Contagion spell OP?

[Dmdork]

Contagion spell, slimy doom seems OP. No save and you are probably gonna be stunned for 3rds. In 3rds, it can all be over for your boss fight. Then again, it is a 5th level spell, maybe I'm crazy.

And further more, what are your thoughts on a 'good' cleric casting this spell?

[Merudo]

Contagion spell, slimy doom seems OP. No save and you are probably gonna be stunned for 3rds. In 3rds, it can all be over for your boss fight. Then again, it is a 5th level spell, maybe I'm crazy.

And further more, what are your thoughts on a 'good' cleric casting this spell?

Apparently the guys working on the spell & the Save Advice folks are not very proficient in English. As written, the spell takes effect immediately with no save. It would take errata to change that.

[hymer]

Contagion spell, slimy doom seems OP. No save and you are probably gonna be stunned for 3rds. In 3rds, it can all be over for your boss fight. Then again, it is a 5th level spell, maybe I'm crazy.
Sage Advice (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-june-2016) has addressed this. The effect of Slimy Doom doesn't kick in for at least three rounds.


And further more, what are your thoughts on a 'good' cleric casting this spell?
Compared to anything else adventurers do to their foes (burning them to death with fire or acid springs to mind as particularly gruesome), this doesn't seem particularly bad.

[Envyus]

Apparently the guys working on the spell & the Save Advice folks are not very proficient in English. As written, the spell takes effect immediately with no save. It would take errata to change that.

No thats just an interpretation of how it's written. You can just as easily read it the correct way. Which is it does not take effect until you fail all the saves. You can read it both ways but the intent is.

The effect applies after they fail all three saving throws.

[Willie the Duck]

Apparently the guys working on the spell & the Save Advice folks are not very proficient in English. As written, the spell takes effect immediately with no save. It would take errata to change that.

Yeah, I remember people in the 3e era trying to tell the folks at WotC what they were and were not allowed to clarify using FAQs, Sage Advices, and Erratas. I believe their response was roughly, "um, no. We'll tell you what the rules on that are, because there aren't some bizarre 'official rules on official-ness' that all companies are required to follow."

[Beelzebubba]

Yeah, without Slimy Doom, it works for the disease to start immediately. With it, no way.

It seems made to burn a high-level creature's Legendary Resistances without taking the caster's Concentration the whole time to do it.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, I remember people in the 3e era trying to tell the folks at WotC what they were and were not allowed to clarify using FAQs, Sage Advices, and Erratas. I believe their response was roughly, "um, no. We'll tell you what the rules on that are, because there aren't some bizarre 'official rules on official-ness' that all companies are required to follow."
The problem was Sage Advice was done by Skip Williams until 2004. Whose personal approach was very often "here's this house rule I made up for that situation". So the point of view that of Sage Advice as not particularly 'official' ran for a long time, and carried over even after he stopped doing it.

JC generally tries to stick to RAI, so personally I've come to trust Sage Advice in this editions. Even though I definitely have times I still say "that's stupid". Although obviously RAI can change over time, since they're open to go back and edit previous rulings. e.g. Eldritch Knight War Magic, which went from explicitly allowing any order, to cantrip comes first but you won't break anything if you allow any order

As to Contagion, under the SA RAI it's quite clearly intended as a spell for use long prior to combat, when you expect or worry someone/thing will flee and be fought again later, or out of combat curse. It's also particularly nasty as an NPC/monster spell cast on PCs. There are other spells like that, that punch a little below weight for a PC trying to cast them for one specific battle, but are much worse when directed at PCs, who will face many battles under the effect.

[hymer]

As to Contagion, under the SA RAI it's quite clearly intended as a spell for use long prior to combat, when you expect or worry someone/thing will flee and be fought again later, or out of combat curse.

It's also pretty sweet when you're the one doing hit and run attacks. Druids get the spell, and often do excellently well with guerilla tactics.

[Willie the Duck]

The problem was Sage Advice was done by Skip Williams until 2004. Whose personal approach was very often "here's this house rule I made up for that situation". So the point of view that of Sage Advice as not particularly 'official' ran for a long time, and carried over even after he stopped doing it.
<etc.>

I agree with everything you said. My point was more to the statement, "It would take errata to change that."
Because... that's not actually a thing. There are no universally agreed upon rules, or even 'if you deviate from these, you should expect people to get mixed up' kind of things like Robert's Rules of Order or the like governing these things. If WotC decides that rules corrections, clarifications (which is what this actually is), or flat out revisions exist in errata, Sage Advice, FAQs, or anywhere else, that is their prerogative. Even if they did spell out "errata is for X, Sage Advice is for Y, and then proceeded to violate those designations... so what? Then they aren't being as consistent as we'd like (yet still miles ahead of the incoherent messaging of the TSR era), and that's about it. Statements like that they must be 'not very proficient in English' imply that they are stupid, or doing something wrong, as opposed to not-doing-things-the-way-some-of-us-would-prefer, which is all this is.

[Tanarii]

Statements like that they must be 'not very proficient in English' imply that they are stupid, or doing something wrong, as opposed to not-doing-things-the-way-some-of-us-would-prefer, which is all this is.
Yup. It's pretty normal to say things like that when things aren't as we prefer. Another common one I see online and hear in real life when things aren't as someone prefers is "that's not logical". Logic almost never has anything to do with whatever the term logical or illogical is being applied too. It's especially commonly misused that way among those educated as scientists or engineers, and tech and gaming geeks.

Or like I said, when things aren't how I prefer I'll sometimes say "that's stupid". :smallwink:

[Pex]

It seems made to burn a high-level creature's Legendary Resistances without taking the caster's Concentration the whole time to do it.

THANK YOU!

For personal aesthetic value of my particular playstyle I couldn't see why I would want to cast this spell. Now I have a tactical reason should it ever hypothetically happen.

[ad_hoc]

Yeah, without Slimy Doom, it works for the disease to start immediately. With it, no way.

It seems made to burn a high-level creature's Legendary Resistances without taking the caster's Concentration the whole time to do it.

A legendary creature isn't forced to use their Legendary Resistance on every Saving Throw they fail.

[Dudewithknives]

A legendary creature isn't forced to use their Legendary Resistance on every Saving Throw they fail.

True, same as they are not forced to take the first Opportunity Attack they get.

Almost killed a group when my players did not know that.

Paladin in his full plate and shield was fighting a pair of stone giants yelled to the party wizard stuck behind them: "I will draw the attack, then you run by!" He then moved back 20 feet.

The giants just kind of smiled at him, and stood there looking at the Wizard stuck on the other side of the group.

[MaxWilson]

Contagion spell, slimy doom seems OP. No save and you are probably gonna be stunned for 3rds. In 3rds, it can all be over for your boss fight. Then again, it is a 5th level spell, maybe I'm crazy.

And further more, what are your thoughts on a 'good' cleric casting this spell?

The spell is written in a very unclear fashion. It says when the effect becomes permanent, but says nothing about what happens before then.

I'm aware of the Sage Advice ruling but I think it makes the spell too weak. I think a fair middle ground ruling is for a DM to rule that Contagion forces a save every round (at the start of the target's turn) to see if the target is affected by the disease this round (turn); and after three successes or three failures the target stabilizes at either "fine" or "diseased." Until then the disease is fading in and out like Madame Mimm's cold on the Disney cartoon /Sword and the Stone/. (Unrealistic, sure, but hey! it's a magic disease.)


It's also pretty sweet when you're the one doing hit and run attacks. Druids get the spell, and often do excellently well with guerilla tactics.

Since it's a melee spell attack, it even works with Mobile. A Mobile Moon Druid in Earth Elemental form can pop up, cast Contagion on someone, and then dive back under the ground without taking any opportunity attacks.

[hymer]

Since it's a melee spell attack, it even works with Mobile. A Mobile Moon Druid in Earth Elemental form can pop up, cast Contagion on someone, and then dive back under the ground without taking any opportunity attacks.

Once you can cast in wild shape form, absolutely. But even before that, druids are pretty good at achieving surprise, and so avoid OAs. Moon druids have the really elegant [Cast Contagion] + [Wild Shape] + [Leave with useful movement mode and/or speed], which may let you strike someone with really strong offensive powers if done well.

[MaxWilson]

Once you can cast in wild shape form, absolutely. But even before that, druids are pretty good at achieving surprise, and so avoid OAs. Moon druids have the really elegant [Cast Contagion] + [Wild Shape] + [Leave with useful movement mode and/or speed], which may let you strike someone with really strong offensive powers if done well.

Yeah, thanks for clarifying that. I was indeed thinking of 20th level Moon Druids, although (I'm AFB) it's possible it would work at 18th level as well.

I presume by "pretty good at achieving surprise" you're referring to things like Pass Without Trace (for a mechanical bonus), and/or Wild Shape and Meld Into Stone for creating surprising situations, like a butterfly who lands on your shoulder, turns into a druid, curses you and runs off while your mouth is still hanging open in astonishment. Or a gopher who noiselessly pops out of solid stone (Stealth +Ridiculous) to do the same thing. Or, as you allude, a druid who surprises you in the forest while in human form, Contagions you, and THEN wildshapes into an air elemental and flies away.

[Talamare]

Contagion again?
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?548955-is-Contagion-really-as-nasty-as-I-m-reading&highlight=contagion
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485073-A-proposal-for-Contagion&highlight=contagion
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?455902-Contagion-and-slimy-doom-extremely-powerful-debuff&highlight=contagion

[Beelzebubba]

A legendary creature isn't forced to use their Legendary Resistance on every Saving Throw they fail.

Nope, but if Slimy Doom is waiting at the end and one more save is being forced each round it adds more pressure.

That's about the only reason I figure it's 8th level, when a CR 1/4 diseased giant rat can give you something nearly as bad.

[MaxWilson]

Nope, but if Slimy Doom is waiting at the end and one more save is being forced each round it adds more pressure.

That's about the only reason I figure it's 8th level, when a CR 1/4 diseased giant rat can give you something nearly as bad.

Contagion is 5th level, not 8th.

Most creatures with Legendary Resistance have good Con saves, so they can afford to wait and not use Legendary Resistances until they're in danger of failing the third save, which more often than not won't ever be necessary.

[Pex]

A legendary creature isn't forced to use their Legendary Resistance on every Saving Throw they fail.

Of course, but if it doesn't and fails three times anyway it's affected by Contagion. Presumably spellcasters will be casting other spells against the creature in those three rounds minimum, and warriors have their own save or suck effects. The creature has to choose between autosucceed on those spells or effects and risk it on Contagion or vice versa. It's a net gain of action economy because one spell forces three saves.


Contagion is 5th level, not 8th.

Most creatures with Legendary Resistance have good Con saves, so they can afford to wait and not use Legendary Resistances until they're in danger of failing the third save, which more often than not won't ever be necessary.

Having a good Con save does not equal never, ever failing a Con saving throw.

[MaxWilson]

Having a good Con save does not equal never, ever failing a Con saving throw.

It does however equate to "more often than not" (see above) succeeding on three Con saving throws before failing on three Con saving throws.

For example, an adult black dragon gets +10 to Con saves and is CR 14. A 14th level druid with maxed Wisdom has a spell DC of 18. The dragon will succeed on a DC 18 Con save 65% of the time, failing 35% of the time. My math fu isn't strong enough to tell you what the closed-form odds are that it will make 3 out of 5 Con saves and therefore not need to spend even a single legendary resist against Contagion (by Sage Advice rules at least), but a quick Monte Carlo sim tells me that it's somewhere around 75-80%. There's a 20% chance it will need to burn a single legendary resistance, a 5% chance it will need to burn two legendary resistances, and almost zero chance (0.35^5 = 0.5%) that it will burn three.

So on average you're making it burn about 0.3 legendary resists per Contagion.

[Tanarii]

I'm aware of the Sage Advice ruling but I think it makes the spell too weak. I think a fair middle ground ruling is for a DM to rule that Contagion forces a save every round (at the start of the target's turn) to see if the target is affected by the disease this round (turn); and after three successes or three failures the target stabilizes at either "fine" or "diseased." Until then the disease is fading in and out like Madame Mimm's cold on the Disney cartoon /Sword and the Stone/. (Unrealistic, sure, but hey! it's a magic disease.)
Seven day duration if they fail three saves before they make three. That's not weak. It's just not useful if you try to apply it to a creature in combat, that you expect to die in this particular combat.

Instantly affecting them until they successfully save three times is pretty clearly overpowered.

Your fair middle ground would make it useful in the current combat, if that's what you desired. It still would be (also) powerful as a long term effect if they failed three saves, but would add an additional function of effective in the short term. That's technically adding power, because flexibility is power. But if your players would never use it the long term way, it's adding a way for them to use it.

[Beelzebubba]

Most creatures with Legendary Resistance have good Con saves, so they can afford to wait and not use Legendary Resistances until they're in danger of failing the third save, which more often than not won't ever be necessary.

Yeah, you've convinced me. Looks like a plot spell, not a combat spell.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, you've convinced me. Looks like a plot spell, not a combat spell.
I assure you, if it gets used against a PC in an adventure and they can't remove it, they'll consider it a combat spell for the rest of the adventure. :smallamused:

[MeeposFire]

The problem was Sage Advice was done by Skip Williams until 2004. Whose personal approach was very often "here's this house rule I made up for that situation". So the point of view that of Sage Advice as not particularly 'official' ran for a long time, and carried over even after he stopped doing it.

.

Honestly that is not how I remember people hating Sage Advice back then. People hated the rulings back then BECAUSE he ruled in favor of a RAI approach. The community back then on the whole was not in favor of rulings that did not fit what they saw as RAW and so the Sage who kept making RAI rulings was seen as deeply flawed because the community saw RAI as houserules.

That was why there was so many people upset with the Sage and things like the FAQ document because they felt that you needed an actual errata to change something rather than a ruling giving the RAI.

Generally the 4e community was similar though it had the benefit of errata coming out fairly regularly so if something was too bad it got fixed often.


JC right now is in an interesting position because he alternates doing something as RAI but more often than not rules things based on very technical readings of the rules in minutia. An example of the first (assuming this ruing was done by JC not Mearls of course I do not remember for sure if not I can find a separate example) is warcaster working with PAM on a non-weapon spell. That ruling would piss off many people on the old 3e WotC board precily because the feat has no wording specifying that the opportunity attack must be made with the polearm merely that you be wielding one. In 3e and 4e circles back in the day JC's ruling would be seen as a houserule and would be seen as another example of a "bad" sage ruling.

An example of the second would be magic initiate where the ruling is made with a very technical reading of the rules that shows why unless the 1st level spell is on one of your class lists you cannot cast it more than once but if it is you can. It takes a very technical reading and that is one that would have been supported by the 3e and 4e communities back in the day so long as he made clear how the reading got there (that ruling was so technical on the language it could be easy to miss on how it works).


Honestly JC is benefiting from an edition that supposedly runs on "rulings not rules" (though when it comes to most of the Sage stuff that kind of gets thrown out) and a community that is to a greater extent more wiling to accept something that is RAI over what could be seen as RAW. In many ways this is a good thing but it stands in stark contrast of the expectations of what was expected in 3e and 4e Sages (cannot vouch on the community opinion on pre 3e since we did not have these kinds of boards as much back then).

[Beelzebubba]

(cannot vouch on the community opinion on pre 3e since we did not have these kinds of boards as much back then)

We had the letters to the editor in Dragon Magazine, which was so slow and data constrained it never gave anyone a rise.

I can't imagine being the person reading through the pile of incoming letters, though. Geeks in the late 70's were their own weird kind of crazy. (shudder)

[Vaz]

The concept of a RAW being different from a RAI means that the RAW might be wrong, but they should at least take ownership of that, and correct it. They didn't correct in future printings, nor did they take effect in Errata, so they must have been happy with what the RAW said.

If a spell did 3d6 Acid damage, but was intended to do 2d6 Fire instead, it would have been errata'd. If it wasn't then the spell would have still done 3d6 acid damage. The fact the Skip Williams had a fast and loose grasp of the rules (which admittedly, still shames Mike Mearls for rules knowledge), and then you get absolute numpty's like SKR who would be involved with balance throwing in their worth as "I'm the designer, and ergo, by definition, everything I do is correct", when there are issues over balance.

If you want to complain about the RAW, have a look at the guys who make the RAI calls; Mike Mearls, with his Warlock Patrons that add extra spells to the Warlock spell list; that are already on the warlock spell list. Or "effect-gate" for the Rakshasa (still my favourite **** up of D&D).

[Tanarii]

Honestly that is not how I remember people hating Sage Advice back then. People hated the rulings back then BECAUSE he ruled in favor of a RAI approach. The community back then on the whole was not in favor of rulings that did not fit what they saw as RAW and so the Sage who kept making RAI rulings was seen as deeply flawed because the community saw RAI as houserules.
You need to go back and reread the old Dragon Magazine Sage Advice columns if you think Skip ruled RAI instead of just inventing and suggesting his own rules.

Skip came from an era when D&D was all about "figuring out some way to make the rules work for you". Keep in mind he started playing & play-testing the original game with Gygax, then started writing Sage advice in 1987. So he had a lifetime of looking at the rules a certain way, and 13 years of writing SA his way under his belt when 3e came out. And he only did SA for 3e for four years.

And yes, many of us during 3e & the WoTC forums did indeed worship the almighty RAW. That system made it easy. So in that environment it's hardly surprising that he was so lambasted. He may have pulled that back a bit in his twilight years under WoTC during 3e, but the understanding that was his general tendency was still there.

[Sigreid]

I always interpreted the wording to mean it only took effect after the third failure. I also never took it as an active combat spell. I see it as something you cast on someone and let them run back to their camp/village/keep/whatever to infect as many people as possible to soften them up before the attack.

[Sicarius Victis]

I see it as something you cast on someone and let them run back to their camp/village/keep/whatever to infect as many people as possible to soften them up before the attack.

Sadly, that probably wouldn't work. Ironically enough, Contagion doesn't actually seem to be contagious.

[Sigreid]

Sadly, that probably wouldn't work. Ironically enough, Contagion doesn't actually seem to be contagious.

Afb but if I recall correctly it magically creates a natural disease. One would think it spreads as diseases do. Granted, that's not well defined as far as I know.

[MeeposFire]

You need to go back and reread the old Dragon Magazine Sage Advice columns if you think Skip ruled RAI instead of just inventing and suggesting his own rules.

Skip came from an era when D&D was all about "figuring out some way to make the rules work for you". Keep in mind he started playing & play-testing the original game with Gygax, then started writing Sage advice in 1987. So he had a lifetime of looking at the rules a certain way, and 13 years of writing SA his way under his belt when 3e came out. And he only did SA for 3e for four years.

And yes, many of us during 3e & the WoTC forums did indeed worship the almighty RAW. That system made it easy. So in that environment it's hardly surprising that he was so lambasted. He may have pulled that back a bit in his twilight years under WoTC during 3e, but the understanding that was his general tendency was still there.

Ah I see pre 3e columns then that makes sense. I was not sure if that sort of ruling was not liked back then and whether there was a good way of knowing if that feeling was commonplace due to a lack of things like a forum.

From what I have read when I went back and read some older Sage columns from way back the big arguments were about the nature of HP (essentially not every point of HP being physical damage was getting argued about from the start with Gygax being very clear that it was not all physical) and illusions in general. I think the issues with those were that they were less a RAW argument and more what you wanted in a game. It would be interesting to see what the big arguments back in 2e were since I played 2e at the time but I did not buy the magazines or go to the websites/chat rooms back then.

[hymer]

One would think it spreads as diseases do.

Any number of illnesses aren't contagious, or not contagious except in very unusual circumstances. If that wasn't the case, clinics and hospitals would be designed and run very differently. Think of dental caries, depression, gangrene, various kinds of non-progressive liver-inflammation, irritable bowel syndrome, excessive ear wax, skin irritations, and so on and on.

[Willie the Duck]

We had the letters to the editor in Dragon Magazine, which was so slow and data constrained it never gave anyone a rise.

I can't imagine being the person reading through the pile of incoming letters, though. Geeks in the late 70's were their own weird kind of crazy. (shudder)

Anecdotally, what I've heard were the worst letters were people who had 'perfect solutions' to all the 'problems with D&D,' and expected to be paid for the brilliance.


The concept of a RAW being different from a RAI means that the RAW might be wrong, but they should at least take ownership of that, and correct it. They didn't correct in future printings, nor did they take effect in Errata, so they must have been happy with what the RAW said.

If a spell did 3d6 Acid damage, but was intended to do 2d6 Fire instead, it would have been errata'd. If it wasn't then the spell would have still done 3d6 acid damage.[/QUOTE]

Sure, if something is erroneous like a fire thing listed as acid, or the duskblade getting 10 2nd level spells instead of 1 2nd and 0 3rd on a table, or a monster with a greatsword doing piercing damage (I think that's one I remember), that is what the errata is for. The exact boundaries of what the errata is for, however, are not well defined by any outside rules, and WotC and the fanbase have not always agreed.

The situation I remember best was regarding shield bashing. By the rules in the PHB, shield bashing was something one could do as a second-hand attack using the two-weapon fighting rules. This makes sense to have come out of a book designed around making character builds -- we give you all these rules for spiked shields and feats to make specialize combat characters and the like, of course someone will want to design a character who swings with weapon and shield punches all the time. It left a hole however, in the space where many a person who actually want to shield-bash: when they are disarmed/had their weapon sundered/etc. In theory the rules were complete -- you could shield-bash as a secondary off-hand attack (and thus likely a huge penalty) after making an unarmed attack (most likely drawing an AoO), but that's really not a very satisfying answer. WotC eventually did put out something to address it (saying effectively, "of course you can also shield bash as a primary attack if you don't have a primary attack, that just wasn't the focus of the language")... in the rules FAQ. Well, you can imagine the braying and whining of the loudest and least mature members of the online community about how 'unofficial' that was and how it needed to be in the errata to 'count.' WotC responded (so much as they did at all) with 'no, this is a rules clarification, and it belongs in the FAQ. Let us know when we have a misprinted table, and we'll ignore fixing it in errata for years.' Well, insert more immature braying.

That's why although I'm not 100% satisfied with the way Mearls and Crawford are handling things, I generally don't fault them for it. There's no one right strategy that would satisfy even 50% of the overly loud and self-important voices they have to contend with. You couldn't pay me enough to put up with what they have to.

[Sigreid]

Any number of illnesses aren't contagious, or not contagious except in very unusual circumstances. If that wasn't the case, clinics and hospitals would be designed and run very differently. Think of dental caries, depression, gangrene, various kinds of non-progressive liver-inflammation, irritable bowel syndrome, excessive ear wax, skin irritations, and so on and on.

But then it's hard to imagine a spell that does not cause a contagious disease being called Contagion...

[hymer]

But then it's hard to imagine a spell that does not cause a contagious disease being called Contagion...
Contagion does seem to mean that. But perhaps the 'contagion' is the caster or the spell? I don't know. I just wanted to point out that the part I quoted is a little off.

[Sigreid]

Contagion does seem to mean that. But perhaps the 'contagion' is the caster or the spell? I don't know. I just wanted to point out that the part I quoted is a little off.

If a DM decides it isn't contagious, I don't see why anyone would ever cast it.

[hymer]

If a DM decides it isn't contagious, I don't see why anyone would ever cast it.

Then I feel sorry for you. Actually, whatever floats your boat. :)

[Tanarii]

If a DM decides it isn't contagious, I don't see why anyone would ever cast it.Because the effects lasting a week are plenty powerful. Especially against PCs.

Just not very useful if you try to cast it in combat, and hope to gain the benefits of it in the current combat.

[Sigreid]

Because the effects lasting a week are plenty powerful. Especially against PCs.

Just not very useful if you try to cast it in combat, and hope to gain the benefits of it in the current combat.

I understand, but my experience is that for adventuring parties the fight is decided before those 3 rounds.

Does bring up that I think we could use a disease UA.

[Tanarii]

I understand, but my experience is that for adventuring parties the fight is decided before those 3 rounds.Yes. It's not really designed to be used in a current combat. It's still powerful, because it can be used out of combat, or in a combat where you think they're going to run away, or in a combat where you're going to hit and run. Or again, against PCs.

That's why anyone would ever cast it.

[Olfgar]

...

It seems made to burn a high-level creature's Legendary Resistances without taking the caster's Concentration the whole time to do it.

You know what... I never thought of it in that particular way before...

In that sense, it make its BETTER in a combat sense. Sure plenty of things with Legendary Resists also have good Con Saves, but who knows.

[Talamare]

You know what... I never thought of it in that particular way before...

In that sense, it make its BETTER in a combat sense. Sure plenty of things with Legendary Resists also have good Con Saves, but who knows.

Well
Since it does NOTHING until the 3rd failed save...
They just need to do it IF they fail 3, so not really.

[Vaz]

Well
Since it does NOTHING until the 3rd failed save...
They just need to do it IF they fail 3, so not really.

Depends if they recognised the spell: takes an Action to recognise, or reaction (not legendary reaction).