Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 11:53:25	Yesterday in the group we get to play the DM nabbed a 2nd spell although he did unban polymorph. That spell was contagion.    The lead up to the ban was tension had been building for a while between the party and an NPC and his henchmen. This party is level 10 the henchman was actually a classed NPC a level 17 fighter. Siad fighter had the resisilient feat several times so no bad saves that mattered to much and several decent magical items.    After being chased by everything we eventually get caught insults are thrown around etc. The fight was an optional one but there was a way to avoid combat. We knew the NPC was tough we did nto know he had real class levels and was level 17.  Our Druid had recentlymbeen raised as well and still had a -3 penalty on most things.    So cobat breaks out, some fireballs get lobbed at the NPCs henchman and a action surge by the NPC lets him have 6 attacks and out fighter gets KOed.    I give the Druid a d10 inspiration dice via my valor bard and cast improved invisability as I suspect the fight may be a long and drawn out affair or we may just need to run. Druid casts contagion and rolls a17 which is enough to hit him even with the -3 factored in bard inspiration dice not needed.    She chose the slimy doom option which gives the fighter disadvanatge on all constitution saving throws and if the fighter gets dasmaged he is stunned until his next turn. The wizard hits the fighter with nagic missile and stuns him which provides advanatge to everyone else and even my bards paltry 1d6+6 damage (+2 short sword) is enough to keep him locked down although the Druid, Rogue and wizard can keep damaging him and we heal our fighter as well.    SAAfter the encounter was over (a contingency whisks the fighter away) said spell is banned, This was the 1st time the spell was used in both campaigns and both parties are on level 10. In the other party the life cleric (good aligned) refuses to use contagion for RP reasons as the spell creates disease. The same player was the one who used it yesterday with her moon druid.    I had a good aligned light cleric as well and he was going to refuse to use the spell also for RP reasons. I do not see Lathendar eing ok with the spell and as a player I thought the spell was silly anyway. I am not a fan of easy to enable stunlocks. Contagion has no saving throw as the save is the attack roll of sorts and it is easy to manipulate those in both of our parties (bless, faerie fire, bardi inspiration, foresee, shield bash fighter/bard in each party).    I actually fully support the other DM here and may do the same thing. Bad spells are bad.
#2 Saelorn Nov 09, 2014 12:20:45	There was a big debate over this spell, a few weeks back. A rough summary of the various positions:   1) It requires you to get close and hit your target, so it's balanced and doesn't need to be banned. 2) It's a one-hit stun-lock that can kill almost anything, so it should be banned. 3) After you cast it on someone, it takes a week before those effects actually kick in, and the spell just isn't supposed to be used in combat.
#3 FFSAA Nov 09, 2014 12:30:55	Just wait until your party can Forcecage.
#4 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 12:39:02	Saelorn wrote:
#5 mellored Nov 09, 2014 12:52:55	I would remove the disvantage on Con from slimy doom.  Otherwise, it's fine.   The fighter could of failed hold person just as easily.
#6 UngeheuerLich Nov 09, 2014 12:54:53	Here I agree. That spell, in its slimy doom variation looks pretty bad:   not only is slimy doom it the option with the most heavy penalty, a very possible stunlock, but it also applies disadvantage to the relevant save. So this means, that after a hit, which is easily applied at that level, the spell most probably kicks in. The only sensible interpretation is, that the CON save disadvantage and the stun effect only kick in after the target making 3 failed saves.
#7 Psikerlord Nov 09, 2014 13:15:06	I believe the intention with that spell is you have to fail 3 saves before you suffer the ill effects. It's just very badly worded, or possibly appears so as we dont have DMG disease rules yet. It's not really a combat spell in the traditional sense. If you rule that it takes effect immediately, then requires 3 saves to remove, yeah... it's big time broken with the stuns because even legendary creatures cant resist it.
#8 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 13:21:37	mellored wrote:
#9 DaveDash Nov 09, 2014 13:30:53	The dev's have said the intention of this spell is for the disease to kick in after three failed saves.
#10 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 13:31:43	DaveDash wrote:
#11 MonsterEnvy Nov 09, 2014 13:39:09	Zardnaar wrote:
#12 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 13:46:35	MonsterEnvy wrote:
#13 danyc Nov 09, 2014 13:58:25	After many tries, Zardnaar's list of broken things (tm) hits an actually broken mechanic!   At least RAW-wise, this one is definitely over the top. If it ends up on a later errata/faq, that's great, but I don't tend to trust 'dev said' until that, since they've been historically inconsistent.
#14 DaveDash Nov 09, 2014 14:00:11	Yes poor wording.   I had to house rule Leomunds Tiny Hut as well, because after my group was ambushed while resting once, we discovered by RAW you can still attack out if it. That could lead to all sorts of stupidness down the track.
#15 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 14:33:57	danyc wrote:
#16 Kalani Nov 09, 2014 14:21:33	I have said this before but it bears repeating:   The monk would like to thank contagion for drawing attention away from Stunning Attack
#17 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 14:35:31	Kalani wrote:
#18 Dracones Nov 09, 2014 15:07:32	Zardnaar wrote:
#19 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 15:12:33	Dracones wrote:
#20 Kalani Nov 09, 2014 15:58:23	Zardnaar wrote:
#21 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 16:00:42	Kalani wrote:
#22 FFSAA Nov 09, 2014 18:55:29	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #20) SirEmilCrane	Kalani wrote:
#24 Rastapopoulos Nov 09, 2014 19:04:35	Zardnaar wrote:
#25 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 19:05:51	FFSAA wrote:
#26 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 19:07:44	Rastapopoulos wrote:
#27 Rastapopoulos Nov 09, 2014 19:14:11	FFSAA wrote:
#28 Grazel Nov 09, 2014 19:18:02	Well that did make for an easy fight but that's also very situation specific (without the bard inspiration and if she'd rolled lower it'd have missed) so doesn't seem reasonable to ban. Using that logic I'd ahve to ban GWF after my last session as the level 1 GWF fighter did almost half of the CR 4 half-dragon fight at the end of the Greenest raid in HotDQ on his first attack (he got a critical). If I hadn't gone for dramatic effect so had the NPC retaliate with his breath weapon the fighter might have survived to round 2 and actually defeated a challenge 4 creature one-on-one. Instead he went from full to -15 or so (had 12 hp) because he failed his save so was insta-killed under massive damage rules. My party loved the dramatic feel to the end of the combat and after a raise dead was used on him (yes I was being kind and didn't make him roll a new character) because of how well they'd done all night they know if they run into that NPC again it'll be a great dramatic moment again as he realizes the fighter (a dragonborn, copper) isn't dead like the thought, and now stronger!   I don't like to ban things just because they can simplify or bypass a tough fight, especially if it's the result of some lucky dice rolling. If contagion was an auto-hit then I might consider it, but not if it requires a successful hit to even start to work. I've just read the spell and I read it to only take effect after three failed saves, not after a hit which then requires three successes to remove. It sounds like the death save mechanice: roll a save every turn, get 3 successes first to shake it off, get 3 failures first and get hit with the disease. Apparently not everyone reads it that way though. Also at any time any method of disease removal (potion, spell, etc) will remove the effects.
#29 Rastapopoulos Nov 09, 2014 19:21:12	Zardnaar wrote:
#30 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 19:22:37	Grazel wrote:
#31 Grazel Nov 09, 2014 19:25:30	SirEmilCrane wrote:
#32 Grazel Nov 09, 2014 19:32:14	Zardnaar wrote:
#33 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 19:36:57	Grazel wrote:
#34 MechaPilot Nov 09, 2014 19:48:42	Zardnaar wrote:
#35 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 19:51:02	MechaPilot wrote:
#36 MechaPilot Nov 09, 2014 19:59:31	Zardnaar wrote:
#37 Zardnaar Nov 09, 2014 20:44:25	MechaPilot wrote:
#38 FFSAA Nov 09, 2014 20:55:21	Zardnaar wrote:
#39 paulstrait Nov 09, 2014 22:16:20	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #39) AaronOfBarbaria	paulstrait wrote:
#41 paulstrait Nov 09, 2014 22:33:27	DaveDash wrote:
#42 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 3:38:19	I SERIOUSLY doubt it was meant to effectively auto stun for three rounds. And it wasn't Mearls who tweeted either. +5 is way too generous saving throw bonus as well. That's pretty good for monster saves. You'd be an idiot if you targeted a monster with 20 in that particular stat. Finally.. Who even says this spell is for combat/PC use? This is not 4e or a MMO, there are heaps of flavour spells. Give your Wizard spells like legend lore and illusionary script and see how good you do it combat.....
#43 Orethalion Nov 10, 2014 7:18:17	MechaPilot wrote:
#44 Sorxores Nov 10, 2014 7:28:08	PHB wrote:
(Reply to #41) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
#46 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 9:22:16	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #44) FrogReaver	Sorxores wrote:
#48 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 9:28:00	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #48) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
(Reply to #48) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
#51 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 9:52:30	Ok, I redid the math to calculate the probability of failing three saves before passing three.  Assuming a 100% chance of hitting, the monster will fail 16.308% of the time.  If we go back to the (generous, imo) 75% of hitting, that drops to 12.285% of the time.    Assuming the initial attack hits, the monster will succumb to the disease three rounds later less than 3% of the time.  It will succumb to the diseasse four rounds later 5.67% of the time.  It will succumb to the disease five rounds later 7.938% of the time.  It will succumb to the disease never 83.692% of the time.   Still sounds pretty useless.
#52 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 9:48:29	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #52) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
#54 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 10:03:32	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #54) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
#56 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 10:05:09	FrogReaver wrote:
#57 Ahglock Nov 10, 2014 10:12:55	You don't see the problem with just grabbing the 11 monsters with the exact CR for that level. I'm not a master of statistics but that creates some really skewed results with that small of a sample.       Side note. The monk was inspired by the destroyer novels. Watch Remo Williams the adventure continues for a entertaining take on them. there are tons of novels.    If you take the politics out they aren't bad pulp novels. I couldn't handle that much hate. They really seem to hate the left. Political ideology in your novels is fine, just don't cross into creepy hate zone. Still if you like mystic level martial arts, running on water, ripping off limbs, dodging bullets etc these novels might be for you. Just get ready for lots of hate.
(Reply to #56) FrogReaver	paulstrait wrote:
#59 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 10:35:44	FrogReaver wrote:
#60 Orethalion Nov 10, 2014 10:50:30	FrogReaver wrote:
#61 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 11:23:08	Ahglock wrote:
#62 danyc Nov 10, 2014 11:31:46	Yeah, the spell is kind of a flop either way you run it. I don't think 3 round guaranteed duration was intended, but I don't think the low odds of requiring a hit and 3 failed saves was intended either (skipping the math above, it should be obvious to anyone how dubious making it rely on the outcome of 4 combined d20 rolls is).   The spell is currently just not used in my game (fortunately, the potential caster really wasn't of the mindset/alignment/deity where it would be a reasonable choice anyway). I think in another thread dealing with the few really problematic spells, I said that I'd probably make it something like: hit lands the effect, each save suspends it the next round, and 3 passed/failed ends it or gives the week duration. That makes it pretty powerful, but that like most spells you can actually save to ignore the effects, not automatically suffer them for 3 rounds.
#63 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 11:39:38	danyc wrote:
(Reply to #62) FrogReaver	danyc wrote:
#65 mellored Nov 10, 2014 11:43:40	danyc wrote:
(Reply to #65) FrogReaver	mellored wrote:
#67 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 11:45:24	FrogReaver wrote:
#68 Zardnaar Nov 10, 2014 11:48:47	The spell was used to stun lock the NPC, the week long thing was not even considered.
#69 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 11:52:52	mellored wrote:
#70 Saelorn Nov 10, 2014 11:57:50	paulstrait wrote:
#71 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:00:07	Saelorn wrote:
#72 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:02:46	Zardnaar wrote:
#73 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:08:38	Saelorn wrote:
#74 Zardnaar Nov 10, 2014 12:10:11	paulstrait wrote:
#75 mellored Nov 10, 2014 12:17:18	FrogReaver wrote:
#76 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:28:08	Zardnaar wrote:
#77 Mistwell Nov 10, 2014 12:27:01	paulstrait wrote:
#78 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:31:37	Mistwell wrote:
#79 Mistwell Nov 10, 2014 12:29:47	Sorxores wrote:
#80 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:31:10	Mistwell wrote:
#81 Mistwell Nov 10, 2014 12:33:54	paulstrait wrote:
#82 Mistwell Nov 10, 2014 12:35:48	paulstrait wrote:
#83 Zardnaar Nov 10, 2014 12:37:24	paulstrait wrote:
#84 FrogReaver Nov 10, 2014 12:43:57	Someone here want to tell me why a spell that lasts 7 days and doesn't require concentration should be as good as a spell that requires concentration and lasts 1 minute?   the only argument I'm hearing against the 3 failed saves before spell effect starts is that it makes the spell too weak compared to concentration spells that last 1 minute to one hour.     But this spell isn't a concentration spell that lasts for 1 minute to an hour.  It's a non concentration spell that lasts 7 days.  Those two details need taken into consideration when arguing that it's too weak.
#85 mellored Nov 10, 2014 12:43:13	FrogReaver wrote:
#86 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:44:54	Mistwell wrote:
#87 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 12:47:56	Spells don't have to be effective to be in the book. Look at divine word. Also +5 is way too generous for your calculations. Your assumptions that its required only to be made against equal CR creatures with magic resistance is wrong (see divine word for example). The game is designed to fight low CRs even at higher levels. This spell also could be potent combined with bestow curse. Anyway the Devs have said the intention of the spell is not what you think it is, so it will probably get errata.
#88 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:47:43	Mistwell wrote:
(Reply to #85) FrogReaver	mellored wrote:
(Reply to #88) eleran	paulstrait wrote:
#91 Saelorn Nov 10, 2014 12:55:05	paulstrait wrote:
#92 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:56:26	DaveDash wrote:
#93 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 12:57:43	eleran wrote:
#94 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:01:23	Saelorn wrote:
#95 mellored Nov 10, 2014 13:03:22	FrogReaver wrote:
#96 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:04:37	Mistwell wrote:
#97 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 13:05:12	Divine word is for all intents and purposes useless for its level against creatures of the CR you are likely to face. Its an example of your assumptions are flawed in the first place. Spells are in there for flavour as much as anything else in this edition. Common sense would also dictate that the rai of the spell is not to stun lock anything in the game for three rounds.
#98 FrogReaver Nov 10, 2014 13:06:18	Paulstrait, what is the lowest con save monster you can fight at cr 9 and what are the chances the spell will work on it (fail 3 saves)?
(Reply to #95) FrogReaver	I wiuld take melee 7days vs range 1 minute.     mellored wrote:
#100 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:14:44	DaveDash wrote:
#101 mellored Nov 10, 2014 13:20:17	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #100) DaveDash	paulstrait wrote:
#103 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:34:13	FrogReaver wrote:
#104 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:31:52	DaveDash wrote:
#105 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 13:39:37	You're ignoring the fact as well that this spell may be more intended to be a NPC spell (clerics of the death domain get it I believe), much like Circle of Death. In which case the NPC caster can target a PCs dump stat (possibly -1), and given the nastiness and duration of the effects, this makes it a scary possibility to face, even if the probability is on the low side.
#106 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:41:32	Just for fun, let's consider the scenario where you try to infect a much lower CR creature (we will use the CR 1/2 orc) and then allow it to flee (I'll bracket off the scenario where you first become drinking buddies with the orc).  With an AC of 13, and the assumptions I made above, you'd have an 80% chance of hitting with the attack.  Its Con save is +3, so it has a 40% chance of success and a 60% chance of failure.  It therefore has a 71.712% chance of failing three Con saves before passing three.  Taken together, the spell would have a 57.3696% of having any effect against a CR 1/2 orc.    I continue to think that this is lame.
#107 Aramond Nov 10, 2014 13:42:29	I have a question: If the spell succeeds by getting a hit in combat, the PHB quoted above says that the target IS afflicted by the disease. There apparently is no save for that. Once afflicted, why does "magic resistance" come into play? At that point the magic has already afflicted the disease and now the saves are in connection with the disease only (hence the save vs. constitution) and magic is no longer involved. Are all saves vs. disease subject to magic resistance?
#108 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:42:55	DaveDash wrote:
#109 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 13:47:07	Its lame because you're targeting an Orcs con save and not wisdom save. Its also lame because you're not using it in the hands of a NPC, which is was probably intended for.
#110 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:47:59	Aramond wrote:
#111 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:51:23	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #108) DaveDash	paulstrait wrote:
#113 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 13:57:40	DaveDash wrote:
#114 FFSAA Nov 10, 2014 13:57:22	DaveDash wrote:
#115 DaveDash Nov 10, 2014 13:57:29	I reject the argument that it has to be useful nor relative to its power level to be intended as the devs intended it to be, given the whole host of examples in the book already that also reject that argument. Also the one time it does fail against a party whom are low on resources will likely cause some memorable moments for the group.
#116 Zardnaar Nov 10, 2014 14:05:49	Lesser restoration cancels contagion it should not effect PCs for more than a day. If you lack clerics bards, druids and Paladins can all remove disease as well via LoH or lesser restoration.
#117 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 14:02:08	DaveDash wrote:
(Reply to #114) DaveDash	FFSAA wrote:
#119 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 14:03:00	Zardnaar wrote:
(Reply to #117) DaveDash	paulstrait wrote:
#121 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 14:06:30	DaveDash wrote:
#122 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 14:08:12	DaveDash wrote:
#123 Psikerlord Nov 10, 2014 14:08:19	I think its supposed to be a bit of an evil druid spell/roleplaying opportunity/adventure hook spell. You give someone a disease. Then DMG no doubt has rules about how that disease spreads. And thus the name contagion.
#124 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 14:11:08	Psikerlord wrote:
#125 Mistwell Nov 10, 2014 15:00:28	paulstrait wrote:
#126 Zardnaar Nov 10, 2014 15:03:12	Greater invisability+Cleric or Druid enables sneaky contagions. A bard could also do this all by themselves.
#127 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 15:12:49	Mistwell wrote:
(Reply to #103) FrogReaver	Advantage for the player will up that chance significantly...   but either way a 25% to 33% chance isn't bad for an effect that will last 7 days and leaves open concentration for another spell    paulstrait wrote:
#129 paulstrait Nov 10, 2014 15:37:39	FrogReaver wrote:
#130 Shirebrok Nov 10, 2014 16:07:19	I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll just throw this in:   If the spell is indeed meant for use outside of combat (assuming the affliction doesn't take effect immediately), I find it a bit disappointing that it is restricted to a touch attack. A spell like this is just asking to be used as a poison, IMO. You ought to be able to contaminate food, or coat a weapon or piece of ammunition with it.   I don't have my book with me right now, so maybe there's already another spell for this, but if there isn't, it seems like such a waste of a spell. If you read it one way, it's too powerful; if you read another way, it's too limited.   Zardnaar wrote:
#131 abs1nth Nov 11, 2014 12:00:23	Mistwell wrote:
#132 Chakrum Nov 12, 2014 5:10:44	I think it was pretty clear to me. Casting of 1 action, a melee spell attack, duration 7 days.   "Your touch inflicts disease. Make a melee spell attack against a creature within your reach. On a hit, you inflict the creature with a disease of your choice from any of the ones described below. " Now if you were to stop reading right there and move to the effect you want you would miss the important next step of the effect which is as follows....."At the end of each of the target's turns, it must make a Constitution saving throw. After failing three of these saving throws, the disease's effects last for the duration, and the creature stops making these saves. After succeeding on three of these saving throws, the creature recovers from the disease, and the spell ends. Since this spell induces a natural disease in its target, any effect that removes a disease or otherwise ameliorates a disease's effects apply to it.   So...... Melee spell attack needs to first hit the target. Upon a successful hit the target has caught the disease (but not vulnerable to it yet ). You pick the effect that will happen if the creature cannot resist it. Now we start the saving throws. If the creature rolls 3 failed saves before it can shake off the disease rolling three succesful saves, (like a death saving throw), then the effect you chose kicks into effect. Otherwise, the spell fades with no effect. The spell can also be removed with cure disease, or affected by other spells that affect diseases.   Therefore, it is not an "I win" spell button for an instant game over. It CAN be very potent if used correctly, however. If the spell worked as you originally thought, then any GM could use it as an "I win" on you. If you fail your save three times though........nasty!