saw a reference to the Dungeon Dudes having a Discord. Have you tried there? I do feel like the intent is that the pathogenist's rider effect is making them more poisoned and therefore should be subject to the same immunity.
The Necrotic damage is upfront damage. Regardless of immunities or saves, you take it once and never again. The only ongoing elements of the spell are the Disadvantage on checks and the Poisoned condition that they rely on it. If you're Immune to Poisoned, then you're immune to both of those elements.
Agree with everything you write. My concern is how to interpreted the necessity of the series of saves after the first if a target is immune to being poisoned. Basically, the spell lingers, potentially for 7 days, with absolutely no effect.
When an effect can't affect a creature, i usually just don't bother with saving throws.
There's been some discussion about this spell (*). From one of the threads, I think it works this way:
So if the creature has Immunity to Poisoned condition, I'd rule it this way:
As you're immune, mechanically it's not worth asking the player to make the saving throws. So regarding this, I agree with Plaguescarred's suggestion. (#4)
(*) What happens on a succesful save against Contagion? & How does Contagion work?
Thank you, Keeper of the Indices!
This is interesting because it differs from the question about the successful save. I would generally agree with Plaguescarred's stance, but consider that, if the spell is in effect, the Detect Magic can show Necromancy magic affecting the target for up to 7 days. There won't be any other mechanical effect. If it suits the story, you may want to roll the saves in order to determine if the aura is present, potentially influencing reactions to the target. Second, rolling unnecessary saves can create tension.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Thanks, Paladin Smite! :D
That example using Detect Magic is a good point in favor of keeping the Saving Throws.
Another reason to follow through with the procedure might be if there is any possibility of becoming poisoned later. For example, maybe your Immunity is temporary due to drinking some sort of potion or whatever.
TarodNet, thanks for your response. You highlight the issue I'm getting at.
The reason I am interested in this question--aside from deriving a consensus interpretation--relates to the Drakkenheim apothecary pathogenist subclass. This subclass has the ability to add a debilitating condition when it casts a very small number of spells that includes contagion. A significant percentage of monsters in Drakkenheim are immune to poison. Most of these, in fact, are not undead. If contagion ends after the initial save vs. damage on targets that are immune to poison, then this has important implications for the functioning of the pathogenist. That is, the spell would no longer be a vehicle for use of the pathogenist's subclass abilities against poisoned-immune targets since any debilitating condition would fall off when the spell ends, which is immediately. However, for the target to continue to make saving throws while the spell is having no effect, and for there to be no consequences for making or failing those saving throws, makes no sense. If the wording in the second paragraph had been like that in the 2014 spell description (i.e., "A poisoned target must repeat the saving throw..."), then things at least would be clearer.
I am aware the pathogenist was written for 2014 rules. Using 2014 rules, contagion effectively did nothing if a target was immune to the poisoned condition since the series of saves would only take place on a poisoned target. The Drakkenheim developers (Dungeon Dudes) may have balanced the pathogenist assuming its subclass abilities cannot be used with contagion against poisoned-immune creatures.
From what I've read about it online, "balanced" seems like a strong word. I don't have a copy to determine my own opinion. I saw a reference to the Dungeon Dudes having a Discord. Have you tried there? I do feel like the intent is that the pathogenist's rider effect is making them more poisoned and therefore should be subject to the same immunity.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.